View Full Version : Reuters: Reporting Made- Up Crap
SDW2001
03-01-2005, 11:55 AM
Take a look as this article regarding insurance inustry costs due to natural disasters. Tell me how scientists know beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming, if it exists, caused more disasters in 2004. And tell me how Reuters reports it without even challenging the claim or providing a counter-argument from another source.
Insurers foot record bill in '04 top disaster year
ZURICH, March 1 (Reuters) - A deadly combination of global warming and a rapidly increasing world population made 2004 the most expensive year to date for insurers, a Swiss Re study published on Tuesday shows.
An unusually high number of storms in the United States and Japan, December's devastating tsunami waves and other natural and man-made catastrophes killed more than 300,000 people last year, causing massive damages of $123 billion.
Insurers had to pay a record $49 billion chunk of the total damages, the study showed, making 2004 a more expensive year for the sector than 2001, when the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States alone caused a $20 billion loss.
Last year's damages were not dominated by a single event, however. A total of 13 U.S. hurricanes cost insurers $32 billion, while 10 typhoons in Japan added another $6 billion. The tsunami added another $5 billion to insured losses.
Earlier Swiss Re estimates had already shown 2004 to be the most expensive year for insurers even before the Dec. 26 tsunami wreaked havoc in countries lining the Indian Ocean.
The high damages were partly due to higher temperatures, which caused more windstorms. 2004 was the fourth-warmest year around the world since regular temperature measurements started in 1861, Swiss Re said.
The damage was aggravated by growing populations with higher concentrations of assets in exposed coastal areas.
© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.
03/01/2005 11:26
RTR
Hassan i Sabbah
03-01-2005, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by SDW2001
Take a look as this article regarding insurance inustry costs due to natural disasters. Tell me how scientists know beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming, if it exists, caused more disasters in 2004. And tell me how Reuters reports it without even challenging the claim or providing a counter-argument from another source.
The report says that last year was the most expensive on record for insurers. I guess it was. It doesn't say that climate change caused the tsunami ('natural and man-made catastrophes'), though.
It does talk about the hurricanes in the United States and the typhoons in Japan, though. They were probably caused by climate change. See the first post in the climate change thread about the international consensus that human beings cause climate change and that it's having an effect now.
In other words, they didn't provide 'a counter-argument' because everyone apart from a few mavericks and mad people agrees that climate change is a fact and it's costing us money right now.
SDW2001
03-01-2005, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hold on there, skippy.
Reuters reported on a Swiss study.
CAN WE CLOSE THIS GOD FORSAKEN THREAD,
now that I've killed its sole reason for being?
We currently have a climate-change thread going on right now...
Eh, merge it at least.
I never said anything to contrary. It's still an unbalanced story.
groverat
03-01-2005, 12:07 PM
No, you said, in the title, that Reuters reported "made-up crap".
They reported on a study.
Do not pretend people are stupid, SDW, we can read what you post and we know the English language.
This is a garbage thread but I'm not going to close it. Ignorance, sadly, is not against the rules.
hardeeharhar
03-01-2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by SDW2001
I never said anything to contrary. It's still an unbalanced story.
No actually, it makes no mention of global warming at all. It states that last year was the forth hottest on record. That is a fact. It states that there were increased wind storms as a result of that fact. This is also an experimentally verified fact. Warmer atlantic ocean temperatures are not only highly correlated with increased wind storms, higher temperatures have a mechanistic cause in their formation.
Will you STFU, already?
Hassan i Sabbah
03-01-2005, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by SDW2001
I never said anything to contrary. It's still an unbalanced story.
Only as far as if they had published news about a new fossil discovery they would be obliged to seek out some Christian fundamentalist to say that fossils can be formed in weeks and a great flood was responsible for the death of the dinosaurs, yes.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Only as far as if they had published news about a new fossil discovery they would be obliged to seek out some Christian fundamentalist to say that fossils can be formed in weeks and a great flood was responsible for the death of the dinosaurs, yes.
yeah! have them quote those people who think the world is flat as well.
BRussell
03-01-2005, 01:09 PM
Has anyone noticed how post-modern subjectivism is the new friend of so many conservatives? Every fact (such as that 2004 had the 4th-highest temperature on record (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/10/news/warming.html)) has to be balanced with the "other point of view."
