User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 205

  1. #131
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    By your requirements, I don't think we have sufficient proof of biological evolution or plate tectonics.
    Yet with your comparison, a qualifier is applied to those theories but not to this one. How many scientists are agitating transnational policy by forecasting cataclysmic evolutionary or tectonic developments? That's peremptory and conjectural, right? Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ergophobe
    We do not need to observe the pinnacle of this trend
    Of course we do, because the endpoint is unknown. This is the problem -- supplanting proof with assumptions. Again: one group of phenomena does not necessarily bring about corollary phenomena unless the latter has been observed. To suggest otherwise is to simply want to believe in a particular outcome.


    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit
    That being said, I prefer to err on the side of caution...
    So do I: let's not hamstring the industrialized world.

  2. #132
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Special theory of relativity...? Bunk and flim-flam I say! Let those so-called physicists create another universe and test their special theory!

  3. #133
    ^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
    Yet with your comparison, a qualifier is applied to those theories but not to this one. How many scientists are agitating transnational policy by forecasting cataclysmic evolutionary or tectonic developments? That's peremptory and conjectural, right? Right?
    We can, and in fact do, make conjecture based on our understanding of evolution and tectonics. The difference is our forecasts about them do not show any catashrophe worth bugging governments and businesses about.

    I don't even know what your point is anyway. What difference does it make to the credibility of scientific findings that some organizations are taking social initiatives?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  4. #134
    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
    Yet with your comparison, a qualifier is applied to those theories but not to this one. How many scientists are agitating transnational policy by forecasting cataclysmic evolutionary or tectonic developments? That's peremptory and conjectural, right? Right?
    Dude, all scientific evidence is presented with a qualifier, it's called the p value - the confidence we can have about the trend being highlighted. When you have thousands of studies with over 90% confidence in the trend, you'd really want to not listen to ignore this trend. The choice is yours but don't call it science. Your position is one of faith - blind faith in observing a catastrophe to believe it could happen.

    So, by your standards, let's not use scientific methods at all, shall we? When the endpoint is reached, we can all pat ourselves on our backs saying great, now we have observed it - 100% genuine catastrophe, make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, the next time we have a planet exactly like this one, boy will we be prepared to take action early!

    Science and scientific methods even more so are useful precisely because of their predictive power. It is your choice to ignore the predictions being made and call them whatever. How is blindly ignoring scientific findings better?

    Of course we do, because the endpoint is unknown. This is the problem -- supplanting proof with assumptions. Again: one group of phenomena does not necessarily bring about corollary phenomena unless the latter has been observed. To suggest otherwise is to simply want to believe in a particular outcome.
    Where is proof being supplanted with assumptions? Care to explain how that is the case instead of just leveling another allegation?

    Where correlations versus causal mechanisms are concerned, we have evidence regarding both. Correlations are highlighted using the long time series data and the causal mechanisms (connecting cause with effect) using evidence from cases of particular areas and communities where these effects are already being observed (eg. melting ice caps). You can, of course, still choose to ignore the evidence but don't use better scientific methods as the shield, please.


    So do I: let's not hamstring the industrialized world.


    This was especially funny and highlights the hypocrisy of the argument here.
    To recap what's been said by the skeptics so far:
    1. We're not supporting the politics of fear driving public policy.
    2. Where's the real science...

    Let's address 1 first. The politics of fear.
    Um, yeah.

    You know, when you pick an underdog to support next time, ensure you take a careful look at the resources they have access to. First, there are Western countries in the so-called developed world who think better environmental standards does not equal doom for their economies. So, no don't put them all together in the same category.
    Secondly, if you want to talk about effects on economies -- the greatest effects of changes will be felt by developing economies who will not have the luxury of low environmental standards for decades while they invest in rampant industrialization like the West did. That's the argument they're making against better environmental standards....thanks for endorsing that message.

