Preemptive Thread Locking & the Promulgation of the Philosophical Craven


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
As with the solar roadway issue, it might be a better idea to get information from the scientists and the archeologists in question, instead of political folks. The people who told you about this misunderstood what they read.

Despite what was likely originally intended, climate change is politics. You can thank James Hansen for that, as he politicized the issue back in 1988 and started the idea of climate scientists also being environmental lobbyists. There's been more than a few follow in his footsteps. As such, the portion of the environmental lobby dealing with climate change is directly connected to some of the scientists who are working on the science behind it. It's created the unfortunate situation where climate science and politics cannot be divorced.


Anyone think this thread will last five pages?

Liberty's Edge

At this point, scanning the posts, I tend to think that if it gets locked it will be the result of a deliberate attempt to have done.

Personally, as long as we don't start throwing profanities and perjoratives at each other, there's absolutely nothing any of us could say to get it locked, but I'm not in charge.


MagusJanus wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
As with the solar roadway issue, it might be a better idea to get information from the scientists and the archeologists in question, instead of political folks. The people who told you about this misunderstood what they read.
Despite what was likely originally intended, climate change is politics. You can thank James Hansen for that, as he politicized the issue back in 1988 and started the idea of climate scientists also being environmental lobbyists. There's been more than a few follow in his footsteps. As such, the portion of the environmental lobby dealing with climate change is directly connected to some of the scientists who are working on the science behind it. It's created the unfortunate situation where climate science and politics cannot be divorced.

Yeah, if only no one had politicized the issue, then obviously the politicians would have done the sensible thing and acted on it years ago.

Of course climate science and politics can't be divorced. If what the climate science says is true, political action needs to be taken.


I don't pay any attention to the environment because I think you pinkskins are all f@!%ed no matter what you do and good riddance sez I.

But I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't point out that if one was looking for a politicized climate scientist, you could certainly do far worse than Comrade Jess Spear who shall be running against Democratic Stooge of the Plutocracy and Boeing lickspittle Frank Chopp.

Vive le Galt!

Yeah, I don't know anything about solar panels. After the revolution we'll give you all kinds of money to figure that shiznit out. Or not. Investment in useless infrastructure seems to be working for the Chinese...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Not trying to open any kind of door. Just trying to see where you're coming from.

I do however think science has figured somethings out to the point where it really isn't a matter of scientific debate. In those cases, it's reasonable to suspect the motives of those who still try to keep it open.

Which is an unscientific position.

Modern science is intentionally designed with the idea the debate is to never be closed. They get challenges, deal with the challenges by gathering evidence that refutes them or adjusting the theory, and move on. Science is intentionally designed this way to prevent it from going down the path of religion. So, as you can imagine, the idea of a true scientific consensus and that debate should stop because of it is not a healthy position for anyone to have in relation to science. It's the start of the slippery-slope.

If that position were held by science, things like plate tectonics would never have become accepted. Plus, as of late, climate science has suffered a lot of problems when things it thought were settled as the cause of something turned out not to be. For example, it turned out that Mount Kilimanjaro is not heating only, or primarily, because of climate change. If it were not for someone challenging the idea of it being climate change causing this, we would not have this data about how glaciers and forested land can interact... which, in turn, reflects on just how important plant life can be to ongoing climatic stability.

Or they deal with challenges by saying "We've looked at that already. Our theory already accounted for it. Decades ago. Stop bothering us.

There's a difference between revising theories when new evidence is found and simply rehashing old arguments.


thejeff wrote:

Yeah, if only no one had politicized the issue, then obviously the politicians would have done the sensible thing and acted on it years ago.

Of course climate science and politics can't be divorced. If what the climate science says is true, political action needs to be taken.

Considering how little has been done and how much of that has either fallen through or proved problematic, I don't see the difference. Well, except for it being harder due to politicians who use it as a pawn in their constant maneuverings against each other.

thejeff wrote:

Or they deal with challenges by saying "We've looked at that already. Our theory already accounted for it. Decades ago. Stop bothering us.

There's a difference between revising theories when new evidence is found and simply rehashing old arguments.

