Web Development

General discussion


Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, I like you!

By maxwell edison ·

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Very well said

by NickNielsen In reply to Lord Monckton, Viscount o ...

Thank you, Lord Monckton.

Collapse -

That's three times this year

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Lord Monckton, Viscount o ...

I've agreed with you Max!

Let them keep talking, it's their right and every time they open their gob, they convince more and more people global warming is real and who is making a profit out of it.

Collapse -

Exactly right

by drowningnotwaving In reply to That's three times this y ...

Not only should their freedom be respected, the utter ridiculousness of their 'science' does nothing but forward the cause.

Perhaps that's what and why the good Lord was actually arguing.

Mind you, when a cynic tells another cynic to stop being cynical about a third cynic's argument dispelling a fourth cynic's premise .... well, I just don't know.

Collapse -


by TonytheTiger In reply to Exactly right

I liken the role of the naysayers in this as similar to a defense attorney in a criminal case. His job is not, as most people believe, to get his client off. His job is to make sure the opposing attorney does his job accurately and thoroughly. And like most prosecuting attorneys, mainstream science has been wrong before.

The only way to prove something is right is to prove that all reasonable alternatives are wrong. The minute science refuses to be challenged, it ceases to be science.

Collapse -

Still more carefull...

by jfp3 In reply to Careful.

Proving something right is perilously difficult. At most one can try to formulate a theory which attempts to explain and account for past and current phenomena to a high degree of precision and accuracy, which might then also be used to make a prediction about the future.

When conditions arise which fall outside of the expected results based on the theory, then a theory can be said to be proven wrong or in need of refinement to account for the new data. It may also be the case that a theory can be proven wrong when additional evidence from past or current conditions are discovered which do not fit the model. The process can never (or at least shouldn't) end.

This is why there are many scientific "theories" and so few "laws." Even "laws" are not immune from review and refinement.

Collapse -

The underlying issue...

by jfp3 In reply to That's three times this y ...

seems to me to be that the ability to spend money is automatically equated with free speech. When this happens, those with the most money can speak longer and louder than those with no money. In a pure capitalist, that would be a normal and logical outcome.
The problem is that many people tend to conflate capitalism with democracy, believing that there is some form of equivelence. Capitalism is an economic system. Democracy is a system of government. The two are not the same, and in fact have very natural tendencies to be in conflict.

It is one thing for a company to spend money to promote the results of research that was conducted independently, and which arrives at conclusions which are beneficial to that company.

It is quite another for a company to fund research with the expressed intent of coming to a particular conclusion in order to then use the findings to further its goals. This goes as much for the petroleum industry as it does for pharaceutical industry, or environmental groups.

In a completely free market of ideas and a free market economy, such fraud would be dealt with harshly and decisively by market action. Like it or not, we do not live with either free market. That is why there are laws to protect the public interest.

I don't necessarily agree with the arguements posed by Senators Rockefeller and Snow, or by Monkton. In fact there are significant flaws on both sides.

What I do believe is that the whole arguement does boil down to money. I just get there by a different route.

Collapse -

You said something very profound. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to The underlying issue...

.....with which, I agree entirely.

You said, "It is quite another for a company to fund research with the expressed intent of coming to a particular conclusion in order to then use the findings to further its goals. This goes as much for the petroleum industry as it does for pharmaceutical industry, or environmental groups."

I contend that the environmental groups to which you referred, have indeed "funded research with the expressed intent of coming to a particular conclusion in order to then use the findings to further its goals."

If those corporations did the same thing, who's to say which "research" is MORE correct? Therein lies the debate -- and therein lies the absolute necessity to prohibit any attempts to squelch it.

As far as these environmental groups are concerned (a well as many governments, especially the ones of the European Socialist variety) the debate is over, and the notion of "man-caused global warming" is no longer debatable, and is as obvious as the fact the earth is flat. They couldn't be more wrong, at least in this person's opinion.

Collapse -

Money talks...

by jfp3 In reply to You said something very p ...

and larger piles of money speak louder than smaller ones.

I'm deliberately staying out of the conclusions drawn by the various camps. What I object to personally is that both sides have contaminated the discussion by skewing research and/or cherry picking results to bolster a previously held belief.

The contending piles of money may both be championing conclusions that are, in the end, completely wrong. The "truth", no matter what it is, is rendered irrelevant by the force of conflicting economic interest. The result is not so much as an enlightened debate as it is a shouting match in which the sides are buying ever louder megaphones.

Collapse -

I agree.

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to You said something very p ...

In my opinion both sides are funding bad science in order to further what is essentially a political agenda.

In a 'free' country, both sides can do it, or both sides can't.

Thin end of a wedge this, should we stop party political broadcasts, because there are countervailing opinions?

Where is free speech, when those in power can make the opposition shut up.

Anyone who decides to say global warming isn't real or is simply because an oil company or a bunch of tree huggers say it's so, is too stupid to live in my opinion.

Always consider the source.

Collapse -

Levels of Confusion

by jfp3 In reply to I agree.

When a form of government is confused with an economic theory... the interests of corporations tend to trump the interests of the citizenry at large.

When the right of free speech is confused with the right to spend money... those with the most money will most often win any debate.

When self-interest and opinion are confused with fact.. attempts at objectivity are viewed with suspicion.

Politics have always been viscious...there are numerous examples of vitriol spanning centuries on both sides of the Atlantic to illustrate that point. I have no illusion that there was ever an era of "enlightenment" in which these areas of confusion have never existed.

When Utopian ideals are confused with a means for resolving real world problems, the result is a headache, heartache, and a stomachache. I know this only too well.

Related Discussions

Related Forums