User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 205

  1. #121
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    What did the emails bring to light?
    1. The scientists actually care about the issue they're studying and express that in their emails.
    2. Alleged tampering of results by a a few scientists at East Anglia or perhaps a reference to a method used by them. We don't know, for sure, which side that fell on.
    Any tampering, on either side of the debate, permanently injures your credibility. While the emails aren't hard evidence of a global conspiracy, they do show the extent to which some scientists will go to further their agenda. Surely these aren't the only scientists to employ these tactics. To assume so would be naive. They're just among the few to be "caught".

    Even if we were to assume the above two to be true, the following remains:
    1. The above scientists are a small number of the total number of climate change scientists worldwide, along with other research from a variety of disciplines documenting the effects on flora, fauna and human life that climate change is already having. We're experiencing the effects now - no need to wait for the future. That's what the video highlighted as well.
    This issue is about causes, not effects.

    2. There is a variety of evidence used to document climate change. The temperatures from weather stations across the globe is actually just one way. The evidence from this line, in spite of tampering by the other side, still shows that temperatures have been increasing. All the other types of evidence hold as well. That is how scientific progress is made - through a preponderance of evidence. We know which side this preponderance is on. One sensationalist Calgary Herald article or an incredibly politicized administration is not going to change the evidence.
    So basically, you're the cop saying "nothing to see here, move along".

    3. Taking the emails, the issue really highlighted here, at face value -- it should be clearly pointed out that these scientists along with hundreds of others pointing to similar effects have published their findings in peer-reviewed academic journals. These follow a blind process where their peers would have closely examined the data and results. This takes 6-8 months with revisions. It's not so simple to publish an academic piece without serious review in these top journals.
    Peer review is not a perfect process. Don't pretend that it is.

    4. There is clear evidence (former administration officials confessing their role) that the Bush administration did a lot of harm to the evidence provided by climate change scientists, including changing the wording of their reports to undermine the urgency of the subject.
    The Bush administration was incompetent in many ways. But they were politicians. It should be expected that they're full of shit.

    It's not a question of conversion, it is one of making up your own mind based on the evidence provided to you and an understanding of how scientific progress is made. If you pick up two reports of 100 and use them as proof that climate change is not a real issue, it's a disservice to everyone who is confused about the issue. We could call each side converts and learn nothing about the actual process and the effect on our planet. Or, we could take the time to examine all the evidence and make an informed decision. The choice should be available to all as well as clear indication of the consequences.
    This issue has moved far beyond science. It's now far more political than scientific, which has raised the stakes. That's why it's getting so nasty.

    Let's take a look at the numbers themselves...
    There are idiots on both sides of the issue. This is not news. It has also long been proclaimed that anyone that opposes The Consensus either has no credentials or has been bought off by oil/coal companies.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #122
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Any tampering, on either side of the debate, permanently injures your credibility. While the emails aren't hard evidence of a global conspiracy, they do show the extent to which some scientists will go to further their agenda. Surely these aren't the only scientists to employ these tactics. To assume so would be naive. They're just among the few to be "caught".
    It may permanently injure the credibility of the specific individuals involved, but the fact that these guys happened to be on one side of the debate does not injure the credibility of the argument that side is making. The credibility of the argument can only be injured by being proven to be factually inaccurate.

    To assume otherwise is ridiculous.

    This issue is about causes, not effects.
    Yes it is about causes.

    Its undisputed that mans greenhouse gas emissions have an influential impact on climate change.

    How much this influence effects the environment compared to natural causes of climate change is still yet to be determined.

    So basically, you're the cop saying "nothing to see here, move along".
    So basically your just dismissing ergo's argument without actually having put any thought into rebutting it, or telling us why you think its wrong.

    Peer review is not a perfect process. Don't pretend that it is.
    It might not be perfect, but its a damn sight better than the review process for articles supported by the other side.

    The Bush administration was incompetent in many ways. But they were politicians. It should be expected that they're full of shit.
    That fact doesn't excuse the fact that they blinded the people to whats going on.

    This issue has moved far beyond science. It's now far more political than scientific, which has raised the stakes. That's why it's getting so nasty
    So?

    There are idiots on both sides of the issue. This is not news. It has also long been proclaimed that anyone that opposes The Consensus either has no credentials or has been bought off by oil/coal companies.
    Which if you follow the money is ACTUALLY whats happening in many instances.

