Author Topic: Episode #699  (Read 1868 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1808
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Episode #699
« on: December 01, 2018, 03:04:39 PM »
News Items: Global Warming Report, The New Kilogram, Insight Mars Lander; Who’s That Noisy; Your Questions and E-mails: Atlantis Claim; Science or Fiction
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2018, 12:31:26 PM »
Good episode.

But now I experienced what someone mentioned in the last ad discussion I was in; I missed the transition into the ad. And it was too similar to the content that had been before it, to be obvious that it was an ad. Okay, so you're talking about a new show. Are you doing a segment on it, doing the skeptical review and talking about the ideas in it? Oh, no, you're just being shills again.

If any advertisers are reading this; that makes me want to avoid the thing that's being advertised to me. The feeling that I'm being tricked. And that I can't trust anything that's being said about the product/service, because they're not talking honestly about it, or even telling me that they're passing on the information you gave them. It's all fake.

Online bachfiend

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1149
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2018, 07:53:41 PM »
Good episode.

But now I experienced what someone mentioned in the last ad discussion I was in; I missed the transition into the ad. And it was too similar to the content that had been before it, to be obvious that it was an ad. Okay, so you're talking about a new show. Are you doing a segment on it, doing the skeptical review and talking about the ideas in it? Oh, no, you're just being shills again.

If any advertisers are reading this; that makes me want to avoid the thing that's being advertised to me. The feeling that I'm being tricked. And that I can't trust anything that's being said about the product/service, because they're not talking honestly about it, or even telling me that they're passing on the information you gave them. It's all fake.

I often wonder how unbiased reviews of products actually are.  The film ‘First Man’ got glowing reviews in the Australian newspaper ‘the Age’ (which I generally regard as being reliable), but I thought it was terrible and boring.  Admittedly, it’s just my opinion.  But I take reviews with a grain of salt - the reviewer(s) might have different views to me.  At least with advertisements, I can dismiss them immediately if I’m not interested in the product being offered.  I’m not interested in buying socks or mattresses.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7513
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2018, 09:53:21 AM »
I don't hear the ads on the SGU, but I do on other podcasts. It is intellectually dishonest for the host(s) of a show to give a personal endorsement to a product they do not actually regard as highly as the text suggests or states. Acceptable forms of advertisement are to the effect of: "Our show is sponsored by X company which makes Y product. Your support of them supports us." A marginal case is "I use product X" when they use it because they were given it for free by the advertiser. Unacceptable is "Product X is the best there is," when the podcaster doesn't actually believe it.

However, advertising is the widely-accepted and almost universal way that broadcasting is financed in a market economy, and podcasting is a business. It takes time and resources and requires money to pay for both. I do not begrudge the rogues their desire to be paid for their time, and in the world we live in, advertising is the way that happens. I think they've said they'd stop running ads if they had enough patrons. And if you give them some money you get the show without ads. So I'm okay with the way they are operating.

Science or Fiction: Nitpick: to say that a manuscript is indecipherable is IMO imprecise. It would be better to say it is undeciphered. "Indecipherable" suggests that it will never be deciphered because it cannot be. Inventors of codes like to claim their codes are indecipherable, but that generally turns out not to be the case.

I've been to Atlantis. That is, Atlantis Resort on Paradise Island, connected by a short bridge to Nassau, The Bahamas. It's a beautiful but overpriced resort with the best aquariums I've ever visited. My recommendation: Don't stay there, but do pay the day fee to visit the water park and aquariums.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online swan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2018, 12:22:28 PM »
The gold standard for disclosing paid relationships is Lon Seidman*: Within the first minute of each video he begins, "In the interest of full disclosure…" and rattles off who paid for what, etc. The rare paid videos also have a distinctive "SPONSORED" thumbnail. Apparently the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has also sent out "reminder" letters to a bunch of social media influencers about making sure they disclose these relationships as well.

Movie reviewers have always seemed a bit elitist, but to be fair maybe they're often putting emphasis on all of the elements of a film rather than just the overall effect. If the professional and fan scores on Rotten Tomatoes are out of sync, I usually stick with the fan scores because that will usually reflect what's more enjoyable. (Ex. Star Trek Discovery may be a "better quality" show, but I find The Orville to actually be enjoyable.)

*Because following only four affluent middle-aged white guys from Connecticut just isn't enough! ;)

Offline mattand

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2018, 01:10:32 PM »
Regarding the global warming piece: I'm just throwing this out there, but it's possible to be a good skeptic, and actually specify the US political party responsible for politicizing/embracing climate change denial.

It's not living in a media bubble to place blame on the people who are perpetuating this frigging mess.

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7513
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2018, 07:01:31 PM »
Regarding the global warming piece: I'm just throwing this out there, but it's possible to be a good skeptic, and actually specify the US political party responsible for politicizing/embracing climate change denial.

It's not living in a media bubble to place blame on the people who are perpetuating this frigging mess.

I agree. I think the rogues want to avoid alienating people who support the Party of Hate, Intolerance, and Science Denial. Calling out the Republican Party by name is, I think, something they made a considered decision to avoid doing.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online bachfiend

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1149
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2018, 09:48:16 PM »
Regarding the global warming piece: I'm just throwing this out there, but it's possible to be a good skeptic, and actually specify the US political party responsible for politicizing/embracing climate change denial.

It's not living in a media bubble to place blame on the people who are perpetuating this frigging mess.

I agree. I think the rogues want to avoid alienating people who support the Party of Hate, Intolerance, and Science Denial. Calling out the Republican Party by name is, I think, something they made a considered decision to avoid doing.

People who support the Republican Party aren’t the people who’d be listening to the SGU, so they wouldn’t be alienating a potential audience.