And, usually, the scientists who are so dismissive later get their butts handed to them in some way or throw more fuel into the idea that their theory is flawed and the challenge has legitimacy. A lot of evolution debate is fueled by the second. Plus, rehashing old arguments is a lot of the way that science is taught. So, to a degree, they can't afford to dismiss those questions unless they are willing to accept risking the theory being rejected or ignored and eventually lost.

Edit: Just to note... Providing a FAQ with accurate answers and updating it as unique questions come in, while pointing rehashed questions to it, is still technically providing the evidence that deals with the challenges. And saves time from answering the same question over and over ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

[Ears perk up]

An Introduction to Marx's Labour Theory of Value

I read it. I like you because you're not a total dick in any way, so I doubt we'll converse and change eachothers' minds.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
I like you because you're not a total dick in any way

Thank you, that's very kind, but I do confess that I like to flatter myself that I'm at least a bit of a dick. Part of my bad boy self-image, you know?

[Throws gang signs and sets thread on fire]


And now the thread is full of flames, so it's obviously time to close it ;)


Andrew Turner wrote:

At this point, scanning the posts, I tend to think that if it gets locked it will be the result of a deliberate attempt to have done.

Personally, as long as we don't start throwing profanities and perjoratives at each other, there's absolutely nothing any of us could say to get it locked, but I'm not in charge.

You are worse than effing Hitler!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awww, no, you worthless person, how COULD you Godwin the thread!!!???!!!

Liberty's Edge

Three favourites in a row!


Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The science of chemistry and physics coul......
Sigh

Seriously, do you think politics enters into what can be proven through science?

Are you honestly saying, that if I construct an experiment that has nothing to do with either of our ideologies, just simple chemistry, the results will differ purely because you and I have different political views?


Well... considering that it has become a mainstay of political extreme feminism that the hymen doesn't exist and never did, yes. Turns out it was a social construct by the patriarchy all along, who knew?

Also... for some extra fun, try looking through the climate change papers and find one instance where they claim that anthropogenic global warming has been proven, instead of merely 99% likely. That's called hedging your bet, and would not be necessary if it really was down to a simple chemical reaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Well... considering that it has become a mainstay of political extreme feminism that the hymen doesn't exist and never did, yes. Turns out it was a social construct by the patriarchy all along, who knew?

Also... for some extra fun, try looking through the climate change papers and find one instance where they claim that anthropogenic global warming has been proven, instead of merely 99% likely. That's called hedging your bet, and would not be necessary if it really was down to a simple chemical reaction.

That's something that drives me nuts. A fundamental principle of science is self-doubt.

Instead of relying on evidence to prove why their science is flawed, people just want to rely on that inherent self-doubt.

Just because you're skeptical of something, doesn't make that something false.


Sissyl wrote:
Also... for some extra fun, try looking through the climate change papers and find one instance where they claim that anthropogenic global warming has been proven, instead of merely 99% likely. That's called hedging your bet, and would not be necessary if it really was down to a simple chemical reaction.

It's part of a paradigm shift in what certainty is; by scientific standards, 99% is certain. It allows for the minute possibility they are wrong to account for the possibility of discoveries that cannot be foreseen and for the fact the universe is a very big place.


Oh, absolutely. But looking through climate science, I find no absolute certainty on anything. And yet... there are still people who imply that it is absolutely certain by claiming a) that no more debate is necessary and b) politics can't enter into it because science doesn't change due to political views, I mean, a simple chemical reaction doesn't come out differently due to political views of the ones performing the test, right?

And no, 99% certain is FAR, FAR below the required certainty in many fields of science. Try building a bridge and claiming that you're 99% certain it will hold for the load it was designed for. Or try claiming you're 99% certain a new subatomic particle exists...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The science of chemistry and physics coul......
Sigh

Seriously, do you think politics enters into what can be proven through science?

Are you honestly saying, that if I construct an experiment that has nothing to do with either of our ideologies, just simple chemistry, the results will differ purely because you and I have different political views?

Bolded the relevant parts.

I won't debate formula, the issues for me arise when we factor in on how you decide how to construct your experiment and why you constructed and how you present your information i.e. - I don't trust you to be clinical in your research and divorce your political or ideological beliefs from output, that your agenda colors how you construct your study and what you cover, what is left out, what is taken out of context.

nugget

Dr. Enstrom, a research professor in UCLA's Department of Environmental Health Sciences, published important peer-reviewed research demonstrating that fine particulate matter does not kill Californians. Also, Dr. Enstrom assembled detailed evidence that contends powerful UC professors and others have systematically exaggerated the adverse health effects of diesel particulate matter in California, knowing full well that these exaggerations would be used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to justify draconian diesel vehicle regulations in California. In addition, the complaint argues that he exposed the fact that the lead author of the key CARB Report used to justify the diesel regulations did not have the UC Davis Ph.D. degree that he claimed. Instead, according to the suit, this "scientist" bought a fake Ph.D. for $1,000 from a fictional "Thornhill University."

Finally, Dr. Enstrom discovered that several activist members of the CARB Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants have exceeded the legislatively mandated three-year term limits by decades. The suit contends that shortly after Dr. Enstrom revealed this systematic wrongdoing, UCLA not only issued a notice of termination, it denied him any compensation for his work by systematically and wrongfully looting his research fund accounts. Dr. Enstrom worked for more than a year without pay as he in good faith appealed his wrongful termination using UCLA procedures. Ironically enough, the fake "scientist" was only suspended for his misconduct while Dr. Enstrom was terminated for telling the truth.

Dr. Enstrom is a separate (but still disconcerting) issue, and not the core focus for me linking this article.
The fake CARB (California Air Resource Board) scientist is.

BTW, even though Hien T. Tran (the fake scientist not named in the article) was demoted in the organization he was not let go from CARB. Mary Nichols (the head or ARB) kept all his data and kept on pushing for heavy regulation using his statistical contributions, none of his work was thrown out.

And you wonder why I would question the "current" scientific process or any peer reviewed (re:echo chamber) data presented on these boards? And always presented with an agenda?

Thanks, but no thanks.


Sissyl wrote:

Oh, absolutely. But looking through climate science, I find no absolute certainty on anything. And yet... there are still people who imply that it is absolutely certain by claiming a) that no more debate is necessary and b) politics can't enter into it because science doesn't change due to political views, I mean, a simple chemical reaction doesn't come out differently due to political views of the ones performing the test, right?

And no, 99% certain is FAR, FAR below the required certainty in many fields of science. Try building a bridge and claiming that you're 99% certain it will hold for the load it was designed for. Or try claiming you're 99% certain a new subatomic particle exists...

Welcome to modern scientific certainty. It's never 100%.


Sissyl wrote:
And no, 99% certain is FAR, FAR below the required certainty in many fields of science. Try building a bridge and claiming that you're 99% certain it will hold for the load it was designed for. Or try claiming you're 99% certain a new subatomic particle exists...

Says there are fields of science where 99% certainty is far below what is required.

Presents example of something that is not science.

*flips table*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
And you wonder why I would question the "current" scientific process or any peer reviewed (re:echo chamber) data presented on these boards?

Peer-review is the very opposite of an echo chamber. It is review of data and findings by people who are rivals in your field and may very well lose face or grand money due to the findings.

Nevertheless, it's always smart to doubt what you're told and do your own research. It's not, however, intellectually honest to dismiss something out of hand because there is a infinitesimal chance of it being a sham without doing said research.


Sissyl wrote:

Oh, absolutely. But looking through climate science, I find no absolute certainty on anything. And yet... there are still people who imply that it is absolutely certain by claiming a) that no more debate is necessary and b) politics can't enter into it because science doesn't change due to political views, I mean, a simple chemical reaction doesn't come out differently due to political views of the ones performing the test, right?

And no, 99% certain is FAR, FAR below the required certainty in many fields of science. Try building a bridge and claiming that you're 99% certain it will hold for the load it was designed for. Or try claiming you're 99% certain a new subatomic particle exists...

Again, you're clinging to skepticism for skepticism's sake.

I want you to consider your reaction to people's skepticism in the mental health thread the other week. Did you find DM Under-the-Bridge's arguments very convincing?

Because from my perspective, your approach to climate change is almost identical to his approach to the mental health profession. This is not to cast some sort of dispersion on you. I'm using this as an analogy to help you understand how your current skepticism sounds to me.

You sound like a person who doesn't WANT to believe in this and you're clinging on to anything that leaves a window open to what you WANT to be true.

