User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 205

  1. #151
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    You will have to excuse me for being alarmed, its just that our president is going to sign a document that strips away more American freedom then has done in 100s of years since the civil war. And its going to cost trillions.

    But lets keep debating whether or not global warming is an issue, he can just sign off in the mean time right? Dipshit.
    That's what I said: Ideology.

    Since you don't know how to interpret scientific facts (or lack the knowledge required to do it), you can only answer with your values.

    Tell me: is this a rational way to proceed?
    Last edited by Blackmail!; 12-07-2009 at 12:42 PM.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  2. #152
    Crazy Diamond Billy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    That's what I said: Ideology.

    Since you don't know how to interpret scientifical facts (or lack the knowledge required to do it), you can only answer with your values.

    Tell me: is this a rational way to proceed?
    You dont need to be a scientist to understand science for one, and this is NO LONGER a scientific debate, its quickly becoming a debate on POLICY which effects our lives. I don't know if you are capable of understanding this because you clearly have been using this diatribe long enough and think it works to hide the lies in your bullshit global warming hoax.

    Is it a rational way to proceed? Fuck rationality, its about MONEY. Keep your socialist hands out of our god damned pockets and then we will talk about rationality.

    you want to talk science?

    YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

    watch this video and give me your book report with your debunking of HIS science by the end of the weekend.

    Balls in your court Jacques.
    Ground control to Major Tom

  3. #153
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    One question: are you a scientist?
    Several questions:

    - Which kind of scientist?
    - Do the environmentalist scientists all agree?
    - How many different types of scientists are there in relation to environmental studies, weather patterns, ice core data retrieval and so on are there?
    - Do these various groupings even agree within their OWN ranks, let alone with other groups of scientists?
    - Does someone who substantially researches papers on many various aspects of the multifaceted issue have a better grasp as a whole than a single researcher dedicated to their singular topic without enough time to themselves to fully research the various other interrelated issues?
    - Why then did yeu even bother to ask since the answer is moot regardless of whether it's yes or no?



    EDIT: I forgot one ^.^

    - Is it commonplace for people with only a small sample size of a larger dataset, to determine an outcome based on their limited information? Ie a researcher with a very focused research topic overlooking the other contributing factors?

    Anyways, I should put it more bluntly. Being a scientist or not will not automatically make yeur arguments any more valid on this particular topic. Even most of them are divided on the issue as ones doing ice core samples in Antarctica get completely different information than those studying the ice sheets in the arctic on the other side of the world, the two data sets pretty much giving virtually as opposite in information as the poles they originate from. Climatology is an IMMENSE field of study, and we've barely scratched the surface on it. Even the best forcasters can't accurately predict whether it's even going to rain 2 weeks from now, the guesstimates on hurricane numbers and intensity are often off by as much as 50%, the list goes on and on.

    We are at the infant stages of understanding our atmosphere, how large an impact our own actions can take, how things like solar cycles, ocean currents, and so on fully interact with each other... we don't even have measurements at all from most of the deepest parts of the ocean floor, nor do we have any clue whether those deepest recesses have any actual noticeable effect upon the surface climate as a whole. We know the gulf stream has a major effect, but how major is still in the air, and whot contributes to it is still heavily in question.

    My point here, is that "are yeu a scientist" is not a valid question, as the answer does not have any indication at all on whether the source would be more accurate for information or not. Most of the researchers doing the cutting edge research on these topics are in the middle of nowhere, digging up ancient forrests through meters deep mud, on glacial ice sheets, or just generally way the hell away from civilization and are too busy with research projects to actually have time to keep track of even their own small section of the climate puzzle, let alone the broad range of research topics ongoing at any one time. That and even if we combined all of them, we'd still be sorely lacking for data.

    So why ask such a fruitless question when it has no merit regardless of the answer?

  4. #154
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    I'll have another question for Oberon, Lateralus, Risen, Billy (et caetera):

    Are you 100% sure you're right on that issue?

    And if so, tell us why, I'll be curious.

    ---

    Of course, I'm not 100% sure myself (no true scientist would), but at least, I'm among the people who actively collected evidences that a global warming is occuring, since I'm a trained botanist. Evidences are everywhere if you know how to decipher and analyze them. So for me, this issue is NOT AT ALL about politics, it's rather about epistemology.

    Should I trust reason? Should I continue to trust my senses, my eyes?

