How sustainable is our current model of civilization?


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 1,314 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

It may be how faiths are born. To make them religions, you need:

1) A central, unquestionable dogma.
2) Masses of support for the central dogma, written down and used as evidence.
3) Definitions of Sins (stuff that is supposed to make you feel guilty) and Virtues (strangely never as important as the Sins).
4) A vision of some kind of Paradise that can be reached or approached through the religion's goals, whether they call it Heaven, the Classless Society or the Sustainable Society. This is what motivates the suffering/costs the changes championed will cause.
5) A priesthood hierarchy that profits politically and economically from the religion and its structure.
6) Backing from temporal power.
7) Evangelicism, in the form of dedicated groups to spread specially prepared messages.
8) A system of censure, both to denigrate heathens/unbelievers, and especially to heckle/punish apostates/previous believers.

Yeah. Don't go there.

Hey, look, someone who knows nothing about religions. Let's demolish this nonsense:

1)Not all religions are dogmatic.
2)Not all religions have written tenets.
3)Not all religions have sins.
4)Comparatively few religions have any sort of afterlife.
5)Comparatively few religions are hierarchical.
6)I'd think that Buddhists would disagree.
7)Most religions don't evangelize. Heck, of the "Big 5" only 2 do.
8)This is not true.

*dusts hands off*


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The Decepticons are Transformers too, Klaus. Seriously, you're not qualified to make arguments in this discussion. According to the IPTT, a coronal mass ejection on that scale would be one of the few things that could save us.

This line again?

Look, germany, fifth largest GDP in the world, supplies 20% of its base load, through variable renewable micro-generation, with a massive potential for growth, and is heading for more. Their economy has not suffered.

I'd love to see a quote from the IPCC calling for a zero growth economy.

I would too or even selective reverse of some growth over time.


Seeing as how I am going to be braving a killing Arctic chill to demonstrate against tar sands this weekend, I should probably re-read this thread...

EDIT: In retrospect, this thread isn't very useful.


meatrace wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

It may be how faiths are born. To make them religions, you need:

1) A central, unquestionable dogma.
2) Masses of support for the central dogma, written down and used as evidence.
3) Definitions of Sins (stuff that is supposed to make you feel guilty) and Virtues (strangely never as important as the Sins).
4) A vision of some kind of Paradise that can be reached or approached through the religion's goals, whether they call it Heaven, the Classless Society or the Sustainable Society. This is what motivates the suffering/costs the changes championed will cause.
5) A priesthood hierarchy that profits politically and economically from the religion and its structure.
6) Backing from temporal power.
7) Evangelicism, in the form of dedicated groups to spread specially prepared messages.
8) A system of censure, both to denigrate heathens/unbelievers, and especially to heckle/punish apostates/previous believers.

Yeah. Don't go there.

Hey, look, someone who knows nothing about religions. Let's demolish this nonsense:

1)Not all religions are dogmatic.
2)Not all religions have written tenets.
3)Not all religions have sins.
4)Comparatively few religions have any sort of afterlife.
5)Comparatively few religions are hierarchical.
6)I'd think that Buddhists would disagree.
7)Most religions don't evangelize. Heck, of the "Big 5" only 2 do.
8)This is not true.

*dusts hands off*

1) So you're saying there is no basis to any religion whatsoever?

2) Now you're arguing semantics. They have tenets, both written and in oral tradition depending on the religion in question.
3) They all have "what you should do" and "what you shouldn't do" like philosophy and morals do as well.
4) But they have a goal of some sort, usually. And I'd say achieving Nirvana IS an afterlife of sorts.
5) Tell that to the various priesthoods, monks etc.
6) Nah, they'd say their backing is either their own mind or the quasi-temporal power of Buddha's mind.
7) Though most people prefer you agree with them rather than disagree with them when it comes to religion.
8) It is true. Hell, even the jewish are technically doing that despite just wanting to be left alone, and I am jewish.

I think the one who didn't know about religion was you, judging from how easily I was able to refute your claims just now.


meatrace wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

It may be how faiths are born. To make them religions, you need:

1) A central, unquestionable dogma.
2) Masses of support for the central dogma, written down and used as evidence.
3) Definitions of Sins (stuff that is supposed to make you feel guilty) and Virtues (strangely never as important as the Sins).
4) A vision of some kind of Paradise that can be reached or approached through the religion's goals, whether they call it Heaven, the Classless Society or the Sustainable Society. This is what motivates the suffering/costs the changes championed will cause.
5) A priesthood hierarchy that profits politically and economically from the religion and its structure.
6) Backing from temporal power.
7) Evangelicism, in the form of dedicated groups to spread specially prepared messages.
8) A system of censure, both to denigrate heathens/unbelievers, and especially to heckle/punish apostates/previous believers.

Yeah. Don't go there.

Hey, look, someone who knows nothing about religions. Let's demolish this nonsense:

1)Not all religions are dogmatic.
2)Not all religions have written tenets.
3)Not all religions have sins.
4)Comparatively few religions have any sort of afterlife.
5)Comparatively few religions are hierarchical.
6)I'd think that Buddhists would disagree.
7)Most religions don't evangelize. Heck, of the "Big 5" only 2 do.
8)This is not true.

*dusts hands off*

1) Show me.

2) Show me. And we are talking about religions beyond the tribe level here.
3) Sins with a capital S, dear. Substitute anything the religion teaches is BadWrong to do. The point here is that religions provide some kind of community benefits, and free riders are a concern. Thus, religions increase the cost of joining artificially to avoid those.
4) Where, oh where, did I claim this to be about any sort of afterlife??? Do good little commie gobbos go to the Classless Society when they die?
5) Any big one is. Otherwise, show me.
6) So buddhism has never had temporal backing? Ever? Because I am talking about what they need to BECOME a religion, not to REMAIN one.
7) Again, without spreading the message, it is difficult to become a religion. But sure, you could make a case that getting lots of kids can be used as a substitute. Note also that the big religions are the ones that do not need spreading the word.
8) Take a closer look. Whether it is a death penalty for apostasy, inquisitorial campaigns against heathens, exclusion even from family and friends, legal actions against declared enemies, every religion needs to define In and Out, and actions or words for this purpose help. I might grant you this one, again, because the biggest ones do not need to do this anymore.

