User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 239

  1. #51
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    @sprinkles Agreed. Scientists should not have political agendas like Michael Mann (who endorsed a Democrat politician).
    Scientists are not disqualified from having political opinions or even personal beliefs like anyone else. If their science is good or bad, it is so independent of any of this. Your arguments would have more credibility if M. Mann were not the only scientist you felt prepared to attempt to discredit. I can understand quite well how the rings of obviously irregular trees can be used to get quite reliable climate data, or even how trees in Canada can be used to approximate conditions in Europe. For that matter, I have seen boneless chicken used as a convincing stand-in for the flesh of young children. It is part of scientists' job to identify and use analogous circumstances or even approximations in investigating questions. The correlation factor is the only evidence you have presented so far against the soundess of this particular study. Fortunately Mann is far from the only scientist studying climate change. That is part of science, too: results must be repeatable, and corroborated (or refuted) by the work of others.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Hard, The Wailing Specter liked this post

  2. #52
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's still a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to authority and in the case of climate science, it's an appeal to circle jerking greenies. Oh, and there is abundant evidence to the contrary, like the last 18 years of satellite surface temperature data.
    What makes me chuckle is the whole global warming vs global cooling. Hardly. A coordinated front.

    However, in terms of logic, an appeal to an authority is only going to get you points in a debate unless you can back up why they are wrong. Also you risk ad hominem in your statement so perhaps, as with all debates, it's just scoring points and leading nowhere.

    As for politics... Why is it emotion? Why are scientists being held up as paradigms of virtue? They're a bunch of geeks in open toed sandals who happen to be good with a flame and a flask. I don't recall capes being part of the lab gear.

    They are professionals, mostly, but without bias and emotion why would they try anything new or push science forwards? Sheer lunacy.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  3. #53
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Scientists are not disqualified from having political opinions or even personal beliefs like anyone else. If their science is good or bad, it is so independent of any of this. Your arguments would have more credibility if M. Mann were not the only scientist you felt prepared to attempt to discredit. I can understand quite well how the rings of obviously irregular trees can be used to get quite reliable climate data, or even how trees in Canada can be used to approximate conditions in Europe. For that matter, I have seen boneless chicken used as a convincing stand-in for the flesh of young children. It is part of scientists' job to identify and use analogous circumstances or even approximations in investigating questions. The correlation factor is the only evidence you have presented so far against the soundess of this particular study. Fortunately Mann is far from the only scientist studying climate change. That is part of science, too: results must be repeatable, and corroborated (or refuted) by the work of others.
    Politics doesn't belong in science. Scientists are a different matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Scientific paradigms are usually held with political intensity. And usually we have to wait until a generation has died off before we can change a paradigm.
    Politics have no place in science. I never said it doesn't get in anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    As for politics... Why is it emotion? Why are scientists being held up as paradigms of virtue? They're a bunch of geeks in open toed sandals who happen to be good with a flame and a flask. I don't recall capes being part of the lab gear.

    They are professionals, mostly, but without bias and emotion why would they try anything new or push science forwards? Sheer lunacy.
    You can have bias in the scientist as long as it isn't in the science. Bitching about greenies or whatever gets nowhere and produces more inaccurate and inferior results. Because we're wanting so hard for the data to say what we want. That shouldn't be how it works.

  4. #54
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    And actually this current argument is a prime example of why politics does not belong in science. Such a disruption and a waste of time which needlessly muddies the waters.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mychemicalkilljoy View Post
    I guess the only way to know for sure is to find out myself
    That's right. Do your own research. But there's a larger issue and it's not a new one: Conflict of interest.

    Have a read:

    Study on genetically modified corn, herbicide and tumors reignites controversy - CBS News
    Likes sprinkles liked this post

  6. #56

    Default

    The General Public is fucking stupid in the US. Either by genetics or choice.
    Masculine presenting transgender lesbian


    At heart, I’ll always be a bleeding heart liberal.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starcrash View Post
    The General Public is fucking stupid in the US. Either by genetics or choice.
    Irrefutable claims: bewitching.

  8. #58
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's still a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to authority and in the case of climate science, it's an appeal to circle jerking greenies. Oh, and there is abundant evidence to the contrary, like the last 18 years of satellite surface temperature data.
    Yes, consensus is arguably an appeal to authority and something that science rightly should push at the boundaries of, but that doesn't actually mean that consensus in and of itself has no thought-provoking value.

    Have you read the IPCC report? Here's a link to the summary, it's not as long as the actual reports from 2014 yet is an effective overview: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...5_SPMcorr1.pdf

    As I mentioned in your blog, arguing whether or not climate change is primarily caused by humans is almost irrelevant, because even if we ultimately only contribute to a small degree still there are actions we can reasonably take now in the present to minimize our impact on the future and prevent an exacerbation of issues.

