Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules

Page 16 of 21 [ 328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 21  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

07 Jul 2015, 11:19 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
ok, so you've no proof and can only offer up a rightwing propaganda puff piece and a book by a TV weatherman(he sure isn't a scientist). hardly compelling evidence.


That's right - no proof. Proof is for mathematicians. Why do I get the very strong impression you have no idea how science actually works? It's all about evidence and, if you would actually make the effort to find it, you would.
i've provided proof in the form of data that backs my statements up. you've yet to link anything besides a book for sale by a weatherman



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 11:28 pm

Fugu, did you actually read the Scientific American article you link to?

"The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year by Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University; John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia; and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming (ClimateWire, May 16, 2013).

That statement quickly got boiled down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans. President Obama tweeted the 97 percent consensus. Comedian John Oliver did a segment on it that went viral on the Internet."

97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming. How very scientific, to just lazily assume things. :roll:
It was then (deliberately?) misrepresented in the media that 97 percent of scientists accept it. Not that that even matters anyway, because a "consensus" is not what one aims for when one does scientific research anyway. It's all about uncovering what is likely, given the available evidence, to be real. Scientific knowledge is provisional, there are no "proofs" to establish, and impartiality is supreme.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

07 Jul 2015, 11:36 pm

I'll say it again:

You might not believe that human activity causes climate change.

You might believe that we are in the up-swing of a natural, cyclical, or possibly random shift in average temperature.

Denying that there is a trend of increasing average temperature is just ignorant denial.

Ask anyone who grows plants for a living and has done so for decades about growing in the 1980's vs. today.

Ask anyone who lives on or near the permafrost, which is increasingly less permanent.

Have you noticed that there is a north-west passage now? Haven't transport magnates dreamed of that for centuries?



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 11:36 pm

Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
ok, so you've no proof and can only offer up a rightwing propaganda puff piece and a book by a TV weatherman(he sure isn't a scientist). hardly compelling evidence.


That's right - no proof. Proof is for mathematicians. Why do I get the very strong impression you have no idea how science actually works? It's all about evidence and, if you would actually make the effort to find it, you would.
i've provided proof in the form of data that backs my statements up. you've yet to link anything besides a book for sale by a weatherman


Data is not proof either. What does your data actually 'prove'? The answer is nothing. I had a look at that chart of yours, and it's quite frankly pathetic. Just what one would expect from a purely political body like the I.P.C.C.
'Consensus' is also irrelevant, and yet we incessantly hear from the alarmist brigade how "a consensus of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, so that proves we are right". Science is
not about seeking to establish a consensus - that's what politicians do. It's about experimentation, evidence gathering, testing, making sure one maintains a suitably detatched perspective from any possible outcomes, being open to the possibility of being wrong.
These idiots think they are never wrong, they tell everyone to just shut up and stop questioning their authority!



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

07 Jul 2015, 11:41 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
ok, so you've no proof and can only offer up a rightwing propaganda puff piece and a book by a TV weatherman(he sure isn't a scientist). hardly compelling evidence.


That's right - no proof. Proof is for mathematicians. Why do I get the very strong impression you have no idea how science actually works? It's all about evidence and, if you would actually make the effort to find it, you would.
i've provided proof in the form of data that backs my statements up. you've yet to link anything besides a book for sale by a weatherman


Data is not proof either. What does your data actually 'prove'? The answer is nothing. I had a look at that chart of yours, and it's quite frankly pathetic. Just what one would expect from a purely political body like the I.P.C.C.
'Consensus' is also irrelevant, and yet we incessantly hear from the alarmist brigade how "a consensus of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, so that proves we are right". Science is
not about seeking to establish a consensus - that's what politicians do. It's about experimentation, evidence gathering, testing, making sure one maintains a suitably detatched perspective from any possible outcomes, being open to the possibility of being wrong.
These idiots think they are never wrong, they tell everyone to just shut up and stop questioning their authority!



Dude. For the last 6 years, ships have been able to navigate through the arctic ocean from one side of north america to the other.

Where do you think the ice went?



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 11:49 pm

Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
From the I.P.C.C. link -

"Figure SPM.2. Illustrative examples of global impacts projected for climate changes (and sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide where relevant) associated with different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature in the 21st century [T20.8]. The black lines link impacts, dotted arrows indicate impacts continuing with increasing temperature. Entries are placed so that the left-hand side of the text indicates the approximate onset of a given impact. Quantitative entries for water stress and flooding represent the additional impacts of climate change relative to the conditions projected across the range of Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) scenarios A1FI, A2, B1 and B2 (see Endbox 3). Adaptation to climate change is not included in these estimations. All entries are from published studies recorded in the chapters of the Assessment. Sources are given in the right-hand column of the Table. Confidence levels for all statements are high."

