What I learned from debating science with trolls

What I learned from debating science with trolls
Professors with contrarian views can even be found at Ivy League universities such as Princeton. Flickr/Sindy Lee, CC BY-NC-ND

I often like to discuss science online and I'm also rather partial to topics that promote lively discussion, such as climate change, crime statistics and (perhaps surprisingly) the big bang. This inevitably brings out the trolls.

"Don't feed the trolls" is sound advice, but I've ignored it on occasion – including on The Conversation and Twitter – and I've been rewarded. Not that I've changed the minds of any trolls, nor have I expected to.

But I have received an education in the tactics many trolls use. These tactics are common not just to trolls but to bloggers, journalists and politicians who attack science, from climate to cancer research.

Some techniques are comically simple. Emotionally charged, yet evidence-free, accusations of scams, fraud and cover-ups are common. While they mostly lack credibility, such accusations may be effective at polarising debate and reducing understanding.

And I wish I had a dollar each time a scientifically incompetent ideologue claimed science is a religion. The chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, Maurice Newman, trotted out that old chestnut in The Australian last week. Australia's Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, was less than impressed by Newman's use of that tactic.

Unfortunately there are too many tactics to discuss in just one article (sorry Gish Gallop and Strawman), so I will focus on just a few that I've encountered online and in the media recently.

'Experts'

Internet trolls know who their experts are. There are thousands of professors scattered across academia, so it isn't surprising that a few contrarians can be found. In online discussions I've been told of the contrarian views of "respected" professors from Harvard, MIT and Princeton.

Back in The Conversation's early days I even copped abuse for not being at Princeton by someone who was clearly unfamiliar with both science and my employment history. It was a useful lesson that vitriol is often disconnected from knowledge and expertise.

At times expert opinion is totally misrepresented, often with remarkable confidence.

Responding to one of my Conversation articles, the Australian Financial Review's Mark Lawson distorted the findings of CSIRO's John Church on sea levels.

Even after I confirmed with Church that Lawson had the science wrong, Lawson wouldn't back down.

Such distortions aren't limited to online debates. In The Australian, Maurice Newman warned about imminent global cooling and cited Professor Mike Lockwood's research as evidence.

But Lockwood himself stated last year that solar variability this century may reduce warming by:

between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we're due to experience as a result of human activity.

Newman's claims were debunked, by his expert, before he even wrote his article.

Sometimes experts are quoted correctly, but they happen to disagree with the vast majority of their equally qualified (or more qualified) colleagues. How do the scientifically illiterate select this minority of experts?

I've asked trolls this question a few times and, funnily enough, they cannot provide good answers. To be blunt, they are choosing experts based on agreeable conclusions rather than scientific rigour, and this problem extends well beyond online debates.

Earlier this month, Senator Eric Abetz controversially seemed to link abortions with breast cancer on Channel Ten's The Project.

While Abetz distanced himself from these claims, his media statement doesn't dispute them and talks up the expertise of Dr Angela Lanfranchi, who does link abortions with breast cancer.

Abetz does not have expertise in medical research, so why did he give Dr Lanfranchi's views similar or more weight than those of most doctors, including the Australian Medical Association's president Brian Owler, who say there is no clear link between abortion and ?

If Abetz cannot evaluate the medical research data and methods, is his choice largely based on Dr Lanfranchi's conclusions? Why won't he accept the views of most medical professionals, who can evaluate the relevant evidence?

Abetz may be doctor shopping, not for a desired diagnosis or drug, but for an desired expert opinion. And just as doctor shopping can result in the wrong diagnosis, doctor shopping for opinions gives you misleading conclusions.

Broken logic

Often attacks on science employ logic so flawed that it would be laughable in everyday life. If I said my car was blue, and thus no cars are red, you would be unimpressed. And yet when non-experts discuss science, such flawed logic is often employed.

What I learned from debating science with trolls
Global temperatures (measured by Marcott et al. in dark blue, and HadCRUT4 in red) have changed as a result of both natural and anthropogenic climate change. There has been a dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past century. Michael Brown

Carbon dioxide emissions are leading to now, and gradual natural climate change has also taken place over aeons. There's no reason for natural and to be mutually exclusive, and yet climate change deniers frequently use natural climate change in an attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming.

Unfortunately our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, employed similar broken logic after the 2013 bushfires:

Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We've had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we've recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic [sic] global warming.

Bushfires are a natural part of the Australian environment but that does not exclude altering the frequency and intensity of those fires. Indeed, the Forest Fire Danger Index has been increasing across Australia since the 1970s.

Why the Prime Minister would employ such flawed logic, and contradict scientific research, is puzzling.

Galileo

The Italian scientist and astronomer Galileo Galilei was infamously persecuted by the politically powerful Catholic Church because of his promotion of the sun-centred solar system.

While Galileo suffered house arrest, his views ultimately triumphed because they were supported by observation, while the Church's stance relied on theology.

The Galileo Gambit is a debating technique that perverts this history to defend nonsense. Criticisms by the vast majority of scientists are equated with the opinions of 17th century clergy, while a minority promoting pseudoscience are equated with Galileo.

Ironically, the Galileo Gambit is often employed by those who have no scientific expertise and strong ideological reasons for attacking science. And its use isn't restricted to online debates.

Bizarrely, even the politically powerful and well connected are partial to the Galileo Gambit. Maurice Newman (once again) rejects the consensus view of climate scientists and, when questioned on his rejection of the science, his (perhaps predictable) response was:

Well, Galileo was virtually on his own.

Newman's use of a tactic of trolls and cranks is worthy of criticism. The triumph of Galileo's views were a result of his capacity to develop scientific ideas and test them via observation. Newman, and many of those who attack science, notably lack this ability.


Explore further

Global warming linked to wildfires, says UN climate chief

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).
The Conversation

Citation: What I learned from debating science with trolls (2014, August 20) retrieved 20 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-08-debating-science-withtrolls.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 20, 2014
"Cherry picking" a few studies and ignoring the bulk of the literature is obviously a common debating tactic, both online and in the media.

There are multiple studies of the temperature history of the globe that use a range of methods (e.g., instrumental record, tree rings, boreholes). Trolls, bloggers, journalists and politicians often use a select few studies (or pseudo-studies) and attempt to use these to trump the rest of the literature.

A classic example of this is the abuse of the pioneering Lamb (1982) study. Lamb measured the temperature history for just central England, and his study shows a warm period around 1200, but his approach used educated guess work (at times) and he had no margins of error.

Unsurprisingly, Lamb's pioneering study differs from much of the subsequent literature that has more robust methodology, more data and global/hemisphere coverage. And yet climate deniers frequently select Lamb ahead of other more rigorous and relevant studies.

Aug 20, 2014
I mentioned the Gish Gallop in my article, but did not have space to describe it in detail and wasn't in the mood to write a listicle of tactics.

The Gish Gallop is the rapid presentation of a series of points (including falsehoods and half-truths) during a debate. The Gish Gallop's strength is it takes less time and technical knowhow to present each misleading point than it does rebut them.

One possible counter to the Gish Gallop is forcing the discussion to stay on one point, and refusing to move onto another point until the first point is resolved.

Aug 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 20, 2014
How do the scientifically illiterate select this minority of experts?

That's a good point. The scientifically illiterate cannot make an educated selection of experts. Their choice is more or less random (a bit on the 'less random' side, because - like all uneducated people - they tend to go for what 'pops' instead of what makes sense)

Why the Prime Minister would employ such flawed logic, and contradict scientific research, is puzzling.

Follow the money. No puzzle there.

One should distinguish between what a person believes and what a person says. If the latter generates profit then it may easily be at odds with the former.
Our local '50 cent'-army representatives (rygg et. al.) are prime examples.

Aug 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 20, 2014
This guy didn't learn anything. It appears he merely refined smugness and actually entrenched his defensiveness by blowing up his ego further.

The Galileo Gambit is a debating technique that perverts this history to defend nonsense.


Actually scientists have said that it would be impossible for rockets to operate in space, impossible to break the sound barrier, impossible for heavier than air machines to fly, people whose 'views ultimately DID NOT triumph despite the fact that they were supported by observation....'

A little history and perspective along with your egocentric lambasting of other people might ACTUALLY teach you something....

Aug 20, 2014
It seems hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He plays dice and uses "telepathic" methods... is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.


Albert Einstein; Scientific genius and publisher of special and general relativity...

And according to Michael J. I. Brown, a non expert and would be internet troll because he didn't base all his opinions on observation by the "real experts".....either that or secretly a member of the Catholic Church who infiltrated the circles of science in a devious plot to subvert quantum mechanics.

Aug 20, 2014
Trolling is easy and didn't start on the internet. It is human nature to use deception in order to further ones position, and also to resist owning up to it when discovered.

The internet has perhaps made trolling easier but it also offers an eventual solution. The instant access to facts will make it possible for automation to instantly flag bullshit and expose trolls, or to simply preempt them.

This is inevitable because trolls have made it necessary. And AI moderation will signal the ultimate triumph of science over human nature.

Aug 20, 2014
Well here's one now
This guy didn't learn anything. It appears he merely refined smugness and actually entrenched his defensiveness by blowing up his ego further
-Appeal to emotion, no factual content...
A little history and perspective along with your egocentric lambasting of other people might ACTUALLY teach you something....
-and the implication of facts which don't exist. Some people troll consciously while others think trolling is the only way to participate.

No matter. AI mods will deal with them all.

Aug 20, 2014
That's a good point. The scientifically illiterate cannot make an educated selection of experts. Their choice is more or less random (a bit on the 'less random' side, because - like all uneducated people - they tend to go for what 'pops' instead of what makes sense)
-And there are trolls who would actually use this argument to ignore evidence when it proves them wrong. Did you know it? Hubris is unscientific but entirely human.

Aug 20, 2014
Then there are trolls who use appeal to authority. These are ones who do not understand the concepts being discussed, and hence CAN'T discuss them but rather simply regurgitate the opinions of the experts who agree with their worldview. They are either incapable, unwilling, or too lazy to form their own opinions and feel the only way to participate is to show the opinions of others and present that in and of itself as an argument.

These are also easy to spot in their lack of maturity and inability to handle rejection of their "argument". Since they aren't really participating in a discussion they get easily frustrated at people who don't simply "see the light" and accept their surrogate opinion that they did a lot of "research" finding and bringing to the world...IOW people who won't engage in fiat acceptance but require discussion. They are a lot like the overly religious in this aspect.

Aug 20, 2014
I attended Nobel Conference XVII at Gustavus Adolphus College in 1981.
https://gustavus....archive/
I believe it was Eugene Winger who said that if a scientist can't explain his research to a 6th grade student, he did not sufficiently understand the research.
When AGWites can't answer simple questions about their research, they claim 'consensus', 'settled science' so shut up and stop asking questions.
Asking questions is trolling now?
Only if the researchers can't, or don't, have the answers.

Aug 20, 2014
I like how the denier trolls flock to this article and demonstrate the tactics the author describes - it's like they have absolutely no self awareness.

Aug 20, 2014
The majority of "scientists", then, who refused to take issue with the insistence that "all the world's wars have been caused by religion", with the promoting of fen-phen, with claims of banned weapons systems in Iraq don't count, then? They claim to value proof, then declare God is not present but refuse to prove it! One of the most effective weapons is their conniving with "government" and the "news" to fabricate "information", playing up when their claims are "correct", downplaying or denying when other claims work out. They'll parade how psychologists removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, but refuse to mention they were pressured to and that there are facets of homosexuality they still consider mental problems. And what to call those who assign me "1's" here just to dilute any higher rankings I might get, only out of viciousness, because they never contest what I say, because they know it's true?

Aug 20, 2014
And what to call those who assign me "1's" here


You can call me Skippy if you want to Skippy.

just to dilute any higher rankings I might get,


You might have to get some other Skippys voting you higher grades Skippy. You can't dilute a "1". And if I were you, I'd be thanking the nice peoples at physorg for not allowing the negative number karma points.

only out of viciousness,


Non Skippy, the bad karma points aren't viciousness, they are for when you say silly things. The comment block is for the viciousness, like where you tell someone like Julie-Skippy he is really stupid.

because they never contest what I say, because they know it's true?