    And if not, why?

    Could you explain me why I should discard what I know, what I have seen, the trends I have personally noticed?

    Why should I trust you, and you only, rather than the global scientific consensus?

    ---

    Well, this forum is about psychology. So tell me: if you were standing in my shoes, which choice could be the sane one, and which one could be the insane one?

    Frankly?
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  5. #155
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Several questions:
    Are you a Jesuit?

    When somebody asks you a simple question, or when you feel embarrassed, do you always try to elude the matter?

    - Which kind of scientist?
    I'm a botanist and a landscape architect, two supplementary activities.

    - Do the environmentalist scientists all agree?
    Frankly, YES. 99% of them.

    - How many different types of scientists are there in relation to environmental studies, weather patterns, ice core data retrieval and so on are there?
    More than you can count.

    - Do these various groupings even agree within their OWN ranks, let alone with other groups of scientists?
    When 99% of these "various groupings" agree, this is not an issue.


    - Does someone who substantially researches papers on many various aspects of the multifaceted issue have a better grasp as a whole than a single researcher dedicated to their singular topic without enough time to themselves to fully research the various other interrelated issues?
    Almost every scientific paper leads to the same direction. Again, it's a global consensus. From my perspective, it's a no-debate.

    I'm just wondering why so many people here would rather take the 1% left for granted, or demagogically conclude that "both sides" are even. Is this just plain ignorance, are they manipulated, or is this something else?
    I'd be tempted to imagine that they rather AGREE to be manipulated. I think it's a deliberate and conscious choice. I do not think that Oberon, Risen or Lateralus are that stupid. It has less to do with Science than with their ideological identity, the way they would define themselves existentially.


    - Why then did yeu even bother to ask since the answer is moot regardless of whether it's yes or no?
    Curiosity.

    ---

    Frankly, I don't think I will learn anything new here, from a scientific point of view. But rather, it's interesting to observe how the human mind work, and how strong factors like ideology, identity really are.

    Stronger than plain reason, in fact.

    Irrationality is fascinating subject.
    Last edited by Blackmail!; 12-07-2009 at 12:40 PM.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  6. #156
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    So, are you ABSOLUTELY sure this issue is only about politics?
    No, but the scientists involved have politicized their findings (in terms of policy prescriptions), exaggerated the certainty of their findings, fudged data (which is not unprecedented, luminaries such as Isaac Newton did the same thing), engaged in misleading presentations of their findings, and generally behaved like complete asses.

    The preponderance of evidence (in the form of general consensus among hard-science specialists) is still in favor of the man-made climate-change hypothesis, but recent developments have indicated that climate scientists really don't understand enough of what's going on to trust any catastrophic predictions at this point in time, especially when evidence suggest the scientist themselves cannot be trusted to present their findings accurately.

    Most importantly, the climate-change hysteria has engendered proposed solutions (such as the Kyoto Protocol) that would likely be counter-productive in terms of both relative costs as well as the ostensible goal of decreasing the amount of greenhouses gasses in the atmosphere-perhaps you could explain why forcing industries (through onerous regulations and substantially higher energy costs) to move to countries where greenhouse emissions per unit of production are much higher will somehow decrease the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?

  7. #157
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    I don't think the US has anywhere to go economically but more advanced and increase the standard of living.

    To go downward to lower our standard of living would be competing with China on a level where its just not good for the US.

  8. #158
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    I don't think the US has anywhere to go economically but more advanced and increase the standard of living.

    To go downward to lower our standard of living would be competing with China on a level where its just not good for the US.
    The proposed solutions to global warming would both decrease our standard of living and make make competition with China (and India, etc.) much more problematic.

  9. #159
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Climatology is an IMMENSE field of study, and we've barely scratched the surface on it. Even the best forcasters can't accurately predict whether it's even going to rain 2 weeks from now, the guesstimates on hurricane numbers and intensity are often off by as much as 50%, the list goes on and on.

    We are at the infant stages of understanding our atmosphere, how large an impact our own actions can take, how things like solar cycles, ocean currents, and so on fully interact with each other... we don't even have measurements at all from most of the deepest parts of the ocean floor, nor do we have any clue whether those deepest recesses have any actual noticeable effect upon the surface climate as a whole. We know the gulf stream has a major effect, but how major is still in the air, and whot contributes to it is still heavily in question.