This statement, which lies directly beneath the very colourful image seen and linked to above, is, as one would expect due to the inherently chaotic nature of climate, imprecise. A projection of what may happen, given certain foundational assumptions, guesses, and based upon information that is, inevitably, open to challenge. Yet, we are expected to believe that "the science is settled". No, it isn't, and all those who claim it is are guilty of fraud.
We're about +0.18 degrees up since 1999. you can split hairs about it being a consensus as you like, but the science is sound to those who don't seek to make it political.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Co ... n_DK12.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/


For the sake of argument, let's say you and the sources you link are right about the 0.18 degree increase. So what? Don't you understand that the Earth doesn't have an 'ideal' temperature range, and that ever since it first formed approx. 4.6 thousand million years ago our planet has had just about everything thrown at it that nature could? Have you even heard of the Medieveal Warm Period? Did you know it was actually warmer than it is now during the early Roman imperial period, and that cooling was one of the contributing factors that caused its collapse? What about the period 1940 to 1975, when in spite of the development of industry (and corresponding increase in CO2), the Earth went through a dangerous cooling period once again? Can you tell me how Greenland got its name, and why the Vikings settled there?

The Earth's climate has always changed. That's what climates do, and yet we are now told by people who seem to live in their own reality that "climate change is bad". No, climate change is natural.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 11:49 pm

Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
From the I.P.C.C. link -

"Figure SPM.2. Illustrative examples of global impacts projected for climate changes (and sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide where relevant) associated with different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature in the 21st century [T20.8]. The black lines link impacts, dotted arrows indicate impacts continuing with increasing temperature. Entries are placed so that the left-hand side of the text indicates the approximate onset of a given impact. Quantitative entries for water stress and flooding represent the additional impacts of climate change relative to the conditions projected across the range of Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) scenarios A1FI, A2, B1 and B2 (see Endbox 3). Adaptation to climate change is not included in these estimations. All entries are from published studies recorded in the chapters of the Assessment. Sources are given in the right-hand column of the Table. Confidence levels for all statements are high."

This statement, which lies directly beneath the very colourful image seen and linked to above, is, as one would expect due to the inherently chaotic nature of climate, imprecise. A projection of what may happen, given certain foundational assumptions, guesses, and based upon information that is, inevitably, open to challenge. Yet, we are expected to believe that "the science is settled". No, it isn't, and all those who claim it is are guilty of fraud.
We're about +0.18 degrees up since 1999. you can split hairs about it being a consensus as you like, but the science is sound to those who don't seek to make it political.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Co ... n_DK12.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/


For the sake of argument, let's say you and the sources you link are right about the 0.18 degree increase. So what? Don't you understand that the Earth doesn't have an 'ideal' temperature range, and that ever since it first formed approx. 4.6 thousand million years ago our planet has had just about everything thrown at it that nature could? Have you even heard of the Medieveal Warm Period? Did you know it was actually warmer than it is now during the early Roman imperial period, and that cooling was one of the contributing factors that caused its collapse? What about the period 1940 to 1975, when in spite of the development of industry (and corresponding increase in CO2), the Earth went through a dangerous cooling period once again? Can you tell me how Greenland got its name, and why the Vikings settled there?

The Earth's climate has always changed. That's what climates do, and yet we are now told by people who seem to live in their own reality that "climate change is bad". No, climate change is natural.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 11:57 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
ok, so you've no proof and can only offer up a rightwing propaganda puff piece and a book by a TV weatherman(he sure isn't a scientist). hardly compelling evidence.


That's right - no proof. Proof is for mathematicians. Why do I get the very strong impression you have no idea how science actually works? It's all about evidence and, if you would actually make the effort to find it, you would.
i've provided proof in the form of data that backs my statements up. you've yet to link anything besides a book for sale by a weatherman


Data is not proof either. What does your data actually 'prove'? The answer is nothing. I had a look at that chart of yours, and it's quite frankly pathetic. Just what one would expect from a purely political body like the I.P.C.C.
'Consensus' is also irrelevant, and yet we incessantly hear from the alarmist brigade how "a consensus of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, so that proves we are right". Science is
not about seeking to establish a consensus - that's what politicians do. It's about experimentation, evidence gathering, testing, making sure one maintains a suitably detatched perspective from any possible outcomes, being open to the possibility of being wrong.
These idiots think they are never wrong, they tell everyone to just shut up and stop questioning their authority!



Dude. For the last 6 years, ships have been able to navigate through the arctic ocean from one side of north america to the other.

Where do you think the ice went?


