Attenborough abandons his polite silence re: creationism and climate change deniers.

[skilts]

Is this the first time in history that the words 'Attenborough' and 'silence' have cohabited the same sentence?

 

[blackcat]

Is this the first time in history that the words 'Attenborough' and 'silence' have cohabited the same sentence?

yes, but the curious thing is, he can even pull-off silence with a plummy mouthed queens english intonation. it is his take on the sound of one hand clapping.

 

[Pie eyed]

Sure you don't, addicts always deny using. Marijuana users are notorious liars but their obsessive injection of the subject as a red herring gives them away. And of course, people saying they are not addicted makes it so.


Please keep your homosexual urges to yourself.

You are a user then?

 

[Poptech]

You are a user then?

Never touched it, as I read the scientific literature on these things first.

 

[Pie eyed]

So this;

Poptech said: ↑
Sure you don't, addicts always deny using. Marijuana users are notorious liars but their obsessive injection of the subject as a red herring gives them away. And of course, people saying they are not addicted makes it so.

was simply a load of old tripe then? (that's Australian for "a foundationless statement".)

 

[Lester Burnham]

Is this the first time in history that the words 'Attenborough' and 'silence' have cohabited the same sentence?

Thread title of 'Attenborough continues his received pronunciation whispers' wouldn't have had the same impact.

 

[Poptech]

So this;

was simply a load of old tripe then? (that's Australian for "a foundationless statement".)

Huh? You apparently don't have much experience with drug addicts, I do.

 

[Chief]

Great man who has worked tirelessly to advocate the conservation of the natural world.

Can't associate the whole climate change attitude with America though. Even here, the amount of ignorance about the science and prevalence of prominent deniers has stunned me.

Once again, stunned that in this modern age we are still debating the credibility of the SCIENTIFIC "theory of evolution." The delusion of some religious followers to deny tested, reproducible, scientific fact shows the extent to which religion can corrupt.

Second time I've quoted this in as many days:

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[Chief]

Abandons his polite silence? He's been talking about this stuff for at least 15 years.



It's a straw man argument to dismiss anyone's views contrary to his own by questioning their motives. He's a great film maker but he's not a scientist. His views should be treated as such. Still, he's not a phony like David Suzuki.

The title of the article "Enough With the Creationists and Climate Change Deniers!" seems to be an attempt to conflate the two issues. Completely invalid. Climate alarmism has much more in common with religious irrationality. As already seen in this thread.

Studies (which I am sure you will find some way to dismiss) show that there are a number of ideas that the generally less intelligent conservatives take up with religious fervour. Creationism, racism and denial of anthropogenic climate change being a few of the biggies. ACC denial being, of course, the most recent big-ticket conservative crusade.

"Reality is complicated and messy. Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

Things in the world are either good or bad to the less intelligent conservative. An ambiguous event affecting their current lifestyle and comfort in an unknown way is seen as a threat to be attacked rather than simply an event to be understood and responded to with appropriate, measured action altered by feedback.

Successful conservative politicians (and climate denial bloggers) know this and pitch their message to these right-wing authoritarian people.

Anyway, we're still waiting for the Natural Causes Climate Change Conference to deliver real evidence for the denier arguments.

 

[Partridge]

Studies (which I am sure you will find some way to dismiss) show that there are a number of ideas that the generally less intelligent conservatives take up with religious fervour. Creationism, racism and denial of anthropogenic climate change being a few of the biggies. ACC denial being, of course, the most recent big-ticket conservative crusade.

Things in the world are either good or bad to the less intelligent conservative. An ambiguous event affecting their current lifestyle and comfort in an unknown way is seen as a threat to be attacked rather than simply an event to be understood and responded to with appropriate, measured action altered by feedback.

Successful conservative politicians (and climate denial bloggers) know this and pitch their message to these right-wing authoritarian people.

Anyway, we're still waiting for the Natural Causes Climate Change Conference to deliver real evidence for the denier arguments.

Conversatives have one agenda - to own the world. Secondary to that is avoiding work and make the rest of the population their slaves. It really is that simple. That's why every cause they believe in has to do with either keeping themselves wealthy, or keeping the population ignorant. That is all they care about.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Also, posting a wall of links does not constitute an argument either.

You first need to be able to access, then interpret and collate the information, to form a well reasoned opinion.

There is plenty of contradiction in science, even within institutions down to faculty level. For instance on the poptech website, there is a list of links leading to articles on gateway drug theory, which has been widely discredited.