The [senior Bush] aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
hardeeharhar
03-01-2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
Has anyone noticed how post-modern subjectivism is the new friend of so many conservatives? Every fact (such as that 2004 had the 4th-highest temperature on record (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/10/news/warming.html)) has to be balanced with the "other point of view."
I started noticing this about four years ago. I always hated post-modernism, it was too slimy with what it considered was subjective. You know a theory of thought is dead when conservatives start using it as a tool in their arguments.
e1618978
03-01-2005, 02:10 PM
I think that it is the final leap that was the problem. If 2005 is very cold, does that mean that climate change is not occuring? No. For the same reason, 2004 being a very hot year has little to do with climate change.
Climate change is over much a much longer time scale, in the short term it is dwarfed by the natural fluxuations in temparatue.
So, broadcasting that 2004 was expensive because of climate change is "made up shit".
Originally posted by New
...those people who think the world is flat...
I hear this over and over. Explain this "flat earth" belief, when it was popular, and who were it's adherents?
Originally posted by dmz
I hear this over and over. Explain this "flat earth" belief, when it was popular, and who were it's adherents?
Seems to be popular Right now (http://www.flat-earth.org/) ...
Yes, I am aware that many people, throughout history, have been quite aware of the earths sphere-ish form. Still some always refuse to see things as they are, and will always view everything in light of their own political agenda...
Originally posted by New
Seems to be popular Right now (http://www.flat-earth.org/) ...
Yes, I am aware that many people, throughout history, have been quite aware of the earths sphere-ish form. Still some always refuse to see things as they are, and will always view everything in light of their own political agenda...
yes, but there is a wierd constructed context that the [Insert Christian badguys here] once believed the world was flat. I'm tired of hearing this, since I don't think there is any basis in fact for that critisism -- and both the Romish Chruch and Gallieo were christians -- along with Copernicus and many, many others.
I'm reading a book on Greek history, and just ran across the story of how Eratostenes computed the diameter of the earth within 158 kilometers -- in the 3rd century B.C. Apparently there was a second measurement that fell into popular use, based on the star Canopus, that was wrong (29,000km). Had Cristoforo Colombo knows this, he would have never EVER tried to sail for India.
I'm not certain the concept of a flat earth was popular with anyone for very long.
Originally posted by dmz
yes, but there is a wierd constructed context that the [Insert Christian badguys here] once believed the world was flat. I'm tired of hearing this, since I don't think there is any basis in fact for that critisism -- and both the Romish Chruch and Gallieo were christians -- along with Copernicus and many, many others.
I'm reading a book on Greek history, and just ran across the story of how Eratostenes computed the diameter of the earth within 158 kilometers -- in the 3rd century B.C. Apparently there was a second measurement that fell into popular use, based on the star Canopus, that was wrong (29,000km). Had Cristoforo Colombo knows this, he would have never EVER tried to sail for India.
I'm not certain the concept of a flat earth was popular with anyone for very long.
The whole point with the "flat earth thing" is that some people "with power" at a point in time persecuted people like copernicus.
It's actually quite likely that Columbus was not sailing for India at all. He just used it as a financial argument.
BRussell
03-01-2005, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by dmz
yes, but there is a wierd constructed context that the [Insert Christian badguys here] once believed the world was flat. I'm tired of hearing this, since I don't think there is any basis in fact for that critisism -- and both the Romish Chruch and Gallieo were christians -- along with Copernicus and many, many others. I don't think it's so much that Christians believed the earth was flat, as it is an analogy to some current Christians' tendency to be anti-science on things like evolution.
midwinter
03-01-2005, 07:54 PM
My assumption has always been that the "flat earth" arguments were from "Dark Ages" Europe, not Greece. If you're interested in any of this history, I recommend William Manchester's A World Lit Only By Fire.
midwinter
03-02-2005, 12:16 AM
wikipedia on flat earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)
hardeeharhar
03-02-2005, 12:26 AM
"Those who affirm [a belief in antipodes] do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the Earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man." (De Civitate Dei, xvi, 9)
This argument tactic seems awfully familiar. What is worse, here, is that Saint Augustine's argument is that it is impossible for people to have traversed the earth in the 4000 years since creation and established populations. Given all that we know today, and using his logic, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that he would not be arguing for the scriptures, but against them...
Ah the follies we find, when we simply look back...
Originally posted by midwinter
wikipedia on flat earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)
excellent! To bad it only pays minor attention to Columbus's travle.
