Ashie / Parapuke: an explanantion

#1
#2
Can you include Sven in the thread title also?
For clarity of course.
 
#3
whet/ashie/paperpuke seem strangely absent these days.

I suspect that the three of them were actually just the two and now they've gone their separate ways when the party ended, bit like their former leader Gordon and the Liebour party.
 
#4
I really don't care where they are I just hope they stay there along with their daft ideology.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#5
#6
You'll find a similar phenomenon amongst 4x4 drivers whenever the subject of climate change raises its head. ;)

See also, The Downing Effect.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#9
#11
Politics has always been a game of getting the voters to believe your facts and not the oppositions. In any debate both sides can call on 'evidence' and then it is up to us what facts we find believable and those we discount. There are just no hard and fast rules to science or to life. What kills one man may not kill another, in fact it may even cure another and often does.
However, our belief paths are also directed by what parameters we view our own circumstances. If you have a cancer inside you and the only possible cure has a 90% mortality rate, you generally take it, if the same risks were applied to curing a cold you wouldn't take them nor would you see it as a 'cure' even though the facts may show that it is a cure.
Duncan Flockhart carried out a study on the long-term prophylactic effects of Salbutamol (their Ventolin) on Asthmatics. The evidence proved conclusively that prophylactic usage of Salbutamol exacerbated the condition. The clinician who carried out the (highly ethical and clinically significant) study refused to be silenced when the weight of Glaxo tried to bury the study. The result was that Glaxo produced 'evidence' that appeared to discredit the study (it was carried out in NZ and there was naturally a proportion of Moari suffers) Glaxo were so vociferous that long-term prophylactic usage of salbutamol is one of the steps to treating asthma to this day. Asthma is an inflammatory condition caused by an immune over-reaction, it should be treated first and foremost with an anti-inflammatory not a broncho-dilator but hey, that's just the facts!

Sorry, I've probably side-tracked more than I should. Finally to say; Ashie is a wind up merchant who lets off little bombs for his own enjoyment. Parapauk makes some highly pertinent comments but is just more left wing than most on here think should be allowed to live and Whet is just Whet, does anyone really take him seriously? He says he's a Lib Dem but is further left than the Communist Party most of the time.
 
#12
The premise is compelling. It is called argumentum ad ignoratiam and very pronounced when attempting to educate UKIP members!
 
#13
New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts -- and often become even more attached to their beliefs.

In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter : NPR
It isn't just those two, nor is it exclusive to politics. Anti-Evolution/Global warming, all sorts of conspiracy "theories" and "alternative" medicine alongside spiritualism, tarot, Ouija boards etc. Spring to mind. The lit is long, lots of people have evidence-immune opinions. Maybe, most of us do.
 
#14
I don't beleive in man made global warming, if someone presented irrefutable evidence that it exist I would, after watching the inconvenient truth I was 90% sure global warming exists, then having seen 9 major facts from the film proven as lies in a British courtroom, I started to get sceptical.

btw as a result of that ruling Al Gore's film is not legally allowed to be watched by school children without commentary from a teacher pointing out how full of sh1t the film is.

And then their was the climategate incident.
 
#15
And then their was the climategate incident.
The climategate incident is a prime example of the phenomenon, I think. We heard vast amounts of "Ya, boo, see it's all lies" in the immediate aftermath but since Muir Russell's report was published not a single culprit has come forward to say "OK, maybe there's something in it after all".

The fact - I use the word 'fact' deliberately - that the science is solid and has been proven so doesn't stop people from pouncing on the slightest little irrelevance to avoid having to admit they were wrong about this and therefore might possibly be wrong about the rest as well.
 
#16
It's not proven and it's not solid, for every peer reviewed paper that backs global warming there is another that differs.

I suppose we'll see, in 20 years time if the sky's fallen in I will apologise to you.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#17
The climategate incident is a prime example of the phenomenon, I think. We heard vast amounts of "Ya, boo, see it's all lies" in the immediate aftermath but since Muir Russell's report was published not a single culprit has come forward to say "OK, maybe there's something in it after all".

The fact - I use the word 'fact' deliberately - that the science is solid and has been proven so doesn't stop people from pouncing on the slightest little irrelevance to avoid having to admit they were wrong about this and therefore might possibly be wrong about the rest as well.
Muir Russell's report had no remit to examine the science of climate change whatsoever of course.
 
#18
Muir Russell's report had no remit to examine the science of climate change whatsoever of course.
No, it didn't. It examined whether - as alleged - they had falsified their results and he concluded that not only had they not but that the results they obtained were readily reproducible and the data they used was freely available for anyone who wanted to check their results.

Yet people still attempt to claim that they falsified their results and hid their data. Which is why I brought it up in relation to the OP.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#19
No, it didn't. It examined whether - as alleged - they had falsified their results and he concluded that not only had they not but that the results they obtained were readily reproducible and the data they used was freely available for anyone who wanted to check their results.

Yet people still attempt to claim that they falsified their results and hid their data. Which is why I brought it up in relation to the OP.
And it is disputed whether that data points to climate change being man made anyway, with the Russell reoprt specifically avoiding any conclusion on the meaning of the data produced. The report did clear them of any bad science, however.

Edited for poor spelling.
 
#20
Well, I remember being told I would be underwater by now on Blue Peter and Captain Planet (possibly the worlds gayest superhero) I used to worry about it as a kid. I'm still here.

I'm a swine flu, y2k, mad cow disease, global warming surviving mutherfucker.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
P The Intelligence Cell 15
Fifth_Columnist The Intelligence Cell 55
M Aviation 2

Similar threads

Latest Threads