That must be it. What you say is true so nobody gives you a five. Is that your idea of good scientifical theory thinking? Getting the "1" is because everybody thinks you are right?

Leave the silly looking pointy cap at the door when you leave for the next couyon so he doesn't feel left out.

Aug 20, 2014
The rating system is a politically correct and dogmatically correct system here. Beyond measuring how much specific people on the site mirror your views I don't know what practical purpose it serves.

Aug 20, 2014
The rating system is a politically correct and dogmatically correct system here. Beyond measuring how much specific people on the site mirror your views I don't know what practical purpose it serves.

For some the rating systems provides some measure of self-worth based upon how upset some are when they are rated #1.
Sounds like too many students today who expect undeserved 'As'.

Example:

5 / 5 (1) 1 hour ago
Runrig, sorry I downvoted you.
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Aug 20, 2014
I don't know what practical purpose it serves.
IMO it's principally harmful, as it learns the people to face the uncomfortable opinions with voting instead of arguments. It enforces the gregarious instincts and labeling. After all, it must be supplemented with reporting feature anyway, as it doesn't work for spammers.

Aug 20, 2014
Ha ha, physorg finally has a comedy section. It was truly amusing to see this feeble attempt to disguise pro-AGW drivel as a discourse about science. Just replace the word "science" with "climate change" and the intention of this babble becomes quite obvious.
As for who are the trolls, just look at the comment ratings and that becomes evident.

Aug 20, 2014
I find that troll is a vague word like 'good', 'don't you have fun/party' and a lot of other words used by people in an unanalyzed way. So, I got tired of reading the article fast.

This 'troll' usage is a social phenomenon much like the 'Slash's daughter/sister' young female rock guitarists have been given recently.

Science is religion is debatable. I got that far.

I'd consider physorgs constant christianising of science, trolling . . .

Aug 20, 2014
Ha ha, physorg finally has a comedy section. It was truly amusing to see this feeble attempt to disguise pro-AGW drivel as a discourse about science. Just replace the word "science" with "climate change" and the intention of this babble becomes quite obvious.
As for who are the trolls, just look at the comment ratings and that becomes evident.


Well, considering that your comments are generally among the lowest rated..... and you're definitely a troll here, that last sentence may be the most truthful thing you've ever posted on phys.org.

Aug 20, 2014
Thanks supatard, for the insight into the workings of a lone neuron. As usual you're supa"off the"mark. You trolls just come to this site to down vote the heretics without even bothering to read the articles far less the comments.

Aug 20, 2014
your comments are generally among the lowest rated
This MAY be the sign of their quality at the PO voting system instead. After all, all REALLY progressive ideas faced the WIDE opposition of mainstream, as the article admits by itself with example of Galileo. So that maybe the voting karma could be still used as a criterion of quality providing the voting trolls are consistent in their trolling in the same way, like posting trolls - this function would be just more complex.

Aug 20, 2014
I attended Nobel Conference XVII at Gustavus Adolphus College in 1981.
https://gustavus....archive/
I believe it was Eugene Winger who said that if a scientist can't explain his research to a 6th grade student, he did not sufficiently understand the research.
When AGWites can't answer simple questions about their research, they claim 'consensus', 'settled science' so shut up and stop asking questions.
Asking questions is trolling now?
Only if the researchers can't, or don't, have the answers.


This is why all peer reviewed journals employ 6th graders and require their final approval before anything is published. After all, Eugene Winger said so in 1981 at a conference that you personally attended and feel very special about. If that is not a standard we can all agree on for what should be called science, then what is?

Aug 20, 2014
your comments are generally among the lowest rated
This MAY be the sign of their quality at the PO voting system instead. After all, all REALLY progressive ideas faced the WIDE opposition of mainstream, as the article admits by itself with example of Galileo.


there is nothing progressive, or intelligent, about what antigoricle says - look at the post above yours for a sample of a typical comment.

Aug 20, 2014
look at the post above yours for a sample of a typical comment
Do you think the " trolls just come to this site to down vote the heretics without even bothering to read the articles" stuff? This is exactly what I'm experiencing at many sites, including PO. I can only subscribe it. The groups of voting trolls occupy the public forums in the same way, like the posting trolls. IMO it has its counterpart in space-time geometry: the opponents play a role of dark matter for mainstream posters (gravity field) and the voting trolls play a role of dark energy for dark matter. The dark matter gets pronounced around massive bodies just under certain situations, which indicates the approaching phase transform. These social groups are apparently related through their spatial/temporal gradients (the dark matter is attracted with space-time curvature, not with matter as such). The people of both groups are attracted to controversies - noncontroversial steady-state topics don't bother anyone.

Aug 20, 2014
there is nothing progressive
The progressives represent a certain paradigm today in the same way, like the conservatives. They support the AGW, public expenses and socialistic stuffs in general. They're occupation driven in the same way, like the conservatives - they just want to utilize the public resources instead of private ones.The progressives are naturally attracted to long-term strategic topics which deserve the governmental intervention, whereas the conservatives prefer solving of practical short term&local tasks at communal level - such a specialization represents both their limits, both feature. IMO both groups have their bit of truth and they should coexist in peaceful balance, so we should learn to listen better each other. The problem arises, when this balance gets violated. The carbon tax and climatic research represent a huge pile of public money, which attracts the progressive people and violates the balance between progressive and conservative stances.

Aug 20, 2014
I think trolls like antig come here for one of two reasons,

1. They get their jollies posting obvious BS to rile people up. These are also known as "pot stirers"
2. They are paid to post in certain topics (like AGW) that corporations want to influence public opinion on.

For 2 of the lowest rated posters, antigoricle and ryggesgn2, I suspect antig is the 1st and rygge is the 2nd.

I downvote those two reflexively, but also anyone posting what I consider pseudoscience - aether wave theory posts are in that catagory for example because it was disproven about 100 years ago.

Aug 20, 2014
The majority of people tend to be followers, not leaders, so the "consensus view" does not always hold sway over independent thinkers. There are too many card-carrying members of the status quo in the scientific community who are qualified only on paper, but hold authoritative sway over a gullible audience because legally they are scientists. There are many who, were they alive today, would be considered to be "not qualified" to have scientific opinions or theories because they didn't had a college education, like Leonardo da Vinci, James Watt, Thomas Alva Edison, the Wright Brothers, Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Buckminster Fuller, Thomas Henry Huxley, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, Karl Marx, Walter Pitts, Srinivasa Ramanujan. Those are the true heroes of old, men of renown. I for one would rather be a crank. I can say anything I like.

Aug 20, 2014
I downvote those two reflexively,

Why bother?
For me, to receive a '1' from AGWite/socialists/'liberals'/'progressives' is badge of honor.

Aug 20, 2014
aether wave theory posts are in that category for example because it was disproven about 100 years ago
AWT is based on dense aether model of Oliver Lodge, which was never seriously considered with mainstream science, disproved the less. Actually with respect to classical aether model FILLING the space the dense aether model FORMING the space represents a natural counterpart in the same way, like the official science. The official science and dense aether model are actually an allies - the official science just don't (wants to) know about it. Even the ideological ally still represents a competition for mainstream scientists.

Aug 20, 2014
The progressives are naturally attracted to long-term strategic topics which deserve the governmental intervention,


No, they are attracted to power.
""Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "
http://www.goodre...the-good

Aug 20, 2014
to receive a '1' from AGWite/socialists/'liberals'/'progressives' is badge of honor
The main point of my previous post was, the conservatives and progressives are two symmetric groups. The progressives tend to waste the public resources in short therm perspective for the sake of solution of strategic tasks, the conservatives tend to remain ignorant to natural resources for the sake of solving of practical short term needs. For me these two groups represent a perfect duality, each of them has its strength and weakness and no one is better or worse than the other. The ideological bias will prohibit you in seeing the balanced stance.

Aug 20, 2014
To finish CS Lewis' quote, 'progressives' believe they are morally and intellectually superior. Bastiat noted this as well.

"They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." "

The 'progressives' racist affirmative action programs have kept millions in virtual slavery and we see the results in MO the past few days.

Aug 20, 2014
No, they are attracted to power.

""Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.


You know that actually describes social conservatives, right? they're the ones trying to codify the private behavior of people (they're the ones that pass laws against being gay, doing drugs, etc. and demand everyone else live their way).

Aug 20, 2014
..the progressives are naturally attracted to long-term strategic topics which deserve the governmental intervention - no, they are attracted to power.
The conservatives are attracted to power to - at the military side of government and foreign affairs. In these areas they also tend to be as wasteful, as the progressives in the interior affairs. Also the conservatives are more prone to clientelisms and lobbyism, i.e. the hidden cooperation and alliance with government and less democratic if not authoritative management of public life. My stance simply is, both these groups are complementary in all aspects of life and none of them is principally better than another ones. The actual problem arises from imbalance, not from coexistence from both political groups.

Aug 20, 2014
"This is what I've always found so thoroughly enjoyable about the global warming debate. It's not one of those issues where there's right and wrong on both sides and it's really a matter of opinion which one you favour. Quite simply it's a very straightforward battle between, on the one hand a bunch of lying, greedy shysters, fanatical, misanthropic, anti-capitalist eco-loons, bent, grant-troughing scientists, grubby politicians and despicable, rent-seeking millionaires and billionaires; and on the other a handful of brave, honest, rigorous, seekers-after-truth."
"No wonder Mann (and his anonymous - but evidently very rich - backers) are fighting so hard to delay the process for as long as possible.

If this ever goes to trial they're all toast.
"

http://www.breitb...is-toast

Aug 20, 2014
There is an interesting aspect of gradient driven reality, you'll observe the outer universe as being trapped into black hole once you cross the event horizon of it. In the same way the extreme proponents of progressive or conservative stances tend to perceive their opponents as being trapped inside of their cognitive holes. Instead of it it's just these extremists, who gets biased here. If you've tendency to consider at least half of people at this planet as an idiots, it's probably because you're such an idiot already. The opposite case would be just of very low probability. It was not meant to be personal - I just wanted to point out the common similarities of social psychology of high dimensional society and high-dimensional gradient driven reality.

Aug 20, 2014
I think trolls like antig come here for one of two reasons,

1. They get their jollies posting obvious BS to rile people up. These are also known as "pot stirers"
2. They are paid to post in certain topics (like AGW) that corporations want to influence public opinion on.
--supatard
Again, thanks for the insight into the workings (or lack thereof) of a lone neuron.
Jollies and paid eh! You are even more dense than I gave you credit. Do you even read what you write before hitting submit.

Aug 20, 2014
Conservatives in the US support he rule of law, the Constitution, and are actively working to limit the power of the state over the individual.
conservatives are more prone to clientelisms and lobbyism

No, it' the 'progressive'/socialist that supports corporatism.
My stance simply is, both these groups are complementary in all aspects of life and none of them is principally better than another ones.


You don't believe liberty is better than tyranny? Good is better than evil?

Aug 20, 2014
rygge - your comment about conservatives is only true for the small slice that identify as libertarian - the rest (mainstream GOP, social conservatives) are very against personal liberty.

Aug 20, 2014
No, it' the 'progressive'/socialist that supports corporatism
Well, openly. The conservatives just tend to alliances of private sector with government behind scene, i.e. covertly.[ And I favor the opened rules for business.
You don't believe liberty is better than tyranny
Well, the strict adherence of conservatives to rule of law makes this liberty a bit conspicuous, don't you think? But the main problem of conservative ideology is the same like the Marxism, i.e. the fact, the people are cheaters by their very nature. The management of perfectly fair business, free market and legal environment actually requires a strong government capable to enforce the law. The belief, that the people will willingly engage in fair business is the Utopia of the same kind, like the belief, that the people will work for free on behalf of public affairs. In both case you'll actually need a pile of governmental officers, which would keep this artificial political system alive and running.

Aug 20, 2014
For example IMO it would be a big mistake to believe, that the centralist driven China is not a viable economy just because of apparent socialistic connotations of centralist government. The Chinese political system just converges to ideal political arrangement from opposite side of duality of conservatism / progressivism.

Aug 20, 2014
An article on trolls brings out the trolls and shows that phys.org doesn't deal with them at all. I'm about ready to give up on this site as completely infested with trolls. Those feeding the trolls are generally just making it worse...