"...Why did Columbus bring trinkets for trade if the gold of
the Grand Khan was his principal objective? Why did he claim
lands for the Spanish Crown, and for himself as the Crown's
representative, if these lands belonged, as he initially thought,
to an Asiatic kingdom? Why is there no mention of Asia or the
Indies in the titles awarded to Columbus by his royal sponsors?..."
I bet he knew. At the time of Columbus, America had already been discovered by the vikings 500 years earlier. There was even a church in Greenland well into the 13th century.
Hassan i Sabbah
03-02-2005, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think it's so much that Christians believed the earth was flat, as it is an analogy to some current Christians' tendency to be anti-science on things like evolution.
Exactly.
Harald
03-02-2005, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by dmz
yes, but there is a wierd constructed context that the [Insert Christian badguys here] once believed the world was flat. I'm tired of hearing this, since I don't think there is any basis in fact for that critisism
If I recall correctly, the world went round the sun and anyone who looked through a telescope and saw the opposite was a heretic.
THAT'S not constructed, and is what we're referring to here ... 'flat-earthism' is alive and well in US evangelical circles.
hardeeharhar
03-02-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Harald
If I recall correctly, the world went round the sun and anyone who looked through a telescope and saw the opposite was a heretic.
THAT'S not constructed, and is what we're referring to here ... 'flat-earthism' is alive and well in US evangelical circles.
Sun went around the world...
e1618978
03-02-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Sun went around the world...
Well, the Sun does go around the world, or the world goes around the sun. There are no fixed positions for anything - you can artificially pretend that anything is fixed while all of the other stuff is moving.
Everything in the universe is in a very wierd orbit around the DirectTv sattelite.
Originally posted by Harald
If I recall correctly, the world went round the sun and anyone who looked through a telescope and saw the opposite was a heretic.
THAT'S not constructed, and is what we're referring to here ... 'flat-earthism' is alive and well in US evangelical circles.
It was a bit more complicated than that -- but in any event both parties were Christian. All the early dicoveries were done by Christians, the ethos of 'there is order embeded in the universe we just have to unlock it" is Christian. (Materialists have to ACT as if the Christian postion is correct -- see the Lewis quote in my sig.) Scientific American was founded by a Christian. Nearly all the arguments used against Christianity in the Scopes trial were found to be DEAD WRONG -- but the somehow the slur that Christians are "agianst science" lives on. Evolution as a concept only works in the minds of researchers, it has huge problems, the fossil record is at odds with it, idiotic recipies for Coal and oil.........quite frankly, the most you guys can get from straight-line salinity, ocean mud, erosion, etc., is millions of years -- not billions....anyone in there right mind should be very circumspect with the claims of modern science. I guess white-hole cosmology just showed up in Popular Science -- most Big-Bang theories come from nothing, that is, the Big-Bang does not expand into 3-D space -- it starts from NOTHING, and that the universe has no center or edge.
I think I'll keep my skepticism.
hardeeharhar
03-02-2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by dmz
All the early dicoveries were done by Christians
That is an out and out lie.
hardeeharhar
03-02-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by e1618978
Well, the Sun does go around the world, or the world goes around the sun. There are no fixed positions for anything - you can artificially pretend that anything is fixed while all of the other stuff is moving.
Everything in the universe is in a very wierd orbit around the DirectTv sattelite.
You cannot derive meaningful physical laws by saying that DirectTV is the center of the universe. That was the problem with geocentric theories.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
That is an out and out lie.
The timeframe of Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, etc, etc, etc, was completly dominated by Christians. It was not until the late 19th Century do you see the elevation of science above ALL else.
hardeeharhar
03-02-2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by dmz
Unless you are talking about the contributions made by the Greeks, you are wrong.
Uh. No I am not. Our numerical system comes from the Arabian peninsula, piles upon piles of astronomical data used in Europe came from Muslim (and possibly Jewish) scientists etc etc etc...
I not only take issue with the factual basis of your statement, but also with what you are trying to claim as Christian. If I have an ancestor who was Christian, am I? If my parents were, am I?
hardeeharhar
03-02-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by dmz
The timeframe of Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, etc, etc, etc, was completly dominated by Christians. It was not until the late 19th Century do you see the elevation of science above ALL else.
This edit isn't true at all either. The data that Copernicus used was from Islamic observatories. Newton certainly didn't believe that jesus was his savior...
You are also choosing to focus on European science, which again is a great flaw in your intellect.