The Australian conservative Coal-ition government has similar global warming denialism tendencies, but no one’s afraid or reluctant to call them out on it.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline mattand

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2018, 12:56:37 AM »
Regarding the global warming piece: I'm just throwing this out there, but it's possible to be a good skeptic, and actually specify the US political party responsible for politicizing/embracing climate change denial.

It's not living in a media bubble to place blame on the people who are perpetuating this frigging mess.

I agree. I think the rogues want to avoid alienating people who support the Party of Hate, Intolerance, and Science Denial. Calling out the Republican Party by name is, I think, something they made a considered decision to avoid doing.

I get the whole notion of trying to focus on science and avoid politics as much as possible. Also, it was a good piece in general.

I think what irritated me, though, is that initially there was all of this pearl clutching around "politicians" politicizing the issue. Anyone who spends more than 38 seconds researching this stuff discovers that the Republican Party is fairly unapologetic about embracing climate change denial.

Just generically complaining about politicians treads into that "All politicians are the same" Magic Balance Fairy horseshit that Americans love so much (and I thoroughly detest). Sometimes, I'm just like "Stop worrying about being labeled in a bubble and be honest about who is causing the damn problem."


Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2018, 09:43:45 AM »
Regarding the global warming piece: I'm just throwing this out there, but it's possible to be a good skeptic, and actually specify the US political party responsible for politicizing/embracing climate change denial.

It's not living in a media bubble to place blame on the people who are perpetuating this frigging mess.

I agree. I think the rogues want to avoid alienating people who support the Party of Hate, Intolerance, and Science Denial. Calling out the Republican Party by name is, I think, something they made a considered decision to avoid doing.

People who support the Republican Party aren’t the people who’d be listening to the SGU, so they wouldn’t be alienating a potential audience.

I get the feeling that they get a lot of annoying feedback whenever they even hint at a political stance.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9634
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2018, 11:29:57 AM »
They called out Trump and his administration, I don’t see a problem not mentioning the party he leads by name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4300
  • mooh
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2018, 10:36:01 PM »
Regarding the global warming piece: I'm just throwing this out there, but it's possible to be a good skeptic, and actually specify the US political party responsible for politicizing/embracing climate change denial.

It's not living in a media bubble to place blame on the people who are perpetuating this frigging mess.

As someone who has invested a fair amount in this particular discussion (particularly during the Bush years), I have to agree. There is some bad science on the other side as well, and I try to point that out whenever I see it, but relatively speaking there is no comparison.

Offline PatrickG

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 95
Episode #699
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2018, 12:05:24 PM »
Nitpick: Steve pronounces Troy’s discoverer as “Schleiman/“Schlyman”. His name is Heinrich Schliemann, which is pronounced “sleemahn”. The “ie” and “ei” sound very different.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2018, 05:20:17 PM by PatrickG »

Offline mattand

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2018, 01:10:33 PM »
They called out Trump and his administration, I don’t see a problem not mentioning the party he leads by name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the problem; this didn't start with Trump. The GOP has been promoting climate denial long before Trump took them over; at least back to the second Bush administration, as Werecow points out.

Look, I'm not asking them to open every show screaming "All hail our perfect and just Democratic Party, the true leaders of the US!" I just really think there's a bit of intellectual cowardice with the whole "We can't ever assign blame to specific political parties because that's bubble talk" crap.

If you're going to complain about politicians denying climate change without citing the one party who openly embraces it, you need to maybe reassess how honest you're being with yourself.

Offline BTS

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • No Longer Participating
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2018, 09:16:36 AM »
SGU CAGW Rant

What does the 97% consensus really mean?

Warming is happening.  (probably safe to say 97%)

Warming is all man made since the start of the 20th century (still 97% but not as strong)

Warming is going to cause grievous harm.  Difficult question, requires an extremely complex analysis of many different fields….certainty is likely very low – 97%  no way!  Motivated reasoning has the “science community” looking mostly for harm and forgetting to look for good.  Steve even said that deaths from high temperature would go up, but as I understand the data deaths from cold may go down even more – perhaps even a net benefit of temperature induced deaths.  How do we know we have found all the plus’s and minus’s for the analysis?

Warming is going to have calamitous Economic impact over the next 80 years.   An even more complex  question than just  what the consequences of warming will be.  And this is definitely not a climate science alone conclusion. There are huge temporal unknowns including how will technology change over time.  How will we adapt to the climate change?  What are the unforeseen consequences of radical reduction in CO2 emissions on living standards and  poverty?  An example, the anti-Nuke lobby has caused a huge amount of unforeseen harm due to the CO2 emissions of the alternatives that wouldn’t have happened if the Environmental lobby hadn’t priced Nuclear power out of the market due to regulatory pressures.  This is partly PIPO, pessimism in-pessimism out.  Of course unbridled optimism is not justified either.

I am not arguing that climate change is not happening, that it is not man made or that will not cause some harm.  I am arguing for some intellectual humility.  Predicting the climate over the next 80 years is very difficult, predicting the economic responses and impacts is probably so difficult that the error bars are so large as to make the analysis almost meaningless.  I don't how many times I have heard Steve say on even narrow issues that it is complicated, yet somehow the Economic impact of climate change over the next 80-100 years is a slam dunk straight forward analysis, 97% agree don't you know, as  the rouges en masse spout off consistently that we are all screwed and that anyone who doesn’t toe the line is a denier.  This is not a skeptical approach.

As for precautionary principle, that is also mostly motivated reasoning.  I want people to stop emitting carbon, therefore we should cease most CO2 emissions due to potential harm even if there is uncertainty.  I don’t support this use of the precautionary principle any more than I support the notion that some immigrants may commit crimes, we don’t have to admit immigrants, thus as a precaution it is reasonable to not allow any immigrants lest some additional crimes be committed in our country.