Aug 20, 2014
rygge - your comment about conservatives is only true for the small slice that identify as libertarian - the rest (mainstream GOP, social conservatives) are very against personal liberty.

Mainstream GOP are not conservatives. They attack conservatives. They fear conservatives.
And no, conservatives don't identify as libertarians as they support the rule of law and defending liberty.
What is 'centralist' about China? It's a communist state that is failing due to its central planning, just as all other socialist states are failing.
China is ideal? China is communist. How is that ideal?

Aug 20, 2014
China is ideal?
"the government remains an authoritarian one-party state. It places arbitrary curbs on expression, association, assembly, and religion; prohibits independent labor unions and human rights organizations; and maintains Party control over all judicial institutions."
"The government censors the press, the Internet, print publications, and academic research, and justifies human rights abuses as necessary to preserve "social stability." It carries out involuntary population relocation and rehousing on a massive scale, and enforces highly repressive policies in ethnic minority areas in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia."
http://www.hrw.or...rs/china

Aug 20, 2014
China is communist


China is a moderate national-socialist (fascist) state.

Aug 20, 2014
What 'progressives' have wrought:
"Elder mentioned that there is "a whole bunch of crap going on in the inner city as a result of no fathers," which he said "is a result of 50 years of the War on Poverty launched by Lyndon Johnson."

"Today, we vote 95% for the Democratic party, and what's the result? Destroyed families, bad schools, high crime, and then they've gotten us believing that the real enemy is the Tea Party, is John Boehner, is Larry Elder," he stated. "It's unbelievable what they've done to the mentality of black people in this country.""
http://www.breitb...ssed-Off

Aug 20, 2014
@ rp142..........most of the trolls on this site don't even know they are trolls.

Aug 20, 2014
China is communist


China is a moderate national-socialist (fascist) state.


How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

All socialist states are the same. The state controls private property. The flavors of socialism are fascism, communism, corporatism, ... All that changes is how the tyrants are chosen and how tyrannical they are.

Aug 20, 2014
Both the trolls and scientist get the Galileo story wrong.

He WAS supported by the church and his friend, whom eventually became Pope, was a keen admirer of his work.

He fell into disfavour when he claimed that the sun WAS the centre of the universe rather than just claiming that a sun centred model could better predict the position of heavenly bodies such as planets and especially their moons.

This one point is where the conflict with the church flared up.

Was Galileo right? In fact no, he wasn't. The sun is not the centre of the universe. Neither is the Earth.

But both sun centred AND Earth centred models are still in use. Earth centred models are used to plot the position of Earth satellites both natural (eg the moon) and artificial (eg communication satellites).

Galileo was right about the Earth moving, but the Church was right in that the sun centred model is just a model and does not represent reality (the sun is not the centre of the universe).

Aug 20, 2014
but the Church was right in that the sun centred model is just a model and does not represent reality (the sun is not the centre of the universe)
But this is exactly what the Christian theological model of celestial spheres claimed.
China is a moderate national-socialist (fascist) state.
IMO your problem is in somewhat biased/shifted definitions of political concepts - it's hard to agree in something after then, to get testable predictions the less. The established definitions of terms should be respected with everyone here, or the discussion will remain clueless.

Aug 20, 2014
hateful comment about people from 'turd world countries'...


That is hilarious (if it were not so sad in the light of today news)! Look at yourself: your politically corrected mindset doesn't recognize jokes anymore.

Aug 20, 2014
China is a moderate national-socialist (fascist) state.
IMO your problem is in somewhat biased/shifted definitions of political concepts - it's hard to agree in something after then, to get testable predictions the less. The established definitions of terms should be respected with everyone here, or the discussion will remain clueless.


Your assertion that me (or anyone, for that matter) being "somewhat biased" is vacuous. Besides, this is not just my opinion (China fitting into fascist category) -- I have seen it on some discussion board a while ago. It stroke me how accurate that observation was.

Aug 20, 2014
Ryggy brings up the topic of race - when commenting on an article about science, and trolling.

It's just example of the failure of the 'progressives'.
biased/shifted definitions of political concepts

It's an accurate definition and is supported by data.
Bias occurs with those who like socialism and try to hide its failures. Just as AGWites do.

Aug 20, 2014
Julien is being a troll.
They claim to value proof, then declare God is not present but refuse to prove it... They'll parade how psychologists removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, but refuse to mention they were pressured to and that there are facets of homosexuality they still consider mental problems
Maybe if I yell julien won't be able to pretend he doesn't hear me.

JULIEN! WE KNOW YOUR GOD DOESNT EXIST BECAUSE HIS BOOK IS FULL OF LIES ABOUT THINGS THAT DIDNT HAPPEN! AND YOUR GODMAN AND HIS MOM WERE DESIGNED AS GAY PEOPLE!

There that oughta do it.

Aug 20, 2014
I downvote those two reflexively,

Why bother?
For me, to receive a '1' from AGWite/socialists/'liberals'/'progressives' is badge of honor.
Another martyr. You guys make me sick.

Aug 20, 2014
@ rp142..........most of the trolls on this site don't even know they are trolls.


I'm sure some of them don't realise they have become trolls but many of them do. Some go online with the intent to troll because they enjoy it, not out of frustration over a closely held view point. They do not set out to convince the audience that their perspective is the correct one.

They have been a 'causes' that I've supported over the years, only to be put off completely by expressions of extreme views that mean I no longer wish to be associated with the segment of the community.

Aug 20, 2014
This is a supposedly scientific site. So, when somebody makes an observation that a certain group of people is quantifiably different from the other group, and summarizes his or her finding with adjective "backwards", does it automatically qualifies him or her as racist? This seems to me as suppression of scientific thought.

Aug 20, 2014
Do you think the " trolls just come to this site to down vote the heretics without even bothering to read the articles" stuff? This is exactly what I'm experiencing at many sites, including PO
@Zephir
no, what you are experiencing is people who are well versed in science (or at least more well versed than you are) downvoting you because all you offer is unproven conjecture or debunked pseudoscience
AWT is
DEBUNKED: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf , http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

just like Baud, ryg, antiG and the others of your ilk above, NO EMPIRICAL evidence means PSEUDOSCIENCE

Aug 20, 2014
So, when somebody makes an observation that a certain group of people is quantifiably different from the other group, and summarizes his or her finding with adjective "backwards", does it automatically qualifies him or her as racist? This seems to me as suppression of scientific thought.
@tegiri
if that "observation" is not backed up by hard evidence, empirical evidence, and proof that is supported by more than just the "few people" you see posting in a comments section, and there is no statistical evidence helping...
Then you can say YES, it is racist...
SCIENCE uses a method for a reason... so that personal conjecture and beliefs do not taint the system... that is why the former RACIST beliefs have fallen away... NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE -things like: blacks are genetically lazy and not able to comprehend complex physics or machines (like during the days of the Tuskegee Airmen) were proven WRONG with empirical data

the claim MUST be supported by PROOF

Aug 21, 2014
I downvote those two reflexively,

Why bother?
For me, to receive a '1' from AGWite/socialists/'liberals'/'progressives' is badge of honor.

Well, allow me to present to you...

Aug 21, 2014
Of course some of the tactics used by trolls that I described in the article are appearing in the comments.

An interesting variation of the selective use of experts is to take quotes of a few famous scientists from the past who were wrong, and then assume their attitudes applied to all scientists of the time.

The claim that scientists believed rockets couldn't operate in a vacuum would be an example of this. Perhaps some scientists believed this (references please), but the most famous promotion of this idea was a New York Times editorial from 13 January 1920 which was finally "corrected on 17 July 1969. One can compare the style of the 1920 editorial with some of the editorials attacking climate science in 2014.


Aug 21, 2014
Of course some of the tactics used by trolls that I described in the article are appearing in the comments
@Michael Brown
It is good to see an author take time out for responses on a public site like this. THANKS.

With a site like this, it also does no good to even report the post and get the people banned/deleted from the site.

Take the poster above called Toiea. Toiea is also known as Zephir and runs his own pseudoscience page elsewhere (I think on reddit). He has had AT LEAST 18 different profiles here just since (i think) jan... as soon as they ban him, he creates another profile and starts in again.

we know that zephir will never be able to accept reality or empirical evidence (especially anything that debunks his faith)

At least there are articles like this to reference showing newbies how to spot the trolls. It also teaches people how to think critically and get evidence before accepting a post/comment/etc. as true or real.

again... thanks!


Aug 21, 2014
An example of a half-truth is Einstein was an amateur. It is also incorrect that on this basis I would exclude a 21st century Einstein from debates.

While Einstein was working in a patent office in 1905, this was also the year he received his PhD in physics. Einstein's ideas were motivated by observations by professional scientists (Hertz, Michelson, Morley), were published in scientific journals, were evaluated by professional scientists and accepted by the scientific community relatively rapidly (Einstein winning the Nobel Prize in 1921).

It took longer for Einstein's ideas to be accepted by people outside the physics community. Many non-physicists had strong ideas about Einstein's theories, even though they couldn't critically evaluate their content. This is very similar to current debates about science.

The Physics Today article "Science controversies past and present" by Steve Sherwood discusses this issue in some detail.

Aug 21, 2014
Some techniques are comically simple. Emotionally charged, yet evidence-free, accusations of scams, fraud and cover-ups are common. While they mostly lack credibility, such accusations may be effective at polarising debate and reducing understanding.

I got to hand it to Michael Brown, he has taken trolling to a new level with this drivel that has no place on a science site. So it's no surprise he has succeeded in doing exactly what he accuses trolls of doing

Aug 21, 2014
Wow, you can see how well Brown hit the nerve of a lot of people here! Great article. Trolls who cherry pick their sources are a disgrace. The hubris in their own opinions outweighing the worlds scientific community is absolutely astonishing. Antigoracle you are one of the best examples here. Congrats!

Aug 21, 2014
(Einstein winning the Nobel Prize in 1921).

Agree with everything you say about Einstein not being an amateur.
Small correction: He didn't win the Nobel Prize for Realtivity but for his work on the photoelectric effect. And according to the Noble Prize website he was awarded the prize in 1922 as two prizes were given out that year and none in 1921 (in case no work is worthy the prize - as was judged in 1921 - it can be reserved for the following year)...he is therefore always listed as the winner of the 1921 prize.

Aug 21, 2014
Are you saying that all African Americans are backwards?

African Americans are saying this.
Many of them.
But those who support keeping blacks voting for their own bondage attack blacks like Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Allen West.
If any black person wants to judge by the content of his character, join the tea party movement. Become a conservative and you will no longer be considered black by 'liberals'.

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
Afroamerican culture is religious and careless and it's missing the analytical, contemplative attitude of white culture.


African blacks seem to fit in and prosper in Europe and the US.
Even blacks from former slave countries like Haiti and Jamaica prosper in the US. Mia Love's parents are from Haiti. She is running for US Congress in Utah and is viciously attacked by 'progressives'.

Aug 21, 2014
Why didn't Brown debate science?
Compare and contrast Popper with Kuhn, for example?
The AGWites seem to be following Kuhn's science. Rejecting all data that won't support their theory.
Popper was motivated to falsification by the Marxists and Freudians. Theirs was not considered science, although they claimed their philosophies to be scientific. Popper singled out Einstein for proposing falsifiable theories and then conducting the experiments. To Popper, this was real science.
Then there is Billy Koen, "A Discussion of the Method". Science is just another heuristic.

Aug 21, 2014
"Carson said, 'Look at my hometown Detroit and Chicago, New Orleans, Washington D.C. where the murder rates are astronomical. How many black males were killed by police last year? 100. How many black males were killed by other black males? 5,000. 50-1. That's a huge problem. We can't afford to be allowing these people just to be slaughtered in the streets and not doing anything about it. This is where we ought to be directing our attention. We can't afford to just throw those precious people away."

In reference to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Carson said , "It's become politically incorrect to actually put your finger on the real problem. And you look in some of these cities like Chicago, Why don't we talk about their failed gun laws? And why don't we talk about what is their mayor doing? Why are things getting so bad? Because he's a friend of the secular progressives."
http://www.breitb...-Talk-Ab

Aug 21, 2014
Regarding Einstein and the Nobel Prize, I didn't say he won it for relativity, although many people erroneously assume that was the case.