  3. #123
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    I have answered these questions before, in other threads. This is not the first thread on environmentalism. Feel free to use the search feature.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #124
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I'm sure I've heard the responses you would give before.

    So I'll hold off on the search function, and take a much needed shower instead!

    EDIT: If you are going to punt on the issue, then so will I. It would probably take me an hour to search and find all your arguments. Or you could take 5-10 minutes to think it through and tell me yourself. That way, I definitely won't mis-interpret anything you say. Or waste my time.

  5. #125
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Any tampering, on either side of the debate, permanently injures your credibility. While the emails aren't hard evidence of a global conspiracy, they do show the extent to which some scientists will go to further their agenda. Surely these aren't the only scientists to employ these tactics. To assume so would be naive. They're just among the few to be "caught".
    In which case, by your logic since alleged tampering on either side permanently damages the entire argument, we shouldn't pay attention to either side? How do you suggest we understand the issue.

    This issue is about causes, not effects.
    It would be cause and effect and I'm really missing the point of this distraction...


    So basically, you're the cop saying "nothing to see here, move along".
    I'm explaining the process and presenting evidence. That's a form of argument, distraction is not.

    That is also, in true fashion, misrepresenting what I was saying about the peer review process. To repeat since I do actually have an argument: The emails represent a small portion of the really large number of scientists involved, there is a consensus among this really large group, the methods and findings have been reviewed by others in the discipline. If you don't have a response to the argument itself, say that.

    Peer review is not a perfect process. Don't pretend that it is.
    Again, distraction. Did I say the peer review process was perfect, NO. I said there are ways of examining arguments and evidence presented. if you had to pick a side between :
    1. A side where the majority of work presented is done by trained scientists, goes through a process of checks and has some accountability and then is vetted by people in other disciplines as this is a interdisciplinary topic
    and the
    2. Alternative where there are people not trained to conduct this analysis presented as experts (weather reporters) and the small number of scientists or people with some expertise involved have no check on their findings at all.

    That is what the peer review process provides - the opportunity for people who are experts on that topic to review what you've done and present a critique of the argument, methods and evidence....it's not about perfection, it's about accountability and checks. Some checks are better than none.

    The Bush administration was incompetent in many ways. But they were politicians. It should be expected that they're full of shit.
    What's the point here? Can you relate it to tampering and the evidence presented by clearly political groups? What evidence should we rely on then to evaluate the skeptics' side of the argument. Present the evidence.

    This issue has moved far beyond science. It's now far more political than scientific, which has raised the stakes. That's why it's getting so nasty.
    Yet another attempt at distraction -- don't distract from the science. I'm not using the views of liberal politicians here but those of scientists, saying there is a clear consensus among the majority of the scientific community in one direction. How does your position or the lack of one and relying on methods of distraction help us understand the issue? Not at all. Address the issue with scientific evidence or at least don't misrepresent the evidence that exists.

    There are idiots on both sides of the issue. This is not news. It has also long been proclaimed that anyone that opposes The Consensus either has no credentials or has been bought off by oil/coal companies.
    Yes there are idiots on all sides and there is a connection between the fuel lobby and the skeptics' argument. What does that tell us about examining and understanding the issue?

    Is this the evidence presented above? Put aside the videos from a site that is clearly partisan and the goal is to present the issues in an understandable format but clearly supporting one side. That wasn't meant to be evidence but a fun and sometimes funny representation of the argument.

    Other than that, the people and organizations cited are non-partisan, scientists who have been peer-reviewed and widely known national, reputed news sources. The point of my posting here was to clarify confusion for those who were really interested in knowing more. How can we help them and understand this issue better ourselves?

    So, if there are idiots on all sides, how do you distinguish rhetoric from science? Clearly you have different methods. Either present those or a real argument. For more distraction, I can't be bothered to respond.

  6. #126
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I'm still amazed that some supposedly smart people call this "science". It's not. It's a religion.
    Exactly; that's the crux. What concerns me most is the near-medieval vitiation of the scientific method. Science is founded on demonstrable evidence, and that can only be obtained through empirical results of experiments.

    Short of another planet with a similar ecosystem, population, and industrial level, whose supposed declension can be witnessed -- there is no experiment that has produced or can produce results confirming claims of catastrophic events caused by global warming. Anything else is speculation; X (increase in greenhouse gases) might be asserted to implicate Y (detrimental climate change), but until Y can actually be observed, its prediction is not a scientific statement.