*pours the dust back on meatrace's... Umm... I am sure the skull had hands just now*


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Seeing as how I am going to be braving a killing Arctic chill to demonstrate against tar sands this weekend, I should probably re-read this thread...

EDIT: In retrospect, this thread isn't very useful.

Shouting matches never are, are they? Best part is the climateers have still not understood my standpoint, despite me telling them several times... Need help demonstrating, gobbo?


Actually, if the thread has started as an everybody jump on Madame Sissyl thread I would: a) be jealous; b) have found it much more useful.

Instead it was 2-3 pages of Thomas Jefferson, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, etc., and I got bored.

And, yes, Madame Sissyl, if you can make it to New England by this weekend, we'll make room for you at the Free NH Goblin Resistance Compound.

[Waggles eyebrows]


Sissyl wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Seeing as how I am going to be braving a killing Arctic chill to demonstrate against tar sands this weekend, I should probably re-read this thread...

EDIT: In retrospect, this thread isn't very useful.

Shouting matches never are, are they? Best part is the climateers have still not understood my standpoint, despite me telling them several times... Need help demonstrating, gobbo?

I got your point a long time ago. You don't like the IPCC and think they're a bunch of crooks. Unfortunately, your opinion of them doesn't get to dictate the laws of physics.


Ahhhh, spoken like a person who still doesn't get it. Don't worry, Irontruth, I still like you.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Actually, if the thread has started as an everybody jump on Madame Sissyl thread I would: a) be jealous; b) have found it much more useful.

Instead it was 2-3 pages of Thomas Jefferson, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, etc., and I got bored.

And, yes, Madame Sissyl, if you can make it to New England by this weekend, we'll make room for you at the Free NH Goblin Resistance Compound.

[Waggles eyebrows]

Well, I won't be able to make it to New England, but hey, protesting oil sands and crap sounds about right. We don't need more environmental damage going on.


Sissyl wrote:
Don't worry, Irontruth, I still like you.

[Stares daggers at Irontruth]

Back off, buddy.


Sissyl wrote:
Ahhhh, spoken like a person who still doesn't get it. Don't worry, Irontruth, I still like you.

Sum it up in two sentences then, what your point is.


Sissyl wrote:

Sure. It is entirely possible to have gotten money for saying stuff the oil industry wants to hear. It is not the slant, but the politicisation itself that is the problem. Not every climate skeptic is one whit better than the IPCC propaganda machines. I find dichotomous thinking very tiring. My entire point is: trustworthy science comes from NOT being paid to publish stuff that supports a certain ideology. Politics is toxic to science, and does not in any way realize this, always drooling over the authority scientists have and politicians lack. What I need to see is someone of impeccable integrity, thoroughly knowledgeable in the field, who says AGW is right. To clarify: He or she must not be funded by either "side", or have strong other ties to those organisations, and still think so. That is, if the argument you are going to push is that of referring to someone's authority.

Just don't keep referring to tainted science to claim that it really isn't tainted. That isn't going to work.

You are moving the goalposts here. I found you a guy who was paid by an institute who hoped his studies would NOT validate AGW, and ended up confirming it because it was the way his datea led him.

Now you want another scientist who wasn't funded by "either side", which really means not funded at all because in your eyes all sources of funding are suspect. I won't play that game any longer, enjoy your wolrdview.


Smarnil, you have taken the time to try to read what I write, and I appreciate that. Your arguments are decent. Still, this time, you are answering something I did not aim at you, and you did not understand the point. I meant that IF you want to make an argument that the climate science data IS valid, by referring to the authority of scientists ("Science says this, so you are wrong, and you are not a climatologist so who cares what you think about it!"), you need to find someone without OTHER motives to think the data is right. The sad part here is that, no, it probably is not possible to find someone who fits that bill. The field is too far gone, either by taking money from the IPCC and writing data they like, or taking money from Big oil and producing propaganda for them. The ones who actually valued truth enough not to compromise their findings are, as you say, NOT FUNDED. Other fields have many of those people, though admittedly, this is a problem more or less everywhere. Big, central grant boards do things to the quality of the science.

In some way, thank you for making my point for me, even though I am sure you don't see it this way.

P.S. Note that other arguments for the validity of the climatology findings are unaffected by this reasoning, just the appeal to authority.


Irontruth wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Ahhhh, spoken like a person who still doesn't get it. Don't worry, Irontruth, I still like you.
Sum it up in two sentences then, what your point is.

Two sentences? Is it okay if they are longish ones? Here goes...

Science has ALL its authority from how well the scientists follow the scientific method, which includes specifics on how to present data, quality control, what data to present etc, and deviating from that, no matter how well-intentioned the cause, gives you only propaganda instead, which should be treated as such.

Whether the climate data is true or not, keeping a free, open, transparent, democratic society that follows the principles of the rule of law is the ONLY way we will ever be able to be flexible enough to deal with the consequences of global warming, climate change, energy crisis, population growth, corruption, poverty, conflict, rising sea levels, or any other problem you choose to focus on.

*dies from comma poisoning*


A skeptic physicist who received money to do his research from a coal/chemical billionaire.

Of course, a lot of well known skeptics are calling his work bunk too.


See some way up for a reply to that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:
I meant that IF you want to make an argument that the climate science data IS valid, by referring to the authority of scientists ("Science says this, so you are wrong, and you are not a climatologist so who cares what you think about it!"), you need to find someone without OTHER motives to think the data is right. The sad part here is that, no, it probably is not possible to find someone who fits that bill.

Sure it is;

Joseph Fourier, 1824 - Discovered the existence of the greenhouse effect while trying to determine if solar variations caused the 'ice ages' recently uncovered by geologists.

John Tyndall, 1859 - Determined that the greenhouse effect was caused by water vapor, methane, CO2, and other gases while studying the spectroscopic properties of various elements.

Svante Arrhenius, 1896 - Determined that, "if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will in arithmetic progression" (i.e. ΔF = α Ln(C/C_0)) while attempting to determine if greenhouse gas changes had been responsible for the ice ages.

Arrhenius also mentioned in passing that newfangled technologies like trains were releasing a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and thus might eventually cause the planet to warm... the first known statement of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

These scientific findings, continuously confirmed for over a century, preceded the theory of AGW and thus could not possibly have been influenced by your imagined 'great GW conspiracy'... yet together they represent everything needed to show that AGW is observed reality.

BTW, I agree with your two sentences. The problem is in your apparent belief that climate scientists have deviated from those principles (though I can cite a few 'skeptic' papers which clearly did) and/or that we would need to give up that sort of society to pursue the suggested solutions to global warming.


Sissyl wrote:

Smarnil, you have taken the time to try to read what I write, and I appreciate that. Your arguments are decent. Still, this time, you are answering something I did not aim at you, and you did not understand the point. I meant that IF you want to make an argument that the climate science data IS valid, by referring to the authority of scientists ("Science says this, so you are wrong, and you are not a climatologist so who cares what you think about it!"), you need to find someone without OTHER motives to think the data is right. The sad part here is that, no, it probably is not possible to find someone who fits that bill. The field is too far gone, either by taking money from the IPCC and writing data they like, or taking money from Big oil and producing propaganda for them. The ones who actually valued truth enough not to compromise their findings are, as you say, NOT FUNDED. Other fields have many of those people, though admittedly, this is a problem more or less everywhere. Big, central grant boards do things to the quality of the science.

In some way, thank you for making my point for me, even though I am sure you don't see it this way.

P.S. Note that other arguments for the validity of the climatology findings are unaffected by this reasoning, just the appeal to authority.

Nice stand you have : by disqualifying by advance all studies, as they obviously would be financed by biased sources, you put yourself in a situation where you can't be proven wrong, ever.

If we were willing to play by your rules, of course.

Tell me again, why would a pro-AGW study made by a scientist who started as a staunch skeptic and had all the reasons in the world to stay so to keep his funding can't be taken into account ? Because it doesn't fit into your reasoning ? If a opponent of AGW becomes a defender of it in the course of his studies, isn't it at least as significant as a "neutral" taking the same steps ?

IMHO, it's much more significant : here you have somebody who took Big Oil money and spoke his mind about AGW, in a way that his sponsors hadn't wanted or envisioned.

In your two sentences, you claim again that 1) all climatologists are rabid propaganda spouting ecologists, not real scientists; 2) wants us to regress to a pre-industrial way of life in an authoritarian state.

So yes, we have all perfectly understood you, it's just we don't agree with your line of reasoning.

Your first point goes round and round : they all must have a hidden agenda, as they all spout false science propaganda to attain a hidden goal, because you know, they all have an hidden agenda. That is the only "evidence" you have of deviation from the standards of science. The "climategate" was ridiculously overblown; the "hockey graph" has been for a time hotly contested on the basis of middle age european climatic events, then validated by worldwide data.

And for your second point... As everybody already asked you, please, can you tell us which IPCC paper recommands such a move ? Good luck with that, as we are back to the hidden agenda and/or to an obviously untrue confusion between IPCC and some fringe ecologists that you seem to abhor (with good reason).

In the end, it seems to boil down to "I don't trust science because I don't like the results", with a conspiracy as a rationalization.

EDIT : sorry for the harsh tone, but I truly wonder if you are willing to discuss the issue when you dismiss all evidence as "biased" whatever the bias (pro or anti-AGW). I am always ready for a discussion, but we must be two for that (otherwise, it's a rant and I'm not interested, thank you). So, where are your facts and arguments ?


CBDunkerson: I should have been clear enough. The situation I am talking about is the current one. As you say, Svante Arrhenius PROBABLY did not take money from the IPCC.

That there are quite a few instances of deviation from the scientific method on the IPCC side of things is clear. That skeptic papers have done so too does not, I repeat, does NOT relieve the IPCC of responsibility for their misrepresentations. If this was still a functioning field of science, the problems would be torn out into the open, those responsible would either apologize or be branded pariah, and quality science could resume. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes.

However: The problems continue. More and more, additional language is pushed into statutes of grant boards to the effect that "grants will only be given to 'useful' research", meaning "only AGW", various educational organizations including schools adopt similar rules for their education, and so on. I do not mind education regarding AGW, but even if it was PROVEN true, such decisions should not be made. Only religions and dogmas are satisfied with only the One Truth being preached. It makes me worry, no matter what the science says.

In research about bad decision making, such as that focused on severe accidents or disasters, there is one thing that is pointed out as lacking when something happens due to a bad decision: An effective blocker. A blocker is someone who sees something seriously wrong and manages to communicate the necessity of not going through with the planned course of action. Given the intensity of politicisation, the money involved, the ideological interest in the issue, it is up to every single one of us that has any kind of misgivings about what is happening to try our best in being good blockers. I have no monetary interest in it, I want us to move beyond simplistic burning of oil and gas as a society, but... I don't want my children, or anyone's children, to grow up in an environment where criticizing a Single, True Idea means you are a Denier. If that happens, any hope we have of surviving as a civilization is lost. Totalitarian, authoritarian societies want One True Idea, and there are many out there who WANT totalitarianism. "We will need to 'suspend' democracy for a while to fix this", they say, while dreaming about the day THEY can become the new priesthood for the new society model they want. And the fact that they want communist dictatorship is no accident either. Quite simply, no Western/democratic society has ever been close to the wealth concentration that was possible in, say, the Soviet Union. If you are worried about 1% of the population hoarding their wealth, would things truly improve if it was 0,01% instead?