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
Looks like he real genocidal racists are 'progressives' who seem to support the death of as many blacks as possible.
That was the eugenicist Sanger's intent when founding Planned Parenthood. Murder as many inferior humans as possible before birth.
Not just Sanger....
"Dawkins later added, "Learn to think in non-essentialist ways. The question is not 'is it human'?' but 'can it suffer?'"

When InYourFaceNewYorker tweeted, "I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down's syndrome. Real ethical dilemma," Dawkins returned, "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.""
http://www.breitb...he-World

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
Dance trolls; dance!

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
Ryggy. How dishonest. How typical. Your post made it sound as if Dawkins was referring to black people as 'it'. And you left out the most important part of what Dawkins said.

"Yes, it is very civilised," Dawkins responded. "These are foetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."

-which is absolutely correct. And further, many religionists would resist any attempts to prevent prenatal birth defects, considering the womb 'gods black box' which we should be forbidden from tampering with. Birth defects are a judgement from god, not a medical condition, according to them.

"That's it in a nutshell. I want children with disabilities to be born, and I want their parents to be confident the children will receive the lifelong care they need."

-Because without suffering, who needs Jesus?

Aug 21, 2014
I dub this physorg's first trollicle.
trol.li.cle
n.
An article (story, fabrication) that's trolling.

Aug 21, 2014
What a weak troll.

Aug 21, 2014
. "These are foetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."

One is only 'human' when one has 'human' feelings?
Babies in the womb are human.
Babies have feelings in the womb.
Babies have human feelings in the womb.

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
It took longer for Einstein's ideas to be accepted by people outside the physics community. Many non-physicists had strong ideas about Einstein's theories, even though they couldn't critically evaluate their content. This is very similar to current debates about science.


........hey there Michael, I have news for you you as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, this is still the case today & is consistently & amply demonstrated right here on this site. There is hardly a single person posting comments on a high frequency basis at this site who believes Einstein was scientifically accurate when he stated in his thesis on General Relativity that the Universe is a "quasi-spherical" structure, instead they believe it is "flat & infinite" in size.

I can see how those who've never seen a differential equation they could solve could be duped into the "flat infinite" concept, simply because the study of "entropy" involves differential equations but Einstein knew how to do the math.

Aug 21, 2014
"All the more urgent that we should stay skeptical, even—or perhaps especially—of things we consider proven.

This skepticism is a central pillar in right-of-center thought. It was the conservative patriarch Edmund Burke who mused that "we are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small." It was the libertarian hero Friedrich Hayek who insisted that we recognize "the insuperable limits to [man's] knowledge" and favor organic social arrangements over clever schemes of our own design. And today, it is not progressives but leading center-right voices like Jim Manzi and Nassim Taleb who eloquently remind us that things are almost always more complicated than they seem.

The theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once quipped that "the first principle" of science is "that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.""
http://thefederal...-has-abs

Aug 21, 2014
newborn children have rather animal feelings, given their mental ability just after birth.

So it's acceptable to cut them to pieces and crush their skulls? After all, they only feel pain.
How does anyone know what a baby feels in the womb?
"He says his work has been able to show for the first time that the unborn baby engages in complex behaviour from an early stage of its development."
http://www.michae...s658.htm

Aug 21, 2014
Ryggy why have you hijacked this thread? Are you a troll?
Babies have human feelings in the womb
Gut bacteria also have feelings. They respond to stimuli both negative and positive. Should we try to save them all as well? So do sperm by the way.

"Chemotaxis is movement of an organism in response to a chemical stimulus. Somatic cells, bacteria, and other single-cell or multicellular organisms direct their movements according to certain chemicals in their environment. This is important for bacteria to find food by swimming toward the highest concentration of food molecules, or to flee from poisons. In multicellular organisms, chemotaxis is critical to early development (e.g., movement of sperm towards the egg during fertilization) and subsequent phases of development (e.g., migration of neurons or lymphocytes) as well as in normal function."

-Consider this next time you are touching yourself and thinking of st theresa.
http://en.wikiped...t_Teresa

Aug 21, 2014
I can see how those who've never seen a differential equation they could solve could be duped into the "flat infinite" concept, simply because the study of "entropy" involves differential equations but Einstein knew how to do the math.


It does seem to fly in the face of what I believe, but observations seem to be telling us it is indeed flat...

http://map.gsfc.n...ape.html

Or at the very least much, much larger than we think.

Aug 21, 2014
Gut bacteria also respond to stimuli both negative and positive. Should we try to save them all as well? So do sperm, in exactly the same way.


While I sympathize and generally agree with your point of view...you're not really speaking to his question at all. The best one can infer is that you're saying two wrongs make a "right".

IOW are you suggesting that since gut bacteria do respond to positive and negative stimuli we should ignore the fact that human beings do too?

Aug 21, 2014
Dawkins asserted human babies can be killed because they don't have human feelings.
It is claimed Dawkins is a biologist.
His assertion has no basis in science.

Aug 21, 2014
RYgg what do ISIS and Abortionists have in common?

They both like to crush skulls and dismember innocent babies.

Even their justifications are similar:

1. Infidels are a threat to our way of life. vs. this unborn baby is a threat to our economic (or other) way of life.
2. Infidels are not human they are subhuman dogs vs. this unborn baby is not human, it is something else, subhuman.

Aug 21, 2014
I can see how those who've never seen a differential equation they could solve could be duped into the "flat infinite" concept, simply because the study of "entropy" involves differential equations but Einstein knew how to do the math.


It does seem to fly in the face of what I believe, but observations seem to be telling us it is indeed flat...

http://map.gsfc.n...ape.html


........only because you & the those from whom you quote do not know how to follow the differential equations in courses of Thermodynamics in the study of Entropy & why that math proves an infinite universe cannot exist.

@ Modern, prove to me you have the same intellectual capacity as Einstein, show us your math disproving his thesis, show us your differential equations proving "flat & infinite", otherwise you fall right into Michael Brown's heretofore above stated authorship as a "troll" unable to "critically evaluate their content". You can't do this? You're a "troll".

Aug 21, 2014
I like how the denier trolls flock to this article and demonstrate the tactics the author describes - it's like they have absolutely no self awareness.
Haha truth is stranger than fiction! Self delusion is an apparent prerequisite for the majority of conspiracist denialists.

Aug 21, 2014
Dawkins is a biologist... no basis in science.
No troll you read one thing and think something else.

"These are foetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."

I know you religionists would rather them grow into teenagers so you can send them off to fight other religionists, but the world considers this uncivilized.

"The United Nations has declared the highest level of humanitarian emergency in Iraq and has accused Islamic State militants of carrying out "barbaric" acts of sexual violence against women and teenage boys and girls belonging to Iraqi minorities"

"So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan."

Aug 21, 2014
There's an important distiction to be made between trolling.

Trolls are intentionally wrong. They're not trying to sell you anything, change your opinions or change the world; they're in it to make you angry and then laugh at you. They know they're misrepresenting the issue at hand and use various rhetorical tactics towards that end to proverbially pull your nose and kick you on the shin.

When you're doing it for any other end, it's not trolling. The person may be a crank, a fool, a paid shill, ignorant, stupid, anything - but not a troll.

So the big flaw in categorically labeling anyone who persistently disagrees and argues with you trolls is that you're implying they know they're wrong and you are right. That is actually a fallacy known as begging the question, because by "arguing against trolls" you are in fact defining yourself and your own point of view the correct one by default.


Aug 21, 2014
They both like to crush skulls and dismember innocent babies.
"
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks." psm137
Trolls are intentionally wrong. They're not trying to sell you anything, change your opinions or change the world; they're in it to make you angry and then laugh at you
Many trolls here might start out with sincere though misguided opinions, but get upset when they are proven wrong and so degenerate into trolling because they feel it is the only way to win.

Aug 21, 2014


@ Modern, prove to me you have the same intellectual capacity as Einstein, show us your math disproving his thesis, show us your differential equations proving "flat & infinite", otherwise you fall right into Michael Brown's heretofore above stated authorship as a "troll" unable to "critically evaluate their content". You can't do this? You're a "troll"


LOL. My god your ego is really tied up in this one isn't it?

First of all it isn't "MY" thesis, or "MY" math. That would be the people at the NASA. If you feel the need to continue to show an immature inability to discuss a topic like this then find someone else.....because I have absolutely no interest in doing that with you. Go throw your tantrum at the folks at NASA and others who do espouse the theory.

Can YOU show us the math that PROVES the Universe isn't flat? Proof mind you, do you have any observations that bear out your position? No? Well the WMAP data seems to. Which is more valid, math/theory or observation?

Aug 21, 2014
Infidels are a threat to our way of life
Let the godder who is without sin cast the first stone.

"18.. but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." john3

"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant... served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." deut17

-Your books ALL demand exactly the same things.

Aug 21, 2014
There's an important distiction to be made between trolling.

Trolls are intentionally wrong. They're not trying to sell you anything, change your opinions or change the world; they're in it to make you angry and then laugh at you. They know they're misrepresenting the issue at hand and use various rhetorical tactics towards that end to proverbially pull your nose and kick you on the shin.

When you're doing it for any other end, it's not trolling. The person may be a crank, a fool, a paid shill, ignorant, stupid, anything - but not a troll.

So the big flaw in categorically labeling anyone who persistently disagrees and argues with you trolls is that you're implying they know they're wrong and you are right. That is actually a fallacy known as begging the question, because by "arguing against trolls" you are in fact defining yourself and your own point of view the correct one by default.


^^ Spot on!

Aug 21, 2014
Trolls are intentionally wrong. They're not trying to sell you anything, change your opinions or change the world; they're in it to make you angry and then laugh at you
There is not exact dividing boundary between malicious and unintentional trolling, as the intellectual laziness is just another form of moral dishonesty. Many trolls could learn a bit about opinion of the other side and make conclusion from it, but they will not do it from egoistic reasons. After all, even the scientists could become familiar with opinion of the other side, but they're too haughty and separated from everyday reality for being able to do it. The trolling therefore follows as a result of energy optimization strategy of selfish meme.

Aug 21, 2014
@ Modern, prove to me you have the same intellectual capacity as Einstein, show us your math disproving his thesis, show us your differential equations proving "flat & infinite", otherwise you fall right into Michael Brown's heretofore above stated authorship as a "troll" unable to "critically evaluate their content". You can't do this? You're a "troll"


.....because I have absolutely no interest in doing that with you.


......because you don't know how to do the math.

Can YOU show us the math that PROVES the Universe isn't flat?


Yes, Einstein's thesis on General Relativity. Ever try following some of it? Or is it your level of math skills preventing it?

do you have any observations that bear out your position? No? Well the WMAP data seems to. Which is more valid, math/theory or observation?


......and "the WMAP data which seems to", is your best dodge around your dismal math skills. I know far better than you what the WMAP is.

Aug 21, 2014
There is not exact dividing boundary between malicious and unintentional trolling, as the intellectual laziness is just another form of moral dishonesty.


There is no such thing as unintentional trolling. That's just called "being annoying".

Trolling has just taken a much wider meaning in the public discourse than what it really means. Anyone who doesn't agree with you, makes you annoyed, or people who you simply don't like are now "trolls".

Aug 21, 2014
.....because you don't know how to do the math.


I don't know how to do the math, but that's not the reason I have no interest in playing out some emotional need you have to engage in pissing contests over the shape of the universe. Find a therapist for that one...

Yes, Einstein's thesis on General Relativity. Ever try following some of it? Or is it your level of math skills preventing it?


Post the relevant portion of the theory including the math then, or kindly shut up.

......and "the WMAP data which seems to", is your best dodge around your dismal math skills. I know far better than you what the WMAP is.


No you don't, because you don't need complex math to get the principle they're employing to show the geometry. It's all right here.

http://map.gsfc.n...eom.html

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I tend to trust their conclusion more than yours...mainly because they're capable of expressing it, and expressing it in a manner that clearly isn't emotional....