    Of course, alarmists protest that by the time phenomena are manifest it'll be too late -- the end is nigh! Believe! And that is faith, not science.

  7. #127
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    Exactly; that's the crux. What concerns me most is the near-medieval vitiation of the scientific method. Science is founded on demonstrable evidence, and that can only be obtained through empirical results of experiments.

    Short of another planet with a similar ecosystem, population, and industrial level, whose supposed declension can be witnessed -- there is no experiment that has produced or can produce results confirming claims of catastrophic events caused by global warming. Anything else is speculation; X (increase in greenhouse gases) might be asserted to implicate Y (detrimental climate change), but until Y can actually be observed, its prediction is not a scientific statement.

    Of course, alarmists protest that by the time phenomena are manifest it'll be too late -- the end is nigh! Believe! And that is faith, not science.
    That being said, I prefer to err on the side of caution...

  8. #128
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    I found the OP shockingly short-sighted for an NT.

    Whatever distaste I have for politicians generating revenue for their business associates; based upon employing fear campaigns. i.e. War on Terror, Global Warming.

    The fact is that CO2 emissions are impacting Ocean PH. What happens when the PH in the ocean shifts out of a sustainable range? All of that nice algae that produces most of the oxygen we breath will die.

    Ocean PH is changing, that's a fact. Whatever steps can be taken to measure and get CO2 to a level where the earth can absorb the output; I think we should go for it...

    Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology

  9. #129
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    Exactly; that's the crux. What concerns me most is the near-medieval vitiation of the scientific method. Science is founded on demonstrable evidence, and that can only be obtained through empirical results of experiments.

    Short of another planet with a similar ecosystem, population, and industrial level, whose supposed declension can be witnessed -- there is no experiment that has produced or can produce results confirming claims of catastrophic events caused by global warming. Anything else is speculation; X (increase in greenhouse gases) might be asserted to implicate Y (detrimental climate change), but until Y can actually be observed, its prediction is not a scientific statement.

    Of course, alarmists protest that by the time phenomena are manifest it'll be too late -- the end is nigh! Believe! And that is faith, not science.
    You're joking, right?

    Since when did experimental methods become the only form of scientific testing and evidence?
    1. That is a false assertion. Experiments are not the only source of scientific evidence or even the most valid method used for all types of questions. The best method depends on the question. For some questions, experiments are good, for others not so much.
    2. Experiments, even the best ones, cannot replicate the world we live in. Not possible for obvious reasons - there are too many variables that would have to be incorporated.

    You imply that if you only have one subject (the earth for our purposes), there's no way we can scientifically study it. False.

    With a single subject, you get leverage by looking at long term patterns. Instead of relying on a small sample of data, we look at really long time periods. We have that information for the earth. This is what the scientists like Latif were pointing towards. Look at the longer term patterns - over centuries and we can have more confidence about the patterns we find.

    That is the scientific method, not religion. Even with experiments, you can only have so much confidence because of the question of generalizability. Findings from experiments are not sure to be valid across different contexts.

    The Y is an observed trend, increase in temperatures or increasing PH levels. We do not need to observe the pinnacle of this trend -- the point where these trends are irreversible in order to highlight the pattern.

    All that to say, any scientific method brings with it shortcomings, including experiments. The evidence in support of global warming comes from thousands of studies, using a variety of evidence and methods. To call it all religious beliefs is misrepresentation. Religion implies blind belief with no evidence required. That's quite a leap of faith you make, yourself, when you confuse the work done by thousands of people involved in this research with religion. So, if we don't have a 100% confidence in the scientific findings the majority of which support the global warming thesis, we should pay no attention to the connection at all, dismissing it as religion?

  10. #130
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    Exactly; that's the crux. What concerns me most is the near-medieval vitiation of the scientific method. Science is founded on demonstrable evidence, and that can only be obtained through empirical results of experiments.

    Short of another planet with a similar ecosystem, population, and industrial level, whose supposed declension can be witnessed -- there is no experiment that has produced or can produce results confirming claims of catastrophic events caused by global warming. Anything else is speculation; X (increase in greenhouse gases) might be asserted to implicate Y (detrimental climate change), but until Y can actually be observed, its prediction is not a scientific statement.
    By your requirements, I don't think we have sufficient proof of biological evolution or plate tectonics.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. What is some viable proof of Global Warming?
    By Blackout in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 09:40 PM
  2. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  3. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  4. Conspiracy theories cluster - global warming hoax is among them.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 06:42 AM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO