Page 3 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Daddy63
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

18 Jun 2021, 12:29 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Daddy63 wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Daddy63 wrote:
I'll stick to science and real root cause and effects.

Gohmert even had Ted Lieu suggesting on Twitter that Captain Marvel "can alter planetary orbits with her superpowers" to fix climate change but yeah Gohmert is the ignorant one. LMAO!


Well, I am glad you will stick to science. Unfortunately, Gohmert does not. He is a climate change denier. The obvious scientific solution to climate change is controlling human activity.


So you subscribe to Ted Lieu's wackadoodle solution of superheroes changing the orbit of celestial bodies? Seriously?

Does pointing out that many things both natural and human-made affect our climate make one a climate change denier? Critical thinking should lead one to believe otherwise.


So, that was your idea of critical thinking? Instead of discussing the issue, you resort to personal attacks and strawman fallacies?

You apparently don't know Gohmert's record. He has taken a strong climate denying position. He has even brought other noted climate change deniers into Congressional hearings.

As a matter of policy and science, you should be looking at the driver to the current climate problem: human activity. Which would be a better policy and scientific solution, addressing emissions or changing the orbits of planetary bodies to control global heating?


How is asking a question a personal attack? Do you believe the Ted Lieu nonsense or not?

Gohmert is actually agreeing that the climate is changing by pointing out there are lots of contributing factors in the video. Calling him a denier is simply a regurgitation of political propaganda and a rejection of all thought -- critical thought or otherwise.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

18 Jun 2021, 1:53 pm

Daddy63 wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Daddy63 wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Daddy63 wrote:
I'll stick to science and real root cause and effects.

Gohmert even had Ted Lieu suggesting on Twitter that Captain Marvel "can alter planetary orbits with her superpowers" to fix climate change but yeah Gohmert is the ignorant one. LMAO!


Well, I am glad you will stick to science. Unfortunately, Gohmert does not. He is a climate change denier. The obvious scientific solution to climate change is controlling human activity.


So you subscribe to Ted Lieu's wackadoodle solution of superheroes changing the orbit of celestial bodies? Seriously?

Does pointing out that many things both natural and human-made affect our climate make one a climate change denier? Critical thinking should lead one to believe otherwise.


So, that was your idea of critical thinking? Instead of discussing the issue, you resort to personal attacks and strawman fallacies?

You apparently don't know Gohmert's record. He has taken a strong climate denying position. He has even brought other noted climate change deniers into Congressional hearings.

As a matter of policy and science, you should be looking at the driver to the current climate problem: human activity. Which would be a better policy and scientific solution, addressing emissions or changing the orbits of planetary bodies to control global heating?


How is asking a question a personal attack? Do you believe the Ted Lieu nonsense or not?

Gohmert is actually agreeing that the climate is changing by pointing out there are lots of contributing factors in the video. Calling him a denier is simply a regurgitation of political propaganda and a rejection of all thought -- critical thought or otherwise.


My answer was in regards to Gohmert, the topic of this thread. Please read my post and address those things in it.

No, Gohmert is not addressing climate change. Climate change is not about the natural variation in climate, but the change resulting from human influence. The "climate change is natural" argument is a denier argument and has nothing to do with critical thought or science. Science has already clarified whether climate change is natural and has clearly pointed to human causes. Gohmert is on record for making climate denial statements. That is not political propaganda or a rejection of critical thought, but a simple statement of fact from research and knowledge, the foundation of critical thought. The source is important in the evaluation of statements. You are apparently not familiar with Gohmert or his position. It might be useful for you to do some research for this conversation.

I don't think asking the US Forest Service if they can alter the orbit of the moon is critical thinking. There are no national forests on the moon nor does the forest service have the ability to alter orbits of any natural satellite. Any member of Congress should know the mission of any Federal agency since it is Congress that delegates their power. Nor does the US have jurisdiction over the moon. Since the lunar orbit is not the cause of climate change, then asking if changing the orbit of the moon can alter climate change is rather an odd line of reasoning. It is certainly not an indication of critical thought.



Daddy63
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

18 Jun 2021, 2:14 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
My answer was in regards to Gohmert, the topic of this thread. Please read my post and address those things in it.

