@aral It only seems misleading to me? Not all mushrooms are poisonous. Bad analogy
-
-
-
@rbarbera Read it again, it says ‘the mushroom’ (as in one specific type of mushroom). The analogy is sound. -
@aral Ok, as a specific type of mushroom, it works. That's the problem when you don't master a foreign language completely ;) -
@rbarbera No worries, man; at least you know a foreign language, many here don’t :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
New conversation
-
-
-
@aral problem is that most scientists see no proof for man-made climate change. Your 'experts' are lobbyists & politicians - no scientists. -
@Bankenrepublik Not sure where you get your data from. 97% of peer-reviewed climate change papers agree it’s man-made http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange … -
@aral take a look http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ … or http://www.petitionproject.org/ - important fact: theres no research of origin, just a research of causes
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@aral argument from authority is the weakest form of argument. Nice try tho. (And yes, I'm no climate change skeptic) :) -
@marcosc This isn’t argument from authority; we’re talking about consensus in 97% of _peer-reviewed research_ here. -
@aral I'm not debating the science, just the presentation of the graphic. It pleads to authority ("we trust experts"). I trust method+data.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@aral@glynmoody [Citation Needed] -
@aral thanks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@aral@glynmoody 97% of experts said the banks were highly unlikely to ever need bailouts. -
@gpietersz@aral they weren't scientists - that's the key difference -
@glynmoody@aral they were modelling using quantitative techniques, with better tested models than climate changes ones. -
@gpietersz@aral better tested? perhaps. more realistic? I doubt it. economics is not realistic... -
@glynmoody@aral Back-tested on relatively more data. Macro-economics may be unrealistic, but financial econ OK, and micro well proven. -
@gpietersz@aral my point is that we know the laws of physics to incredibly high accuracy; "laws" of economics not so much... -
@glynmoody@gpietersz I’ll take the Scientific Method over the predictive models of glorified pyramid schemers any day :) -
@aral@glynmoody exactly my view.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.