Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not type 1, 2, or 3, I'm all of the above

The finality and confidence which supporters of the theory display is...

Type 1:Type 2:Type 3:

But I like to ask a hypothetical. If we found out next year that global warming is 100% real, *but* we also discover definitively that it is completely natural and uninfluenced by humans, do we try to stop it? Do we fight against it?

So if it's ok for natural global warming, why does man made warming suddenly become a problem?

That's not science, it's religion.

—You cannot be Group 1, 2, and 3.  They are mutually exclusive by definition.  That aside, here’s my response to your points:

—It’s the same finality and confidence that’s applied to dozens of scientific discoveries.  Ones that you accept without question.  The fact that there are tectonic plates, that the earth orbits the sun, and that the earth is round.  It is true that the scientific method is open to new discovery and therefore cannot ever claim absolute certainty.  But there are things we know.... things like the aforementioned that we accept as scientific fact because they are demonstrable, observable, etc.. There is ongoing research and debate on many aspects of AGW.  Some results, findings, and predictions have been and will be proven wrong.  That’s fine.  Our knowledge and understanding is evolving.  But you act like because there are unknowns, doubt, or debate In certain specific areas, that somehow means the ENTIRE phenomenon is invalid.
 

—Type 1.  The amount of evidence that global temp is rising is overwhelming.  Satellite data is one source.  There are dozens others.  When you’re flying, you can tell your position by several means:  tacan, gps, vor, your eyeballs, etc.  Each system has flaws and margins of error, but when viewed in totality leave no reasonable doubt as to your position.  The ‘confluence of evidence’ behind climate change is similar.  If you don’t know about all the independent fields of study that converge on the same answer, there’s nothing I can do for you.  It’s on you to do the reading.

Type 2–There’s no scientific ‘theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.’  It just is one.  We are filling our atmosphere with it (and others), while simultaneously engaging in land clearing and deforestation.

 Type 3— I can tell this is your go-to “gotcha” on this subject.  Except it’s a hypothetical.  And a really poor one, because you’ve embedded the only possible answer in the question.  If, given your hypothetical, GW is 100% uninfluenced by humans, than of course the answer is that we don’t attempt to fight against it.... you just said we cannot influence it.

But more importantly, it’s a poor hypothetical because the evidence demonstrating AGW is so strong.  What if.... hear me out now.... hypothetical.... what if the earth is really flat.  ...Well, it’s not.  It’s just not.  So most people won’t waste their time contemplating such a question.

— “That’s not science, it’s religion.”  Ugh.  This is such a tired and predictable trope.  This is the denier’s Alamo, where they inevitably retreat to when they’ve exhausted all the other standard logical fallacies.

 Of course some people blindly tow whatever partisan line their party tells them to, but for people that have actually done the research, it’s not a religion.  It’s the opposite.  Because there’s so much evidence, there’s no faith required.  And you’ll notice that only one side of this conversation ever uses the word “believe/belief.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Complete and utter malarkey. ONE mainstream network went after Obama, Foxnews, some of it unwarranted Political tripe, some of it valid.  Meanwhile ALL of the remaining mainstream networks suppor

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Posted Images

7 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Again, looking at the same data, reasonable people can come to different conclusions.

—Do you defend flat-earthers under the same premise?  “... well, we can’t blame someone if they reject that the earth is round.... looking at the same data, reasonable people can come to different conclusions.”  Please.  There are some things we know to be true, based on the evidence.  When reasonable people look at overwhelming evidence, they come to similar conclusions.  If they reject all the evidence at face value and assert a polar opposite conclusion that the evidence does not support, they cease to be reasonable.

 

7 hours ago, brickhistory said:

you want to impose your beliefs and will upon others because...they're wrong.  ....faith-like...

—Again, only one side of this debate uses the words “faith,” “belief,” and “religion.”

And for some reason you seem threatened and resent being told about reality.  If I tell you the earth orbits the sun or that the earth is not at the center of the galaxy, is your first instinct that I’m imposing my “beliefs” and “will” upon you?  No.