The science of climate change denial is not there. It doesn't refute the findings, it doesn't refute the facts. Maybe someone will make a huge discovery that does disprove everything we know about chemistry up to this point, that's a possibility. The 99% is an admission that we don't have ALL of the answers. But your focusing on that 1% is a refusal to admit that a lot of the science behind the other 99% is amazingly sound and extremely well understood.

Do you think that human caused global warming is possible? If you don't, what's your evidence that it ISN'T possible?

Humans have caused well documented and massive shifts in weather and climate. Simply through the methods that farmers used to plow and sow fields from Texas to Canada, they were able to cause a massive drought, which basically ruined the region for planting crops, preventing rainfall.

By changing farming methods they were able to end the drought, restore the soil and stop the dust storms. Just by changing how, when and where they planted crops.

If how a farmer plows their field can impact the environment that way, why is it so hard to understand that pumping BILLIONS of tonnes of CO2 into the air, year after year, decade after decade, could also have an impact?

As it is, the US is returning to Dust Bowl conditions right now. It's going slower, but the drought is just as real. We can't say for sure that it's caused by "climate change", because weather is difficult to understand the exact causation, due to it's nature. If it is though, one of the largest areas of food production in the world will become unusable.

This is a problem.

The majority of evidence indicates that it's caused by global warming. The majority of evidence indicates that humans are causing global warming.

It's not just correlation. It's causation. We know what CO2 does to temperatures. We know we're the cause for rising levels of CO2. We don't know if the warming is causing this specifically though.

Acid rain is another great example of human impact on the environment on a wide scale. We haven't completely solved the problem, but we've managed to stop the worst of it and even recover much of the damage.

Skepticism without evidence is just being a contrarian.


You are saying materials science is not a science? Or subatomic physics? I am afraid I do not understand here, table flip or not.


Sissyl wrote:
You are saying materials science is not a science? Or subatomic physics? I am afraid I do not understand here, table flip or not.

Building a bridge is a matter of engineering, not science.

Le derp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Skepticism without evidence is just being a contrarian.

No it isn't.


That the majority of evidence points a certain direction means very little when the only ones getting a) money for their research and b) getting published due to aggressive campaigns to get non-AGW journals killed or subverted as stated in the cablegate leak Any science that can't stand competition is pretty much useless and a product of political desires of various kinds. It has long been a truth that if you want to publish a paper about something in the natural field, say squirrels, you had better make it about squirrels relating to AGW. Not to mention the continuously failed predictions "rescued" all in the same way: uhhhh temperatures did not rise this year because of uhhhh el nino "but it won't save us next year". uhhh no GW this year either and it's because uhhhhh el nina "but it won't save us next year". uhhh still no GW and it's because of uhhhhh the NAO "but it won't save us next year"... and so on.

It may still be true, of course. But with a subverted peer review process and scientists that do research to question AGW getting heckled and getting no money, nobody will know.


meatrace wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
You are saying materials science is not a science? Or subatomic physics? I am afraid I do not understand here, table flip or not.

Building a bridge is a matter of engineering, not science.

Le derp.

And engineers don't use science in their work? Just for the record, you are actually stating this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The science of chemistry and physics coul......
Sigh

Seriously, do you think politics enters into what can be proven through science?

Are you honestly saying, that if I construct an experiment that has nothing to do with either of our ideologies, just simple chemistry, the results will differ purely because you and I have different political views?

Bolded the relevant parts.

I won't debate formula, the issues for me arise when we factor in on how you decide how to construct your experiment and why you constructed and how you present your information i.e. - I don't trust you to be clinical in your research and divorce your political or ideological beliefs from output, that your agenda colors how you construct your study and what you cover, what is left out, what is taken out of context.

nugget

Dr. Enstrom, a research professor in UCLA's Department of Environmental Health Sciences, published important peer-reviewed research demonstrating that fine particulate matter does not kill Californians. Also, Dr. Enstrom assembled detailed evidence that contends powerful UC professors and others have systematically exaggerated the adverse health effects of diesel particulate matter in California, knowing full well that these exaggerations would be used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to justify draconian diesel vehicle regulations in California. In addition, the complaint argues that he exposed the fact that the lead author of the key CARB Report used to justify the diesel regulations did not have the UC Davis Ph.D. degree that he claimed. Instead, according to the suit, this "scientist" bought a fake Ph.D. for $1,000 from a fictional "Thornhill University."

Finally, Dr. Enstrom discovered that several activist members of the CARB Scientific Review...

But you're not talking about the science with that post. You're discussing human interactions, which while important, are not relevant to the behavior of carbon atoms.

Hein T. Tran's behavior has absolutely no bearing on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. It has no bearing on whether diesel emissions have negative impacts on air quality or not.

If a scientist does bad work, it should be possible to show and prove that the work is bad.

Almost every example that climate change deniers give relies on how people attempt to control the perception of their work, and not the science that it's actually based on.

The various climate-gates have all revolved around scientists trying to craft a message to effect change. I'll admit, that's a problem and needs to be watched for. It doesn't change the underlying science though.

Skepticism is good, but it is not an end unto itself.

Ultimately, the anecdotes of a scientists behaving badly are similar to the anecdotes in another thread. "Because I know a guy who one time had a bad interaction with a mental health professional, that means that ALL mental health professionals are bad." It's not sound logic.

There is a phenomenon that does happen and is valuable to watch for, but it hasn't been brought up yet. I'm curious to see if someone remembers it. I'm not going to say what it is, because I don't feel like doing both sides of the argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

That the majority of evidence points a certain direction means very little when the only ones getting a) money for their research and b) getting published due to aggressive campaigns to get non-AGW journals killed or subverted as stated in the cablegate leak Any science that can't stand competition is pretty much useless and a product of political desires of various kinds. It has long been a truth that if you want to publish a paper about something in the natural field, say squirrels, you had better make it about squirrels relating to AGW. Not to mention the continuously failed predictions "rescued" all in the same way: uhhhh temperatures did not rise this year because of uhhhh el nino "but it won't save us next year". uhhh no GW this year either and it's because uhhhhh el nina "but it won't save us next year". uhhh still no GW and it's because of uhhhhh the NAO "but it won't save us next year"... and so on.

It may still be true, of course. But with a subverted peer review process and scientists that do research to question AGW getting heckled and getting no money, nobody will know.

On that bolded portion, how long do you think it took me to find a source that cited over $1,000,000,000 was spent on anti-AGW science?

Because here it is.

This is in the US.

Conversely, the government spent about $2,700,000,000 on climate change research.

So that's $2.7b vs $1b.

Yet there are something like 90% of scientists who are splitting that $2.7b, while the other 10% get to split $1b. It seems like if you're in the money, your best bet is to go to the anti-AGW crowd, where the money is split between fewer people. It's a little bit smaller pie, but you'll get a vastly bigger piece.

See, this is skepticism. I was skeptical of your claim, so I found some evidence to back it up. Your claim was factually wrong: anti-AGW scientists, researchers and scholars do receive money.

Edit: to do the math on money per scientist, lets make up a number... 10,000 scientists at the 90/10 split (even though the real number would make my point even stronger, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt).

9,000 pro-AGW scientists splitting $2.7b
1,000 anti-AGW scientists splitting $1b

Each pro-AGW scientist receives $300,000 in funding.
Each anti-AGW scientist receives $1,000,000 in funding.

If I were in it for the money, which one would I be more likely to choose?

If private groups/billionaires were to make up the difference so that pro-AGW scientists got the same per scientists, they would have to contribute $6.3b to the cause.

Greenpeace, which is required by law to disclose it's financials and is often cited as one of the largest environmental groups received only $0.022b.


So the american GOVERNMENT alone spends 2,7B$ on AGW? Intersting. How much other money does AGW get, counting only America? Because your total was 1B$ for the other side. Not to mention that private billionaires are pretty much an American phenomenon and we're discussing a worldwide phenomenon. Next time you find numbers, find some that actually mean something.


Why do I have to disprove your point, but you don't have to prove yours?

Prove that anti-AGW groups receive zero funding (or some paltry number).


Andrew: In what way? Irontruth claimed those figures. 2,7 from just the government and 1 total for non-AGW climate research. It certainly doesn't surprise me. I assume the government is far from the only actor giving money to the AGW crowd. States, foundations, universities, a plethora of Quangos, Ngongos, Gongos and the like, plus things like the UN and various international organizations like the WWF, Greenpeace and so on. Just for America, mind you. My guess is that this money overshadows the US government money massively. But the article IT quoted showed a TOTAL of 1 billion for the other side.

*shrugs*


Irontruth wrote:

Why do I have to disprove your point, but you don't have to prove yours?

Prove that anti-AGW groups receive zero funding (or some paltry number).

Okay. =)


Don't expect respect for your ideas if they're untested, unproved, unprovable, and fall to every objection you have for the opposition, and need to rely on a meta argument steeped in selective epistemic nihilism instead of an examination of the evidence on its own merits.


In the US, Greenpeace received donations totaling $12,000,000 in 2012.

Go to page 45.

You'll see that their Worldwide and International components spent a total of €39 million on climate and energy. There were a lot of other topics they spent money on too. So now we've brought the total to $2.75 billion, which doesn't drastically shift the overall math.

You know what would drastically shift the per scientist math? Actually calculating it using the correct percentages, which is 97% supporting AGW science and 3% being anti-AGW.

How about you redo those per scientists figures for us using the 97:3 and our new value of 2.75:1. Then, explain to me which one is the best choice if I'm a scientist who is really interested in making lots of money, which side should I choose.


So, government plus Greenpeace funds plus X then. Keep going on that X. You're good with numbers. Find some.

I am not saying climate change isn't happening. I am saying the science is bad and unconvincing due to their attitude to people who do what they can to poke holes in their results. That is a PART of doing science, and without it, any pseudoreligious crap can get touted as The Truth. It would be in the best interests of the AGW crowd to act better, and yet, seven years after their worldwide ad campaign started, they still don't. It's still "CLIMATE DENIER!!!" and "Name the hurricanes for senators who voted against climate bills" and "No pressure" and too many personal smear campaigns to mention. Eugh.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sissyl,
Why? Even if we do, you'll dismiss them.

However, for you to be correct, as 97% of scientists are on one side (32 1/3* the number on the other), for it to make economic sense to go for the climate change dollar rather than the skeptic one, they would need to be spending at least 32 1/3* to make it more lucrative. Instead, they're spending at just under 3*, so unless every other source of money in cliamte science equates to 10 times the money we know about and literally no other source of money goes to climate change denial, your position doesn't make sense economically.


But that's just it. Irontruth's link shows that a serious inquiry showed that THE TOTAL for the anti-AGW crowd was 1 B$. Sounds pretty much like "literally no other source of money" to me.

So, how much did Illinois spend on AGW research last year? California? Utah?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
But you're not talking about the science with that post.

No, I'm talking about people involved in scientific process, AKA scientist.

Irontruth wrote:
Hein T. Tran's behavior has absolutely no bearing on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. It has no bearing on whether diesel emissions have negative impacts on air quality or not.

This is an example of the type of disingenuous wordsmithing that gets passed off as discourse around here. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. I never stated that CO2 was or was not a greenhouse gas. The reason I brought up Mr. Tran was to illustrate a case of mistrust and malfeasance in the scientific process.

What is science? Data collection and creating theories to explain phenomenon.

Everything presented in the CARB report or data collected and turned over to (C)ARB becomes questionable because the science itself becomes skewed and twisted to promote an agenda. Or at least an incredibly negative perception is created to an already charged situation.

So Mr. Tran's behavior has 10000% to do with it - a guy who purchased a fake PHD and the entire study doesn't get thrown out the window? Yeah, CO2 = greehouse gas, got it. Not once was that brought up - scientists and shenanigans and the potential ensuing mistrust was the focus of my last post.

As to the CARB report and contributing scientist they are human variable that ultimately affect the outcome: how much of an impact, how can it be regulated, does it need to be regulated (per this study, another study, etc)?

Thank you for providing an example of what I was getting at with my earlier post. I don't know if you were arguing a different point or didn't want to address that scientist are in fact the gatekeepers of science. You just want to defend the data - which is collected by scientist.

Irontruth wrote:
If a scientist does bad work, it should be possible to show and prove that the work is bad.

And what happens if the scientist isn't really a scientist, or he has an agenda, or he's in it for the herd/trend/crusade? The data is collected by this "bad scientist" is good?

Irontruth wrote:
Almost every example that climate change deniers give relies on how people attempt to control the perception of their work, and not the science that it's actually based on.

