alt.politics.economics

On Feb 26, 9:00=A0pm, Jim Alder wrote:
> forbisga...@ wrote:
> > Jim Alder wrote:
> >> forbisga...@ wrote...
>
> >> > Do you disagree with this description of the NCPA?
>
> >> =A0 =A0I neither agree nor disagree. Do you not think that Wikipedia le=
ans to
> the
> >> Left? Compare its definition of the NRA with the ACLU. The former inclu=
des
> a
> >> fairly long segment called "criticisms." The ACLU 'definition' does not=
.
>
> > Wikipedia is user maintained.
>
> =A0 =A0It is made up from user contributions. Hence it is automatically su=
spect.
> It seems to me there is some governing authority even though it says it's =
all
> volunteer workers.
>
>
>
>
>
> > There will be some sliding either way depending
> > upon the politics of the contributor. =A0I believe the core team try to
> > remain
> > neutral. =A0The quality is constantly improving. =A0Some in academia
> > expect more
> > than Wikipedia provides and have a tighter peer reviewed Wiki but it
> > hasn't
> > taken off and probably won't because (as I'm discussing in another
> > thread)
> > for all the quality of a few there's no one who can outperform a large
> > group
> > of slightly less qualified. =A0As people provide what they can and
> > others edit
> > it quality is constantly improved (except where people intentionally
> > try
> > to destroy).
>
> > Concerning ACLU entry:
>
> > =A0 =A0Outside of its legal work, the organization has also engaged in
> > =A0 =A0lobbying of elected officials and political activism.[5] The ACLU=

> > =A0 =A0has been critical of elected officials and policies of both
> > =A0 =A0Democrats and Republicans. However, Republicans consistently rank=

> > =A0 =A0lower than Democrats in regard to supporting ACLU goals as seen i=
n
> > =A0 =A0ACLU voting guides.
>
> > Look at the discussion concerning the topic for more information.
>
> > You are aware that the ACLU has defended right wing groups on free
> > speech issues, aren't you?
>
> =A0 =A0 Of course. They could hardly do otherwise. I am also aware they ha=
ve
> totally abandoned the second amendment in their pursuit of human rights
> violations.
>
> > Concerning NRA entry:
>
> > I see nothing in the NRA definition as I see in the ACLU entry.
> > Please review it and let me know if it has been modified since
> > your complaint.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0I looked at it right before I wrote that post. I chose those tw=
o
> organizations at random to illustrate my point, and they were the first tw=
o I
> looked at. I suppose I could do an industrious survey of many different to=
pics
> looking for opinion in the guise of definition. I don't want to. Let's jus=
t
> say that calling something "a conservative think tank" or a "liberal
> whatever" does not automatically conclude that one is dishonest.
>
> > Are you concerned about the difference between
> > "Controversial stances" in the ACLU entry and the "Criticisms"
> > in the NRA entry?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0I thought it smacked of favoritism, yes.
>
> > This is issue is addressed in the NRA discussion.
>
> =A0 =A0It is? Where. I just thought the whole "this is what's wrong with t=
he NRA"
> section was long and unnecessary in a definition.

At the top of the page find th tabs: article, discussion, edit this
page,
and history.

> =A0 =A0 =A0At any point did you actually look at the data in the article I=
cited, or
> did you go right to the organization supplying said article so you could
> ignore it with a clear conscience?

I've found a lot of data at conservative websites lacking.
Since I don't have the where-with-all to verify it I have no
choice but to ignore it. I do the same with "liberal" websites.
I wouldn't trust /live/ (and
there are a lot of knockoffs) if she didn't include links to primary
sources. It is only because she provides primary sources and I
can verify that I don't always feel the need to verify her assertions
of fact. When she says something credulous I check. If conservative
websites didn't spin and out right lie I'd be more likely to take
the effort. That I could visit the website and quickly guess it
was a right wing website even though it didn't make such a claim
lead me to check it out. Honest people will share their biases
so others can evaluate in the proper frame of mind. If people
aren't honest I can't trust what they say and don't have the
time to winnow out the needle of truth in the stack of "facts".

Show me primary peer reviewed data and I'll take the time but
I'm not going to look at data posted in a stealth conservative
website.

> =A0 =A0 =A0"Liberal" and "conservative" are relative judgements depending =
on where
> the person doing the assessing stands on the spectrum. But as I said, the
> sources veracity can not be concluded by that alone.
>
> > Concerning global warming:
>
> > The evidence is clear.
>
> =A0 =A0[sigh...]
>
> > =A0You can throw out the opinions of those
> > taking positions from bias and the evidence is still clear. =A0Global
> > warming is going on. =A0This doesn't mean there won't be record lows
> > in various locations or that every day will be hotter than the prior.
> > It doesn't mean the Sun's cycles aren't affecting things. =A0It just
> > means that we are affecting the carbon cycle in a way that will
> > affect our quality of life negatively and continue to do so for
> > years to come. =A0We are entering uncharted territory because of human
> > action.
>
> /hockey/
>
> =A0 =A0Check out the first chart here.

/author/John%20L.%20Daly
/s?ie=3DUTF8&search-type=3Dss&index=3Dbooks&field-autho=
r=3DJohn%20L.%20Daly&page=3D1

He has certainly written a lot. I don't hold this against him but my
biases
come out based upon the specific topics and the way he's protrayed
himself
in the web page you mention. That he is a hobbiest in the area means
he's
taken some time to inform himself but I don't like the way he's
discounting
data in an area where the professionals agree.

Can you find someone from academia that doesn't have a right wing bias
that
you can point to that dicusses the issues rather than references
irrelevant
data (even if true).

Since your most recently cited web page is an improvement over the
prior
I will provide this one from /wiki/Global_warming

/wg1/Report/

and this about it's first four listed authors:
/wiki/Richard_Alley
/employees/?person_id=3D16&lang=3Den
(Nathaniel L. Bindoff is harder the following isn't primary)
/pubs/crossref/2005/
/dpi/ngosection/conference/

I can't remember the source of this adage so will not quote it.
I believe it's Arthur C. Clarke...
If a group of common people believe a truth and a single scientist
in his field believes otherwise then the one is probably right,
however if a group of scientist in their field believes a truth
and one not in his field believes otherwise the one is probably
wrong.

As a generalist I can't trust my beliefs so I'm more than willing
to accept better evidence if it seem credible. The rule of thumb
I follow is to suspend disbelief concerning beliefs long held by
experts in a field long enough to have a basic understanding of
the objections being raised and the biases of the individual
raising them. If the individual appears to understand the topic
and the objections are up for peer review then I'll continue
to suspend disbelief pending review. If after peer review the
objections aren't accepted then repeat the process in the opposite
direction. I'm not in such a hurry that I must accept truths
that have reasonably been called into question.