Select to expand quotecammd said..>>>What your suggesting is reporting one side only and actively suppressing contray opinion to support a belief you have to change the status quo in the direction you think is correct. Pretty much the same as the inquisition or a modern totalitarian government.
I'm suggesting nothing.
Merely posting "The Conversations" Editorial about their intentions. I do however support their right to do so.
To suggest that any news agency should be forced to do otherwise is also totalitarian
And the gay marriage debate, was a moral issue, every member of society should carry equal weight in that sort of debate.
Climate change is highly scientific, the majority of society have no qualifications to make any decisions in the matter. The politicians should get their facts from the scientists, not vested interests, who are pushing ideas detrimental to the whole of society.
And as politicians, unless very brave, do what the polls tell them they need to do to stay in power.
Why Rudd dumped his carbon tax I guess, this was made to look like it would cost people, so became too unpopular. Whereas in the long run a system that forces a product to be accountable for unwanted side effects would probably save taxpayers money.
So I guess I'm not feeling all that confident that democracy is the best way to handle climate change. But I'm not suggesting an alternative.
A benevolent dictatorship, that is inclusive, could work well, but how do you keep it benevolent????????
I think the younger generations are just going to have to cross their fingers and hope for the best.
Select to expand quotecammd said..decrepit said..cammd said.. PM33 didn't mention terrorism or racial vilification, he responded directly to your post about censoring contary opinion to man made climate change. Why rely on extremes to justify censoring legitimate arguments you disagree with.
His question is valid, whats next to be censored?
You don't get my meaning, what I'm saying is that editors are in charge of what they publish.
Choosing not to publish something happens all the time with media all sides of the spectrum.
My point is, should all media be forced to publish everything?
That's the only way you can change the status quo. And I've no idea how you would do it.
The status quo should be changes with facts and logic, whatever side of an argument wins that battle should sway the majority into supporting that side. Thats what happened with the marriage equality debate. Its called democracy and media should report both sides of that argument in order for the people to make a decision. We know different media outlets lean in different directions but overall we get to hear opposing views.
What your suggesting is reporting one side only and actively suppressing contray opinion to support a belief you have to change the status quo in the direction you think is correct. Pretty much the same as the inquisition or a modern totalitarian government.
nah, sometimes there is no "other side".......meaning the other side is false and irrelevant. an example of this is vaccinations causing autism. That proposition is false and should not be presented as "the other side".
Also, the idea that this is somehow a democratic decision is also wrong. It's a matter of science and to get a good correct outcome we need to follow the scientific consensus. So some dickhead on a forum that thinks that GW is a communist plot does not carry the same weight as a Climate scientist.
Select to expand quotelog man said..cammd said..decrepit said..cammd said.. PM33 didn't mention terrorism or racial vilification, he responded directly to your post about censoring contary opinion to man made climate change. Why rely on extremes to justify censoring legitimate arguments you disagree with.
His question is valid, whats next to be censored?
You don't get my meaning, what I'm saying is that editors are in charge of what they publish.
Choosing not to publish something happens all the time with media all sides of the spectrum.
My point is, should all media be forced to publish everything?
That's the only way you can change the status quo. And I've no idea how you would do it.
The status quo should be changes with facts and logic, whatever side of an argument wins that battle should sway the majority into supporting that side. Thats what happened with the marriage equality debate. Its called democracy and media should report both sides of that argument in order for the people to make a decision. We know different media outlets lean in different directions but overall we get to hear opposing views.
What your suggesting is reporting one side only and actively suppressing contray opinion to support a belief you have to change the status quo in the direction you think is correct. Pretty much the same as the inquisition or a modern totalitarian government.
nah, sometimes there is no "other side".......meaning the other side is false and irrelevant. an example of this is vaccinations causing autism. That proposition is false and should not be presented as "the other side".
Also, the idea that this is somehow a democratic decision is also wrong. It's a matter of science and to get a good correct outcome we need to follow the scientific consensus. So some dickhead on a forum that thinks that GW is a communist plot does not carry the same weight as a Climate scientist.
I think the pro vaccination argument versus the anti vaccination argument demostrates perfectly well what I said, that is let facts and logic win the argument rather than censorship.
As for climate scientist's, they are not infallible, just because they hyposthesis something does not mean its true or that it will come to pass. Scientific method itself calls on them to be skeptical of results, they must be measurable and repeatable, that is the fundamentals of science. There is a lot of hysteria going on, a lot of predictions have not eventuated and are not provable, a healthy skepticsm is just that, its healthy. It means your mind is open to listen to and evaluate alternative's.