And almost every example of proponents of climate change do nothing but take one side, close their mind or refute any and all possible information that undermines their argument. Sort of like how you were trying to chop off Magus' at the legs on his Viking village argument - who wasn't really disagreeing with you but was presenting an event/incident - all because it didn't fit your narrative and view on climate change.

BTW - Thank you for assuming I was a climate change denier where no where in this thread or on these boards have I ever (in several years) made that claim. You assumed that since I questioned the scientist (who are human with motives) and posters who push the issue that I was naturally opposed to the concept.

Irontruth wrote:
The various climate-gates have all revolved around scientists trying to craft a message to effect change. I'll admit, that's a problem and needs to be watched for. It doesn't change the underlying science though.

Yes, it does. If you have a segment of the scientific community cooking the books then they are no better than all the other industries (such finance) that cook the books and are looked down on with scorn and distrust - even unrelated companies are eyed with suspicion. It taints a whole industry. Events of a political nature/affiliation or association can also do the same.

As to your underlying science where do we decide what "established" is? Where is that line? When I can recreate an experiment with similar results in my backyard or do I just take their "word" for it since they are after all, scientist?

The environmental movement has been married to environmental science since the 60's - that means it's political or there is a political/social angle and change they are trying to exert over society. That their influence and relationship has had an impact on Environmental Biology and related scientific fields for the last 50 years. Which to me makes them no different than lobbyist in MO. This is all not even taking into account things like: human ego and vanity, greed or any other motive that would drive someone to cook the books for a desired end.

Irontruth wrote:
Skepticism is good, but it is not an end unto itself.

Actually it is an end unto itself. If we questioned everything - and not just the things that bug us (EX: Banking/Big business for liberals, Big Government for conservatives) then we would live in a far better world. Too many people here posting on autopilot or just regurgitating talking points from their favorite media sources. I lean hard right and I don't trust anything media tells me - including right wing media - until I can substantiate or research it myself.

Irontruth wrote:
Ultimately, the anecdotes of a scientists behaving badly are similar to the anecdotes in another thread. "Because I know a guy who one time had a bad interaction with a mental health professional, that means that ALL mental health professionals are bad." It's not sound logic.

Again, wordsmithing and poisoning the well by using the phrase "anecdote" - which implies that it's just a second hand story to be dismissed is framing the example I'm giving as hearsay or a folksy missive. That isn't the case with my example I provided - the guy got fined a few weeks of pay, but still works for CARB (or he did after that incident). What I cited happened and his research contribution impacts a large section of the California economy and the trucking business.

It's just your attempt to dismiss an event which presents your argument (believe the scientist no matter what) in an unfavorable light. Subtle, but a bit dishonest in your choice of phrases.

-----------------

If people want to have an honest discussion about this issue I'll come back, but I'm not going to do this back and forth rhetorical garbage and loaded language. I don't even care about climate change to be honest - I came here because I saw a thread that wanted to address the how's and why's things get so heated and why so many threads eventually get locked. Language that is designed to shut down, dismiss or even discredit is the frequent problem - in effect the thread is already going to go down in flames before it starts because of the participants and their debate style (mine included).

Not trying to beat up on IT here, I actually respect your views even if I never agree with them (on other issues). Just pointing out the how and why this happens. Dissecting a discussion if you will to get an answer.

So I'm done here. I hope you guys - all of you, go back to trying to figure out what Turner was trying to accomplish here and get off of solving the climate change crisis in what became climate change thread #12,983,532

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

No idea, but as it would need the current money to be less than 3% of the the total, it shouldn't be hard for you to find out. Why should I do the research to support your position when I think it's wrong?


Climate denial is engaging in all the same tactics though. And they're engaging in those tactics without doing really much of anything in the way of science.

I agree with you, a lot of people involved with AGW have acted poorly. The problem I have though is that focusing on their bad behavior distracts from a potentially really serious problem.

Worst case scenario, it's like being on the deck of a sinking ship and being pissed off that your waiter was rude to you at dinner last night. Yes, it's true, but it has no bearing on the fact that the ship is sinking.

Personally, I'm skeptical of the most dire predictions. My reason is that there are always people going on and on about the coming apocalypse. Now, eventually one of them will be right, but there are so many that have been wrong that it is clearly a cultural (or perhaps species-wide) phenomenon. I think there are definitely problems and dangers involved, I just think that people have a tendency to focus on the worst possible outcome.