As for the science, it might be right or wrong. That does not in any way change the fact that today more than ever, we need to stand up for the democratic and open ideals our society was built on. Not to mention the fact that the green Ayatollah plans for a zero-growth, low-energy society would mean we gave up every single hope of dealing with the problems at hand. Even if what they say is true, the medicine suggested is downright poisonous.


This was a very interesting article, I think.

A very respected man in environmentalist circles claims that we need to stop having democratic societies to improve the environment. AFAIK, this has not been met by any particular backlash (though I might be wrong on this). I have to say, though, his other opinions on the state of things are quite reasonable. He seems to feel as strongly about fraud in science as I do.


Sissyl wrote:

CBDunkerson: I should have been clear enough. The situation I am talking about is the current one. As you say, Svante Arrhenius PROBABLY did not take money from the IPCC.

That there are quite a few instances of deviation from the scientific method on the IPCC side of things is clear. That skeptic papers have done so too does not, I repeat, does NOT relieve the IPCC of responsibility for their misrepresentations. If this was still a functioning field of science, the problems would be torn out into the open, those responsible would either apologize or be branded pariah, and quality science could resume. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes.

However: The problems continue. More and more, additional language is pushed into statutes of grant boards to the effect that "grants will only be given to 'useful' research", meaning "only AGW", various educational organizations including schools adopt similar rules for their education, and so on. I do not mind education regarding AGW, but even if it was PROVEN true, such decisions should not be made. Only religions and dogmas are satisfied with only the One Truth being preached. It makes me worry, no matter what the science says.

In research about bad decision making, such as that focused on severe accidents or disasters, there is one thing that is pointed out as lacking when something happens due to a bad decision: An effective blocker. A blocker is someone who sees something seriously wrong and manages to communicate the necessity of not going through with the planned course of action. Given the intensity of politicisation, the money involved, the ideological interest in the issue, it is up to every single one of us that has any kind of misgivings about what is happening to try our best in being good blockers. I have no monetary interest in it, I want us to move beyond simplistic burning of oil and gas as a society, but... I don't want my children, or anyone's children, to grow up in an environment where criticizing a Single, True Idea means you are a Denier....

So, would you apply the same arguments to other scientific "controversies"? Most obviously evolution. Because that's the same rhetoric the Intelligent Design folks use. Along with all the other kooks who've got a theory that mainstream science is repressing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
That there are quite a few instances of deviation from the scientific method on the IPCC side of things is clear. That skeptic papers have done so too does not, I repeat, does NOT relieve the IPCC of responsibility for their misrepresentations. If this was still a functioning field of science, the problems would be torn out into the open, those responsible would either apologize or be branded pariah, and quality science could resume. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes.

Clear for you.

Another possibility you seem to forget: they HAVE be put in the open and hotly debated, then have been dismissed as non significant. You can't say that "climategate" and the "graph stick" haven't been discussed, even if you don't like the way the discussion ended.

Sissyl wrote:
However: The problems continue. More and more, additional language is pushed into statutes of grant boards to the effect that "grants will only be given to 'useful' research", meaning "only AGW", various educational organizations including schools adopt similar rules for their education, and so on. I do not mind education regarding AGW, but even if it was PROVEN true, such decisions should not be made. Only religions and dogmas are satisfied with only the One Truth being preached. It makes me worry, no matter what the science says.

Come on, pro and anto-AGW get loads of money because, you know, it's a hot topic.

Did I correctly read you ? Even if AGW was proven true, opposing theories should be taught in school ? Does it also apply to flat earth, literal creationnism and nice little theories about human races, all proven false ?

Sissyl wrote:
I don't want my children, or anyone's children, to grow up in an environment where criticizing a Single, True Idea means you are a Denier. If that happens, any hope we have of surviving as a civilization is lost. Totalitarian, authoritarian societies want One True Idea, and there are many out there who WANT totalitarianism. "We will need to 'suspend' democracy for a while to fix this", they say, while dreaming about the day THEY can become the new priesthood for the new society model they want. And the fact that they want communist dictatorship is no accident either. Quite simply, no Western/democratic society has ever been close to the wealth concentration that was possible in, say, the Soviet Union. If you are worried about 1% of the population hoarding their wealth, would things truly improve if it was 0,01% instead?

I can live being a flat earth denier, thank you.

Here you sounds less and less rational. "THEY" want to suspend democray? "THEY" want to become a new priesthood ? Who are THEY ? What the Soviet Union has to do in a conversation about AGW ?

You know, democracy isn't about promoting false beliefs, and scientific facts don't care if you believe in them or not.


Smarnil: I am sorry you feel that way. I have been completely honest with you guys throughout this discussion, or whatever you call it. I have been clear on what I think, why I think it, and what I see as the problem. I do not expect you to agree, but I do expect you to respect my right to hold this opinion and to share it with whoever wants to read my garbage. As you say, I am not a climatologist. I have not worked in that field for dozens of years. I have, however, some foundation in scientific method, and what I see has so far not impressed me, no matter what the data presented say. Most people do not have that grounding and understanding of how science works, sadly, most people seem to think that because a scientist says something, it's true.

As a scientist with integrity, you need to stay away from everyone who wants you to make propaganda data for them in exchange for easy money. This is always an issue. If you work in respiratory health, there is no lack of people from the tobacco industry who want to fund your research - but they also want "last look" at your data, meaning you can't publish without their consent or you are in breach of contract. If the data does not give the right pro-smoking conclusion, you can guess whether they give that consent. Same in every field where any kind of money or political interest lies. In general, there is today a push to get rules to improve things, one such rule is that you need to register the study you intend to do centrally before you have the data. This was naturally seen as a problem by the lobbyists.

