4 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Funnily enough, using the logic you have used through this entire debate, you would have dismissed Einstein out of hand.

The fact that you can't grasp the meaning of the sentence containing the words "all over the world" when discussing a global climate change accord, speaks volumes.

You do realise Einstein disagreed with the consensus? 

The second sentence is just embarrassing for you. I don't think I have ever seen someone make up a quote like that when everyone can see what has been written.

10 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

You do realise Einstein disagreed with the consensus? 

The second sentence is just embarrassing for you. I don't think I have ever seen someone make up a quote like that when everyone can see what has been written.

If that piece of nit-picking is the best you can do in order to deflect, then good luck with the rest (I'm not particularly embarrassed over misquoting one word that has essentially the same meaning).

And I find it beyond amusing, that you would even attempt to compare yourself to Einstein in any way, shape, or form...the word delusional springs to mind, bordering on a narcissistic personality disorder.

jfyi

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information.

It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds.

In fact, quite the opposite.

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds.

In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs.

Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates.

They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds.

The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed.

Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs.

This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.

And then we vote

In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t.

The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction.

With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire.

The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals:

When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

On 5/13/2016 at 9:13 AM, hardtack said:

If that piece of nit-picking is the best you can do in order to deflect, then good luck with the rest (I'm not particularly embarrassed over misquoting one word that has essentially the same meaning).

And I find it beyond amusing, that you would even attempt to compare yourself to Einstein in any way, shape, or form...the word delusional springs to mind, bordering on a narcissistic personality disorder.

I quoted Einstein to prove a point. I never compared myself to him. Then I explained the context because you completely misinterpreted it. Go back and read it.

If I quoted Obama that doesn't mean I am comparing myself to him. Or think I am am the President.

If I quote Shane Warne it doesn't mean I think I can all of a sudden bowl spin.

When I quoted Einstein it was just to point out the greatest Scientist ever went against the consensus.

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I quoted Einstein to prove a point. I never compared myself to him. Then I explained the context because you completely misinterpreted it. Go back and read it.

If I quoted Obama that doesn't wouldn't mean I am comparing myself to him.

 

 

W45 I hate to nit pick yet again on one of your posts but you yourself quoted Einstein as saying himself, that his theories could never be proved to be correct, so I don't think you can then just quote Albert to "prove a point"!

You can make a point perhaps. Again sorry to nitpick but you use it all the time to divert a line of argument that you don't like so please chose your words more carefully. 

36 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

W45 I hate to nit pick yet again on one of your posts but you yourself quoted Einstein as saying himself, that his theories could never be proved to be correct, so I don't think you can then just quote Albert to "prove a point"!

. 

EH - The Einstein quote I provided said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

If you don't understand how that makes a mockery of consensus science just let me know. Otherwise, I would love to know who you believe is a good enough scientific reference to provide a point.

No (man made) Climate Change talk in the US election debates. Democrats know it is poisonous so wont touch it and the Republican's flat out acknowledge it is crap. I think the UN still believe's in it, maybe slightly, but of course they're not democratically elected and get funding to promote it.