Aug 21, 2014
this comment section is the dumbest piece of garbage around. This fighting is what is fracking the population in half. None of you can take a second to log off the freaking internet/close phys.org and call it a day. No one is winning anyone's argument here no matter how right you are. You just cause more fighting more name calling, more anger about a topics that are split near the middle on this planet. This bickering is why people are fed up with the news and media and why our younger generations are running into technology as an escape cuz the real world is just a bunch of turds and trolls yelling at each other and won't stop cuz both ego's are effed
Someone called toiea was the most sensible in responses (except the author) in this comment section, and he was pretty much ignored and "1" posted cuz he's Zephir. Not cause his comments were incorrect they were near spot on. Keep on arguing/yelling guys please you're accomplishing soo much for the world. Great example all of you. :(

Aug 21, 2014
If you're bored, head back to "Is passing a Turing Test a true measure of artificial intelligence" and watch TheGhostofOtto1923 tell me what books I've read, then see me tell him what books I'm reading, then watch him tell me he has no way of knowing if I've read those books, and then tell me what history I've learned. If that isn't trolling, I don't know what is.

Aug 21, 2014
What we need is to prize Truth again. It doesn't matter what you believe, seek and speak the truth.
What we need is to prize Integrity again. We need to prize justice.

When scientists purposely falsify data to prove what they think they know, when they link unrelated fields of study to AGW to get headlines or to get money, when scientists demean those that don't agree with what they believe, society and science suffer.

Aug 21, 2014
What we need is to prize Truth again. It doesn't matter what you believe, seek and speak the truth.
What we need is to prize Integrity again. We need to prize justice.

When scientists purposely falsify data to prove what they think they know, when they link unrelated fields of study to AGW to get headlines or to get money, when scientists demean those that don't agree with what they believe, society and science suffer.


Your first paragraph says we should get back to telling the truth, then your second paragraph is filled with lies... good job.

Aug 21, 2014
First this....

this comment section is the dumbest piece of garbage around.


Then this gem...

cuz the real world is just a bunch of turds and trolls yelling at each other and won't stop cuz both ego's are effed


Finally this...

Keep on arguing/yelling guys please you're accomplishing soo much for the world. Great example all of you.


Is the irony lost on you Phyllis?

Aug 21, 2014
@PsillyT - the problem is that phys.org cannot be bothered to moderate their forums, so they devolve into 4chan's /b/.

Aug 21, 2014
There is no such thing as unintentional trolling. That's just called "being annoying"
All political opponents are "annoying" and as such censored. After all, even the Galileo has been considered annoying old chap. The competition of ideas is considered useful from long term perspective, but only rarely considered pleasant by the subjects of critique. Actually the competitors are considered the more annoying, the more they compete the mainstream, which just means, the more actual progress they just bring into competition. What the scientists hate the most is, when someone else shows, that the research can be made more effectively.

Aug 21, 2014
Not cause his comments were incorrect they were near spot on.

His comments are incorrect.
even the scientists could become familiar with opinion of the other side

Why should scientists be concerned about opinion?

Aug 21, 2014
There is no such thing as unintentional trolling. That's just called "being annoying"
Some unfortunates suffer under delusions of grandeur. They feel it is their right to win by any means necessary.
Anyone who doesn't agree with you, makes you annoyed, or people who you simply don't like are now "trolls"
Well the author of the above article would disagree with you. But lets check an entirely troll-free source. Wiki.

"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

-As to intent:

"Popular recognition of the existence (and prevalence) of non-deliberate, "accidental trolls", has been documented widely"

-People who never learn how to argue can think troll behavior is normal.


Aug 21, 2014
Truth, Integrity, and Justice matter. I've been watching facebook and see how Progressives on my pages are reacting to the Michael Brown shooting. Anyone who says It doesn't appear to be a racial shooting and might have been justified. Are vilified. When undisputed facts are presented, cop has smashed face, Michael Brown strong armed, pushed around, and stole from a person 1/2 his size, they are slammed for "Not Caring" about Michael Brown's family. In other words, if you want evidence of their version of events or have evidence contrary to their version you need to shut up, because justice and truth doesn't matter, the mob wants a lynching.

How this relates to this article. How about insisting on truth from all people including scientists, community leaders, politicians even yourself, if you know if something is false don't keep repeating it. Truth matters! Justice Matters! Take a step back to see if you are nothing but a member of a lynch mob promoting your pet ideas.

Aug 21, 2014
Why should scientists be concerned about opinion?
Because the experts often lack the feedback from outside (1, 2, 3) - actually the more, the more they feel an experts in a given area. They do behave like the intellectual black holes - the more energy and effort they introduce into single point, the less information they can share with their neighborhood. Actually in many areas the experts cannot communicate well even in context of scientific community itself.

Niels Bohr: "An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field".

Aug 21, 2014
@PsillyT - the problem is that phys.org cannot be bothered to moderate their forums, so they devolve into 4chan's /b/.
@supamark
there is actually much truth in that... except /b/ is funnier
Someone called toiea was the most sensible in responses (except the author) in this comment section
@Psilly_T
actually, he was downvoted in many posts for spouting nonsense... both as Toiea AND as wataba
especially for comments like this
with respect to classical aether model FILLING the space the dense aether model FORMING the space represents a natural counterpart in the same way, like the official science
the REASON that aether is "never seriously considered with mainstream science" is that it was DEBUNKED and thus science has moved on to bigger and better things

you don't keep used tampons as cherished parts of your loved one...
you throw them away

likewise awt

he does have a FEW valid points up there, but it is intermixed with bs...

Aug 21, 2014
Anyone who says It doesn't appear to be a racial shooting and might have been justified. Are vilified. When undisputed facts are presented, cop has smashed face, Michael Brown strong armed, pushed around, and stole from a person 1/2 his size, they are slammed for "Not Caring" about Michael Brown's family. In other words, if you proof of their version of events you need to shut up, because justice and truth doesn't matter, the mob wants a lynching
Bingo.

"A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
How this relates to this article
It doesnt.
I've been watching facebook and see how Progressives on my pages are reacting to the Michael Brown shooting
-So why dont you go back there? And stay there?

Aug 21, 2014
the REASON that aether is "never seriously considered with mainstream science" is that it was DEBUNKED and thus science has moved on to bigger and better things
Apparently the sparse and dense gas model makes no difference for you. The sparse gas spreads the energy in longitudinal waves, the dense gas model in transverse waves, in similar way like the vacuum. The dense gas model was never considered with science, so it couldn't be debunked. All people who are claiming the opposite without reference are just willful trolls. You can downvote me, but it doesn't change the fact, you have no reference for your stance.

Aug 21, 2014
BTW If some scientists propose the option, that the Universe is formed with interior of black hole, or that the vacuum is formed with dense superfluid, then these ideas are also already DEBUNKED and we have bigger and better things to do? IMO they're already saying the same things like the Maxwell or Oliver Lodge did before hundred years - just with their own words. The dense aether model is the least problem for contemporary science - only for ideological trolls.

Aug 21, 2014
I believe it is crucial to develop a thorough familiarity with both Logic and it's polar opposite 'Illogic' (more widely known as Rhetoric - the art of persuading someone to accept as true a proposition that is not necessarily true).
In college as a student of Epistemology, I discovered and demonstrated (to the professor's chagrin) that many key fundamental arguments in philosophy are founded in equivocation and fought with rhetoric, albeit at the highest levels I have seen before or since.
In spite of their flaw to the logical thinker, the numerous Fallacies of Informal Logic (such as ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, appeal to authority, and the like) continue to be used because they are effective. Illogical but emotional people seem to enjoy the rhetorical 'Kool-Aid'.

Aug 21, 2014
just like Baud, ryg, antiG and the others of your ilk above, NO EMPIRICAL evidence means PSEUDOSCIENCE
Thanks, Stumpy. I don't believe my comment here was in any way trolling on this site, but seeing as how you're off-topic (could be construed as trolling), indulge me.

Regarding those Nazca lines, my last post was a book list relating to the topic on that page. Some of those books were written by an individual who dedicated 60 years of his life to the translation of the cuneiform script on relatively recently discovered ancient Sumerian kiln-fired clay tablets belonging to a culture that far predates contributors to biblical text, which in at least in the case of the creation story in Genesis, can easily be construed as a synopsis of the Enuma Elish (Read the Attestation of Endubsar https://sites.goo...dubsar). He proposes, not avers, the existence of ancient astronauts. Pseudoscience?

Aug 21, 2014
....because you don't know how to do the math.


I don't know how to do the math, but that's not the reason

....of course it's the reason, or you'd do it.

Post the relevant portion of the theory including the math then, or kindly shut up.


........it's too long, but is is all over the internet, several pages of it, give it a try & come back & tell us how your WMAP skills proved Einstein's math is wrong.

......and "the WMAP data which seems to", is your best dodge around your dismal math skills. I know far better than you what the WMAP is.


No you don't,


......oh yes I do, because I'm the Engineer with the math/physics skills outnumbered by the general population from which you come & proclaim bright nodes on interstellar gas clouds prove an infinitely flat universe.

because you don't need complex math to get the principle they're employing to show the geometry


....and this premise should supercede the premise of Einstein's GR?


Aug 21, 2014
just like Baud, ryg, antiG and the others of your ilk above, NO EMPIRICAL evidence means PSEUDOSCIENCE
Also, the lack of empirical evidence often means just the fact, that this evidence is already recognized under different names. The fluids and gases are spreading the energy in waves - and the vacuum spreads the light in waves, i.e. evidence for elastic inertial character of vacuum (without elasticity the waves would decay fast, without inertia the waves would be of infinite frequency). The fluids and gases exhibit the Brownian noise - well, and the vacuum exhibits the quantum noise as the Cassimir force indicates - something is colliding and swirling inside of it. You would have actually quite a problem to demonstrate, the vacuum is an empty stuff. I'm convinced, that if the superfluids would be known in the time of M-M experiment, then its (zero) result would be simply attributed to superfluidity of aether and the contemporary physics would appear quite differently.

Aug 21, 2014
Regarding those Nazca lines, my last post was a book list relating to the topic on that page. Some of those books were written by an individual who dedicated 60 years of his life to the translation of the cuneiform script on relatively recently discovered ancient Sumerian kiln-fired clay tablets belonging to a retard troll
Bingo.

"A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
How this relates to this article

It doesnt. Idiot troll.

Aug 21, 2014
....of course it's the reason, or you'd do it.


No, not knowing calculus isn't the reason I don't want to get into a shouting match with a two year old. It's EXACTLY the same situation with you...but you do seem to be calming down a bit...

........it's too long, but is is all over the internet, several pages of it, give it a try & come back & tell us how your WMAP skills proved Einstein's math is wrong.


So, you can't really explain it then? Even though you said you could?

......oh yes I do, because I'm the Engineer with the math/physics skills outnumbered by the general population from which you come & proclaim bright nodes on interstellar gas clouds prove an infinitely flat universe.


The one who says he can prove NASA's interpretation of WMAP data is wrong, but really can't do it at all?

....and this premise should supercede the premise of Einstein's GR?


Observation always supersedes theory. If you have a different take on the DATA then share it.

Aug 21, 2014
The dense aether model is not the only victim of this kind of ignorant attitude, the string theorists suffer with it too. We already have dozens of evidence of extradimensions, for example from existence of short-distance forces, which are violating the inverse square law for gravity (the dispersion forces, Cassimir force, etc.) Just because these forces are already known under another names they're generally ignored in search for extradimensions - which is particularly ridiculous trait of contemporary theoretical physics.

Aug 21, 2014
@buadrunner

Everything you post is pseudoscience, fantasy and wishful thinking.

Aug 21, 2014
Observation always supersedes theory. If you have a different take on the DATA then share it
Of course, but It's important to judge only the raw data, not their interpretation, which may be already biased. For example, the observation of zero fringe shift in M-M experiment are such a raw DATA - the deduction of absence of aether or reference frame or whatever else from these data is already interpretation of this result, which may be theoretically biased by itself so it cannot supersede any theory.

Also, as I already explained above, even the statistical analysis of data may be a subject of bias. The zero occurrence of ball lightning doesn't mean very much, if it was deduced from statistical analysis, which zeroed some occasional observations. Therefore the DATA concept is not so straightforward, as one may think.

Aug 21, 2014
Lessons for Trolls,

To make a conservative angry, Tell them a lie.
To make a progressive angry, Tell them the truth.