Dude, did you know that the Arctic ice undergoes cyclic seasonal contraction and expansion, and that this is as natural as leaves falling in autumn? Well man, did you? The Arctic (and while we are on the subject, the Antarctic too), are environments that are not rigid and unchanging, they expand, contract, ice bergs break away - this is nothing new. Were you aware of the fact that the thickness of the ice in the Antarctic is actually increasing, not disappearing?



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 12:21 am

Lintar wrote:
Fugu, did you actually read the Scientific American article you link to?

"The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year by Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University; John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia; and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming (ClimateWire, May 16, 2013).

That statement quickly got boiled down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans. President Obama tweeted the 97 percent consensus. Comedian John Oliver did a segment on it that went viral on the Internet."

97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming. How very scientific, to just lazily assume things. :roll:
It was then (deliberately?) misrepresented in the media that 97 percent of scientists accept it. Not that that even matters anyway, because a "consensus" is not what one aims for when one does scientific research anyway. It's all about uncovering what is likely, given the available evidence, to be real. Scientific knowledge is provisional, there are no "proofs" to establish, and impartiality is supreme.
It's not actually a misrepresentation at all.

http://www.eenews.net/assets/2013/05/16 ... _cw_01.pdf
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming
the following copied from pg5:
Code:
Position       % of all abstracts     % w/ AGW position(%)     % of all authors    % among authors w/ AGW position (%)
Endorse AGW        32.6% (3896)           97.1                        34.8% (10 188)                    98.4
No AGW position     66.4% (7930)           —                             64.6% (18 930)                —
Reject AGW          0.7% (78)             1.9                               0.4% (124)                 1.2
Uncertain on AGW   0.3% (40)              0.8                             0.2% (44)                 0.4

3896 + 78 + 40 = 4014, the other 7930 abstracts presented no position on AGW, negative or positive.

e: table positioning is off so it looks weird, sorry.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 12:35 am

Lintar wrote:
Were you aware of the fact that the thickness of the ice in the Antarctic is actually increasing, not disappearing?
were you aware that it's sea ice that is supposedly increasing while the land ice is melting and increasing the amount of sunlight that the oceans are absorbing(higher sea level = more dark area of ocean). sea ice melts every year in summer because of it's salt content, while land ice is frozen rainfall and would therefore change the ocean levels.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Jul 2015, 1:16 am

Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
From the I.P.C.C. link -

"Figure SPM.2. Illustrative examples of global impacts projected for climate changes (and sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide where relevant) associated with different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature in the 21st century [T20.8]. The black lines link impacts, dotted arrows indicate impacts continuing with increasing temperature. Entries are placed so that the left-hand side of the text indicates the approximate onset of a given impact. Quantitative entries for water stress and flooding represent the additional impacts of climate change relative to the conditions projected across the range of Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) scenarios A1FI, A2, B1 and B2 (see Endbox 3). Adaptation to climate change is not included in these estimations. All entries are from published studies recorded in the chapters of the Assessment. Sources are given in the right-hand column of the Table. Confidence levels for all statements are high."

This statement, which lies directly beneath the very colourful image seen and linked to above, is, as one would expect due to the inherently chaotic nature of climate, imprecise. A projection of what may happen, given certain foundational assumptions, guesses, and based upon information that is, inevitably, open to challenge. Yet, we are expected to believe that "the science is settled". No, it isn't, and all those who claim it is are guilty of fraud.
We're about +0.18 degrees up since 1999. you can split hairs about it being a consensus as you like, but the science is sound to those who don't seek to make it political.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Co ... n_DK12.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/


Maybe so, but no more hypocritical than oil man Dick Cheney powering his home with solar power in Wyoming.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

08 Jul 2015, 7:25 am

I must insist that everyone live by my rules.

1. Posts should have something to do with the original subject,

2. No personal attacks on Straw men.

3. Fraudulent misrepresentation should at least include some Point Of Reality.

Thank You for your Attention.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

08 Jul 2015, 8:22 am

Lintar wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
99% of scientists would disagree with you about global warming being a hoax. But then again, the right never has been a home for science and learning. Rather, it's the political movement that props up ridiculous pseudoscience that teaches that evolution is a hoax.
As for your earlier post concerning gay marriage being forced down our throats by calling anyone opposed to it bigots - I believe the same charge was leveled by the opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage.


Just for the record, I myself do not, nor have I ever had, views that anyone could seriously consider to be 'right-wing'. When it comes to most issues I am to the Left of Lenin, but I still say that this whole Global Warming farrago has absolutely nothing going for it. The next time you see Alphonse Gore, just ask him why he doesn't sail a boat when he travels around the world. That would be far more environmentally friendly, wouldn't it? Sailing releases zero CO2 into the atmosphere, but all of these environmental nut-jobs prefer to travel first-class. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be because even they themselves don't believe in this bull-sh*$?