 

7 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Ok, then forego anything related to fossil fuels, modern conveniences that utilize the electric grid and, ...  Until then, I can only believe that your conviction in your facts is superficial.

—Strawman.  The hypocrisy of people utilizing fossil fuels while warning against their danger has no bearing on the truth of the phenomenon itself.


We, the US, give away billions to...whom?  Who gets the money?  Do others also have to modify their behavior?

—Strawman.  Where money flows to/from has no bearing on the truth of the phenomenon itself.  That’s policy/politics andthe consequences of AGW, which is a whole other can of worms that absolutely needs to be debated and watched carefully.


And, given your rationale, what if you are wrong?

...I don’t know.  I assume you’re trying to get me to say it’ll be a colossal waste of time, money, and resources that will weaken the country “... just like the libs want!”  Right?  Here’s the thing.  I’m not wrong.  Just like I’m not wrong that the earth is round.  So I’ll turn the question around to you.  What if YOU’RE wrong?

I believe the earth doesn't give two craps about any species, us included.  Earth's gonna earth

—There it is, folks.  ....”I believe.”  


You ‘believe’ based on what, exactly?  Nothing.  Your hunch, your gut, your anecdotal observations, your feeling.  And your politics.  THAT is not science, *that* is religion.

I specifically noted before that I know, by what you’ve said and the questions you’ve posed here, that you haven’t done any research into climate change.  And now you double down and prove the point even further.  Nothing you said has anything to do with refuting or countering the evidence of AGW.  The *consequences* (difficult and unfavorable though they might be) of the phenomenon have no bearing on the basic premise that the phenomenon is occurring.

 

7 hours ago, brickhistory said:
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

—You cannot be Group 1, 2, and 3.  They are mutually exclusive by definition.  That aside, here’s my response to your points:

—It’s the same finality and confidence that’s applied to dozens of scientific discoveries.  Ones that you accept without question.  The fact that there are tectonic plates, that the earth orbits the sun, and that the earth is round.  It is true that the scientific method is open to new discovery and therefore cannot ever claim absolute certainty.  But there are things we know.... things like the aforementioned that we accept as scientific fact because they are demonstrable, observable, etc.. There is ongoing research and debate on many aspects of AGW.  Some results, findings, and predictions have been and will be proven wrong.  That’s fine.  Our knowledge and understanding is evolving.  But you act like because there are unknowns, doubt, or debate In certain specific areas, that somehow means the ENTIRE phenomenon is invalid.
 

—Type 1.  The amount of evidence that global temp is rising is overwhelming.  Satellite data is one source.  There are dozens others.  When you’re flying, you can tell your position by several means:  tacan, gps, vor, your eyeballs, etc.  Each system has flaws and margins of error, but when viewed in totality leave no reasonable doubt as to your position.  The ‘confluence of evidence’ behind climate change is similar.  If you don’t know about all the independent fields of study that converge on the same answer, there’s nothing I can do for you.  It’s on you to do the reading.

Type 2–There’s no scientific ‘theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.’  It just is one.  We are filling our atmosphere with it (and others), while simultaneously engaging in land clearing and deforestation.

 Type 3— I can tell this is your go-to “gotcha” on this subject.  Except it’s a hypothetical.  And a really poor one, because you’ve embedded the only possible answer in the question.  If, given your hypothetical, GW is 100% uninfluenced by humans, than of course the answer is that we don’t attempt to fight against it.... you just said we cannot influence it.

But more importantly, it’s a poor hypothetical because the evidence demonstrating AGW is so strong.  What if.... hear me out now.... hypothetical.... what if the earth is really flat.  ...Well, it’s not.  It’s just not.  So most people won’t waste their time contemplating such a question.

— “That’s not science, it’s religion.”  Ugh.  This is such a tired and predictable trope.  This is the denier’s Alamo, where they inevitably retreat to when they’ve exhausted all the other standard logical fallacies.

 Of course some people blindly tow whatever partisan line their party tells them to, but for people that have actually done the research, it’s not a religion.  It’s the opposite.  Because there’s so much evidence, there’s no faith required.  And you’ll notice that only one side of this conversation ever uses the word “believe/belief.”