Aug 21, 2014
It implies, that the conservatives are exceptionally honest, which I'm not quite willing to believe. I even think the main quality one needs to be a conservative is the ability to BELIEVE in two mutually contradictory things at the same time.
The conservatives just tend to believe in opinions already established by tradition (which are usually well proven, but sometimes not). Progressive have false sense of uniqueness, conservatives have a false sense of consensus.

Aug 21, 2014
Toi, I like your point. Do I believe everything someone who says they are a conservative says? No. Do I believe that everything a Progressive says is a lie? No.

However that said, let's take a look at some general Conservative ideals, with a caveat that if you are a conservative and someone who says they are a conservative violates those ideals, they should be called out and compare them with Progressive ideals,

Conservative: Honesty, Integrity, ends do not justify the means, people are equal in value, people are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Progressive ideals are, uniformity of the masses, ends justify the means, people need to be lead by enlightened leaders.

So who would you trust more with something you value very much? Someone whom you have seen leading the conservative lifestyle, or someone whom you have observed leading the progressive lifestyle?

Aug 21, 2014
Personally, I don't understand, why the progressives/conservatives are disputed here so much, as the article topic is rather orthogonal to this duality. Of course the trolls tend to be progressive, whereas the scientists who are ignoring them manifest their conservatism, but just at the case of global warming controversy these roles are inverted (most of "deniers" are conservative skeptics). So that the division to progressives and conservatives doesn't help the discussion very much. After all, we can observe many examples in the recent time, when the roles of conservatives and progressives in science are getting inverted in the same way, like we face the generation inversion in research of controversial topics (creationism, cold fusion, water clusters, parapsychology). These areas are generally researched with old conservative chaps, whereas the young "progressives" remain skeptical and actually more conservative in this matter, than their opponents.

Aug 21, 2014
Toi, I like your point. Do I believe everything someone who says they are a conservative says? No. Do I believe that everything a Progressive says is a lie? No
Ya know, Im thinking ft is the progenitor of a long line of particularly insipid troll suckpuppets. I used to have a particularly unsavory selection of ordure from this sp clown on my profile page. Sucking up to her fellow downtrodden - a dead giveaway.

Aug 21, 2014
Otto, I haven't been keeping up lately on who is a sockpuppet, but if I recall correctly you were a great sockpuppet master. Progressives are well known to use sockpuppets while accusing others.

NOM
Aug 21, 2014
@Eikka
I (mostly) disagree with your statement:
When you're doing it for any other end, it's not trolling. The person may be a crank, a fool, a paid shill, ignorant, stupid, anything - but not a troll.

By your definition Zephir (Toiea... whatever) is just a crank, or stupid. While he is both of those, his number of banned accounts are now well into triple figures. That's troll behaviour.
By your definition ryggesogn2 is just stupid. Again true, but his willful ignorance and use of most the tactics detailed in the article define him as the troll he is.
However, your definition does work for Uncle Ira who is neither stupid nor a crank, but does occasionally behave like a troll (albeit on the side of light).

Aug 21, 2014
Why not to refrain of troll/crackpot labeling and remain on topic with arguments only? Under such a situation it will become immediately apparent, who is troll and who isn't. The troll labeling is nothing else but an ad-hominem fallacy. It doesn't bring any actual content into Socratic discussion. Even if it would be perfectly clear, who is troll and who isn't - how it could change the need for arguing his posts? Such a need must by judged individually anyway ("even the blind chicken can find its corn").

NOM
Aug 21, 2014
@Zeph,
Since when have you ever remained "on topic"?
Do you genually think that you aren't a troll?

Aug 21, 2014
Of course I'm not very sure about it, so I wouldn't discuss it here.

NOM
Aug 21, 2014
Good answer Zeph. You get a 5 for that. I have given you one once before, but it was accidental.

On ratings. The physorg ratings system has spawned its own version of trolls.
The worst example of this was Noumenon. On the surface he merely fitted Eikka's category of "ignorant". But he was eventually caught out with (and eventually admitted to) having at least 50 sockpuppets that he used to uprate everything he posted and to downrate people he disagreed with.

Aug 21, 2014
No, not knowing calculus isn't the reason I don't want to get into a shouting match with a two year old.


I'll admit, I was a little more than 2 yrs old when took my first calculus course.

It's too long, but is is all over the internet, several pages of it, give it a try & come back & tell us how your WMAP skills proved Einstein's math is wrong.


So, you can't really explain it then? Even though you said you could?


Why do you think you need me to explain it? You're having a problem with Einstein explaining it? Go to a Relativity website & get busy, you don't need to lean on me as the crutch for you're inability to understand General Relativity.

Observation always supersedes theory.


Einstein put forth his GR thesis before the first galaxy was observed beyond our own. His math proved expansion of the universe should exist, also the existence of black holes, at first even he questioned his own premises, today GR is the premise of gravity & energy.

Aug 21, 2014
the division to progressives and conservatives doesn't help the discussion very much.

Yes it does.
Especially when AGWites accuse those who are skeptical are in they employ of some corporation.
While the AGWite professionals are employed by the govt and are able to use the power of the state to plunder and coerce, aka 'progressivism'.

Aug 21, 2014
"Cherry picking" a few studies and ignoring the bulk of the literature is obviously a common debating tactic, both online and in the media.


@Modern......and it is this statement by Brown right at the outset that goes to the heart of your premise that WMAP data has been "observed" to prove the universe is "flat & infinite", an oxymoron term which by definition is completely incongruous in etymology, but of course with your math skills you wouldn't know what I'm even talking about, however with your abundance of malicious trolling company on this site, I have no doubt how comfortable you feel denying the language of science.

Do you recognize an "oxymoron" terminology when you read it? Look it up, then come back & try explaining why "flat infinite universe" is not an oxymoron term & troll that around to the praise of so many of the rest of the "hate science" trolls who dominate this site.

Aug 21, 2014
I have to agree with some, that "troll" isn't a particularly helpful word. It's imprecise, can be used by anyone to mean anything, and so will be exploited by trolls most easily.

Look what they did with "Global Dying" within an hour. Galileo, Newton, Feynman are all subverted by the people you're trying to identify. "Propagandist", they turn on its head. They even call what they do "Science". Their tools are lampoon and spoof, Big Lie repetition and their conditions are projection and Dunning-Krueger syndrome.

The term you're searching for is "Nescient". The nescient are attracted to the idea of doubt, uncertainty, one-sided skepticism, feigned hypotheses they then 'confirm' by cherry-picking the data most likely to reflect well on their invalid case, and using fallacious reasoning to bolster their claims. They'll poke holes in better arguments with irrelevancies and focus on noise and the least-good forms of data, in forums stacked to favour their own cheerleaders.

"Nescient".

NOM
Aug 21, 2014
Nullscient would be more appropriate for the likes of Zephir.

Aug 22, 2014
Then there are trolls who use appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not really an authority. The vast overwhelming community of physicists is a real authority. Pretending they're not is the fallacy.

Aug 22, 2014
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not really an authority. The vast overwhelming community of physicists is a real authority. Pretending they're not is the fallacy.


....another true but colossal blunder you have made on this social networking site dominated by the likes of Modernmystic, Stumpy/Ira, Vietvet, and the rest of the "downvoting science trolls" who outnumber those of us who've seen a lot of differential equations we know how to solve.

.... "cherry picked data" by this bunch all over the place along with threats made by them to ping, hack & phish ISP accounts to shout & shut down the premises of those with a demonstrable background in the most challenging fields of scientific endeavors, to shut down those who would dare raise a dispute with them over their ability to come to a science site & use the language of science but who instead use the language vulgarity & ping hacking threats to shut down scientific discourse.

Aug 22, 2014
I'll admit, I was a little more than 2 yrs old when took my first calculus course.


It's unfortunate you never took a course in social skills.

Why do you think you need me to explain it?


I must have incorrectly assumed you apply the same standards to yourself as you do to me. If you don't need to explain it then why all the drama? People like you CAUSE drama because they DO need to prove a point. If it wasn't a big deal you wouldn't have said anything to begin with....but you did.

Einstein put forth his GR thesis before the first galaxy was observed beyond our own.


What this has to do with observation superseding theory I don't know. It was observation that confirmed GR the robustness of GR. It's observation that can show its weakness too, after all it's not religious dogma is it.

(cont.)

Aug 22, 2014
but of course with your math skills you wouldn't know what I'm even talking about, however with your abundance of malicious trolling company on this site, I have no doubt how comfortable you feel denying the language of science.

Do you recognize an "oxymoron" terminology when you read it? Look it up, then come back & try explaining why "flat infinite universe" is not an oxymoron term & troll that around to the praise of so many of the rest of the "hate science" trolls who dominate this site.


And here is where we part ways. You don't want to discuss, you want to bully, call names, and cajole until someone agrees with you without you ever presenting a single argument or giving a single cogent explanation of your position.

Find someone else to work out your issues with. It's very obvious your identity and emotions are inured in this subject and you're over the top intense and defensive about it. I have no time for this level of immaturity. Good luck finding someone who will :)

Aug 22, 2014
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not really an authority.


Patently false.

http://en.wikiped...uthority

"Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[6]"

It doesn't matter what authority we're talking about at all. It's totally irrelevant to the fallacy.

This is why DISCUSSION and constant re-evaluation is necessary....unless of course you're a cult leader...

Aug 22, 2014
I quote CS Lewis not because he is expert but because I agree with him.
Comments about race from Ben Carson, are I believe, from an expert, and I agree with him for what he says.
It seems to be the 'liberals' who quickly attack any reasonable, or unreasonable, critique of AGWism as not from a 'climate scientist' and when that fails, he/she is a paid shill.
Noam Chomsky is a professional linguist. Why does anyone listen to him as a expert on any other endeavor? They agree with his politics.

Aug 22, 2014
Thanks, Stumpy. I don't believe my comment here was in any way trolling on this site
@baud
you are welcome
i know you don't... but did you read Brown's replies to your posts? did you understand what he wrote?
seeing as how you're off-topic
and exactly HOW is that?
Regarding those Nazca lines
tl;dr
AND it is off topic... go back to the Nazca thread and troll this comment there

"cherry picked data" by this bunch all over the place ...blah blah blah
@benni-haha
are you STILL mad about being taught the differences between the PM function and the comment link at the bottom of every page?
you sure do hold a grudge... and usually i include links for proof, unlike a lot of your posts. that is not cherry picking, that is PROVING a point... sorry you can't read or get that. and that you don't know how to combat phishing and read links before you use them
maybe taking some computer classes will help

If you will notice, i upvote LEGIT comments, even from YOU

Aug 22, 2014
AGWites accuse those who are skeptical
@rygtard
actually, some of those "AGWites" as you call them are or were skeptics themselves, for one

for two, you are NOT a skeptic if you IGNORE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, you are a moron, a troll and being blatantly stupid

and lastly, we've been able to PROVE that anti-global warming groups are being employed and paid to sow FUD and try to undermine the science with scientific studies! http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

where is your PROOF, with empirical data showing otherwise? and blogs and opinion sites don't count... conspiracy sites are a dime a dozen... and you are the worst troll ever about THAT crap. all irrelevant links and NO EMPIRICAL DATA

Aug 22, 2014
Stumpy/Ira, Vietvet, and the rest of the "downvoting science trolls" who outnumber those of us who've seen a lot of differential equations we know how to solve
@benni and the jets
first off, there is Captain Stumpy, and there is Ira... two separate people.
and it can be proved. but you would rather listen to TROLLS than empirical evidence regarding that... your choice

secondly... you are making claims above without proof or empirical evidence, so that comment is TROLLING, because you cannot prove ANY of it

lastly, I am here for the SCIENCE
i don't care about popularity, only that it is correct and can be proven. I admit when I make mistakes, and i will ridicule people like YOU when you make stupid mistakes but try to blame them on everyone else except yourself (the originator of the mistake)

I will UPVOTE a post based on what I believe it to be> accurate or not.
I've upvoted even you, uba, zephir, and other trolls when I thought it was correct... sorry benni
that post FAILED

Aug 22, 2014
Then there are trolls who use appeal to authority.
@modmystic
Like DaSchneib said...
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not really an authority. The vast overwhelming community of physicists is a real authority. Pretending they're not is the fallacy.
ALSO... regarding some comments you made about that... appeal to authority is often accused when the person uses a link with studies and empirical data... what then?
especially regarding THIS part
appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence
I am appealing to the EVIDENCE, not the authority of the link when i use a link. there is a HUGE difference.

so whining about appeal to authority when proved wrong on a subject is only the TROLL or idiots way of backpedaling and trying to save face... deal with it and accept defeat and learn.

