National Geographic: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming

Actually parts of Antarctica are warming and at an alarming rate. Ice shelves along the coasts are collapsing faster than in previously observed history and according ice cores possibly more than in a long long time. The center of the Continent is getting colder but that may be due to environmental degredation caused by the diminishing of ozone and also a consequence of the overall warming of the planet since warmer oceans have altered weather patterns over Antarctica.

 

NY Times: Moon Landing Did Not Occur

vs.

NY Times: Moon Landing Did Not Occur, Scientist Says


No, it clearly does not have the difference you make when you changed 'Scientist' to 'Detractors.' The original title didn't say 'detractors' IIRC. Further, the title is merely a gateway to the topic. Omitting 'scientist says' doesn't alter the viewpoint or information the article presents at all. If anything changing the example to suit your argument is more intellectually dishonest than Basso's omission.

If anything 'scientist says' in the title lends more credibility to the claim than its omission. If you look at the responses I don't think you can make the case that anyone thought 'oh hey, the consensus has changed about global warming.'

 

Well it didn't say anything about the moon landing or the NY Times either, so that's why it's a different example. But anyway, let's erase that you don't think there's a qualitative difference (no matter if it is "Scientist" or "Detractors" or "Researcher" or whatever). you stil think there is no difference?

I find this shocking.

LOL, Hayes you might want to contact your children and obtain one of their middle school grammar/literary textbooks.

Omniscient point of view

Third person limited

Note - these examples are from fiction, which is uniquely appropriate, in this context.

Uh, it's not much of an alternative example if I just use the exact same quote, is it?

But anway fine - have it your way my good man.

Times; Moon landing fake

Times: Moon landing fake, esteemed, acclaimed scientist says

See a difference between the two? I do, you don't, but if you weren't just pissed off at me or in a mood to argue as the "GW Deniers advocate who actually believes in GW", you probably would.

No- few people would be that stupid, I agree that much, irrespective of basso's historical excess. I didn't say it was damaging per se. I just said - if intentional - it was evidence of a particular brand of shading reflective of past practices.

Now why don't you answer this question, which I have asked several of the pro-GW deniers (like yourself, though you are paradoxically both pro-GW denier and pro GW)...and have yet to get an answer on:


I'll freely admit that i would be more likely to give credence to a view that accepts the consensus [note, I know you hate this term, so I would say majority] view that GW is legit. But if the vast majority of scientists reversed course on GW (which would be the converse of the present state of affairs.), I would not hesitate to do the same. If the IPCC came out tomorrow and said - "you know what? We were wrong! scratch that!" and it was an honest change of mind, I'd be perfectly ok with it (and more than a bit relieved.)

If this Dr. decides that his theory is flawed - would you reverse course with him or would you find the next GW denier and tout his work as legit?

I believe it is the latter but correct me if I am wrong.

Now I know this is not easy for you to answer, as pro-GW, pro-GW denier person, but go ahead and at least answer this part:

Do you believe a random astrophysicist because you trust his science or because you want to score points on a basketball BBS?

 

Except that we're talking about a thread title, not a story. Thread titles are inherently shortened taglines designed only to give some indication what the thread is about, not designed to give all the available information. One will assume someone said the claim from the title. Whether that's revealed in the title or the text doesn't make much of a difference. He could have written "From National Geographic's website - Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Says Scientist, But Detractors Disagree, Defer to IPCC." But that would have been unnecessary.

I ain't mad atcha, Sam. I just think you're a little too ready to jump down Basso's throat. He gives you plenty of material to do that - no need to manufacture it yourself.

I'm not sure why you insist on changing the example, but whatever, Chum.

Times: Moon landing fake.
Times: Moon landing fake, scientist says.

There is a difference. One includes more information. The omission doesn't change the meaning in practice because we (at least most of us) don't assume the title tells the whole story. You can cuddle up with your grammar books but that's hardly a reason to get snitty about someone's post.

OK. I'm not sure what the impact of that is, nor that it is 'shading' anything. If he had included 'scientist says' it would lend more credibility to the claim than not, so the shortening of the title didn't advance his position.

There isn't a paradox to conceeding one view is more than likely (generally) correct while insisting that we be open to contradictory theories. On the contrary it is what a reasonable person should want to do.

 

SamFisher...you have entered... The HayesStreet Zone!

 

Good post, Sishir. Huge ice shelves are cracking, collapsing, entering the Antarctic Ocean (or Southern Ocean, as it's sometimes called), and beginning to melt. Ice shelves that had existed for 10's of thousands of years. We're seeing the same thing happen in Greenland and the Arctic, and in other parts of the world. The causes may be open to debate, as they should be, but that it's happening isn't. It's simply a fact, and something we should all be concerned about.



D&D. Hot, Cold, Dripping Wet.

 

May the Spirits help him... Hayes won't!



D&D. The Dull Edge of Societal Devolution.

 

You know, Mars lost it's electromagnetic field and is exposed to a constant barrage of solar wind. Though we are close by proximity we are apples and oranges atmospherically.

 

Got to love the classic rambling point by point by point by point rebuttal from Hayesstreet.



Hayesstreet is searching for SamFisher's weak point so he can inflict massive damage.

 

Same immovable objects. Same unstoppable forces. Why did I even stop by...

W in '12

 

Lol, that you had to edit that post.

 

I'm not sure if you read those, but they state the center is thickening. They do not contradict the fact that the sheets are receding rapidly or that ice shelves are breaking off.

Your articles even indicate that the most likely cause of the thickining is temprature increases to the range that allow for snowfall (global warming). You do understand that snow increases as you warm towards the point of freezing, don't you?

Also, that last article has absolutely nothing to do with 'Antarctic ice thickening', but I guess if you are still denying the likelihood of global warming, you are not one to let fact get in the way of faith.

 

basso,

From your first story:

From your third story:

From Article #4, which looks at the same stuff as Article Number 2, but in more detail:

From the last article:

So, what's your point again?

 

To bad I hit Up-Up Down-Down B+LT.

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q98m2vZ3WBw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q98m2vZ3WBw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

I can't help it if I'm custom made.


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_1LcJ6N9vwo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_1LcJ6N9vwo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

Truthfully, I hadn't. Now, having done so, I apologize.

 

Hayes;

You of all of us should recognize that saying "scientist says" means a singular opinion while the shortened title implies a collective opinion of National Geographic rather than that National Geographic is reporting on what one scientists opinion is. As someone who has brought this very point up in previous threads I find it surprising you are being so nonchalant about this.