    My point here, is that "are yeu a scientist" is not a valid question, as the answer does not have any indication at all on whether the source would be more accurate for information or not. Most of the researchers doing the cutting edge research on these topics are in the middle of nowhere, digging up ancient forrests through meters deep mud, on glacial ice sheets, or just generally way the hell away from civilization and are too busy with research projects to actually have time to keep track of even their own small section of the climate puzzle, let alone the broad range of research topics ongoing at any one time. That and even if we combined all of them, we'd still be sorely lacking for data.
    Are you aware that's a collection of ignorant clichés on Climatology?

    Bla bla bla bla bla bla...

    Because here, you are suggesting that we know NOTHING of this subject, and that's not true either.

    We have evidences everywhere that something is occuring at a fast rate, and that men are involved. Just check the Carbon isotopes in plant tissues that show how they absorb it, you will clearly see the anthropogenic influence.

    Indeed, the total amount of consequences is still unknown, but how and why these events are happening is a no-debate.
    You seem to conclude that Climatology is not a hard science because we still have a range of possible scenarios (from worst to catastrophic), but each year, these possible variations are becoming more and more precise.
    You can't pretend Climatology is saying one thing and its opposite, that would be not true AT ALL, even if that's what you're suggesting.

    As I said, you're just hiding you're ignorance with an assortment of (false) clichés.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  10. #160
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    I'll have another question for Oberon, Lateralus, Risen, Billy (et caetera):

    Are you 100% sure you're right on that issue?

    And if so, tell us why, I'll be curious.

    ---

    Of course, I'm not 100% sure myself (no true scientist would), but at least, I'm among the people who actively collected evidences that a global warming is occuring, since I'm a trained botanist. They're everywhere if you know how to decipher and analyze them. So for me, this issue is NOT AT ALL about politics, it's rather about epistemology.
    Unfortunately there are a fair number who actually ARE 100% sure of themselves. Claiming that makes them not 'true' scientists is silly as well... if they passed their courses, do their research, and can produce repeatable evidence for the topic they were studying, they still are, even if they may have their head up their butt.

    That being said, I think yeu're right that any SELF RESPECTING one would know better than to claim 100% truth.





    Should I trust reason? Should I continue to trust my senses, my eyes?

    And if not, why?

    Could you explain me why I should discard what I know, what I have seen, the trends I have personally noticed?
    Yeur senses can lie to yeu; optical illusions, false sensory input, incorrect management of sensory data, these are commonplace. Yeur brain is designed to QUICKLY process data, not to ACCURATELY process it. Whot yeu see is virtually always inaccurate. Try to read a book from the corner of yeur eye... yeu may be able to ascertain there's words on the page if yeu're lucky, but yeu won't be able to make sense of them because that data is thrown out except for basic details.

    Note that this also applies to personal observation of trends; limited information and resources means no one person has a full grasp of the full effects of every topic correlated to their chosen field of study. Yeur brain is designed to make connections between things; intelligence is little else than pattern recognition. The smarter yeu are, the more readily yeu see patterns in chaos. This means alot of the trends yeu see flat out don't exist, or are created by external stimuli which yeu are not taking into account.

    For an on topic relevant example, the whole CO2 and temperature rise thing was thought to be a trend... turns out with further study that the temperature rises FIRST, and the CO2 rises proportionately AFTER. The trend didn't exist, and was actually occurring in reversed fashion to the observed values at first due to insufficient data and inaccurate measurements from earlier ice core samples. As the technology and understanding of ice cores became more refined, the accuracy increase caught the error and corrected the mistake.


    Why should I trust you, and you only, rather than the global scientifical consensus?
    Because there is no global scientific(al) consensus, and scientifical isn't even a word =3

    Neither is 'yeu', so I can't really call yeu on that one, but just wanted to say before someone tried to discredit yeur argument on such a silly thing as a typo.

    Now that being said, there's alot of discrepancy in the scientific community as to exactly whot's going on because various research projects are currently providing conflicting information. One research team will get evidence that global warming is occurring, another will be presented with information that it's not, a third will be shown that localized increases are occurring but other areas are decreasing, another still will think to factor in that we're in a dormant period of the sun's activity phase right now and will try to calculate out how much of an effect is happening in relation to where we would be at the height of a solar cycle, yet another will check historical records from a tsunami 300 years ago and get totally different data from the one doing research on ice cores presenting a range of several thousand years availability.