Aug 22, 2014
Some people spend just too much damn time on this site. Not to disparage their reasons for being here, it seems that when they're not trollin', they're rollin', so go ahead and have your fun. I can always go outside and play.

It's pretty tough to satisfy the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE freaks when they insist there isn't any even after providing link after link, and material evidence after material evidence, and book lists for their reading revelations (they seem to have all the time in the world so why don't they give those books a chance?).

So, what to their minds would constitute EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of ancient astronauts short of having them land on their roofs and giving them a ride in a flying saucer? Honestly, I would like to know. Doesn't archeological evidence count as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE?

I swear, the worst trolls here are the people who continue to disparage, critique, and basically lambast the ideas of others. You know who you are.


Aug 22, 2014
So, if there's no explanation for certain archeological finds, and too many experts admit to that fact, then any proposal offered for consideration becomes an exercise in trolling? Lighten up people.

I never get mad at anyone who posts, no matter what they say, merely amused at the enthusiasm with which they respond to what they consider to be off-the-wall ideas. Sure, we can get pretty wacky, it takes all kinds. I'm pretty sure that someday the nay-sayers will eat their hats when E.T. comes a-knockin', mark my words.

Aug 22, 2014
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not really an authority. The vast overwhelming community of physicists is a real authority. Pretending they're not is the fallacy.
We already listened it about Holy Church in the medieval times. Such a large number of priests simply cannot get wrong - especially when their main motivation is just to to continue in their bellowed work and preaching... What the heck could get wrong here? BTW For further reading: 1, 2, 3.

Aug 22, 2014
blogs and opinion sites don't count..

When all the media is biased towards AGWism, the only solution are web logs.
After Martin Luther posted his 95 theses and the Bible was printed in a language people could read and understand, the power of the Catholic church dimmed.
With the internet, gatekeeping journals with 'pal' review can, and are being bypassed.

Aug 22, 2014
BTW It's difficult to judge the silent majority of scientist, but their loudest proponents are as prone to Dunning-Krueger effect, as the isolated trolls. They're so biased, so they even cannot realize, how biased they are. Another hidden danger is the size of their community. When everyone around you gets biased, then it's not easy for you to realize, you're biased too. It's sorta risk of frog boiled in the warm water (external D-K effect). Another sources of groupthink are already well described in social psychology: the pluralistic ignorance, the peer pressure, bystander effect, diffusion of responsibility, spiral of silence, etc... The scientists already described the cognitive risks of their community well - they just "forget" to apply them to itself.

Aug 22, 2014
The govt pushes AGWism.
The govt lies, empirical data:
"TSA Admits Lying About Illegal Aliens Flying Without Proper ID"
http://www.breitb...ar-Forms

Aug 22, 2014
I swear, the worst trolls here are the people who continue to disparage, critique, and basically lambast the ideas of others
@baud
no... the worst trolls are the ones like YOU and zeph that post things that are CONJECTURE and expect others to accept it as proven fact.

no evidence is NO EVIDENCE
if there is no empirical evidence then there is no decision to be made. it is an OPEN question, moron... not PROOF that aliens are here. PERIOD
that is the FALLACY right there... the assumption that given no proof AGAINST something, it MUST be real.
When all the media is biased towards AGWism
@rygtard
yep. the whole world is biased and out to get you

NSA just messaged us the other day to keep you posting so it is easier to track you

Aug 22, 2014
The govt pushes AGWism.
The govt lies, empirical data:
"TSA Admits Lying About Illegal Aliens Flying Without Proper ID"
http://www.breitb...ar-Forms
@ryg
Wow...
just wow

there is only one problem with that...
when we argue with you about AGW, we use SCIENCE, STUDIES and EMPIRICAL DATA... not government links, sites, or government pronouncements

guess that sinks your conspiracy theory right there...

By the way... NSA told me to tell you to stop posting naked... the girl analysts are getting sick

Aug 22, 2014
Here is a good example of fallacious debunking by figures of authority - in this case respected Egyptologists, who to my mind know no more than you or I about the subject - who refuse evidence that threatens their world view so as to maintain the existing paradigm, which is that we are alone in the Universe and that God made it so. The explanation that they provide for these cartouche carvings is beyond lame, nay, conjecture pure and simple, since they are very clear and precisely carved to represent exactly what they are, otherwise they would not have been so designed. Stumpy and Otto happily keep their company. Sad.

http://en.wikiped...roglyphs


Aug 22, 2014
no evidence is NO EVIDENCE if there is no empirical evidence then there is no decision to be made
The fact, you're refusing to accept this evidence, doesn't mean, that the megabytes of my arguments don't exist. You're just in position of Galileo opponents, who simply refused to look at this telescope for evidence of heliocentric system.

Aug 22, 2014
we use SCIENCE, STUDIES and EMPIRICAL DATA...

All 'peer' reviewed by those who have stated they will keep dissenting work from being published.
M&M weren't allowed to be published for their critique of Mann.
A US senator forced the NAS to listen to the M&M and NAS agreed with much of their work.

What's great about science is one factual observation can destroy centuries of dogma.


Aug 22, 2014
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not really an authority. The vast overwhelming community of physicists is a real authority. Pretending they're not is the fallacy.


Pretending that because they know more than a layman that they are infallible absolutely is a fallacy. I'm honestly (no sarcasm) not understanding how someone who is obviously intelligent can not get such a simple concept. This is non controversial, logical, and widely accepted.

So, anyone trying to sidestep this fallacy is left with two choices;

Either accept that the authorities on logical argument have it correct and your argument is fallacious...using your own premise mind you.

Or that the authorities on logical argument have it wrong and that proves the fallacy correct...and your argument is still fallacious.

Authority (ANY authority) qua authority does not make an opinion a fact, no matter how you look at it.
(cont)...

Aug 22, 2014
ALSO... regarding some comments you made about that... appeal to authority is often accused when the person uses a link with studies and empirical data... what then?


Empirical data is not authority. Interpretation of empirical data by authority can absolutely give a fallacious conclusion. Can it not?

Now, TRY your level damnedest not to get defensive about this. I'm NOT talking about AGW, I'm talking about premises here. This is not personal...

I am appealing to the EVIDENCE, not the authority of the link when i use a link. there is a HUGE difference.


Indeed, if you are appealing to raw evidence I agree. If you're referring to an interpretation then you're not referring to a fact. I think most reasonable people give more weight to such interpretations than not, but anyone who confers the status of FACT to such interpretations is another HUGE difference.
(cont)

Aug 22, 2014
so whining about appeal to authority when proved wrong on a subject is only the TROLL or idiots way of backpedaling and trying to save face... deal with it and accept defeat and learn.


Nothing is proved by authority. You seem to think of this as more of an argument rather than a discussion and look at it in terms of winning and losing. Quite honestly that's a less mature way of looking at it than other ways. People don't learn by "accepting defeat", you have to convince them, and if you can't well...so what? Does that change reality or your feelings on the issue? If not, then why use such abrasive, defensive, and confrontational terms. Doing so tends to mean that you yourself aren't convinced of your argument and need agreement for reassurance.

Aug 22, 2014
I'm NOT talking about AGW, I'm talking about premises here. This is not personal...

You assume AGW is personal? If so, why?

Aug 22, 2014
@ Bennie-Skippy I am the independent operator. I come here alone and leave here alone too. I give you the bad karma votes because you say the things I don't believe. The reasons I don't believe them is because you repeated the same things every time you make the postum.

You keep telling everybody that you are the nuclear-engineer-Skippy as if that means they got to take your word for every thing you say. But you don't say the things like a real nuclear-engineer-Skippy would say. You don't sound like a nuclear-engineer-Skippy.

You keep telling everybody that your ideas are the same as Einstein's like that means your ideas got to be right. Even the not scientist-Skippy like me knows that don't mean much because even the Einstein-Skippy admitted he got a lot stuffs wrong.

Saying the different equations over and over don't mean you really know what they mean or how to do them.

You sound like you are pretending because of what you don't say to go along with what you do say.

Aug 22, 2014
I like to think that I have inspired this story. i don't want to sound arrogant, but I think I am correct about what I write.

Aug 22, 2014
I like to think that I have inspired this story. i don't want to sound arrogant, but I think I am correct about what I write.


Non Skippy, don't worry about sounding arrogant Cher. But you do sound like you are begging for a silly looking pointy cap to wear.

Aug 22, 2014
I am correct in what I write. Most of the news stories about The Big Bomg, quantum mechanics, Higgs Boson etc, are all experiments and theories created by people who are comsidered by many to be all knowing fantasy level smart peple and we have to accept their word. Being a troll gives everyone the opportunity to argue that they don't know shit, and there are better alternatives.

Aug 22, 2014
Often attacks on science employ logic so flawed that it would be laughable in everyday life. If I said my car was blue, and thus no cars are red, you would be unimpressed. And yet when non-experts discuss science, such flawed logic is often employed.

most of the "experts" are not experts.

Aug 22, 2014
Plenty of trolling in the comments of course. In particular, emotionally charged claims thrown around without evidence.

One interesting misreading of this article (and others I've written) that I've seen online is that I'm claiming amateurs cannot contribute to science, which isn't true. A recent example of amateurs contributing to science is the detection of novae, which I have written about previously for The Conversation. Amateurs can certainly contribute to mainstream science.

What one has to be suspicious of is people with minimal science competency (certain trolls, journalists and politicians) shopping for a small minority of experts whose conclusions happen to suit a particular agenda. If those people cannot evaluate the data and methods, why are they selecting that minority of experts?

Aug 22, 2014
(certain trolls, journalists and politicians)

Like, who?
And you have no agenda?

Aug 22, 2014
Quote mining is a classic tactic, as removing words from their context (a full sentence or paragraph) can change their emphasis or meaning.

People have their agendas (myself included). I want the most robust science to inform policy.

As noted above, one has to be suspicious of those who cannot evaluate the data and methods, and yet select a tiny minority of experts over a larger number of equally (or more) qualified experts.

Aug 22, 2014
As noted above, one has to be suspicious of those who cannot evaluate the data and methods, and yet select a tiny minority of experts over a larger number of equally (or more) qualified experts.


.....and what frequently occurs on this site is that those who have evaluated the data(eq, Einstein's GR), found it to be precise (Einstein's GR), are impuned to the point of being threatened by a loud & vulgar gaggle of groupies who can't solve a trigonometric function much less an exercise in calculus.......now this is a group "to be suspicious of".

Aug 22, 2014
I want the most robust science to inform policy.

What policy?
Do you choose a policy and find the 'science' to support it, or, should quality science determine the facts independent of any policy?
IPCC was created to use 'science' to support policy.

NOM
Aug 23, 2014
rygtard2, this is yet another sliming example of you taking a statement completely out of context.
Do you have some sort of reading disorder?
Were you repeatedly dropped on your head as a child?
Have you forgotten to take your meds again?

Aug 23, 2014
Now, TRY your level damnedest not to get defensive about this. I'm NOT talking about AGW, I'm talking about premises here. This is not personal
@MM
not taking anything personal. and I understand your statement, and there is truth to it...
I just don't think that you can assume that the information is incorrect unless you can PROVE it is incorrect. and THAT is the essence of my post.

MANY people argue that links to empirical studies/ etc are not proof, and that the subject is not correct (see zephir argue against daw when i posted links proving aether wrong for proof of that statement) but nowhere is there any evidence of a like type, subjected to the same rigors of the scientific method refuting this either.

THEREIN lies the problem that I have with the comment

UNTIL there is refuting evidence from a like source, empirical and reviewed with the same rigor and using the same processes as the study, then it is simply conjecture and therefore irrelevant as proof.