What you want is to follow idea's based on your political beliefs and suppress, discount, ridicule or shout down any and all opposition. You do that with the self belief that your morally and ethically correct therefore your justified in your behaviour. Like I already said, you are the Leftard Taliban. I know you think you are trying to save the world but chill out a bit chicken little, it will still be here after your gone.
Select to expand quotecammd said..>>>> What you want is to follow idea's based on your political beliefs and suppress, discount, ridicule or shout down any and all opposition. You do that with the self belief that your morally and ethically correct therefore your justified in your behaviour. Like I already said, you are the Leftard Taliban. I know you think you are trying to save the world but chill out a bit chicken little, it will still be here after your gone.
Well not in my case, I have very little in the way of political beliefs, certainly neither left or right.
What get's me is very ill informed opinion being used in scientific debate.
Yes scientists are human and very definitely fallible, and a few made the mistake of emphasising the problem, (because nobody seemed to be listening), by exaggeration, etc. Thus reducing credibility.
But nothing is perfect in this World, we have to go with the best we have, and in this case it's the consensus of the World's climate scientists. Open debate involving anybody else will just distort the picture.
The fact a few predictions haven't occurred, or there have been dire warnings in the past, shouldn't come into it.
The potential for bad here is too big to be ignored.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said..>>>What your suggesting is reporting one side only and actively suppressing contray opinion to support a belief you have to change the status quo in the direction you think is correct. Pretty much the same as the inquisition or a modern totalitarian government.
I'm suggesting nothing.
Merely posting "The Conversations" Editorial about their intentions. I do however support their right to do so.
To suggest that any news agency should be forced to do otherwise is also totalitarian
And the gay marriage debate, was a moral issue, every member of society should carry equal weight in that sort of debate.
Climate change is highly scientific, the majority of society have no qualifications to make any decisions in the matter. The politicians should get their facts from the scientists, not vested interests, who are pushing ideas detrimental to the whole of society.
And as politicians, unless very brave, do what the polls tell them they need to do to stay in power.
Why Rudd dumped his carbon tax I guess, this was made to look like it would cost people, so became too unpopular. Whereas in the long run a system that forces a product to be accountable for unwanted side effects would probably save taxpayers money.
So I guess I'm not feeling all that confident that democracy is the best way to handle climate change. But I'm not suggesting an alternative.
A benevolent dictatorship, that is inclusive, could work well, but how do you keep it benevolent????????
I think the younger generations are just going to have to cross their fingers and hope for the best.
I agree news agencies should not be forced to publish everything however in the interest of being a "news" agency they should present alternative points of view, not just one narrative that suits their political leaning. As it stands we currently have multiple news agencies leaning one way or the other, most will at least attempt to seem impartial.
Climate change may be highly scientific however suggesting it is beyond the capabilities of the masses to understand is ridiculous. If a scientist can't present a hypothesis in laymans terms backed by some facts and logic to support an idea then that is a reflection on them not the audience. This argument that people are to stupid or ignorant to understand climate change is just a political tactic to try and suppress alternative idea's. Its frankly very juvenile and will not succeed in anything other than increasing opposition to the message. Just look how well it went for Bill Shorten at the last election.
The carbon tax debate is a great example of why facts and logic should win an argumrnt and not ideals. The facts behind that initiative are that it would have done nothing, I mean absolutley nothing to make any difference to climate change at the same time it would have cost the Aussie economy and reduced the standard of living by burdening everyone with greater taxes. Both sides of the argument were well debated, and ultimatley it got booted. The ignorant masses got it 100% right. It was an ideological initiative that had nil environmental benefits, no one when pushed could provide any measurable scientific evidence to support any effect if would have have on global warming and thats a fact. I will trust democracy over some totalitarian authority everytime, even if sometimes democracy gets it wrong.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
>>>
Climate change may be highly scientific however suggesting it is beyond the capabilities of the masses to understand is ridiculous. If a scientist can't present a hypothesis in laymans terms backed by some facts and logic to support an idea then that is a reflection on them not the audience. This argument that people are to stupid or ignorant to understand climate change is just a political tactic to try and suppress alternative idea's. Its frankly very juvenile and will not succeed in anything other than increasing opposition to the message. Just look how well it went for Bill Shorten at the last election.
I don't think you are in the real world. I'd agree with you if we were in an idealised world where humans were a little more moral, honest and reasonable.
But unfortunately that's not the case, and scientist are notoriously bad at simplifying complex stuff, so the layman can understand.
And it's very easy for the, "hire a fact people", to sell things that sound logical to the layman, that have no real bearing on the matter at all.
Politicians are too busy cutting funding to scientists, it's increasingly hard for them to do their science, let alone have to deal with a well funded counter campaign.
Select to expand quotecammd said..>>> The carbon tax debate is a great example of why facts and logic should win an argumrnt and not ideals. The facts behind that initiative are that it would have done nothing, I mean absolutley nothing to make any difference to climate change at the same time it would have cost the Aussie economy and reduced the standard of living by burdening everyone with greater taxes. Both sides of the argument were well debated, and ultimatley it got booted. The ignorant masses got it 100% right. It was an ideological initiative that had nil environmental benefits, no one when pushed could provide any measurable scientific evidence to support any effect if would have have on global warming and thats a fact. I will trust democracy over some totalitarian authority everytime, even if sometimes democracy gets it wrong.
I don't think that was won by facts and logic, that was won by spin and self interest.
The Word would be much better off, if negative outcomes were included in the price. In other words you pay for the true cost of things, not leaving, cleaning the mess up afterwards to the taxpayer.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Climate change is highly scientific, the majority of society have no qualifications to make any decisions in the matter. The politicians should get their facts from the scientists, not vested interests, who are pushing ideas detrimental to the whole of society.
Well put Mike.
The idea that non-scientists can properly understand climate change is ludicrous and arrogant - they wouldn't even have access to all the data or computers that can run the models, even if by some miracle they had understanding without the years of study.
I don't see the same uninformed opinions expressed about most other areas of science - where are the objections to the big science undertaken at the LHC, LIGO or ITER for example?
What is it about climate change that some non-experts think they have something useful to contribute - perhaps because we're familiar with weather?
If only it was that simple 
Decrepit said.....What gets me is ill informed opinion being used in scientific debate.
Yeah,like the official opinion of what happened on 911 backed by the Govt scientific body NIST.
Their opinion of what happened that day is an insult to human intelligence. It suspended the basic laws of physics over and over again - their opinion irks hundreds of millions throughout the world and is proof we should never trust 'science'.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Decrepit said.....What gets me is ill informed opinion being used in scientific debate.
Their opinion of what happened that day is an insult to human intelligence. It suspended the basic laws of physics over and over again - their opinion irks hundreds of millions throughout the world and is proof we should never trust 'science'.
A simple question - what laws of physics have been suspended and how exactly?
Select to expand quoteazymuth said.. A simple question - what laws of physics have been suspended and how exactly?
Do you really expect an answer to that?
And cammd.
A scientist is about doing science not influencing the masses. Vested interests are about influencing the masses, science is irrelevant to them. So on one side you have as close to fact as we're going to get, on the other only spin.
The scientists aren't arguing or pushing an agenda so much, as mainly just presenting their findings. If spin makes the findings unpopular enough to sway politicians, it's the World that suffers.
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..
A simple question - what laws of physics have been suspended and how exactly?
The two 110 skyscrapers took no more than 11seconds to completely fall which is almost the speed of a free fall collapse.
A primary three schoolkid blessed with a little common sense can easily determine that the lower section of 80 structurally sound floors would have provided MASSIVE resistance to any potential pan caked collapse. It would take minutes not a second off free fall speed dah. The symmetrical collapse of Building 7 again in close to free fall proves beyond any shadow of a doubt explosives were used.
decrepit SAID.....I'm suggesting nothing.
Merely posting "The Conversations" Editorial about their intentions. I do however support their right to do so.
Talk about a cop out. You are effectively supporting censorship. The history of the world is one of tyranny and as such I suggest you do your utmost to stand up to it - not 'support their right to do so'.
I would suggest strongly you look in to what is going DOWN in China. That is unless you are in support of their agenda to create a 1984 Orwellian Police State Society?
A primary three schoolkid blessed with a little common sense can easily determine that the earth is a globe, that is rotating and orbiting the sun, this has been proven, but still some idiots believe the Earth is flat. Why is that pete?
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..azymuth said..
A simple question - what laws of physics have been suspended and how exactly?
The two 110 skyscrapers took no more than 11seconds to completely fall which is almost the speed of a free fall collapse.
Where did you get this information? I just Googled this and it tells me that the towers fell in over 10 seconds, but freefall would be 8 seconds.
How do you account for that extra 2 seconds? You can't just filter it out, as its a substantial amount of time in this scale.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
The two 110 skyscrapers took no more than 11seconds to completely fall which is almost the speed of a free fall collapse.