Just because Gore doesn't use sails on his boat just shows that he's personally inconsistent, but it hardly means that he's wrong about global warming. Especially since the mass majority of scientists agree with him.
For the record, I could probably give Trotsky a run for his money being left wing.


Don't you think that someone with his high public profile should set an example, and live the way he incessantly tells others how they should? Don't you think this is... I don't know, a little hypocritical? "Do as I say, don't do as I do". He is not the only one who does this though. That corrupt political organisation known as the I.P.C.C. has no members who live like Gandhi either.

Assuming you're right about Al Gore. This has nothing to do with global climate change. If Gore is inconsistant, how does that matter at all to global warming?



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

08 Jul 2015, 8:38 am

I think it's funny how everyone thinks they are a scientist just because they have access to google.

I'm putting my faith in real scientists and if they do come co the conclusion that global warming is NOT significantly man-made then I will just have to take their word for it.

I do I find it a little odd. No one individual person has a large effect on global warming. However, it seems prudent for the government to place some standards. This is where I differ from libertarians. People are inherently too selfish to do anything for the good of the world. But the government can do something about it if they wish.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Jul 2015, 10:33 am

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
From the I.P.C.C. link -

"Figure SPM.2. Illustrative examples of global impacts projected for climate changes (and sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide where relevant) associated with different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature in the 21st century [T20.8]. The black lines link impacts, dotted arrows indicate impacts continuing with increasing temperature. Entries are placed so that the left-hand side of the text indicates the approximate onset of a given impact. Quantitative entries for water stress and flooding represent the additional impacts of climate change relative to the conditions projected across the range of Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) scenarios A1FI, A2, B1 and B2 (see Endbox 3). Adaptation to climate change is not included in these estimations. All entries are from published studies recorded in the chapters of the Assessment. Sources are given in the right-hand column of the Table. Confidence levels for all statements are high."

This statement, which lies directly beneath the very colourful image seen and linked to above, is, as one would expect due to the inherently chaotic nature of climate, imprecise. A projection of what may happen, given certain foundational assumptions, guesses, and based upon information that is, inevitably, open to challenge. Yet, we are expected to believe that "the science is settled". No, it isn't, and all those who claim it is are guilty of fraud.
We're about +0.18 degrees up since 1999. you can split hairs about it being a consensus as you like, but the science is sound to those who don't seek to make it political.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Co ... n_DK12.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/


For the sake of argument, let's say you and the sources you link are right about the 0.18 degree increase. So what? Don't you understand that the Earth doesn't have an 'ideal' temperature range, and that ever since it first formed approx. 4.6 thousand million years ago our planet has had just about everything thrown at it that nature could? Have you even heard of the Medieveal Warm Period? Did you know it was actually warmer than it is now during the early Roman imperial period, and that cooling was one of the contributing factors that caused its collapse? What about the period 1940 to 1975, when in spite of the development of industry (and corresponding increase in CO2), the Earth went through a dangerous cooling period once again? Can you tell me how Greenland got its name, and why the Vikings settled there?

The Earth's climate has always changed. That's what climates do, and yet we are now told by people who seem to live in their own reality that "climate change is bad". No, climate change is natural.


Climate change is natural, don't run into many people who dispute that...however that does not mean there is no human effect on it. Of course humans alone are not causing temperatures to change or anything like that, it would do that without us...but there are plenty of negative contributions humans do make to the environment which certainly don't have positive effects. I mean one doesn't have to think 'OMG humans are the one and only cause of all climate change or difficulties in the environment' to realize the negative impact we do make and want that reduced. I mean seems like some of those who think 'people have no effect on climate change/environmental catastrophe' are just using it as a cop-out to not have to address the problems we do cause...because der, de, der climate change has been going on from the beginning of the existence of this planet, so as humans we should do nothing to attempt to improve our impact on the environment/climate where it does exist. I say climate change is natural, humans are adding to a lot of environmental problems...which should be addressed. The issue is finding out what is really 'natural' and what does have more to do with human causes when it comes to environmental/climate change...then address the human caused part and let nature do its thing.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Jul 2015, 10:37 am

blauSamstag wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
When you get down to it, the right doesn't believe anyone is deserving of public assistance.


Almost.

Corporations in your own district deserve a lot of public assistance. And corporations are people, right?


And why would corporations anywhere deserve public assistance...and even if by some stupid wording of law corporations 'are people' they aren't the sort of 'people' that would qualify for public assistance.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.