You don’t tow lines, you toe them; the hubris that humans are the only thing causing this and we understand it so certainly that it must be true is indeed antithetical to science. Check yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

“You don’t tow lines, you toe them”

—ahh, ya got me.  I feel so dumb.

“the hubris that humans are the only thing causing this....”

—I didn’t say we are the only thing causing climate change.  There are many factors.  We are what’s causing it to *accelerate.*

You call it hubris.... that’s great.  Now explain why.  Go.  What makes it hubris?  Why is it prideful or arrogant to accept that AGW is occurring, when that is exactly what the evidence shows?  I would love to hear.

And this is my favorite part:  

“and we understand it so certainly that it must be true is indeed antithetical to science.”

How dare we understand something so certainly as to know that it’s true?  

....Can you picture saying that to a crowd with a straight face?  

How dare we know how airplanes fly.  How dare we know when the next lunar eclipse will be.  How dare we know how to fly to and dock with the ISS.  Or how to launch and land rovers all the way over on fvcking Mars.  How dare I trust my GPS, which reliably knows, to the minute, when I’ll show up at my destination.

Holy sh!t man, you sell our scientists, inventors, and engineers awfully short.  Wouldn’t you say?

We know the earth is warming and we
know the acceleration of that warming is due to human activity.  It’s not very complicated.

And for the onlookers, you’ll notice these guys never present data to the contrary.  It is always a deflection towards ‘it’s a religion,’ ‘follow the money,’ ‘look at Leo in his yacht,’ ‘AOC/Bernie want to bring about socialism,’ ‘China and India are larger emitters.’  .....blah blah blah.

You will not see them present scientific data or ideas.  Just a “check yourself,” when they’re the ones too lazy or dishonest to read up.  It’s actually sad.  

 

Edited by SpeedOfHeat
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

You forgot that they will also say the onus is on you to prove the science... Lazy way to get out of looking anything up. For what? Is it some moral principle of debate they're adhering to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

 

I read a bunch and know a decent amount about computer modeling; it’s how I’m skeptical of pinning everything on humans in the US with models trained on poor data while simultaneously giving a pass to China and India. Airplanes are pretty real; man-made global warming is an unprovable theory. You don’t have a control system to contrast against, and the current computer models are all recognizing humans as the cause because they’re incredibly limited. But you’re an arrogant troll only interested in your religion so no, this won’t matter. 
 

Edit: also, you should read the rational optimist by Matthew Ridley. Every time someone makes some grim global prediction, it works out. Stop freaking out and live your life. 

Edited by SurelySerious
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, slackline said:


You forgot that they will also say the onus is on you to prove the science... Lazy way to get out of looking anything up. For what? Is it some moral principle of debate they're adhering to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The onus is on those making such a hypothesis to prove it. Stop acting like this is a religion based solely on belief. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

I read a bunch and know a decent amount about computer modeling; it’s how I’m skeptical of pinning everything on humans in the US with models trained on poor data while simultaneously giving a pass to China and India. Airplanes are pretty real; man-made global warming is an unprovable theory. You don’t have a control system to contrast against, and the current computer models are all recognizing humans as the cause because they’re incredibly limited. But you’re an arrogant troll only interested in your religion so no, this won’t matter. 
 

Edit: also, you should read the rational optimist by Matthew Ridley. Every time someone makes some grim global prediction, it works out. Stop freaking out and live your life. 

 

6 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Hey now, socialism is a religion based solely on belief too...we're still waiting on history to provide a supportable, functional, and prosperous example...yet half our country buys it...with no proof at all!

Why demand proof of a completely debunkable hypothesis is the face of that?

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.  Right on cue.

Even when you tell them how predictable and off topic their responses are, they simply can’t help themselves.  

-Computer modeling has flaws, therefore we can just ignore all the other sources of evidence.  “The TACAN is malfunctioning.....<shrug’s shoulder’s>  .....I guess there’s just no way we can determine our position on this sortie.”