People claim that the leaked emails showed no malfeasance, but as I have said before, I read them, and in any other field the things they showed would be seen as completely violating scientific method, especially their actual plans for subverting a journal to avoid publication of things they did not like.

I do not think what I am doing is ranting, I merely think we are not quite discussing the same things.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Svante Arrhenius PROBABLY did not take money from the IPCC.

Sadly, that is the least irrational position you have taken thus far.

Sissyl wrote:
That there are quite a few instances of deviation from the scientific method on the IPCC side of things is clear.

Yes, quite clear. Indeed, I would go so far as to say the IPCC has never followed the scientific method. Which is hardly surprising, given that they do not perform any scientific research.

The IPCC is a political organization which publishes summaries of research conducted by scientists all over the world. Like any large political organization it has its failings, not least that many member states insist it include only extremely most conservative estimates of GW effects... but that in no way impacts the validity of the actual scientific research from which the IPCC policy reports are drawn.

Sissyl wrote:
If this was still a functioning field of science, the problems would be torn out into the open, those responsible would either apologize or be branded pariah, and quality science could resume. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes.

Indeed. The fact that 'skeptics' continue to celebrate the work of proven frauds and falsely demonize incontrovertible scientific findings does indeed speak volumes.

Sissyl wrote:
However: The problems continue. More and more, additional language is pushed into statutes of grant boards to the effect that "grants will only be given to 'useful' research", meaning "only AGW"

Again, this is ridiculous delusional fiction. If you believe otherwise you need only cite these many cases where grants are only available for AGW research.

Sissyl wrote:
I don't want my children, or anyone's children, to grow up in an environment where criticizing a Single, True Idea means you are a Denier....

If you deny observed measurable facts then 'denier' is simply an accurate description. The Sun gives off light. You disagree? Well, then you are denying observed reality. Pure and simple. The observations underlying AGW are more involved, but no less proven and settled.

I would also point out, again, that the only people who dispute the existence of AGW are those who do not know much about the subject. There is not a single reputable scientist anywhere on the planet who disputes that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Not one. If you disagree then feel free to name one. If not... then refer back to your own statement about how the issues would be torn out in public and settled. They have been. The problem is that, in this case, non-scientists continue to insist on believing things that science has proven to be false... refusing to learn and/or denying reality in response to a heavily funded political campaign.

I don't want anyone's children to grow up in an environment where people can lie about the link between smoking and cancer and get away with it. Many of the same people who were behind that campaign to mislead the public on smoking are now at the center of the global warming denial campaign. Science has shown that smoking causes cancer and human CO2 emissions cause global warming. Politics and greed have led frauds and con-men to deceive the public about those realities. Supporting the 'deception rights' of the frauds and con-men is not a virtue.


Let the anti-evolution people speak. Let the flat earthers speak. Let the Freudians speak. Let the bloody people worried about 4 meter lizards replacing the president speak. I have no problems with letting them all speak in school as well - the evolution issue is that the Intelligent Design people don't want anyone to teach anything else. Just like the AGWers. Free speech and the right of people to get the information they want is a challenging concept. If my kid gets taught that Intelligent Design is a possibility, I am sure I can set the record straight. If it's the only allowed opinion, and he/she becomes a social outcast for thinking differently, it's a different situation.


Sissyl wrote:

Smarnil: I am sorry you feel that way. I have been completely honest with you guys throughout this discussion, or whatever you call it. I have been clear on what I think, why I think it, and what I see as the problem. I do not expect you to agree, but I do expect you to respect my right to hold this opinion and to share it with whoever wants to read my garbage. As you say, I am not a climatologist. I have not worked in that field for dozens of years. I have, however, some foundation in scientific method, and what I see has so far not impressed me, no matter what the data presented say. Most people do not have that grounding and understanding of how science works, sadly, most people seem to think that because a scientist says something, it's true.

As a scientist with integrity, you need to stay away from everyone who wants you to make propaganda data for them in exchange for easy money. This is always an issue. If you work in respiratory health, there is no lack of people from the tobacco industry who want to fund your research - but they also want "last look" at your data, meaning you can't publish without their consent or you are in breach of contract. If the data does not give the right pro-smoking conclusion, you can guess whether they give that consent. Same in every field where any kind of money or political interest lies. In general, there is today a push to get rules to improve things, one such rule is that you need to register the study you intend to do centrally before you have the data. This was naturally seen as a problem by the lobbyists.

People claim that the leaked emails showed no malfeasance, but as I have said before, I read them, and in any other field the things they showed would be seen as completely violating scientific method, especially their actual plans for subverting a journal to avoid publication of things they did not like.

I do not think what I am doing is ranting, I merely think we are not quite discussing the same things.

Here we can agree (except that I don't take a scientist word as holy scripture ; I'm well aware that science goes forward by leaps and bounds, and that theories get proven wrong all the time).

Could you link us the emails that you find so incriminating ? Because as you said, they have been scrutinized by the UK government who saw nothing really bad in them (except bad jests and ungentlemanly epithets applied to "climate deniers").

We are discussing the same thing. But you keep pushing away without comment our pieces of evidence, and so far haven't provided any of yours (except te nice article about Lovelace, who has been known as a true british eccentric for decades; that nobody bothers to answer him doesn't mean that his views are widely shared).


Sissyl wrote:
Let the anti-evolution people speak. Let the flat earthers speak. Let the Freudians speak. Let the bloody people worried about 4 meter lizards replacing the president speak. I have no problems with letting them all speak in school as well - the evolution issue is that the Intelligent Design people don't want anyone to teach anything else. Just like the AGWers. Free speech and the right of people to get the information they want is a challenging concept. If my kid gets taught that Intelligent Design is a possibility, I am sure I can set the record straight. If it's the only allowed opinion, and he/she becomes a social outcast for thinking differently, it's a different situation.