The problem though is that the best predictions and the worst predictions are just a matter of time. The trend is that eventually Texas will be uninhabitable by humans. The question isn't really IF, but rather WHEN, because that determines how much time we have to adapt and mitigate the problems that will cause.

Miami Beach (a separate city from Miami, it's on the island just off the shore of Miami) is basically going to go under water, or at best, figure out some sort of way to exist below sea level. It's already happening, they're having to deal with non-storm surge flooding. The storm drains are just backing up with sea water and occasionally flooding streets. It mostly seems to happen during the fall months, when there's a full moon and with every high tide.

It's not a question of IF it's happening. It's happening. The question is how much and how fast.

With regards to how much and how fast, I agree, there is a lot of debate and the science isn't exceptionally clear yet. There are so many variables we don't fully understand and can't calculate yet. We don't have previous submersions of Florida on record to study.


Study funded by Koch brothers (petroleum company owners) believes AGW is best explanation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. It is as if you are the guy who sees that the ship is sinking, and when you find someone who doesn't have arguments but claims the ship is not sinking, stoop to calling him a moron, a s+@@ eating fascist pig and a certifiably insane m+$#%&*%~~++ before getting repeatedly found out trying to sabotage the speaker system when it is his turn to talk, instead of presenting your arguments in a convincing manner. You are never going to convince anyone there isn't something to what he says that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:

If people want to have an honest discussion about this issue I'll come back, but I'm not going to do this back and forth rhetorical garbage and loaded language. I don't even care about climate change to be honest - I came here because I saw a thread that wanted to address the how's and why's things get so heated and why so many threads eventually get locked. Language that is designed to shut down, dismiss or even discredit is the frequent problem - in effect the thread is already going to go down in flames before it starts because of the participants and their debate style (mine included).

Not trying to beat up on IT here, I actually respect your views even if I never agree with them (on other issues). Just pointing out the how and why this happens. Dissecting a discussion if you will to get an answer.

So I'm done here. I hope you guys - all of you, go back to trying to figure out what Turner was trying to accomplish here and get off of solving the climate change crisis in what became climate change thread #12,983,532

Let me get this straight. Because I don't agree with you, you just dismiss my opinion and refuse to talk about it?

You're right, I am trying to shut you down through my language. That's the point of debating something. I think your view of this is wrong and I'm expressing myself thus. What did you expect me to do, pretend I don't disagree? Change my mind so that you don't have to experience someone disagreeing with you?

The problem isn't just that I disagree with you though. You are attempting to deny science through unscientific methods. Your point is that because human beings are flawed and either lie or make mistakes, that therefore no science should ever be accepted. That's the heart of your argument, whether you realize it or not.

My general opinion of people who hold that belief is that they should get off the computer, put away their cell phone and walk away from their car. If you want to deny science, don't be half-assed about it. Do what the Amish did.

You want to deny science that you disagree with. The problem is it doesn't work that way. Science isn't something that changes to suit what you want it to be. That would be religion.

I am skeptical of scientist. I am not skeptical of the scientific method though, because that would be redundant, since the scientific method is a form of skepticism.

Mr Tran did something wrong, per the rules and laws of California. He should suffer punishment for that. You HAVE shown this to be true. What you haven't shown to be true is that the science claimed by that committee is false.

Based on the information you've presented, if I were in charge I would want that data to be checked. Potentially more than once and by people with no association with the originators. You haven't shown that that was done.

There's a subtle difference there that you don't seem to get.

Analogy:

I cheat at my math homework.

Does my having cheated mean that the math is correct or incorrect?


Sissyl wrote:
No. It is as if you are the guy who sees that the ship is sinking, and when you find someone who doesn't have arguments but claims the ship is not sinking, stoop to calling him a moron, a s*@# eating fascist pig and a certifiably insane m&#&&%+&~%%+ before getting repeatedly found out trying to sabotage the speaker system when it is his turn to talk, instead of presenting your arguments in a convincing manner.

You're allowed to talk. I'm actually asking you to elaborate on your point, but you're not doing it.

I'm listening. I'm willing to read something.

Show me that pro-AGW scientists are getting rich, while anti-AGW scientists live in poverty.

101 to 150 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Preemptive Thread Locking & the Promulgation of the Philosophical Craven All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.