Page 92 of 111 FirstFirst ... 42828788899091929394959697102 ... LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,840 of 2209
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1821  
    Hello Again,

    People interested in this might want to read up on the following topics (wikipedia entries listed here for starting points)

    Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Truth by consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    These are very dangerous things potentially. Beware of those who live by such fallacies.

    KAM
  2. #1822  
    I have no desire to continue this silly circular talk, but I will simply state that you don't seem to understand the difference between the simple term "consensus", and what scientists refer to as "scientific consensus". You seem to think that scientific consensus is not based on a judgment of the facts and data, and that it's simply some sort of vote, and that any single piece of data can disprove a scientific consensus.

    The fact is that scientific consensus is based upon the current data as a whole, and new data is compared to existing data to update the current understanding of the topic in question.

    So any comparison of scientific consensus with general terms as "truth by consensus" are inaccurate. If it helps you to think that you're being an independent thinker, then that's great. However, the thinking of most folks in this conversation seems not to be based upon their own conclusions, but rather the talking points of right wing radio.

    Personally, if I'm going to follow a set of "propogandists", I'd rather it be based upon the preponderance of evidence of the scientific community, with actual knowledge of the subject matter, rather than those who's credibility is based upon the fact that they have a radio / tv show. YMMV, of course.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1823  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I have no desire to continue this silly circular talk, but I will simply state that you don't seem to understand the difference between the simple term "consensus", and what scientists refer to as "scientific consensus". You seem to think that scientific consensus is not based on a judgment of the facts and data, and that it's simply some sort of vote, and that any single piece of data can disprove a scientific consensus.
    And by that statement you prove that you do not understand the scientific method. ONE piece of legitimate contrary data DOES disprove a theory (and any subsequent "consensus" built upon that theory. If you understood scientific method (which any legitimate scientific consensus" MUST be based on) then you would know this. Obviously you do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The fact is that scientific consensus is based upon the current data as a whole, and new data is compared to existing data to update the current understanding of the topic in question.
    That claim is simply not true. Not only have AGW advocates cherry picked data, there is evidence of intimidation and other forms of stonewalling that have been used to AVOID legitimate scientific scrutiny. You are simply in denial of these facts. AGW is entirely in the arena of politics, and you simply refuse to acknowledge this. You instead prefer to pretend that this is unaffected by politics, propaganda, not to mention billions of dollars and that this is some pure scientific endeavor. Your position is laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    So any comparison of scientific consensus with general terms as "truth by consensus" are inaccurate. If it helps you to think that you're being an independent thinker, then that's great. However, the thinking of most folks in this conversation seems not to be based upon their own conclusions, but rather the talking points of right wing radio.
    Yes, if you were talking about legitimate scientific consensus (which this is not) then you would be correct.

    And then you fall back on the tried and true liberal backstop--"Right wing radio." Oh, here comes the boogey man. What's next--calling me a ****? Stop projecting your intellectual dishonesty and groupthink on me, would you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Personally, if I'm going to follow a set of "propogandists", I'd rather it be based upon the preponderance of evidence of the scientific community, with actual knowledge of the subject matter, rather than those who's credibility is based upon the fact that they have a radio / tv show. YMMV, of course.
    Yes, when you decide to look at actual evidence, instead of buying into propaganda, you let me know.

    I've got to say--its pretty pathetic to keep falling back to accusing others of parroting TV shows or radio--first, its hypocritical given that you are doing nothing other than touting the party line propaganda of the AGW gang, and secondly, you have no idea about what radio or tv I listen to or watch. You are simply throwing up petty accusations that play to people of your mindset. Perhaps amongst people who have a "truth by consensus" mindset, this sort of attempt to slander/mock/insult others creates reality, so you can get all excited about how you "win arguments" or whatever.

    Now, I'm sorry if any of these posts over the last few days seems hostile, because I really bear you no ill will, and of course I don't even know you personally. I just find that you advocate things that I believe are really harmful, and seem to follow an ideology that is inherently anti-freedom in the guise of "saving the world" or "helping others" and I simply don't buy into that sort of thing.

    I am grateful for the posts you've made here--they've been very useful to me.

    Happy holidays to you,

    KAM
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1824  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You seem to think that scientific consensus is not based on a judgment of the facts and data, and that it's simply some sort of vote, and that any single piece of data can disprove a scientific consensus.
    Yes, I think that. And so does Stephen Hawking. He writes:

    Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory. At least that is what is supposed to happen, but you can always question the competence of the person who carried out the observation (Hawking, 1988, p. 10).
    So you can continue to disagree. It's your right. But you'll be wrong.

    And again.. there is no such thing as "scientific concensus", other than some poll someone takes and calls it such. It's a term that has no true scientific weight or meaning, in terms of truth or reality.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #1825  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Now, I'm sorry if any of these posts over the last few days seems hostile
    Admitting the problem is halfway to solving it.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. #1826  
    So you can continue to disagree. It's your right. But you'll be wrong.
    I absolutely agree with what Dr. Hawkings stated above. The problem is not what he said, but how it's been applied in this thread. The point is that new information (if it's credible and persuasive) should of course lead to modifying theories....however, that's light years away from "it's been cooler over the last 10 years, so that entirely disproves the entirety of global warming research". If you're actually interested in how climate scientists react to this cherry-picking of a 10 year span, this is a good place to start. It's from the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032003191.html

    If it gets warmer from 2009-2019, does that now disprove your disproving of global warming? Of course not...it's simply more data to add to the aggregate of evidence.

    The WMO takes issue with that "we've been cooling over the past 10 years" claim by stating:

    "What is clear is that, globally, 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded and eight of the 10 other top annual mean temperatures have occurred during the last decade." In other words, you can't say that the temperature dropped slightly from the warmest year ever recorded, so the overall trend is that we're cooling.
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/09/2009 at 12:45 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. #1827  
    Ok here is a question that no one has answered in this thread.

    What will happen if we do nothing?

    Please support your answers with FACTS.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1828  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Ok here is a question that no one has answered in this thread.

    What will happen if we do nothing?

    Please support your answers with FACTS.
    This totally misses the point, imho, and you're still playing into the lefts hands, as long as you debate on their terms.

    The REAL debate has never been about manmade global warming. It's about destroying capitalism and wealth redistribution. We can run circles all day in these little mind battles, and all the while we're slowly and quietly losing the real war.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #1829  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    It could go two ways:

    1) If climate change is truly a global hoax, taking measures to find alternate fuels would lead us to energy independence and stopping pollution. There would be whole sectors of jobs relates to alternative fuels. I assume we would be relying more on nuclear energy so there may be a few nuclear mishaps. We would also need to find places for nuclear waste.
    This isn't doing nothing. This is making all the green changes anyway. Not what I asked and where are your facts. PROVE what you just said.

    2) If climate change is manmade by the burning of fossil fuels, doing nothing would lead to the continued melting of glaciers, rise of ocean waters, covering of island countries and parts of continents, loss of fresh water supplies for much of the world's population, changes in weather patterns causing problems in areas not used to such weather (heat waves in Europe, hurricanes decimating North American coasts, shrinking animal habitats, wine growing in England--all of which have already started, by the way...etc.), increased wars as people flight over the remaining resources.
    Not gonna grab onto everything, but could you share which North American coasts were 'decimated' this year by hurricanes? Wine doesn't grow it's made.

    The only bad side I see to alternative fuels is big oil won't make so much profit and be the reason we fight wars in the middle east...and that's not so bad.
    Again, not what I asked. Be a different view if you owned the oil company no? If the oil in the Middle East is the reason for all the wars there why is Isreal at war? Why aren't we at war with Alaska? They have lots of oil. Why aren't we at war with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait. They have it too.

    Perhaps that is the problem. You arent reading the question.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1830  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Wine doesn't grow it's made.
    Perhaps he was talking about liberal whine?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #1831  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    This totally misses the point, imho, and you're still playing into the lefts hands, as long as you debate on their terms.