BRussell
03-02-2005, 12:33 PM
I think dmz is basically right that Christianity supported science for some time. But I think it's clear that they began to fear it when it started to become more successful, especially during the renaissance and enlightenment periods, and they began to strongly resist it.
I think that was probably the greatest mistake the church ever made, and its effects still linger today.
Harald
03-02-2005, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by dmz
It was a bit more complicated than that -- but in any event both parties were Christian. All the early dicoveries were done by Christians, the ethos of 'there is order embeded in the universe we just have to unlock it" is Christian.
I think I'll keep my skepticism.
It was the Church that decreed Galileo heretical. But Galileo proves that not all Christians need to be blinkered to what they see with their own eyes. 'The Church' seems to now and then ... faith trumps science and leads to some Christians making ludicrous statements.
The first people who made usable discoveries about astronomy were ... well, who knows, but not Christian. Stone-age people possibly. Stonehenge ring a bell?
The word 'algorithm' comes from Al-Khawarizmi, an Islamic scholar incidentally. He wasn't a Christian but he did lay down a fair bit of the groundwork that permitted Newtonian physics. Oh, and Google for 'Euclid.' He wasn't a Christian.
The idea of order embedded in the universe is ancient. Go and read some Plato.
I don't know where you get this ludicrous Christo-centric vision of science. It's just nuts.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Uh. No I am not. Our numerical system comes from the Arabian peninsula, piles upon piles of astronomical data used in Europe came from Muslim (and possibly Jewish) scientists etc etc etc...
No one is denying the contributions of Islam -- or the Chinese for that matter. But at the same time, neither were on the scence when the major breakthroughs in Electircal theory, Atomic theory, Physics, and Mathematicas were made.
You're dodging the "flat earth" reference -- Christians don't have the "flat earth" history -- yes, the romish church got too big for its britches, but far and away, the contributions of Christians to Science are significant and sound.
Hassan i Sabbah
03-02-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by dmz
IEvolution as a concept only works in the minds of researchers, it has huge problems, the fossil record is at odds with it, idiotic recipies for Coal and oil.........quite frankly, the most you guys can get from straight-line salinity, ocean mud, erosion, etc., is millions of years -- not billions....anyone in there right mind should be very circumspect with the claims of modern science..
THESE SENTENCES ARE WRONG. THEY ARE WRONG. YOU ARE NOT RIGHT. WHAT YOU SAY HERE IS INCORRECT. I GIVE UP.
Edit. To say that you are offended when you hear people say that Christians are 'anti-science' and to then write these sentences takes a lot of sauce. Actually, it's hilarious. And infuriating, ironic and sad, and all the evidence anyone sane needs why you just won't ever, ever get it.
For the record: Christians are not 'anti-science'. No, Christians LIKE YOU are anti-science, and thank the ancient, dead gods people like you are a minority.
Sorry, dmz, really. I think you're actually OK, I really do, but I find it really annoying. :)
Hassan i Sabbah
03-02-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by dmz
the ethos of 'there is order embeded in the universe we just have to unlock it" is Christian. (Materialists have to ACT as if the Christian postion is correct -- see the Lewis quote in my sig.)
This will comes as quite a shock to followers of Shinto, Buddhism and Hinduism.
All of these religions are thousands of years older than Christianity, I might add. I guess they've always been Christians and just didn't know it.
hardeeharhar
03-02-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by dmz
No one is denying the contributions of Islam -- or the Chinese for that matter. But at the same time, neither were on the scence when the major breakthroughs in Electircal theory, Atomic theory, Physics, and Mathematicas were made.
You're dodging the "flat earth" reference -- Christians don't have the "flat earth" history -- yes, the romish church got too big for its britches, but far and away, the contributions of Christians to Science are significant and sound.
Um. I really think you should read about the contributions to science from other regions. You will be surprised.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
THESE SENTENCES ARE WRONG. THEY ARE WRONG. YOU ARE NOT RIGHT. WHAT YOU SAY HERE IS INCORRECT. I GIVE UP.
How do coniferous trees grow in a swamp? I guess the standard line is "Well golly they must have grown differently in the past"? is this right? Huge seams of coal made from trees falling over in a swamp and somehow not rotting?
????
I actually thought about starting a thread on coal and oil formation. Although I don't think everyone could play nice.
tonton
03-02-2005, 01:13 PM
This is about the most off-topic thread I've ever seen.
Anyway, the only truly made-up crap in the discussion excluding the anti-creationist theories is the thread title.