On that, we can't disagree more.

I don't want my children learning lies in school, pure and simple. They have the Internet for that.

EDIT: if you think that all theories are born equal, whatever link to reality they have, I fail to see how you can claim a scientific frame of mind as science is all about observing reality, not fantasies (even nice ones).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:
People claim that the leaked emails showed no malfeasance, but as I have said before, I read them, and in any other field the things they showed would be seen as completely violating scientific method, especially their actual plans for subverting a journal to avoid publication of things they did not like.

Apparently you read what you wanted to see into them.

No such 'plans' existed. You are likely referring to the bit of ranting about, 'we need to redefine what peer review is'. That was in response to a case of blatant scientific fraud which got published in a supposedly peer reviewed journal. The editor who passed it through was a GW 'skeptic' who felt that any research challenging the mainstream should be published. However, the study was so utterly flawed that the majority of the editorial staff of the journal quit in protest of being associated with scientific fraud.

So yes, the 'climategate' e-mails included scientists ranting about how terrible that was and how something needed to be done to prevent fraud. Yet numerous investigations found that they did not actually DO anything except complain amongst themselves about this horrible breakdown in proper scientific practice... rather the same thing YOU have been doing. The difference being that they were complaining about actual rather than imagined scientific malfeasance.

No research was suppressed. No efforts were even made to do so. That's all fiction and lies. Disagree? Again, cite some actual evidence. Some paper that could not get published. Some example of the CRU scientists pressuring editors to reject a paper. Anything.

You can't because no such evidence exists. Your passionate beliefs on this subject are built from a web of lies from people who have been doing this professionally for decades now. Smoking does cause cancer. Sulfur emissions do cause acid rain. Chlorofluorocarbons do damage the ozone layer. Carbon dioxide does cause global warming. The people who have claimed otherwise (and that fixing each of these problems would require the end of industrial society) are professional deceivers.


You are seriously claiming that AGW is equally proven as "the Sun gives off light"?

Right. I maintain: You do not falsify data for a good cause, nor do you do it for your employer. You do not add numbers to raw data until the graph looks like what you want it to look like.

If you do, something is deeply wrong. If you do, it comes out, and no action is taken against you, something is even more deeply wrong.

But, I understand that I am quite simply not allowed to mistrust climate scientists, at least not on this board, right?


Sissyl wrote:
Let the anti-evolution people speak. Let the flat earthers speak. Let the Freudians speak. Let the bloody people worried about 4 meter lizards replacing the president speak. I have no problems with letting them all speak in school as well - the evolution issue is that the Intelligent Design people don't want anyone to teach anything else. Just like the AGWers. Free speech and the right of people to get the information they want is a challenging concept. If my kid gets taught that Intelligent Design is a possibility, I am sure I can set the record straight. If it's the only allowed opinion, and he/she becomes a social outcast for thinking differently, it's a different situation.

And how much of your child's class time should be spent being taught junk science? How much should his grades depend on being able to repeat those lies? What should be dropped from the curriculum to free up money/time for that?

And then we'll label anyone who objects or attempts to teach or research the actual science biased and claim they can be ignored because they're backed by propaganda organizations.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Let the anti-evolution people speak. Let the flat earthers speak. Let the Freudians speak. Let the bloody people worried about 4 meter lizards replacing the president speak. I have no problems with letting them all speak in school as well - the evolution issue is that the Intelligent Design people don't want anyone to teach anything else. Just like the AGWers. Free speech and the right of people to get the information they want is a challenging concept. If my kid gets taught that Intelligent Design is a possibility, I am sure I can set the record straight. If it's the only allowed opinion, and he/she becomes a social outcast for thinking differently, it's a different situation.

On that, we can't disagree more.

I don't want my children learning lies in school, pure and simple. They have the Internet for that.

EDIT: if you think that all theories are born equal, whatever link to reality they have, I fail to see how you can claim a scientific frame of mind as science is all about observing reality, not fantasies (even nice ones).

You don't think your kids will learn lies in school? Pfft. As long as there is someone with a strong enough agenda teaching them, they will. The only recourse you and your kids have is that challenging views is allowed, and that different viewpoints are presented.

Not all theories are born equal, certainly not. I consider Intelligent Design to be about as toxic as they come. One solution to this could certainly be to prevent presentation of every viewpoint or theory that is not the truth, but guess what? That kind of defeats the purpose before the starting gun is fired.

I know quite well how dangerous smoking is. I want people to know this. However, if someone were to conduct a study that could end up showing that tobacco smoking danger most likely was due to some other, ubiquitous, contaminant that interacted with tobacco smoke, I certainly wouldn't mind that. It probably wouldn't be a problem conducting a repeat study about it without having to use lobbying money to do it either, BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT GET PAID TO HAVE A CERTAIN OPINION in that field.


thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Let the anti-evolution people speak. Let the flat earthers speak. Let the Freudians speak. Let the bloody people worried about 4 meter lizards replacing the president speak. I have no problems with letting them all speak in school as well - the evolution issue is that the Intelligent Design people don't want anyone to teach anything else. Just like the AGWers. Free speech and the right of people to get the information they want is a challenging concept. If my kid gets taught that Intelligent Design is a possibility, I am sure I can set the record straight. If it's the only allowed opinion, and he/she becomes a social outcast for thinking differently, it's a different situation.

And how much of your child's class time should be spent being taught junk science? How much should his grades depend on being able to repeat those lies? What should be dropped from the curriculum to free up money/time for that?

And then we'll label anyone who objects or attempts to teach or research the actual science biased and claim they can be ignored because they're backed by propaganda organizations.

You mean, calling them Deniers?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:
You are seriously claiming that AGW is equally proven as "the Sun gives off light"?

YES!

Again. Name ONE scientist who says that AGW (i.e. human CO2 emissions causing global warming) is not true. They don't exist. Because AGW is just as proven as 'the Sun gives off light'. Both are observed reality.