No, Gohmert is not addressing climate change. Climate change is not about the natural variation in climate, but the change resulting from human influence. The "climate change is natural" argument is a denier argument and has nothing to do with critical thought or science. Science has already clarified whether climate change is natural and has clearly pointed to human causes. Gohmert is on record for making climate denial statements. That is not political propaganda or a rejection of critical thought, but a simple statement of fact from research and knowledge, the foundation of critical thought. The source is important in the evaluation of statements. You are apparently not familiar with Gohmert or his position. It might be useful for you to do some research for this conversation.

I don't think asking the US Forest Service if they can alter the orbit of the moon is critical thinking. There are no national forests on the moon nor does the forest service have the ability to alter orbits of any natural satellite. Any member of Congress should know the mission of any Federal agency since it is Congress that delegates their power. Nor does the US have jurisdiction over the moon. Since the lunar orbit is not the cause of climate change, then asking if changing the orbit of the moon can alter climate change is rather an odd line of reasoning. It is certainly not an indication of critical thought.


So I'll ask again a different way. Is expecting a superhero to change the orbits of celestial bodies a proper way to address climate change?

Shouldn't we first understand all of the major things that impact climate in addition to greenhouse gases? And then shouldn't we understand the impact of all greenhouse gases, not just CO2? Finally, shouldn't we understand all of the sources and uses of CO2 on our planet and how they impact climate?

Gohmert challenges your worldview by asking logical questions because he is a critical thinker and is not ready to just accept a politically motivated conclusion. I'm not suggesting that one side is right or wrong but shouldn't appreciate someone looking for the truth instead of reaching a politically-motivated conclusion?

There have been many politically-motivated eco-apocalyptic predictions over the past 100 years or so and every single one of they has turned out to be false. It seems irrational to now accept a new one as fact just because it is favored by one politician or another.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

18 Jun 2021, 2:57 pm

Daddy63 wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
My answer was in regards to Gohmert, the topic of this thread. Please read my post and address those things in it.

No, Gohmert is not addressing climate change. Climate change is not about the natural variation in climate, but the change resulting from human influence. The "climate change is natural" argument is a denier argument and has nothing to do with critical thought or science. Science has already clarified whether climate change is natural and has clearly pointed to human causes. Gohmert is on record for making climate denial statements. That is not political propaganda or a rejection of critical thought, but a simple statement of fact from research and knowledge, the foundation of critical thought. The source is important in the evaluation of statements. You are apparently not familiar with Gohmert or his position. It might be useful for you to do some research for this conversation.

I don't think asking the US Forest Service if they can alter the orbit of the moon is critical thinking. There are no national forests on the moon nor does the forest service have the ability to alter orbits of any natural satellite. Any member of Congress should know the mission of any Federal agency since it is Congress that delegates their power. Nor does the US have jurisdiction over the moon. Since the lunar orbit is not the cause of climate change, then asking if changing the orbit of the moon can alter climate change is rather an odd line of reasoning. It is certainly not an indication of critical thought.


So I'll ask again a different way. Is expecting a superhero to change the orbits of celestial bodies a proper way to address climate change?

Shouldn't we first understand all of the major things that impact climate in addition to greenhouse gases? And then shouldn't we understand the impact of all greenhouse gases, not just CO2? Finally, shouldn't we understand all of the sources and uses of CO2 on our planet and how they impact climate?

Gohmert challenges your worldview by asking logical questions because he is a critical thinker and is not ready to just accept a politically motivated conclusion. I'm not suggesting that one side is right or wrong but shouldn't appreciate someone looking for the truth instead of reaching a politically-motivated conclusion?

There have been many politically-motivated eco-apocalyptic predictions over the past 100 years or so and every single one of they has turned out to be false. It seems irrational to now accept a new one as fact just because it is favored by one politician or another.


That is because I don't listen to politicians. Scientist have already done the work and I have read a lot of it. And they have looked at more factors than in your small list and given answers. This tends to be the problem in climate conversations, people are simply not educated. Sorry for being harsh, but you simple have not shown you understand the issue at all otherwise you would not have asked such basic questions in the first place, since they are pretty well documented.