    Now, on the politics of fear. On the developed world, most leading companies are already making changes and voluntarily so. Many were spurred to do so early by customers asking how and have been leading by practice to demonstrate how doing so is not expensive or crippling...yes, I repeat, not expensive or crippling. Many have become leaders in the field. One CEO was just on NPR. Ray Anderson:
    Amazon.com: Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Purpose--Doing Business by Respecting the Earth (9780312543495): Ray C. Anderson, Robin White: Books

    Saying otherwise is of course highlighting unsubstantiated fears about crippling effects on the economies of the developed world ....yeah, the politics of fear seems to be used widely by people across the dividing lines on the issue.
    So, the scientists working on global warming, everyone who reads and supports their predictions, they're all buying into a religion based on fear. The skeptics on the other hand, those who are [cough]afraid[/cough] of how those poor developed/industrialized economies are going to be affected, they're all into real science, the hard stuff.

    On 2. Where's the real science....answered above. When you have scientific evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Special theory of relativity...? Bunk and flim-flam I say! Let those so-called physicists create another universe and test their special theory!
    Where do I send my check?

    Shall we try Mars first and see how inhabitable it is and then industrialize there until we reach comparable levels and then start testing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    We can, and in fact do, make conjecture based on our understanding of evolution and tectonics. The difference is our forecasts about them do not show any catashrophe worth bugging governments and businesses about.

    I don't even know what your point is anyway. What difference does it make to the credibility of scientific findings that some organizations are taking social initiatives?
    Yes, thank you and yes, what was the point anyway?

  5. #135
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Special theory of relativity...? Bunk and flim-flam I say! Let those so-called physicists create another universe and test their special theory!
    What do you think the Large Hadron Collider is for, an indoor Grand Prix? Theoretical frameworks are essential for understanding, but they're just frameworks; to be tested and revised, not enshrined as immutable laws. Don't be so sloppy for the sake of wit, anyway. Physics isn't climatology or meteorology, nor is it adduced for wild and generalized predictions that drive policy.

    Somewhere, in an alternate reality, there's a MacGuffin who isn't conditioned to believe contemporary myth. Let's fund a grant to find him before it's too late!


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
    I don't even know what your point is anyway.
    Tenuous understanding of phenomena, plus bad data, plus expedited investigative methods, plus imaginative and unprovable conclusion; does not equal science.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ergophobe
    /
    The bottom line is that global warming is fanciful eschatology. And it's corrupting worthwhile research about the ecosystem, of which we could use a little more.

  6. #136
    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
    Worthwhile research about the ecosystem, of which we could use a little more.
    I'd be delighted if you could point us to some of these worthwhile sources here.

    Where is this real science?

  7. #137
    S Saiyan God Mace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx
    Socionics
    --- Te
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    Spectacular, it's about time!

    ... Now, we can (merrily) look forward to Christmas.

  8. #138
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Where is this real science?
    Pushed aside and underfunded. Start with defining causes of and factors in climatological fluctuations, both short-term and long-term -- solar, geological, geothermal, biological -- rather than guessing in the rush to talk up an apocalypse. Identifying all the variables and determining their values before announcing the answer to an equation. Cloud physics, solar variation, periodic oscillations -- we don't really understand any of them, and we, you know, sort of need to.

  9. #139
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    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.
    Yep, both sides tamper. This issue has become so politicized, it's foolish to "believe" anyone.

    It would be cause and effect and I'm really missing the point of this distraction...
    You showed an effect, but offered no evidence of the cause.

    I'm explaining the process and presenting evidence. That's a form of argument, distraction is not.
    That's only presenting evidence when you directly address the issue at hand, not when you try to push it aside.

    Your hope is to discredit your opponents, while keeping the integrity of those who support your position intact. That's futile because the issue has become so political.

    ...
    Stop pretending that scientists understand climate science. They don't. No one can predict the future of the climate. All predictions are tainted.
    "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."

  10. #140
    Senior Member evilrobot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    nite
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Mentally challenged is a good way to describe people who still deny global warming. Or perhaps mentally ill.
    X___________________________________

    If things are not what they seem, and we are forever reminded that this is the casethen it must also be observed that enough of us ignore this truth to keep the world from collapsing. Thomas Ligotti, The Mystics of Muelenberg

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