Society/Culture Tucker Carlson - Fired from Fox. Sacked. Terminated. Given the heave-ho.

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think the view of 'good' and 'bad' science, actually comes down to a lack of understanding.

Yes, there are good and poor practitioners in all areas. But majority consensus helps to reduce, to almost eliminate, that aspect.

Your anecdote about the Great Barrier Reef isn't actually looking at the science. Your issue is with headlines, talking points, and misinformation.

If you'd spent time looking at the science, you'd have a better understanding as to what's happening to the the GBR, how and why it's happening, and why your observations of segments of it are not comparable to the 'science'.


For example, can you point to a scientific report on the GBR that you can contradict?

I did it 10 years ago. Marcel was the online creep’s name that time. Taught me never to use my real name online again.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If it was at least semantics, I could have engaged with something.

I think SJ is ok. Everyone deals with the pandemic differently.

You're a waffler who needs everything over-explained. And you mistake that for a rebuttal.

 

[CM86]

You're a waffler who needs everything over-explained. And you mistake that for a rebuttal.

Could you elaborate?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Sorry, what?

I don't want you to share any personal details.

It was a science forum I found myself in. Delta or Deltoid or something. Talking the usual Barrier Reef is dying s**t. I had just been the the specific place referenced and was able to confirm that it wasn’t dying. There were plenty of fish and other life. The particular report was false.

Leaving aside the online abuse which prepped me well for what came in the Pell thread here, my employer was contacted, my email was flooded with abuse, you name it. Taught me quite the lesson about “scientists”.

One thing I do remember is the worst threats, violent ones, came from a Marcel. All for saying I was at such and such reef last week and it’s not dead.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It was a science forum I found myself in. Delta or Deltoid or something. Talking the usual Barrier Reef is dying sh*t. I had just been the the specific place referenced and was able to confirm that it wasn’t dying. There were plenty of fish and other life. The particular report was false.

Leaving aside the online abuse which prepped me well for what came in the Pell thread here, my employer was contacted, my email was flooded with abuse, you name it. Taught me quite the lesson about “scientists”.

One thing I do remember is the worst threats, violent ones, came from a Marcel. All for saying I was at such and such reef last week and it’s not dead.

So you base your whole Barrier Reef shtick off seeing a few fish there many years ago?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You're the one pretending to know more than scientists. Why do you say stupid things?

When did I say I knew more than scientists?

 

[CM86]

I was able to confirm that it wasn’t dying. There were plenty of fish and other life. The particular report was false.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Could I suggest editing or deleting this post, as it could have some identifying information.


What were the key factors that you observed that helped you reach your conclusion?

 

[Mick F]

Many more qualified people than I have so submitted. They are generally ignored. The “science” doesn’t do dissent.

I would submit that science is rigorously scrutinised by its system of ‘peer review’.

 

[Noire]

This doesn't even make sense, your whole argument is invalid and won't be discussed now.

Posted in this thread.

I won’t be reposting it every time a new Tucker-sucker arrives in the thread. But if I see a link I will repost it. Also, if you watch Tucker regularly you will have seen his ethno-nationalist type stuff on the reg.

Exactly their "approval is worthless"

A trump fan becoming a moderator here one day is now when I think about it a stupid idea for rejoining this site, motivation gone

Chief
I need my account deleting and PPI removing
Thanks

 

[Chief]

A trump fan becoming a moderator here one day

Werewolf ?

 

[Chief]

the USA isn't obligated to accommodate them, [people who simply want improved economic opportunities]

Who are you arguing against here?

 

[Werewolf]

Werewolf ?

Rand Paul is way better than Trump, except for the charisma factor... which is kind of a big deal.

 

[andrewmillman]

If your a racist or a bigot own it ffs, I'd like to see the vast majority of the Afrikaans population wiped out, they're abjectly terrible people and that makes me a racist I guess. Don't be like Carlson and say one thing loudly in public then backstep at a million miles an hour or dive into Roget to look for semantics when someone calls you out on it. It's a common problem with most of my fellow racists, they get all coy about it when properly challenged.

Because that lot have persevered and you guys couldn't?
Also hope Marnus isnt on your list.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I would submit that science is rigorously scrutinised by its system of ‘peer review’.

Yeah the Climategate emails showed us everything we needed to know about "peer review".

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I would submit that science is rigorously scrutinised by its system of ‘peer review’.

Bruce doesn't like being peer reviewed, he's quite sensitive about it.

 

[Mick F]

Yeah the Climategate emails showed us everything we needed to know about "peer review".

Is there any profession that you don’t dismiss as duplicitous scumbags. Or does it depend if they agree with thee.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Is there any profession that you don’t dismiss as duplicitous scumbags. Or does it depend if they agree with thee.

I don't think scientists are duplicitous scumbags.

I think scientists who manipulate findings for political or financial reasons are duplicitous scumbags.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

When did I say I knew more than scientists?

You claim to be the arbiter of what constitutes "bad science" because your observations are supposedly more compelling. So yeah, you claim to know more than those scientists.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You claim to be the arbiter of what constitutes "bad science" because your observations are supposedly more compelling. So yeah, you claim to know more than those scientists.

If a scientist claims that something doesn't exist (life) and my observation says that it does exist, then there is nothing wrong with making that observation.

It is no different to a scientist claiming there is no dog lying on a rug 2 metres to my right when I can clearly see that there indeed is a dog lying on a rug 2 metres to my right.

I don't think it's a case of knowing more than the scientist. I think it is a case of the scientist saying something other than what he knows.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If a scientist claims that something doesn't exist (life) and my observation says that it does exist, then there is nothing wrong with making that observation.

Because you know better than those scientists?

I don't think it's a case of knowing more than the scientist. I think it is a case of the scientist saying something other than what he knows.

Why pretend to know?

More likely, your "observations" do not present a full picture.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Because you know better than those scientists?

Why pretend to know?

More likely, your "observations" do not present a full picture.

If you are standing by a road and can see right in front of you a red motor vehicle, do you believe the scientist who tells you there is no red motor vehicle right before you?

 

[Chief]

If you are standing by a road and can see right in front of you a red motor vehicle, do you believe the scientist who tells you there is no red motor vehicle right before you?

More like if a car manufacturer says they hardly make any green cars any more. You see one on the road and scream "they lied!"

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If you are standing by a road and can see right in front of you a red motor vehicle, do you believe the scientist who tells you there is no red motor vehicle right before you?

A dumb analogy. It's not a scientific statement.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

A dumb analogy. It's not a scientific statement.

Ok. How about this? If a meteorologist says it’s going to rain all day and instead the sun shines all day, am I allowed to say he was wrong?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Ok. How about this? If a meteorologist says it’s going to rain all day and instead the sun shines all day, am I allowed to say he was wrong?

That is a forecast that encompasses a degree of uncertainty. It's not presented as a fact.

You're deeply unsophisticated in the way you process information, aren't you?

It's like you want everything to be as dumb as possible so it's easier for you to understand. Is that why you're sceptical of expertise?

Basic Bruce.