A primary three schoolkid blessed with a little common sense can easily determine that the lower section of 80 structurally sound floors would have provided MASSIVE resistance to any potential pan caked collapse. It would take minutes not a second off free fall speed dah. The symmetrical collapse of Building 7 again in close to free fall proves beyond any shadow of a doubt explosives were used.
decrepit SAID.....I'm suggesting nothing.
Merely posting "The Conversations" Editorial about their intentions. I do however support their right to do so.
Talk about a cop out. You are effectively supporting censorship. The history of the world is one of tyranny and as such I suggest you do your utmost to stand up to it - not 'support their right to do so'.
I would suggest strongly you look in to what is going DOWN in China. That is unless you are in support of their agenda to create a 1984 Orwellian Police State Society?
I have just started reading this after Googling for the speed of collapse versus freefall, and its interesting to read:
www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
I think this bit can answer your questions, and it was earlier stated in the article that the floors could hold their own weight plus 1300 tonnes.
"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h"
Sounds believable to me. 45,000 tonnes hits something able to hold its own weight plus 1,300 tonnes. Hmmm...
Oh, apologies, I thought this was the 9/11 thread in HW, but its not! Who would have thought the same old stuff was brought up again and again in different threads.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said.. I would suggest strongly you look in to what is going DOWN in China. That is unless you are in support of their agenda to create a 1984 Orwellian Police State Society?
I know what's happening in China, and I'm very glad I'm not there!!
But what you suggest is just as bad, forcing news agencies to publish what you want them to, is just as totalitarian.
Editors being able to choose content is status quo.
Just about all of the sources you quote are very unbalanced, they heavily "censor" any accurate balanced, peer reviewed articles, and just publish crap.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Oh, apologies, I thought this was the 9/11 thread in HW, but its not! Who would have thought the same old stuff was brought up again and again in different threads.
Well it is what Peter is basing his conspiracy theories on. So he's bound to mention at any old time to back up his argument on totally unrelated matters.
Unrelated decrepit,think again. You believe their science even when their science on possibly the biggest single event in the history of our world has shown to be time and time again nothing short of a fraud.
All the media by coincidence just happen NOT to publish articles from 911 Truth such as this one.
www.quora.com/How-did-the-twin-towers-fall-at-free-fall-speed-without-the-aid-of-explosives
The people who jumped or fell from the towers fell at a similar speed to the collapse of the buildings.
The 80 floors below were all structurally sound providing massive resistance - yet they seemed to provide zero resistance if you believe the official story.
How can that be?
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
All the media by coincidence just happen NOT to publish articles from 911 Truth such as this one.
www.quora.com/How-did-the-twin-towers-fall-at-free-fall-speed-without-the-aid-of-explosives
This answer in your Quora link seems good to me 
"Amazing how many people who have not had one semester of Physics or mechanical engineering or structural design all of a sudden became experts in how buildings should fall.
I would have thought that knowledge was known to only a handful of experts, not to so many dozen guys in dirty t-shirts and neck-beards sitting in front of their YouTube cameras.
The towers fell at considerable speed because they had a fair distance, several weakened floors worth of distance to accelerate.
Once you have a few dozen floors, a few thousand tons of mass, moving at 9.8 m/s or more, they're hard to stop.
You see, buildings, and especially these lightweight ones, are only designed to stand up, they're not designed to withstand having a good portion of themselves come down on them.
The WTC towers in particular were an unusual design, with huge amounts of unsupported floor space. One story is that being built by the "port authority", they were outside of the usual building codes so who knows how strong they actually were.
Certainly not the guys with cheeto-stained fingers."
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..decrepit said..
Climate change is highly scientific, the majority of society have no qualifications to make any decisions in the matter. The politicians should get their facts from the scientists, not vested interests, who are pushing ideas detrimental to the whole of society.
Well put Mike.
The idea that non-scientists can properly understand climate change is ludicrous and arrogant - they wouldn't even have access to all the data or computers that can run the models, even if by some miracle they had understanding without the years of study.
I don't see the same uninformed opinions expressed about most other areas of science - where are the objections to the big science undertaken at the LHC, LIGO or ITER for example?
What is it about climate change that some non-experts think they have something useful to contribute - perhaps because we're familiar with weather?
If only it was that simple
Just what do you do for a living
are you an economist- if not then I guess you should not have an opinion on the economy
are you a nutrionist- if not then I guess you better not make you own decision about what you can eat
are you a builder- if not then better not own any tools
are you teacher - if not then you have no right to educate your kids.
Is that how the argument goes, I think the idea that only a scientist can understand climate change is ludicrous and arrogant.
Does Greta Thunberg have a science degree, do all the kids missing school to protest climate change have science degree's. Does Logman have a science degree. Do the people making editorial decisions on "theconversation" have climate science degree's.
I think the only "non-expert" opinions you and decrepit want shutdown are the ones you don't agree with. Stop pretending its anything different to that.
Select to expand quotecammd said..azymuth said..decrepit said..
Climate change is highly scientific, the majority of society have no qualifications to make any decisions in the matter. The politicians should get their facts from the scientists, not vested interests, who are pushing ideas detrimental to the whole of society.
Well put Mike.
The idea that non-scientists can properly understand climate change is ludicrous and arrogant - they wouldn't even have access to all the data or computers that can run the models, even if by some miracle they had understanding without the years of study.
I don't see the same uninformed opinions expressed about most other areas of science - where are the objections to the big science undertaken at the LHC, LIGO or ITER for example?
What is it about climate change that some non-experts think they have something useful to contribute - perhaps because we're familiar with weather?
If only it was that simple
Just what do you do for a living
are you an economist- if not then I guess you should not have an opinion on the economy
are you a nutrionist- if not then I guess you better not make you own decision about what you can eat
are you a builder- if not then better not own any tools
are you teacher - if not then you have no right to educate your kids.
Is that how the argument goes, I think the idea that only a scientist can understand climate change is ludicrous and arrogant.
Does Greta Thunberg have a science degree, do all the kids missing school to protest climate change have science degree's. Does Logman have a science degree. Do the people making editorial decisions on "theconversation" have climate science degree's.
I think the only "non-expert" opinions you and decrepit want shutdown are the ones you don't agree with. Stop pretending its anything different to that.
I hear your opinion you've expressed 10+ times over multiple threads
obviously a quite Australian
Have religious people met god ?
Select to expand quotecammd said.. are you an economist- if not then I guess you should not have an opinion on the economy
are you a nutrionist- if not then I guess you better not make you own decision about what you can eat
are you a builder- if not then better not own any tools
are you teacher - if not then you have no right to educate your kids.
Is that how the argument goes, I think the idea that only a scientist can understand climate change is ludicrous and arrogant.
Does Greta Thunberg have a science degree, do all the kids missing school to protest climate change have science degree's. Does Logman have a science degree. Do the people making editorial decisions on "theconversation" have climate science degree's.
I think the only "non-expert" opinions you and decrepit want shutdown are the ones you don't agree with. Stop pretending its anything different to that.
I'm sure we are allowed opinions, but where it's complicated science, those opinions don't count for much.
For one who is all for logic, you're not demonstrating a lot here
There's a shocking movie currently on SBS about zombies or the walking dead.
I thought I'd come on here to get away from them...
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
There's a shocking movie currently on SBS about zombies or the walking dead.
I thought I'd come on here to get away from them...
Still watching TV Pete ?
Why's it ok for you but the rest of us are being indoctrinated ?
I thought someone as dedicated as you to waking people up would have thrown out your tv years ago.
I guess you're just taking the piss then 
Entertainment not indoctrination.
Once infected with the virus gleamed for it,better known as the trust virus,the possibility of a return to normality is sadly impossible. Seabreeze has taught me this much.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
There's a shocking movie currently on SBS about zombies or the walking dead.
I thought I'd come on here to get away from them...
Shocking. It was Shaun of the Dead. Hardly shocking when its meant to a comedy/piss take of Dawn of the Dead.
That said, I am sure I saw the zombies mouthing '9/11 is a lie', 'the earth is flat, we have been lied to', 'vaccines are an attempt by the people in charge to keep you dumb', 'chemtrails are killing you'.
Those zombies sure are silly!
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said.. are you an economist- if not then I guess you should not have an opinion on the economy
are you a nutrionist- if not then I guess you better not make you own decision about what you can eat
are you a builder- if not then better not own any tools
are you teacher - if not then you have no right to educate your kids.
Is that how the argument goes, I think the idea that only a scientist can understand climate change is ludicrous and arrogant.
Does Greta Thunberg have a science degree, do all the kids missing school to protest climate change have science degree's. Does Logman have a science degree. Do the people making editorial decisions on "theconversation" have climate science degree's.
I think the only "non-expert" opinions you and decrepit want shutdown are the ones you don't agree with. Stop pretending its anything different to that.
I'm sure we are allowed opinions, but where it's complicated science, those opinions don't count for much.
For one who is all for logic, you're not demonstrating a lot here
Those opinions that don't count for much are votes and your chances of having them cut out of the discussion are zero.