As far as changing the orbit of the Earth, that is not a logical question nor does it apply critical thought. If you don't understand the issue of the ecological function of the moon, then how are we having a logical conversation? Just taking one small aspect, the tidal action of the planet, asking to move the moon is just non-sense. And then just taking that small aspect and apply it to an even small category of economics (not even ecology), how is that going to impact our fisheries? The fact that a Congressman could not even get that far and figure out it might not be a good idea is stunning. Gohmert is just showing ignorance. But then your faith in our politicians, particularly one that has been very vocal against climate science, is strange. (We have not even addressed how to move the moon with the forest service that don't even have rockets. Gohmert should know the forest service does not work in space.)

As far as your assessment of environmental problems over the last century, we have been successful at identifying them. They tend to turn bad when we ignore the science and don't act. Usually because of a lack of political will demonstrated by people like Gohmert. When we do use science in our policy to address them, we have been very successful.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

18 Jun 2021, 5:16 pm

Daddy63 wrote:
Not at all. Critical thinking is process of investigating and challenging an issue/idea/theory. One shouldn't simply make an experts' theories or facts their own but should discover the truth for themselves through real analysis and openminded evaluation..


Ok so the opposite of conditioned behaviour. At what age would a person develop these aforementioned skills?

Is questioning scientific theories on climate valid when there is universal scientific consensus?



Daddy63
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

18 Jun 2021, 10:52 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Daddy63 wrote:
Not at all. Critical thinking is process of investigating and challenging an issue/idea/theory. One shouldn't simply make an experts' theories or facts their own but should discover the truth for themselves through real analysis and openminded evaluation..


Ok so the opposite of conditioned behaviour. At what age would a person develop these aforementioned skills?

Is questioning scientific theories on climate valid when there is universal scientific consensus?


Some children as young as 5 have the capability and a good foundation is required.

Questioning and understanding the root causes of climate change is most certainly valid since there no proof and no consensus. Assuming that correlation means causation is a clear rejection of critical thinking.



Daddy63
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

18 Jun 2021, 11:36 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Daddy63 wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
My answer was in regards to Gohmert, the topic of this thread. Please read my post and address those things in it.

No, Gohmert is not addressing climate change. Climate change is not about the natural variation in climate, but the change resulting from human influence. The "climate change is natural" argument is a denier argument and has nothing to do with critical thought or science. Science has already clarified whether climate change is natural and has clearly pointed to human causes. Gohmert is on record for making climate denial statements. That is not political propaganda or a rejection of critical thought, but a simple statement of fact from research and knowledge, the foundation of critical thought. The source is important in the evaluation of statements. You are apparently not familiar with Gohmert or his position. It might be useful for you to do some research for this conversation.

I don't think asking the US Forest Service if they can alter the orbit of the moon is critical thinking. There are no national forests on the moon nor does the forest service have the ability to alter orbits of any natural satellite. Any member of Congress should know the mission of any Federal agency since it is Congress that delegates their power. Nor does the US have jurisdiction over the moon. Since the lunar orbit is not the cause of climate change, then asking if changing the orbit of the moon can alter climate change is rather an odd line of reasoning. It is certainly not an indication of critical thought.


So I'll ask again a different way. Is expecting a superhero to change the orbits of celestial bodies a proper way to address climate change?

Shouldn't we first understand all of the major things that impact climate in addition to greenhouse gases? And then shouldn't we understand the impact of all greenhouse gases, not just CO2? Finally, shouldn't we understand all of the sources and uses of CO2 on our planet and how they impact climate?

Gohmert challenges your worldview by asking logical questions because he is a critical thinker and is not ready to just accept a politically motivated conclusion. I'm not suggesting that one side is right or wrong but shouldn't appreciate someone looking for the truth instead of reaching a politically-motivated conclusion?

There have been many politically-motivated eco-apocalyptic predictions over the past 100 years or so and every single one of they has turned out to be false. It seems irrational to now accept a new one as fact just because it is favored by one politician or another.


That is because I don't listen to politicians. Scientist have already done the work and I have read a lot of it. And they have looked at more factors than in your small list and given answers. This tends to be the problem in climate conversations, people are simply not educated. Sorry for being harsh, but you simple have not shown you understand the issue at all otherwise you would not have asked such basic questions in the first place, since they are pretty well documented.