Aug 23, 2014
You seem to think of this as more of an argument rather than a discussion and look at it in terms of winning and losing
@MM
no, i think of it as presenting science and empirical evidence and then everything else. the biggest problem with certain TROLLS is that they cannot recognize empirical evidence in their face (try looking at the Nazca lines story here on PO for proof of that: http://phys.org/n...orm.html )
a less mature way of looking at it than other ways. People don't learn by "accepting defeat"
They learn by accepting reality. But anyone who refuses to accept reality deserves scorn and ridicule, IMHO. there is no argument that WILL get through to these people... so at that point, like the Nazca point, it comes down to what can be proven. and links to empirical data can be proven... conjecture and delusional beliefs cannot

and as for some trolls... most of my comments are carefully crafted to elicit a response for my study
its fun

Aug 23, 2014
his is funny if you're drunk. Most of his rope theory is crap though. But at least he's not trying to prove that he's smart by being duped into needing to beliee(understand) every bit of nonsense thrown at us by "brand name scientists"

https://www.youtu...ydkWLIkk

Aug 23, 2014
Why it's so easy to tie AGWism with 'liberalism':

"So says environmental activist Deirdre Smith of left-wing pressure group 350.org. In an editorial written for Common Dreams ("Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community"), she claims that it "isn't hard" to link the current tensions in Ferguson, Missouri with global warming.

She writes:

When crisis hits, the underlying racism in our society comes to the surface in very clear ways. Climate change is bringing nothing if not clarity to the persistent and overlapping crises of our time.
"http://www.breitb...nk-again

Aug 23, 2014
I want the most robust science to inform policy.

It's a subtle but important point.
Govt funded science gets the answers the govt wants to hear, if they want more funding.
The science behind the Keystone pipeline informed the state to proceed.
"Former Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Monday the decision to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline is a political one, and not one founded in science."
"Chu served as Obama's Energy secretary from 2009 to last April. He's now a physics professor at Stanford University in California. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. "
http://thehill.co...olitical

Aug 23, 2014
Poor communities are going to have the hardest time responding to natural disasters.

Right.
Why are they poor?
How does forcing the cost of energy higher, which AGWites are doing, make those poor communities less poor?
Increased wealth enables adaptability to climate, earthquakes, floods, ....
Why do AGWites want to make everyone poor?

Aug 23, 2014
Have you done any reading on the issue of institutionalized racism -

Who has institutionalized racism? 'Liberals'.

Aug 23, 2014
Which liberals? These progressive or conservative ones? The conservative liberals support liberty in private affairs, the progressive in these public ones.

Aug 23, 2014
Which liberals? These progressive or conservative ones? The conservative liberals support liberty in private affairs, the progressive in these public ones.

Those who call them 'liberals': democrats, 'progressives', socialists, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, CNN, MSNBC, ...

Aug 23, 2014
As noted above, one has to be suspicious of those who cannot evaluate the data and methods, and yet select a tiny minority of experts over a larger number of equally (or more) qualified experts.


.....and who resort to this manner of commentary when challenged to prove their proficiency in the language of science, below quote from Stumpy:

"ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on

you don't have anything of value to me.

and AGAIN! MORE PROOF that you are not an electrical engineer! LOL
YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT about computers!"

.......even going so far as to make threats to hack another persons IP account, steal personal information for the purpose of phishing. This above quote from C Stumpy & his language is precisely the problem that rules the discourse here at PhysOrg.

Aug 23, 2014
I don't see racism as something that either liberals - or conservatives, or any other group are exclusively responsible for.


Who supports Affirmative Action (institutional racism)?
Guess you never heard of Strom Thurmond.

Ever hear of Robert Byrd? 'Liberal' senator from WV who was a Grand Dragon in the KKK.
"The Republican base that Steve Israel says is animated by racism, nominated me -- an American of African descent and a great grandson of slaves -- for Lt. Governor of Virginia. They embraced me warmly, treated me respectfully and supported me enthusiastically. The liberal media on the other hand set out to destroy me. My white Democrat opponent was even caught on camera refusing to shake my hand. The new racism is very different in style from the old, but the same in substance. The old racists liked blacks who knew their place and stayed in it. The new racists behave exactly the same, but define our "place" as the Democrat liberal camp."
http://americanthinker.com/

Aug 23, 2014
" neither Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, nor the liberal elites who prop them up represent the true values of the black community. Most black folks oppose abortion, support traditional marriage and favor school choice. Black leaders ignore these facts and dance to the tune of their liberal benefactors. My convictions come from my proud black father who took me out of foster care, raised me as a single Dad and never took a dime of government assistance. They come from my church upbringing which taught me to trust God, not government. Black conservatives want to break the cycle of poverty in the black community, not use it to perpetuate the grievance industry. Who are the real sell-outs? Who are the real racists?""
by E.W. Jackson is the former Republican Nominee for Lt. Governor of Virginia. He is a Marine Corps Veteran, graduate of Harvard Law School, President of STAND, Bishop of The Called Church and Senior Fellow of the Family Research Council.

Aug 23, 2014
and who resort to this manner of commentary when challenged to prove their proficiency in the language of science, below quote from Stumpy
@benni and the tards
you really should add the rest of the conversation into the mix... show people the WHOLE conversation.
I was making a POINT that you are computer illiterate, as well as insignificant and irrelevant.

when you do NOT have the ability to share linguistic verbiage and technical information which is widely available regarding a technical or scientific subject, it is very obvious to those who DO have the ability, as you so repeatedly like to point out regarding differential equations. my comment was pretty much saying to you: "you don't know squat about computers" and anyone who IS computer literate recognizes your illiteracy and inabilities.

IOW - go take some freaking classes and stop being an idiot

Aug 23, 2014
even going so far as to make threats to hack another persons IP account, steal personal information for the purpose of phishing. This above quote from C Stumpy & his language is precisely the problem that rules the discourse here at PhysOrg
@benni haha
and if you will notice... this is not a threat... this is telling you that you don't know computers...and telling you that it is far easier to get your personal info than you think.

it also pretty much says you are not worth it because you are not able to post legitimate information about a subject that has widely disseminated information that can be EASILY GOOGLED... which makes you look even stupider. that is why it says
if I wanted to
and
you don't have anything of value to me


you really DON'T KNOW SQUAT about computers, and should refrain from trying to make people think you DO know something

again: you cherry pick a quote without context... TROLLING just like the article says above.

benni the TROLL?

Aug 23, 2014
....again: you cherry pick a quote without context...


.......quoted it exactly as you wrote it.

The problem is your mindset, if you're thinking those things, you're wishing you could do them, and you would if you could. You brag that with your computer skills you could do it if you wanted to. The problem is that your braggadocio is not congruent with your computer skills or you'd know that "pinging" ISP's cannot result in the end result you wished you could get, hacking IP accounts. You don't have the computer engineering skills for that, in lieu of which you resort to trolling.

Aug 23, 2014
quoted it exactly as you wrote it
@benni haha
but you left out the context... like i said... present the WHOLE argument... show how stupid you were being
The problem is your mindset... you would if you could
Actually, I CAN do them, but why would I bother with you? THAT was my point above, sparky.
"pinging" ISP's cannot result in the end result you wished
Pinging is talking to an ISP to establish it is there and then you can establish availability of connection and it can give you a host of information including transfer speed etc...TRAP/TRACE is a method of securing IP addresses, which CAN, in certain circumstances, track to your address (in MY circumstance, you will end up about 80 miles from my laptop IF you get my current IP addy that is used for connection. I have a dynamic IP and I also choose to use other masking agents like TOR to hide my IP from idiots on-line because I know what IS out there
as long as you know a profile and time on line, you can secure its IP

Aug 23, 2014
You don't have the computer engineering skills for that, in lieu of which you resort to trolling.
@benni the moron
and this is typical trolling comment trying to entice me into doing what?
snatch your IP address? hack your system? what?
by the way, mr electrical engineer... if you are that good at computers, how come you couldn't tell the difference between a PM on this site and the CONTACT link at the bottom of the page... which is likely where you posted the above conversation from.
Why not post the ENTIRE CONVERSATION showing your own weaknesses? or is that too hard on your ego?

at least I can admit when I make mistakes, benni
all you do is throw around words like "differential equations" like it means something important... it only means that you are mathematically inclined ...so what?

now, given that you still want to play... why NOT PM me at sciforums and/or another site?
take your chance... you are an EE I can't be a threat to YOU
per your "wisdom" above

benni=TROLL

Aug 23, 2014
I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on
@benni the tard
and just because i wrote it in the same line does NOT mean that it is the same function... now THIS is something that I would expect from someone who does NOT know computers. ASSUMPTIONS about pinging and getting an IP address without knowing what is what and what each function is capable of...
if you will remember, I've also said that I can use trap/trace to get your IP before in another conversation.

and THIS is just what I meant by "YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT COMPUTERS"

you know, your local community center or Jr. college has free classes for stupid folk like you to take lessons on the computer and learn a little...
perhaps you should join some classes?
you might just learn something important... like about how to use a firewall? anti-virus?online protection? Symantec?

go LEARN

Aug 23, 2014
and as for some trolls... most of my comments are carefully crafted to elicit a response for my study
its fun

AHA! Gotcha. Proof that Cap'n Stumpy is a troll, for baiting the trolls is a violation of posting rules on this forum.

Well, so what. He's right. It *is* fun. I can get him right riled up.

Incidentally, no-one here need fear anybody finding out their IP address. Reboot your machine or click your connection off and back on again, and you get a new IP address automatically. The only computers vulnerable to this type of hacking are the ones that are left on 24/7.

Aug 23, 2014
"Byrd's racist history drew attention recently
when he went on national television and repeatedly used the n-word, one
of the most vicious racial slurs in existence, in an appearance on national
television. Byrd uttered the slur on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow on
March 5, 2001. Despite the appalling nature of the remark, it went largely
ignored by the mainstream media and the self appointed "civil rights" leadership.
Whereas a similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator
would assuredly prompt the likes of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest rallies
demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was eerily quiet following Byrd's
remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd should avoid making
such bigoted remarks."
Read more at http://www.livele...1Vrhd.99
'Liberals' tolerate racists if they are 'liberal'.

Aug 23, 2014
""The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes." -- Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002 "
"Hymies.' 'Hymietown.' -- Jesse Jackson's description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail. "
"1) "(Obama's) a nice person, he's very articulate this is what's been used against him, but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic." -- Dan Rather"
"8) "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." -- Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights"
"11) "Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies." -- Abortionist Ashutosh Ron Virmani"

Aug 23, 2014
" 20) "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." -- Joe Biden

21) "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street." -- Spike Lee"
"23) "We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go." -- Marion Barry"

"Liberals need racist foes to vanquish. Most of the time they have to resort to finding them where they obviously aren't there."
"Most incredible to liberals, however, is our claim that good economic policy (especially when combined with a well-ordered social structure) is actually good for everyone. We're not all jockeying for the same pot of goods. It isn't a zero-sum game. More opportunity for me can mean more prosperity for you, and vice-versa. We can all win."
http://thefederal...-racist/

Aug 23, 2014
the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in existence
..wasn't always that way. The word comes from the name of the country where early in world history most European visitors, primarily the Dutch, first met black people, and that is Nigeria. To call people from Nigeria "Neegers" was no different that calling people from America "Amerikaaners", or people from Canada "Kanadees". Today, African Americans are offended by the use of the word "Negro", which is Anglification of the word "Neeger", or "people from Nigeria". Perversion of that word leading to the n-word began in America.

In fact, racism is fairly new in our history, and its roots lie largely in the Americas. My maternal grandmother's grandfather was black, and she was of stout Dutch stock. Black princes and nobles mingled freely in European culture among the elite before, and during the slave trade era.

Aug 23, 2014
Why they are poor:
"For the first time in American history during a supposed economic expansion, real after tax income fell by -5.9%. "
"Following the supposed recovery beginning in June 2009, real household income for African-American households was worse at -7.7% than the national average. But holders of college two-year Associates Degree have been crushed with real household income down -9.8%. The only households to experience an increase in real income during the period were those 65 and older, who saw an average gain of +5.8%."
" From this analysis, Americans have lost real income gains during an economic recovery for the first time in American history. The worst impacted during the Obama Administration have been his key constituencies of those who are single, with some college education, and African-Americans. "
http://www.breitb...er-Obama

Aug 23, 2014
Why would you ever bother linking to garbage like Breitbart? Especially on a science website? There is no greater purveyor of misinformation on the entire internet, people who never read or watch or listen to the news are more well-informed than people who read Breitbart.