    The REAL debate has never been about manmade global warming. It's about destroying capitalism and wealth redistribution. We can run circles all day in these little mind battles, and all the while we're slowly and quietly losing the real war.
    Sorry my point was that we dont know with any certainty what will happen if we do nothing any more than we know what will happen if we enact all these new laws. To make legistlation and potentially crippling policies because something COULD happen is just stupid.
    You could get struck by lightening if you go outside in a storm. Are we going to make it illegal to do so because we have a tiny amount of data showing people get hit by lightning in storms? God I hop not.
    That solution limits freedom for the sake of security and no one is considering the house could get hit and burn down with us trapped inside.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1832  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Oh, that's a new one: all of the climate change debate is really about dismantling capitalism?

    So, if you create new renewal energy industries, that's not capitalism? It's not about capitalism, it's about big oil and the destruction it is causing.
    Actually, that's not a new idea at all. It's practically as old as the debate itself. The Director-General of the WHO understands what its all about. You should read her speeches.
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1833  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I absolutely agree with what Dr. Hawkings stated above. The problem is not what he said, but how it's been applied in this thread. The point is that new information (if it's credible and persuasive) should of course lead to modifying theories....however, that's light years away from "it's been cooler over the last 10 years, so that entirely disproves the entirety of global warming research". If you're actually interested in how climate scientists react to this cherry-picking of a 10 year span, this is a good place to start. It's from the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization:

    Climate Variations Don't Invalidate the Reality of Global Warming - washingtonpost.com

    If it gets warmer from 2009-2019, does that now disprove your disproving of global warming? Of course not...it's simply more data to add to the aggregate of evidence.

    The WMO takes issue with that "we've been cooling over the past 10 years" claim by stating:

    "What is clear is that, globally, 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded and eight of the 10 other top annual mean temperatures have occurred during the last decade." In other words, you can't say that the temperature dropped slightly from the warmest year ever recorded, so the overall trend is that we're cooling.
    I find a lot of irony in your logic. Let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that you round up the impact of human activity on the climate to the last 500 years (which is very generous). If you look at the climate in the last decade compared to the last 500 years, you've got a 2% sampling of data. If you look at the climate for the last 500 years compared to the climate for the history of the earth over 4 billion years, you have a 0.0000125% sampling of data.

    It just seems to me that this argument is based on some pretty shaky ground.
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1834  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So, suddenly the Director-General of the WHO is the spokeswoman for climate change and the reasons for activism? Big oil wants you to think it's about capitalism so they don't have to fight the battle against change alone.

    I thought the whole point of capitalism was that the innovative will prosper? Countries will have to change their use of fossil fuels. New technologies will have to be create to take the place of those dependent on oil and coal.

    Let the innovative prosper.
    Absolutely! Let the innovative prosper in an open market on the same ground as everyone else. If entrepreneurs can develop a replacement for fossil fuels that is more cost effective and marketable then I am all for it. In fact, I would love it! Until then, let those who innovate base on the current framework prosper as well.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1835  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    There's no need to innovate if you continue to reward the current framework.
    In other words, no need to innovate if the current framework is working better than any alternatives. If there's a better option you can believe people will be on it.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1836  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    According to this logic, one could NEVER make any conclusions about the climate EVER because you don't know what happened in the last 4 billion years. So let's do nothing!

    It seems to me that your argument is based on some pretty shaky ground...
    Aside from your additional non sequitur, which part was shaky? You may not like it but that doesn't make it wrong.
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1837  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yeah, it's wrong.
    I look forward to seeing the evidence.
  18. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1838  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Not if the people making money off this framework fund think tanks to come up with ways to make you doubt there even needs to be an alternative.

    Of course, by the time people have figured out that something is up, it's too late to do much.
    There's an obscene amount of money being poured into this debate from all sides. You can't deny that. I'm anxiously awaiting the new alternative energy sources being created with George Soros' money.
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1839  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    This is the call of the blocker. Ignore all the evidence that exists. Pretend what exists is highly questionable. Create doubt.

    This method is used regularly by the creationism supporters, anti-climate changers, anti-healthcare reformers...and those who still maintain the earth is flat.
    Because I want evidence that my point is wrong?
  20. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1840  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    How many rich lab scientists do you know? Let's compare that with the number of rich oil company executives.
    You mean besides the founders of HP, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and any one of hundreds of technology companies? Mmm, can't think of any.

Posting Permissions