-China

-AGW is unprovable

-You're a troll

-It’s a Religion

-Stop freaking out and live your life

-Socialism

-Scientific data/evidence (ha, just kidding)

Lessons learned (or relearned):  

1) Dunning-Kruger is real 
2) You will not change anyone’s opinion online
3) Critical thinking skills are lacking, even in college graduates

And to reiterate one last time, ask yourself periodically over the course of your life about this.  Ask if it was shown to be a hoax or that the data was all wrong.  The answer will be NO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SpeedOfHeat said:

 

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.  Right on cue.

Even when you tell them how predictable and off topic their responses are, they simply can’t help themselves.  

-Computer modeling has flaws, therefore we can just ignore all the other sources of evidence.  “The TACAN is malfunctioning.....<shrug’s shoulder’s>  .....I guess there’s just no way we can determine our position on this sortie.”

-China

-AGW is unprovable

-You're a troll

-It’s a Religion

-Stop freaking out and live your life

-Socialism

-Scientific data/evidence (ha, just kidding)

Lessons learned (or relearned):  

1) Dunning-Kruger is real 
2) You will not change anyone’s opinion online
3) Critical thinking skills are lacking, even in college graduates

And to reiterate one last time, ask yourself periodically over the course of your life about this.  Ask if it was shown to be a hoax or that the data was all wrong.  The answer will be NO.

Sure, Jan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

 

1) Dunning-Kruger is real 

Yep, and its difficult for people to really know where they are on the curve.

 

I don’t think anyone has ever done more to amplify my generally skeptical attitude on any topic more than SoH’s emotive postings....

 

So much so that I’m skeptical of his authenticity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

—You cannot be Group 1, 2, and 3.  They are mutually exclusive by definition.  That aside, here’s my response to your points:

—It’s the same finality and confidence that’s applied to dozens of scientific discoveries.  Ones that you accept without question.  The fact that there are tectonic plates, that the earth orbits the sun, and that the earth is round.  It is true that the scientific method is open to new discovery and therefore cannot ever claim absolute certainty.  But there are things we know.... things like the aforementioned that we accept as scientific fact because they are demonstrable, observable, etc.. There is ongoing research and debate on many aspects of AGW.  Some results, findings, and predictions have been and will be proven wrong.  That’s fine.  Our knowledge and understanding is evolving.  But you act like because there are unknowns, doubt, or debate In certain specific areas, that somehow means the ENTIRE phenomenon is invalid.
 

—Type 1.  The amount of evidence that global temp is rising is overwhelming.  Satellite data is one source.  There are dozens others.  When you’re flying, you can tell your position by several means:  tacan, gps, vor, your eyeballs, etc.  Each system has flaws and margins of error, but when viewed in totality leave no reasonable doubt as to your position.  The ‘confluence of evidence’ behind climate change is similar.  If you don’t know about all the independent fields of study that converge on the same answer, there’s nothing I can do for you.  It’s on you to do the reading.

Type 2–There’s no scientific ‘theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.’  It just is one.  We are filling our atmosphere with it (and others), while simultaneously engaging in land clearing and deforestation.

 Type 3— I can tell this is your go-to “gotcha” on this subject.  Except it’s a hypothetical.  And a really poor one, because you’ve embedded the only possible answer in the question.  If, given your hypothetical, GW is 100% uninfluenced by humans, than of course the answer is that we don’t attempt to fight against it.... you just said we cannot influence it.

But more importantly, it’s a poor hypothetical because the evidence demonstrating AGW is so strong.  What if.... hear me out now.... hypothetical.... what if the earth is really flat.  ...Well, it’s not.  It’s just not.  So most people won’t waste their time contemplating such a question.

— “That’s not science, it’s religion.”  Ugh.  This is such a tired and predictable trope.  This is the denier’s Alamo, where they inevitably retreat to when they’ve exhausted all the other standard logical fallacies.

 Of course some people blindly tow whatever partisan line their party tells them to, but for people that have actually done the research, it’s not a religion.  It’s the opposite.  Because there’s so much evidence, there’s no faith required.  And you’ll notice that only one side of this conversation ever uses the word “believe/belief.”