Now one has to wonder two things, does Andrew actually compare and contrast contradictory opinions on the subject and if so, why doesn't he provide links which cover various aspects of the science surrounding the physiological, psychological and sociological effects of cannabis use, instead of using his google skills to cherry pick. Secondly, can he or does he even access and read the source material? Subscriptions to services like jstor and wiley are expensive, so unless he has financial backers, which would explain his lack of independence, I really don't see how he could access the material and rationally discuss the scientific content within.

 

[Poptech]

Also, posting a wall of links does not constitute an argument either.

It does when the point is to support my argument with scientific sources.

There is plenty of contradiction in science, even within institutions down to faculty level. For instance on the poptech website, there is a list of links leading to articles on gateway drug theory, which has been widely discredited.

Declaring something discredited does not make it so.

Now one has to wonder two things, does Andrew actually compare and contrast contradictory opinions on the subject and if so, why doesn't he provide links which cover various aspects of the science surrounding the physiological, psychological and sociological effects of cannabis use, instead of using his google skills to cherry pick. Secondly, can he or does he even access and read the source material? Subscriptions to services like jstor and wiley are expensive, so unless he has financial backers, which would explain his lack of independence, I really don't see how he could access the material and rationally discuss the scientific content within.

Just because most people have trouble finding things on the Internet does not mean I have this problem.

Sorry I forgot to post the sociological links,

Sociological:
African-American Girls Who Use Marijuana Engage In Riskier Sex, Have Higher STD Rate (School of Public Health, Emory University)
Children who smoke cannabis are twice as likely to offend (Queen's University Belfast)
Early Exposure To Drugs, Alcohol Creates Lifetime Of Health Risk (Psychological Science Journal)
Emotional Intelligence And The Use Of Tobacco And Cannabis (UAB Department of General, Development and Educational Psychology)
Father's incarceration associated with elevated risks of marijuana and other illegal drug use (Bowling Green State University)
Frequent Family Meals Might Reduce Teen Substance Use (Journal of Adolescent Health)
Glamorization Of Drugs In Rap Music Jumped Dramatically Over 2 Decades (Addiction Research & Theory Journal)
Malt Liquor Linked To Marijuana Use Among Young Adults (Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Journal)
One Of Every Three Popular Songs Contains References To Substance Use (American Public Health Association)
Perception of marijuana as a "safe drug" is scientifically inaccurate (University of Montreal)
Pot and pop: New research finds stronger link between music and marijuana use among teens (University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences)
Pop Stars More Than Twice As Likely To Die An Early Death (British Medical Journal)
References To Explicit Substance Use Common In Popular Music (Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine Journal)
Religiosity Curbs Teen Marijuana Use By Half (Journal of Drug Issues)
Researchers Find Factors That Encourage Cannabis Use Among University Students (Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research)
Rising Teen Marijuana Use Is Fueled By Change In Attitudes (American Journal of Public Health)
Surge in Children Accidentally Eating Marijuana-Laced Foods (University of Colorado)
Teens who frequently go out with friends more likely to use marijuana (Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine)
United States Has Highest Level Of Illegal Cocaine And Cannabis Use (PLoS Medicine Journal)

The conspiracy theories about me are very entertaining.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It does when the point is to support my argument with scientific sources.

No it doesn't.

There are no conspiracy theories, though am I correct in assuming you have no access to source material which is behind a paywall?

 

[Pie eyed]

Huh? You apparently don't have much experience with drug addicts, I do.

I think I have an extremely large amount of experience with people who stretch the truth, exaggerate and lust plain lie to suit their own agenda.

 

[Poptech]

No it doesn't.

Keep telling yourself this.

There are no conspiracy theories, though am I correct in assuming you have no access to source material which is behind a paywall?

I have had access to all the source material and can obtain the source material for anything behind a paywall. The majority of which is freely available online if you know how to find it.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Keep telling yourself this.

Reason and the evidence tell me this, unlike you I don't have a conclusion and work backwards.

Gateway drug theory as applied to cannabis represents a post hoc fallacy, that a precedes b, does not equal if a then b. A simple anecdotal example which contradicts the gateway fallacy is cannabis use in Portugal. Usage increased post decriminalization amongst 16-18 year olds, however there was no corresponding increase in the rate of heroin usage, in fact a decline. However, you have cited the need for harder evidence.

As you can see with the first study, there was no demonstration of a causal or discrete chain of usage. Usage patterns can correlate between drug groups but are region and availability specific. This certainly supports the hypothesis that availability of cannabis accounts for earliness of use, much like alcohol and tobacco, as opposed to one specific illicit drug being a gateway for another.