    Due to so much conflicting data, context sensitive information, limited understanding, and factors applying which we already know we don't recognize whot these extra outside factors are but we know they're playing a role we don't understand... fact is that there is NOT a consensus at all.


    Well, this forum is about psychology. So tell me: if you were standing in my shoes, which choice could be the sane one, and which one could be the insane one?

    Frankly?
    [/QUOTE]

    The one willing to use common sense. Assuming we know everything or that one individuals limited insight into a field of study outside of their primary using second hand information, especially one who's self proclaimed mind is preferential to making bizarre leaps of logic which don't always track all that well (ENTP 4tw, it's awesome how our brains work, but have to admit it's more of a shotgun effect than a sniper scope when it comes to ideas and accuracy...), I would find this to be more than enough evidence to suggest yeu're a bit farther in over yeur head than yeu may personally believe yeurself to be.

    As such, while I do believe that basing information off scientific data is great, the scientific community is also very well known for being exceedingly slow to accept new ideas regardless of how much information is presented on the matter. There's been more than a few cases, and in fact most of our current understanding of many topics, has come from those who were looked down upon in the scientific community as a whole for unorthodox thinking, despite that they were RIGHT and proved so eloquently time and again.

    Scientists aren't any better at adapting to new ideas... in fact, they're usually some of the worst for accepting change. Most abhor the concept of "everything yeu know is wrong" even more than the average layman.

    Though... there really aren't any "real" scientists as such anymore... the field's grown so specialized that generally 'researcher' or 'professor' would be more accurate terms for virtually all cases.

    Anyways, I think yeur faith is a little bit unfounded as yeur frames of reference are currently disagreeing with each other because the data itself doesn't even agree with itself, and we're seriously missing alot of information right now. Virtually every climate trend we thought we knew 50 years ago has been disproven, and even most of the ones we think we know now are inaccurate, and are likely to be disproven within another 50. While I agree that it's the closest thing we have to hedge our bets on if we want to stick to 'solid proof', we honestly don't have that to work with right now and shouldn't pretend that we do. We don't have enough information to form a true 'trend', and claiming otherwise is just fooling ourselves.

    Of the few things we CAN prove conclusively, is that we *DO* have the capacity for limited geographical change. We can create rivers, cut down forests, induce mass quantities of smog, incite acid rain, and alter the temperature on a localized scale.

    We obviously do have an effect upon our environment, and with enough cases of that situated close enough togeather, the impact is obvious as it grows; a city has a much more noticible impact on its' environment than an equal population of small towns spread out over a larger area due to the fact that there are issues of ... well for lack of a better term, an environmental rolling resistance, or environmental friction if yeu will. Once yeu get past that point, the effects are pretty obvious.

    Yet... we don't know how much of an effect on a global scale these localized disturbances cause. Probably not that much currently, though that may be less accurate than predicted due to cumulative effects of several factors interlaced such as cutting huge swaths of forrest out for farmland and grazing, or diverting rivers as needed for irrigation, these are pretty large changes indirectly affecting the climate around them in ways we can't even perceive as of yet.

    As such, with the previously aforementioned issues with our knowledge base as it is, and the conflicting data currently available, plus our rather pitiful lack of understanding of the intricate interactions of the various effects we do have, I'd like to state that A: CO2 still is total crap, and B: we don't really know whot's going on all that clearly and anyone claiming otherwise doesn't really know whot they're talking about, or is just trying to placate people with false hope.

    Even so, we still don't have any cause or liscence to do retarded crap like actively pollute just because we can. A little common sense goes a long way. I'm not even sure why they still sell traditional incandescent light bulbs anymore when they're able to be replaced fully with low wattage LED and florescent bulbs these day at a reasonable cost.

    Sooooo yeah. Those claiming we have no effect on our world are idiots, those claiming global warming doesn't exist haven't got enough data to make that assertion (though it's probably not occurring in remotely the way ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING fanatics claim), and really, most of the arguments are politically based rather than based upon solid information. And even those that are, are still sorely lacking.

    So please, drop the 'high horse' routine just because yeu have a job in a vaguely related field of study, and for everyone else, stop flailing and going ZOMG TEH GLUBOL WHORMIN IZ KOMMIN!

    Or at the very least, don't bicker at each other about it. Spend the time reading a research paper each time yeu want to complain and yeu'll have a much better grasp of whot's going on.

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