Sissyl wrote:
I maintain: You do not falsify data for a good cause

I maintain that all claims of climate scientists who accept AGW having falsified data are lies. Again, if you disagree you need only cite the specific case where data was falsified.

Sissyl wrote:
But, I understand that I am quite simply not allowed to mistrust climate scientists, at least not on this board, right?

I object only to the seemingly endless stream of provably false statements you make and your failure to back any of them up when challenged.


It is interesting that you do not qualify this by "peer reviewed" or "in the field of climatology". It used to be standard practice, once the peer review process was "redefined", i.e. they got their people into the boards of journals that dared to publish data that did not support AGW, thereby making sure nobody that was not approved could actually get peer reviewed or published. This extended only to the field of climatology, of course, so they tend to draw a strict demarcation line between their own field and every other field.


Sissyl wrote:
You are seriously claiming that AGW is equally proven as "the Sun gives off light"?

At least it's seriously heading this way.

Sissyl wrote:

Right. I maintain: You do not falsify data for a good cause, nor do you do it for your employer. You do not add numbers to raw data until the graph looks like what you want it to look like.

If you do, something is deeply wrong. If you do, it comes out, and no action is taken against you, something is even more deeply wrong.

But, I understand that I am quite simply not allowed to mistrust climate scientists, at least not on this board, right?

Right, but as for all others of us (including the UK government) nothing of the sort was done, everything is cool, heh ?

Again, do your homework and show us the actual emails that supposedly demonstrate a fraud. You are still going round and round here : prove your claims !


Sissyl wrote:

You don't think your kids will learn lies in school? Pfft. As long as there is someone with a strong enough agenda teaching them, they will. The only recourse you and your kids have is that challenging views is allowed, and that different viewpoints are presented.

Not all theories are born equal, certainly not. I consider Intelligent Design to be about as toxic as they come. One solution to this could certainly be to prevent presentation of every viewpoint or theory that is not the truth, but guess what? That kind of defeats the purpose before the starting gun is fired.

I know quite well how dangerous smoking is. I want people to know this. However, if someone were to conduct a study that could end up showing that tobacco smoking danger most likely was due to some other, ubiquitous, contaminant that interacted with tobacco smoke, I certainly wouldn't mind that. It probably wouldn't be a problem conducting a...

Moving goalposts, again.

Of course, a prejudiced teacher could lie to them on the sly. So, it's so better to make it official and mandatory. I see your point (/irony).

Getting a solid science education is already hard, we don't have to muddy the waters with quackery. Better to keep teaching them the scientific method (that is, how to distinguish between BS and facts by trial and experimentation) and philosophy (that is, how to think by themselves).

The part about tobacco is irrelevant. Such a study would be both financed and welcomed. It 's only in your conspiracy world that dissenting theories are being shot down just because they are dissenting, not because they are proven false.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

This was a very interesting article, I think.

A very respected man in environmentalist circles claims that we need to stop having democratic societies to improve the environment. AFAIK, this has not been met by any particular backlash (though I might be wrong on this). I have to say, though, his other opinions on the state of things are quite reasonable. He seems to feel as strongly about fraud in science as I do.

He'll probably be met by tons of backlash. Not that he hasn't before. His Gaia Hypothesis didn't make him a ton of friends with the scientific community who thought he went a bit extreme in the areas he took it with although his pratical model stands to this day.

Lovelock's had some positions that he's reversed. He once thought that dumping CFC's as we were doing into the atmosphere was a good thing, a stand that many ecologists condemmed him for. Decades later he reversed that position, and no longer believes that we can be sanguine about the unrestricted dumping of waste products into the atmosphere.

But quite frankly, there's a lot of merit to his statement. People don't tend to worry about dams until the first cracks start to show. By then of course, it's too late to avoid the collapse.

I do agree with him that sceptism does have a valid and important process in the scientific process, it's a basic part of the peer review process.

On authoritiative approaches to the climate crisis this is what he ACTUALLY said.


We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

It's not that there isn't precedent for this. During the multi-day blackout, Gov. Chris Christie put New Jersey under effective martial law, in particular South Jersey where the blackout continued for an extended period after the northern part of the state started getting it's lights on.

There are procedures for implementing martial law in the event of major epidemic events, and the Dutch pretty much mobilised their country in the wake of dike failures that innundated much of their low lying areas.

Lovelock isn't saying anything that other that when it's finally acknowledged as being a problem, nothing short of similar mobilization will serve to address it. As it has with other non-military problems of similar scope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He stated this a while ago. So far, no real backlash what I know. And I feel very certain that once democracy has been put "on hold", it's gone.


Sissyl wrote:
He stated this a while ago. So far, no real backlash what I know. And I feel very certain that once democracy has been put "on hold", it's gone.

Please, he's not all scientists, or the IPCC. Just an individual who happens to be quite pessimistic about our ability to cope.

What's your point ? Do you really hold what he said as a definite proof of the existence of your worldwide conspiracy ? Isn't he entitled to any opinion he wants, just as you are (as long as you don't try to teach them in school to my kids, thanks) ?

You would be better off bracing your claim, as we collectively asked you many times with, at least :

1) one email pointing to fraud.
2) or one scientist or study denying AGW (it seems the debate is about the magnitude of its effects, not about its existence).
3) telling us who "THEY" are, before I send you tinfoil hats by mail.


I have been called far worse than paranoid. Thing about not trusting those in power as far as you can throw them is, pretty soon these days you find a very good reason not to have trusted them.