Evaluating the drug use “gateway” theory using cross-national data: Consistency and associations of the order of initiation of drug use among participants in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys

Method
Analyses used data from World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys, a series of parallel community epidemiological surveys using the same instruments and field procedures carried out in 17 countries throughout the world.

Results
Initiation of “gateway” substances (i.e. alcohol, tobacco and cannabis) was differentially associated with subsequent onset of other illicit drug use based on background prevalence of gateway substance use. Cross-country differences in substance use prevalence also corresponded to differences in the likelihood of individuals reporting a non-normative sequence of substance initiation.

Conclusion
These results suggest the “gateway” pattern at least partially reflects unmeasured common causes rather than causal effects of specific drugs on subsequent use of others. This implies that successful efforts to prevent use of specific “gateway” drugs may not in themselves lead to major reductions in the use of later drugs.

4.2. Conclusions
The present study provided suggestive evidence to suggest that drug use initiation is not constant across contexts and cultures. Although cannabis is most often the first illicit drug used, and its use is typically preceded by tobacco and alcohol use, the variability seen across countries, which is related to the background prevalence of such drug use, provides evidence to suggest that this sequence is not immutable. Violations of this sequence are not associated with the development of dependence; rather, it seems to be the age-of-onset and degree of exposure to any drugs that are more important predictors.

This next study has gone further in not just looking at patterns of association between drug use, but trying to assess the relevance of a range of causal factors. The existence of a clear pattern of backwards association with illicit drug use and strong correlation between drug use and particular behaviors, as well as environmental circumstances (disruptive home life, socio economic factors etc.) indicate that it is the latter and not one single illicit gateway drug that predicts/acts as a causal factor for future drug use.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=97496

The results of this study suggest that general behavioral deviancy and not specific risk factors accounts for illicit drug use. When illicit drug use occurs first, it is very likely due to the opportunity afforded by the neighborhood environment in context of low parental supervision. The probability and rate of development of a diagnosis of marijuana use disorder and alcohol use disorder were the same whether or not there was conformance with the gateway sequence. Evidence supporting “causal linkages between stages,” as specified by the gateway hypothesis (3, p. 64), was not obtained. Nor were specific risk factors identified that were related to consumption of each drug. Our results indicate that efforts to prevent marijuana use should utilize strategies directed at averting the development of the characteristics prodromal to the manifestation of behavior problems.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=97496

 

[Lester Burnham]

Studies (which I am sure you will find some way to dismiss) show that there are a number of ideas that the generally less intelligent conservatives take up with religious fervour. Creationism, racism and denial of anthropogenic climate change being a few of the biggies. ACC denial being, of course, the most recent big-ticket conservative crusade.

Things in the world are either good or bad to the less intelligent conservative. An ambiguous event affecting their current lifestyle and comfort in an unknown way is seen as a threat to be attacked rather than simply an event to be understood and responded to with appropriate, measured action altered by feedback.

Successful conservative politicians (and climate denial bloggers) know this and pitch their message to these right-wing authoritarian people.

Keep up Chief.

William M Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, has nominated this work as the worst use of statistics in an original paper.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

 

[Chief]

Keep up Chief.

So you're discounting Bob Altemeyer as well?

 

[medusala]

Malthus was discredited a very long time ago. AGW is just the latest instalment of a failed idea. Club of Rome the one before.

Nothing new.

 

[Chief]

Malthus was discredited a very long time ago. AGW is just the latest instalment of a failed idea. Club of Rome the one before.

Nothing new.

When you make more of an interesting contribution people might listen. Up until now it has been:

"* My idea of what is a fact.
* Something else I reckon is a fact.
* 'ditto'
* And the races should not be mixed."

Boring.

 

[medusala]

Chief do you even have a clue as to what Malthus was about? Given your post one would suggest not. If you did you would get the obvious connection to the AGW debate.

Still I suppose one should be grateful you have managed to make a post without telling everyone that all Christians are idiots and quite probably paedos.

 

[clogged]

Malthus's theories on geometric population increase and arithmetic increases in food production have exactly what to do with climate science?

 

[John]

Did you even get what he said?

 

[John]

Malthus's theories on geometric population increase and arithmetic increases in food production have exactly what to do with climate science?

Meritocracy? Competition?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Malthus has been (partially) challenged by unforeseen innovations in agriculture, food science etc.

The only parallel we can take from that in a climate sense is that it is up to us to innovate and find alternative ways to live within our means. If we don't find the climatic equivalent of Malthusian equilibrium, nature will kick our arse. The earth isn't going to magically provide an unlimited cornucopia of plenty regardless of how excessively we live.