    Opposing climate science on the basis of a single interpretive is illogical in the face of so many measurable changes.

    As far as appealing to circle-jerking greenies, this is the core writing team of the 2014 report:

    R.K. Pachauri (Chair); Myles R. Allen (United Kingdom), Vicente Ricardo Barros (Argentina), John Broome (United Kingdom), Wolfgang Cramer (Germany/France), Renate Christ (Austria/WMO), John A. Church (Australia), Leon Clarke (USA), Qin Dahe (China), Purnamita Dasgupta (India), Navroz K. Dubash (India), Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ismail Elgizouli (Sudan), Christopher B. Field (USA), Piers Forster (United Kingdom), Pierre Friedlingstein (United Kingdom/Belgium), Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway), Luis Gomez-Echeverri (Colombia), Stephane Hallegatte (France/World Bank), Gabriele Hegerl (United Kingdom/Germany), Mark Howden (Australia), Kejun Jiang (China), Blanca Jimenez Cisneros (Mexico/UNESCO), Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation), Hoesung Lee (Republic of Korea), Katharine J. Mach (USA), Jochem Marotzke (Germany), Michael D. Mastrandrea (USA), Leo Meyer (The Netherlands), Jan Minx (Germany), Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia), Karen O'Brien (Norway), Michael Oppenheimer (USA), Joy J. Pereira (Malaysia), Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Gian-Kasper Plattner (Switzerland), Hans-Otto Pörtner (Germany), Scott B. Power (Australia), Benjamin Preston (USA), N.H. Ravindranath (India), Andy Reisinger (New Zealand), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina), Robert Scholes (South Africa), Kristin Seyboth (USA), Youba Sokona (Mali), Robert Stavins (USA), Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland), Petra Tschakert (USA), Detlef van Vuuren (The Netherlands), Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Belgium)
    I'm pretty sure this expanded diversity of opinion has been put in place in order to present as objective a picture as possible, to bypass political leanings or appeal to any particular social or political demographic.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
    Likes Hard liked this post

  9. #59
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Politics doesn't belong in science. Scientists are a different matter.

    Politics have no place in science. I never said it doesn't get in anyway.
    The highlighted is my point. Indeed - politics doesn't belong in science, but science does belong in politics. Without it we have politicians making decisions based on assumptions, prejudices, fears, and general ignorance -- as they do now.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Hard, Passacaglia liked this post

  10. #60
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis
    Scientists are not disqualified from having political opinions or even personal beliefs like anyone else.
    Should scientists be advocates for a political ideology and use their research to further that ideology? That's what Dr. Mann has done with the statements he's made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis
    Your arguments would have more credibility if M. Mann were not the only scientist you felt prepared to attempt to discredit.
    I've discredited the entire paleoclimatology profession as pseudoscientific frauds, not just Dr. Mann.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis
    It is part of scientists' job to identify and use analogous circumstances or even approximations in investigating questions.
    What kind of precision do you think you can get from using tree rings to guestimate temperature? Dr. Mann thinks it's precise to 0.2 degrees Celcius (insert rofl smiley) with an r value of 0.2. There is better correlation between cheese prices and temperature than tree rings and temperature. Analytical and physical chemists, heck, even biologists would laugh you out the building with that kind of correlation (or lack of correlation).

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    However, in terms of logic, an appeal to an authority is only going to get you points in a debate unless you can back up why they are wrong. Also you risk ad hominem in your statement so perhaps, as with all debates, it's just scoring points and leading nowhere.
    It's not a debate since the other side lacks knowledge of the most basic problems in climate science.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby
    As I mentioned in your blog, arguing whether or not climate change is primarily caused by humans is almost irrelevant, because even if we ultimately only contribute to a small degree still there are actions we can reasonably take now in the present to minimize our impact on the future and prevent an exacerbation of issues.
    I reject the premise of this statement since it presumes that there is an ideal temperature or temperature range and any deviation from that ideal temperature will result in catastrophe. Simply nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby
    As far as appealing to circle-jerking greenies, this is the core writing team of the 2014 report:
    It's a veritable who's who of tree hugging, mother gaia worhipping wackadoos.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. Final decision on my type between INTP and INFP.
    By Cat Brainz in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-01-2016, 07:10 PM
  2. Russian Orthodoxy on the rise with decreasing seperation between church and state
    By UniqueMixture in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 01:57 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 01:58 AM
  4. on this day midway between solstice and christmas
    By bcvcdc in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2009, 08:13 PM

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