Ok, it's pretty clear you don't have anything to go on here, just repeating what you've been told. There's so much evidence, because there just is! Everyone agrees. Well spoiler alert, there's a lot of evidence to the contrary, pointed out by a wide range of involved professionals, not just pilots online.

We know the Earth is round because we have observed it, and any theories to the contrary are easily and repeatedly disapproven. Further, we can predict physics outcomes based on the round Earth theory that occur every time. Not so with global warming. To compare the two is gross ignorance of the science.

 

The point of the hypothetical is that if we wouldn't stop nature from doing it, why do we stop mankind from doing it. The fact you consider these types of questions to be simple or irrelevant displays the lack of thought you've put into it. There's no nuance in your position, which generally indicates that it's an adopted position.

 

Anyways, best of luck. You'll just stop talking about it one day, rather than issue a mea culpa. Global cooling, overpopulation, global warming, peak oil, acid rain... Global catastrophe is a natural human interest. It just never seems to pan out.

 

Also, I'm not a Republican you walnut. Don't project your own inadequacies on others just because they disagree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, slackline said:


You forgot that they will also say the onus is on you to prove the science... Lazy way to get out of looking anything up. For what? Is it some moral principle of debate they're adhering to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the contrary, it's on the scientists pushing the theory. When their models are capable of accurately predicting the future temperature changes, and the associated effects, then it will be "settled" or close to it. As of now the track record is *terrible.* 

 

This is a fundamental concept. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden's 15 Sep gaffe about "black women stocking grocery store shelves" is getting more internet time in the last couple of days.

In response, his campaign says he will begin writing notes to voters to explain his points.

 

 

I am not making this up.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2020 at 8:46 PM, Lord Ratner said:

If that's accurate, it explains why Obama never stepped into the controversy.

 

I hope it's not accurate

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/06/breaking-dni-declassifies-handwritten-notes-from-john-brennan-2016-cia-referral-on-clinton-campaigns-collusion-operation/

 

On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified and released to Congress handwritten notes from former CIA Director John Brennan as well as a CIA investigative referral to James Comey and Peter Strzok requesting that they investigate Russian knowledge of Hillary Clinton's anti-Trump collusion smear operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 4:39 AM, Mark1 said:

Jesus Christ, we're ing doomed.  We really do deserve 2 candidates of the caliber we have in front of us if this is the kind of logic that's being used by the average voter to decide where their vote should go.

I mean, in any election this would be a absurd statement.  It's plainly obvious why the incumbent would take a rosy view and the challenger a pessimistic one.  But in this specific case, this logic deserves a facepalm of epic proportions.  The current incumbent was a challenger 4 years ago and his god damned mantra was "Make America Great Again", implying that America was no longer great.  Maybe the hat that he wore with the mantra emblazoned on it burned your retinas to the point where you couldn't see it?

Every 4 years there's two more manufactured candidates just putting on a theater show during the campaign.  The script is written by a team of sociologists and PR people and they all just hope that their horse can rattle of bullshit platitudes for the 9 month campaign without stepping on any run-ending landmines.  Landmines in this case being a metaphor for making some social faux pas that has no bearing whatsoever on somebody's ability to run a country.  And the worst part is that the voters know they're watching contrived theater, and yet, instead of demanding reality they just get wrapped up in the details of the storyline and cast votes as if the show they're watching was reality.

Can we just start voting based on who seems more human before this country goes the way of Rome?  I'd ask for decision making at a more sophisticated level than that, but...baby steps.

And before anybody tries to decide who's more human between Trump and Biden, I'm talking about through the whole process.  Neither of these idiots would have ever been on a primary stage if it required a Turing test to qualify.

Hey lab partner, thought you could read between the lines.  Its the internet, no worries. Its not just the candidate, it's the entire party.  America is ed up. That's the liberal message. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pooter said:

I kindof hope climate change wipes us all out a-la speed of heat's ramblings so we don't have to suffer through whichever dysfunctional administration wins next month

I guess you don’t want us out of Afghanistan and Syria? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...