Lamenting what Usenet could have been
George Orwell
Usenet was in its prime before the 1990s when the network was secretive and populated by real scientists. Most posters were at least serious enough about computers to be smarter than six-packers who think "science" means FOX News. It made for more rational debates and the potential pool of noisemakers was smaller.
In the first posts to alt.global-warming (seven years ago) you can already see the hooligans forcing their hand. Some of their favorite terms like "pseudoscience" and "tree-hugging" appear right off the bat in March 1999. It's gone downhill from then, but at least the denial has shifted from non-existent warming to non-anthropogenic warming. It's hard to say if Usenet deserves much credit for that.
The nature of this medium provides no way to screen people based on education or life experience (moderated forums tend to get dull and response time is delayed). Usenet has degenerated into a place where any ignorant claim or cold-weather statistic can be cited as a revelation. Attempts to mirror the real give-and-take of science are lost.
Will it ever end with this back and forth between unlearned fools and men of earnest knowledge? Is it possible for all rational readers to completely ignore propagandists from now on? I see no other way to make them lose interest and take their agenda to a politics group where it belongs.
R. Lander
P.S. Usenet may actually cause stress or high blood pressure. I have to question the sanity of daily devotees! The lack of real-time feedback ensures that the best researched evidence will keep being ignored as if it was never stated. It is futile to repeat the same explanations with nothing acknowledged by those most in need of learning. The difference between weather and climate is a frequent example of that. James and you other dolts, if we wanted to find a random city with a low-temp record this week, we could easily do it ourselves. You need to bag your wind or blow on out of here.
Roger Coppock
like talk.origins. Set some minimum content
standards, and fairly enforce them.
The absolute worst are the "Hit and Run" posters,
who post something, but do not defend it. James
is quite typical of this pest. In the past. he's
admitted he hasn't even read his own posts, let
alone the replies to his post.
Almost as bad are the boldface liars, and those
who simply refuse to get the basic facts straight.
How many times have I corrected the concentration
of CO2? I've lost count. It's public knowledge,
but, the fossil fools just can't get it straight.
raylopez99
again.
What you want is a closed group that thinks the same "The Church of the
Poisoned Mind" to quote the Boy George song.
Read the book "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Sierowicki (sic)
As for the rest of your massive missive:
"Will it ever end with this back and forth between unlearned fools and
men of earnest knowledge"
Which class are you in?
"Usenet was in its prime before the 1990s when the network was
secretive and populated by real scientists. Most posters were at least
serious enough about computers to be smarter than six-packers who think
"science" means FOX News. It made for more rational debates and the
potential pool of noisemakers was smaller."
I agree with this--but I was flaming in Usenet from the get-go. Even
once had Marvin Minsky bite on one of my trolls.
"The nature of this medium provides no way to screen people based on
education or life experience (moderated forums tend to get dull and
response time is delayed). Usenet has degenerated into a place where
any ignorant claim or cold-weather statistic can be cited as a
revelation. Attempts to mirror the real give-and-take of science are
lost."
Two points: if this is the nature of the medium, as you call it, what
are you complaining about? Like complaining that I-405 in southern
California is crowded during rush hour--well, yes it is. So? Second
point: 'give-and-take' requires an OPEN MIND. Do you think Roger
Coppock is an open mind (or a hole in the head)? Seriously, the man
posts the same garbage day in, day out, without replying to any
criticisms, picking and choosing what he will respond to (typically he
rises to my crudest flame-bait and ignores the substantive posts I
make), and then has the gall to tell us he's doing this to proselytize
the children who might be reading this forum. Imagine that--Roger,
like the Jesuits, wants to indoctrinate the kids.
"Usenet may actually cause stress or high blood pressure. I have to
question the sanity of daily devotees!" Look in the mirror.
I can see from the rest of your riposte that you're as biased as Roger
is--goodbye bozo!
RL
Roger Coppock
I've been on the Usenet(S) and Internet since the early 80's,
so I must be one of those real scientists. I was responsible
of some of prarts of the Usenet implementations on various
dinosaur mini- and midi- computers back then. I was on TWX
net and GE Tymshare in the mid-1960's. I built the hardware
and software for my own amateur radio Packtnet station in the
early 90's.
". . . the substantive posts I make . . ." --- Ray Lopez
Ha Ha! Is this an example of one?
raylopez99
competencies you would be respected as well. Instead, like those
well-meaning Nobel Laureates who signed a petition expressing concern
about GW (a subject few know anything about, as pointed out by
McKintock), you venture into a field that is beyond you, and start
applying simplistic linear models of behavior on the dynamic non-linear
process that climate/weather is.
Rl
380 & Counting
please fill in the blank
i'm interested.
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1142072689....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Roger Coppock
group by that name. Please see:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?lnk=li&hl=en
Every month or so the group moderator publishes the rules.
John Morgan
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1142201798.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Instead, like those
> well-meaning Nobel Laureates who signed a petition expressing concern
> about GW (a subject few know anything about, as pointed out by
> McKintock),
They signed because they believed in the integrity of fellow scientists.
Tell us, Ray. When you feel sick do you ask your doctor for a diagnosis, or
do you do it yourself. Or perhaps you have a tribal shaman at your disposal.
Bill Miller
"George Orwell" <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:fe719f01acc00af6...@mixmaster.it...
R. Lander
This is the site you should go, to discuss Climate.
x) Sceptical Climate Science – Climatesceptics – is the global
scientific discussion group for climate scientists and other
participants interested in discussing pro and con sceptical views in
Climate Science, Media and Politics. Our web page
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics is restricted for members
only.
The members are mostly university professors and other scientists and
researchers, specialising in Climatology, but also other scientists
(e.g. meteorologists, geologists, computer scientists, etc) and policy
analysts, engineers, scientific editors and journalists, civil servants,
etc.
To consider the approval and for our Directory, List Leader asks for the
following identity card:
- name:
- email:
- degree:
- profession:
- branch in Climatology:
- expertise/interests in Climatology:
- university/employer:
- home town/city & country:
- home page:
- other qualifications:
The Group is truly global, its members are from
Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany,
Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Luxemburg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK and
U.S.A
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
Lurker
news:180c1$441ada99$d1aad204$14...@VIAWEST.NET...
> Usenet has degenerated into a place where any
> ignorant claim or cold-weather statistic can be cited as a revelation.
> Attempts to mirror the real give-and-take of science are lost.
You are right in what you say. But have you ignored
multiple examples of the same thing done by the other
side?
"""
Warmest December in New Zealand in X years,
Warmest winter in Canada in Y years.
"""
What are those things supposed to prove
apart from the facts they state?
I quite agree that those facts have no relevance.
Yet, they are commonly used for news headlines
to incite desired response. Is it any wonder that
the opponents use the same tactics?
It's not about science really, it's more about
PR and that works a lot different from scientific
methods.