As far as changing the orbit of the Earth, that is not a logical question nor does it apply critical thought. If you don't understand the issue of the ecological function of the moon, then how are we having a logical conversation? Just taking one small aspect, the tidal action of the planet, asking to move the moon is just non-sense. And then just taking that small aspect and apply it to an even small category of economics (not even ecology), how is that going to impact our fisheries? The fact that a Congressman could not even get that far and figure out it might not be a good idea is stunning. Gohmert is just showing ignorance. But then your faith in our politicians, particularly one that has been very vocal against climate science, is strange. (We have not even addressed how to move the moon with the forest service that don't even have rockets. Gohmert should know the forest service does not work in space.)

As far as your assessment of environmental problems over the last century, we have been successful at identifying them. They tend to turn bad when we ignore the science and don't act. Usually because of a lack of political will demonstrated by people like Gohmert. When we do use science in our policy to address them, we have been very successful.


I was just pointing out the insanity of someone actually suggesting a superhero would solve climate change issues by altering the orbits of celestial bodies. I'm glad to hear you reject that lunacy.

The list of things that alter the earth's climate is nearly limitless. Gohmert making that point is the opposite of climate denial. He's embracing it and wanting to understand root cause. The man is highly educated and highly intelligent. Just Google his background if you don't already know about him.

So which eco-apocalyptic predictions from "scientists" turned bad when they were ignored and we didn't act? Obviously we are all still here. Was it the coming ice age predictions? What about acid rain? Depletion of the ozone layer? Overpopulation of the planet? Mass food and water shortages? Killer bees? Total depletion of fossil fuels?

Those predictions had many "scientists" behind them as well. They were all irresponsible and incorrect. Today's climate alarmism will be seen as irresponsible and incorrect 50 years from now just as we see these crazy predictions from past decades.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

19 Jun 2021, 3:09 am

Daddy63 wrote:
Questioning and understanding the root causes of climate change is most certainly valid since there no proof and no consensus. Assuming that correlation means causation is a clear rejection of critical thinking.


I know a little statistics and the regression models developed based on temporal climate change suggest that the causative trigger for the sudden rise in temp is agro-industrial emissions of CO2. We are talking really small p-levels so quite significant.



maycontainthunder
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Mar 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,875

19 Jun 2021, 4:08 am

I'm not surprised they want to alter orbit. They've been orbiting Trump's Uranus for so long they need a change.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,882
Location: temperate zone

19 Jun 2021, 4:55 am

The GOP could initiate a new public works project- to employ thousands to...move celestial objects around in space.

The new face of the GOP:



Daddy63
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

19 Jun 2021, 9:09 am

naturalplastic wrote:
The GOP could initiate a new public works project- to employ thousands to...move celestial objects around in space.

The new face of the GOP:


The wacko idea of superheroes moving celestial objects in space to resolve climate change came from a Democrat.



Daddy63
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

19 Jun 2021, 9:19 am

cyberdad wrote:
Daddy63 wrote:
Questioning and understanding the root causes of climate change is most certainly valid since there no proof and no consensus. Assuming that correlation means causation is a clear rejection of critical thinking.


I know a little statistics and the regression models developed based on temporal climate change suggest that the causative trigger for the sudden rise in temp is agro-industrial emissions of CO2. We are talking really small p-levels so quite significant.


Statistics and regression models show correlation, not causation. That's the point.

You can say for example that drinking water causes cancer because 100% of people who get cancer drink water. That's perfect correlation but you know it's not true. Likewise you can plot a historical chart of industrial development and put anything else on the chart you wish and show it correlates when there may be no significant relationship.

Establishing causation in science requires empirical evidence. It's for this reason that real scientists can't directly link human activity to climate change though there is certainly a linkage. The empirical evidence simply isn't there to make such a scientific assertion.



longshot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Dec 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,037
Location: In some fictional location

24 Jun 2021, 7:14 pm

Yeah, I read about Louis and how, he thinks by altering Earth's orbit, that; that, somehow will alleviate the problem of global warming. Actually, by such doing such in literal terms would cause more harm than good; as, it would result in all sorts of unforeseen catastrophes. I have to hand it to the Republicans for coming up with ideas that are not rational.