Reuters did not report made-up crap. Not in any way.
They reported a scientific study. That has all evidence of being true. It is not "made-up crap".
So they didn't report an alternate view. Boo fucking hoo. That still does not make it made-up.
The thread title is a lie and the thread starter is a liar. Endy story.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This will comes as quite a shock to followers of Shinto, Buddhism and Hinduism.
All of these religions are thousands of years older than Christianity, I might add. I guess they've always been Christians and just didn't know it.
ONE MORE TIME: I'm not going to deny the contributions of other cultures.
ONE MORE TIME: Christians DON"T have a "flat earth" history of obfuscating science -- the 'flat earth' slur is baseless.
so there:p
e1618978
03-02-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You cannot derive meaningful physical laws by saying that DirectTV is the center of the universe. That was the problem with geocentric theories.
The laws are just simpler if you assume that the sun is stationary. Before Copernicus, people had all kinds of geo-centric theories and formulas about the movement of the planets.
Hassan i Sabbah
03-02-2005, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by dmz
How do coniferous trees grow in a swamp? I guess the standard line is "Well golly they must have grown differently in the past"? is this right? Huge seams of coal made from trees falling over in a swamp and somehow not rotting?
????
I actually thought about starting a thread on coal and oil formation. Although I don't think everyone could play nice.
I'll tell you if you tell me how willow trees made a break for the high ground along with oaks and the more anatomically complex ammonites during the Great Flood.
Look, I'm not getting into this. I give up. The evidence of your own eyes isn't enough for you
But, um, oil and coal weren't necessarily made from conifers. Who ever said they were?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
But, um, oil and coal weren't necessarily made from conifers. Who ever said they were?
No idea. I know at least some are.
I'm not pretending to be an expert on this.
midwinter
03-02-2005, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by dmz
No idea. I know at least some are.
I'm not pretending to be an expert on this.
Are you sure?
Originally posted by midwinter
Are you sure?
I'm actually up in the air over whether or not I should be ambivalent about this.
Hassan i Sabbah
03-02-2005, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by dmz
I'm actually up in the air over whether or not I should be ambivalent about this.
my new sig.
Not really, but I still like it.
MarcUK
03-04-2005, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by dmz
I actually thought about starting a thread on coal and oil formation. Although I don't think everyone could play nice.
Do it, or I will do it for you. ;)
Originally posted by MarcUK
Do it, or I will do it for you. ;)
You feel, lucky...PUNK?
http://www.mbaassociation.org/media/image/9/dirty_harry.jpg
Hassan i Sabbah
03-04-2005, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by dmz
You feel, lucky...PUNK?
http://www.mbaassociation.org/media/image/9/dirty_harry.jpg
Is that Mike Crain, Karatist Preacher?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Is that Mike Crain, Karatist Preacher?
different suit-and-tie, same bad taste though;)
addabox
03-04-2005, 01:58 PM
Now, I believe, it falls to SDW to show how Reuters and evolution and flat earth cosmologies and global warming and Christian apologetics and DirectTv -centric orbital schemes and tsunamis and Islamic science and Wikpedia and conifer fed coal deposits all merge seamlessly to prove Howard Dean is insane.
Originally posted by addabox
Now, I believe, it falls to SDW to show how Reuters and evolution and flat earth cosmologies and global warming and Christian apologetics and DirectTv -centric orbital schemes and tsunamis and Islamic science and Wikpedia and conifer fed coal deposits all merge seamlessly to prove Howard Dean is insane.
good one!
:lol: :lol:
MarcUK
03-05-2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by dmz
You feel, lucky...PUNK?
http://www.mbaassociation.org/media/image/9/dirty_harry.jpg
come on DorkManZoo, if you've got truthful reliable credible evidence of this claim, I can only lose.
and I have a sugestion to the moderators, we need to make a 'sticky' of all the claims that Creationists have made that have been utterly refuted, so we dont cover the same ground every 3 months.
Also dorkmanzoo, I was thinking of applying for moderator, I trust I'll get your vote?
Originally posted by MarcUK
....I was thinking of applying for moderator, I trust I'll get your vote?
Go Ahead..... MAKE MY DAY!! ;)
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Go ahead. Cling to the past. Clint has since moved on-- making an anti-western, an anti-violence film, a pro-euthanasia film, and a movie with Meryl Streep. :)
Yes, of course, I forgot about Play Misty for Me.
;)
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.