Joined Sep 21, 2010 at 02:19PM EDT
You admit that there have been times in the past where the scientific community held a consensus on things that were incorrect, but then suggest that this is all in the past and something like that could never happen with a field as new and politicized as climate studies? Only a a few decades ago, the community’s consensus was that the earth was heading into a new ice age. Again, you are putting way too much faith in scientists to be morally superior to the rest of humanity when in reality they are just people. If your entire career is in studying the effects of global warming, it is not very good for your career if the actual data is showing that global temperatures have stopped getting hotter, and that is why when I see reports claiming that it’s just a fluke and that global warming is just taking a break so it can strike back with a vengeance, I take it with a grain of salt. And apparently I am not alone, because most polls show that the vast vast majority of the public do not consider climate change to be a high priority issue.
Just don’t do it on NeoGAF itself-- it’s extremely hard to get an account approved there, and Malka is extremely ban-happy if you are not on the same page as him when it comes to personal beliefs. I have a NeoGAF account but I don’t use it because that whole community seems rancid to me, and it starts with the guy who runs it.
With those hashtags I want to believe this is satire.
You know an apology is not sincere if the person is being forced to make it. If these people cared at all about making things right, they would have done it long, long before we started attacking their wallets.
Our contributions to GamerGate have been quiet, but all of you guys have been doing a great job of documenting EVERYTHING, and our based mods have been great in accomodating us. We are providing valuable resources to the people on the front lines, so keep up the good work.
And when there are experts who disagree with the other experts, which am I to believe? The ones who shout louder, or am I to use my supposed intellectually inferior judgment to pick which one to believe?
There are plenty of scientists who dispute the evidence of global warming. They do not get nearly as much media attention as the ones who support it though. You apparently do not know about them because the media does not like to talk about it, though. Believe it or not, the media does quite often pick a “winning side” on multi-faceted issues, and they quite often pick the wrong side. The scientists who dispute global warming are often dismissed as being part of the fringe or being political shills, because the people in support of global warming do not want the other side of the argument to be heard. That is not a conspiracy, that is just human nature.
There is plenty of evidence to cause people to be skeptical of things like global warming, GMOs and certain vaccines. The problem is that bringing it up is immediately brought up with cries of “tinfoil hat” and “you’re not a scientist so shut up.” The easiest way to silence dissent is to make the claim that anyone who suggests an alternative point of view is either crazy or not qualified to participate in the discussion.
So we have no choice but to accept the safety of GMOs and all vaccinations, even if there is a possibility that the people telling us they are safe have been bought off? Is someone immune to corruption just because they have a PhD?
Uploaded an image to GamerGate.
I welcome all voices to the table who are willing to have rational discussions. I do not like thunderf00t’s opinions about Christianity, and I have at best “mixed feelings” about Julian Assange, but I still welcome their contributions and support to the GamerGate discussion.
The problem is that scientists are humans and humans and humans can be corrupted. There were very obvious political incentives for certain people to push global warming, since it meant higher taxes and more government control for the people in power, and research funding influence for scientists who support them. It is very difficult for that to be separated from the supposed consensus of the scientific community on the topic, which is why by and large voters respond poorly to the calls of certain politicians to make it a priority issue. If scientists were morally superior to the average person, then perhaps you could make the argument that they should be able to make decisions for us, but they aren’t. Anywhere that humans are in charge, there needs to be checks and balances, though unfortunately the field of science is particularly contentious since there is a popular sentiment that scientists should only be accountable to other scientists.
Added a video to Major League Gaming.
Just looking at his face, you can tell he is being NTR’d constantly and has just accepted it.
I just hope they get 4chanX support soon. It feels weird lurking without it.
>You are not a geneticist, you don’t get to have an opinion about GMOs
>You are not a physicist, you don’t get to have an opinion about nuclear power
>You are not a priest, you don’t get to have an opinion about religion
>You are not a gunsmith, you don’t get to have an opinion about guns
>You are not a general, you don’t get to have an opinion about war
I wonder how these people would like to live in a world like that?
I would love to support indie devs who favor ethics like honesty and transparency, and if they can put together a bundle I would buy it.
There are liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Be whatever you want to be.
I don’t think that they even really know about KYM’s involvement with GamerGate. We are not a gaming site and most of them probably don’t know that we are a safe haven for GamerGate discussion. We are cataloging everything without being censored, and they aren’t paying attention to us.