Bummer....

[reuellis]

That the recent article about anthropocentric climate change can not be evaluated/discussed without political overtones.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[old digger]

Well, I guess just put on those thermal under clothes and bundle up your face and hands and get out there.

 

[newnan man]

The news station that aired the show has lost all credibility and objectivity. That is their fault not ours, but of course they blame everything on everyone else. JMHO.

 

[OntarioArch]

The news station that aired the show has lost all credibility and objectivity. That is their fault not ours, but of course they blame everything on everyone else. JMHO.

Thank you, newnan man, for demonstrating reuellis' point. Why must you inject political overtones? Read the original science, then comment. Otherwise, you might lose all credibility and objectivity.

 

[Charl]

What show? You mean people were upset because CNN published a story about it? There was no show. I posted an excellent summary by the BBC. It was a study published in Quaternary Science Review. What in the world was there to be upset about? As one scientist, who was not one of the authors of the study pointed out: "Scientists understand that the so-called Little Ice Age was caused by several factors - a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a series of large volcanic eruptions, changes in land use and a temporary decline in solar activity."This new study demonstrates that the drop in CO₂ is itself partly due to the settlement of the Americas and resulting collapse of the indigenous population, allowing regrowth of natural vegetation."

It's not as if the Little Ice Age is a figment of someone's imagination. It happened, and all the study did was focus on one cause in several that played into its cause. So what? Big deal! It's only a scientific study. It's not going to hurt anyone. People can disagree with its conclusions. Big deal.

I felt, in the one comment I left, that if I pointed out that science already understood that several factors played into, or caused, the Little Ice Age, that folks would tamp down their anger on that single factor that apparently reminded people of our current differences regarding climate change. There was no need to be angry about the actual study. It's only science. Find flaws in the study, if there are any, and point them out. Discuss rationally, don't erase the discussion and head for the hills. We're better then that. What in the world was there to be afraid of in such a study?

We have a thread discussing the TV show about the original settlement of the Americas. People injected a degree of "politicized" griping in that thread as well, namely that science is hiding the fact that there are much older dates, and yet that thread was not yanked. The old "it's a conspiracy to hide the truth from us" argument. It did not result in the thread being removed. I could, if I wanted to politicize that "first face of America" thread even more, carry on about "no, everyone knows the white man arrived in America first, they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes". And I bet if I did, that thread would not be erased.

Some science is OK to differ with and criticise, thread carries on, but other science must result in erasing a thread? Or because CNN, among dozens of outlets, published an article about it?! That is a bummer. We could elect not to be so childish...

 

[newnan man]

Thank you, newnan man, for demonstrating reuellis' point. Why must you inject political overtones? Read the original science, then comment. Otherwise, you might lose all credibility and objectivity.

My point was only that if an organization expects their articles to be given serious consideration they must demonstrate a certain degree of accuracy & correct facts in all their reporting. Cherry picking what they report to fit their news into an agenda hurts their credibility. To be clear I am not picking on this organization in particular as I personally feel most lack accuracy in reporting. It is, as an anology like Mad Magazine trying to do a serious article. I give these organizations no credibility. I did not inject anything "political" into my comments. I just stated I felt the organization doing the reporting was a joke. The fact that most of their reporting is political in nature is their decision.

 

[Tony in SC]

I have gotten to the point where I read or listen to such news releases as entertainment, nothing else. Then I decide whether they are feasible or not.

 

[Charl]

To be honest, I did not get a chance to read comments posted after my own comment. When I saw the thread had vanished, I assumed some serious arguments must have broken out, and a mod decided to end it altogether, rather then just lock it. I respect the mods here, it's a good hang out for artifact hunters. At the same time, I do understand why the original poster of this thread saw the outcome as a "bummer".

 

[Charl]

My point was only that if an organization expects their articles to be given serious consideration they must demonstrate a certain degree of accuracy & correct facts in all their reporting. Cherry picking what they report to fit their news into an agenda hurts their credibility. To be clear I am not picking on this organization in particular as I personally feel most lack accuracy in reporting. It is, as an anology like Mad Magazine trying to do a serious article. I give these organizations no credibility. I did not inject anything "political" into my comments. I just stated I felt the organization doing the reporting was a joke. The fact that most of their reporting is political in nature is their decision.

I should add that I did not read the CNN article that led off the thread. I saw the comments to that link, and knew I had a BBC article that provided an excellent summary of the actual science. Now, if the CNN story actually chose to politicize the science, or politicize its conclusions, then I can easily understand why, in our present climate of opinions, some folks would be upset by that. I don't know if that was the case, but I knew the science itself might be open to critiques by scientists equipped in the various scientific disciplines that actually went into the study. There would never really be a need to politicise the actual science. It was driven by scientists, not politicians, and it did not have an axe to grind, but simply shed light on one factor playing into the onset of the Little Ice Age.

 

[A2coins]

Does anyone start taking a bus walking or riding a bike to help stop this aint gonna hsppen

 

[releventchair]

Thank you, newnan man, for demonstrating reuellis' point. Why must you inject political overtones? Read the original science, then comment. Otherwise, you might lose all credibility and objectivity.

I believe after reading the science I posted a reply on that thread.
The article was junk science. Being based on unknown numbers to start with doomed it's credibility. And with more speculation based assumptions geared towards the desired result of a conclusion following ; souring the article and any peers it may have had's credibility with it..

Anyways , there is a political forum if the original thread starter wants to pursue the argument of causation in a political manner.

 

[reuellis]

Absolutely not. This topic should not be about politics but a discussion on the theory in question.

I am assuming you disagree with the population figures of pre-Colombian Americans?

 

[releventchair]

Absolutely not. This topic should not be about politics but a discussion on the theory in question.

I am assuming you disagree with the population figures of pre-Colombian Americans?

I don't agree with the variances given. Few even hint of margin of error ,or account for non empire type settlements among nomadic ,or forced to be nomadic groups.

Pre contact numbers aside , causation focus was on what ?
The topics article's title was slaughter. Inaccurate again. So how is the rest of the article expected to focus on truth towards it's predestined conclusion?

Anyways , here's more figures. And causation a little short of deliberate wholesale slaughter lacking evidence, will similar results.
By contrast, "Old World" diseases had a devastating effect when introduced to Native American populations via European carriers, as the people in the Americas had no natural immunity to the new diseases. Measles caused many deaths. The smallpox epidemics are believed to have caused the largest death tolls among Native Americans, surpassing any wars[25] and far exceeding the comparative loss of life in Europe due to the Black Death.[1]:164 It is estimated that upwards of 80–95 percent of the Native American population died in these epidemics within the first 100–150 years following 1492. Many regions in the Americas lost 100%.[1]:165 The beginning of demographic collapse on the North American continent has typically been attributed to the spread of a well-documented smallpox epidemic from Hispaniola in December 1518.[23] At that point in time, approximately only 10,000 indigenous people were still alive in Hispaniola.[23]

 

[joshuaream]

I had an argumentative post drafted in the other thread a couple of days ago, and then I remembered what I learned a long time ago on forums:

It's usually safe to assume people here are interested in something to do with ancient relics, and even then there is room for debate and disagreement (knappers, digging bad vs diggem' all, academics who think relics are interesting but collecting is bad, find vs buy, selling is bad, etc.)

Outside of that line of discussion, it isn't really safe to assume that everyone shares all of my opinions about science, religion, politics, liberal/conservative views, etc. In fact it's almost guaranteed that you can find more to disagree about in this world than you can agree with.

People I disagree with are easy to find. If I want to argue politics there are entire sites where you can set up an email and rail against/for any position you want. I don't have nearly enough people with whom I can discuss things like relics.

 

[Tnmountains]

In the Charter member section they have politics. You can say what you want with out fear of being censored. The moderators do not moderate it at all. When we had politics in the open forums it always became a war. I am glad we do keep politics separate .
On tract though in just the last 10 years science has been proving what some here thought all along. Things are very much older than we thought.