I will have to get back to you after going through some leaked emails.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

It may be how faiths are born. To make them religions, you need:

1) A central, unquestionable dogma.
2) Masses of support for the central dogma, written down and used as evidence.
3) Definitions of Sins (stuff that is supposed to make you feel guilty) and Virtues (strangely never as important as the Sins).
4) A vision of some kind of Paradise that can be reached or approached through the religion's goals, whether they call it Heaven, the Classless Society or the Sustainable Society. This is what motivates the suffering/costs the changes championed will cause.
5) A priesthood hierarchy that profits politically and economically from the religion and its structure.
6) Backing from temporal power.
7) Evangelicism, in the form of dedicated groups to spread specially prepared messages.
8) A system of censure, both to denigrate heathens/unbelievers, and especially to heckle/punish apostates/previous believers.

Yeah. Don't go there.

Hey, look, someone who knows nothing about religions. Let's demolish this nonsense:

1)Not all religions are dogmatic.
2)Not all religions have written tenets.
3)Not all religions have sins.
4)Comparatively few religions have any sort of afterlife.
5)Comparatively few religions are hierarchical.
6)I'd think that Buddhists would disagree.
7)Most religions don't evangelize. Heck, of the "Big 5" only 2 do.
8)This is not true.

*dusts hands off*

From someone of those religions not described in his post, thank you.


Now about the OP. I would have to say, no, we use up too many resources with the people we have on useless waist-ful things, and we are multiplying too fast. No way we can survive with the dogmatic nature the USA's views its right to reproduction, to any number, of anyone, no matter what.

A person could have over 100 children but not pay a cent and the children would be supported by the government.

I don't know how it is over in Europe but it looks like we are boiling in our own freedom on this one.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Now about the OP. I would have to say, no, we use up too many resources with the people we have on useless waist-ful things, and we are multiplying too fast. No way we can survive with the dogmatic nature the USA's views its right to reproduction, to any number, of anyone, no matter what.

A person could have over 100 children but not pay a cent and the children would be supported by the government.

I don't know how it is over in Europe but it looks like we are boiling in our own freedom on this one.

Could have, but overwhelmingly don't. US birthrates are at record lows.

Education, particularly of women, and higher standards of living bring this about quite predictably.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Now about the OP. I would have to say, no, we use up too many resources with the people we have on useless waist-ful things, and we are multiplying too fast. No way we can survive with the dogmatic nature the USA's views its right to reproduction, to any number, of anyone, no matter what.

A person could have over 100 children but not pay a cent and the children would be supported by the government.

I don't know how it is over in Europe but it looks like we are boiling in our own freedom on this one.

Could have, but overwhelmingly don't. US birthrates are at record lows.

Education, particularly of women, and higher standards of living bring this about quite predictably.

The higher birth rates are generally in the areas of the Third World, the more harsh the conditions, the greater this is as a basic survival strategy.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Now about the OP. I would have to say, no, we use up too many resources with the people we have on useless waist-ful things, and we are multiplying too fast. No way we can survive with the dogmatic nature the USA's views its right to reproduction, to any number, of anyone, no matter what.

A person could have over 100 children but not pay a cent and the children would be supported by the government.

I don't know how it is over in Europe but it looks like we are boiling in our own freedom on this one.

Could have, but overwhelmingly don't. US birthrates are at record lows.

Education, particularly of women, and higher standards of living bring this about quite predictably.

The higher birth rates are generally in the areas of the Third World, the more harsh the conditions, the greater this is as a basic survival strategy.

And that pattern is even reflected in developed countries. The areas with higher birthrates tend to be the impoverished ones.


Icyshadow wrote:

1) So you're saying there is no basis to any religion whatsoever?

2) Now you're arguing semantics. They have tenets, both written and in oral tradition depending on the religion in question.
3) They all have "what you should do" and "what you shouldn't do" like philosophy and morals do as well.
4) But they have a goal of some sort, usually. And I'd say achieving Nirvana IS an afterlife of sorts.
5) Tell that to the various priesthoods, monks etc.
6) Nah, they'd say their backing is either their own mind or the quasi-temporal power of Buddha's mind.
7) Though most people prefer you agree with them rather than disagree with them when it comes to religion.
8) It is true. Hell, even the jewish are technically doing that despite just wanting to be left alone, and I am jewish.

1)No. Dogma is not the same as religion. Look it up in the dictionary.

2)Yes, I am arguing semantics because semantics matters.
3)"What you should do" =/= SINS. Since have a very specific theological meaning.
4)How on earth is nirvana like afterlife? Do you know what Nirvana means even? Nirvana is the sound of a candle being snuffed out. Buddhists argue, from their Hindu forbears, that everyone is stuck in this cycle of death and rebirth and that life is pain. The only escape is to attain enlightenment and break the cycle--in other words to die a final death.
5)Let me see if I understand your argument. Some religions have priesthoods--->Therefore ALL RELIGIONS ARE HIERARCHICAL. Yeah I'll let that one stand...
6)You clearly don't know what temporal power means do you? It means physical and/or political power. Specifically in contrast with spiritual power. Since there is no army of shamen, or voudon, let alone hundreds of other religions...
7)Most? Sure. Maybe. All my argument is that NOT ALL. These enumerated attributes are not present in ALL religions. Example: Discordians don't care if you disagree with their religion, generally.
8)So. Jewish are evangelical--->Therefore ALL RELIGION IS EVANGELICAL. You do understand that you may not have heard about religions that try to spread their faith...because they don't evangelize. There are hundreds nay thousands of tribal religions that don't care one whit whether you convert or not.


BLOOP BLOOP! BLOOP BLOOP! WARNING!! WARNING!! WARNING!!

We haven't done the whole debate the definition of religion thing since the good ol' days of Citizen Duck.

That way lies madness, brothers and sisters.


meatrace wrote:


7)Most? Sure. Maybe. All my argument is that NOT ALL. These enumerated attributes are not present in ALL religions. Example: Discordians don't care if you disagree with their religion, generally.

Discordians don't even care if they disagree with their religion.

Some never do explain.

451 to 500 of 1,314 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / How sustainable is our current model of civilization? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.