3rdnlng Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 ^^^This^^^ JA's take on this is exactly right. How I can agree with him and EiI is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 JA's take on this is exactly right. How I can agree with him and EiI is beyond me. Be afraid, be very afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 The taking the ball and going home is a poor analogy here. A better analogy is that the kid decides not to show up at the field, because he knows there is no game; but rather is a bunch of !@#$s claiming there is a game in order to lure him to the field where they plan rub his face in dog ****. As any "solution" won't be a solution, but instead will do massive damage to the economy on a global scale, I'm content to say que sera, sera, and buy inland properties in the hopes that they become beachfront (this last bit is a poor joke). But, more seriously, I support the right on this because I won't come to the table and negotiate or come to terms with anyone who bargains in poor faith, which is what the left is doing here, as they are the ones advancing the issue. I think where we are losing each other is in my ****ty phrasing of my question. Let me try to restate it. I'm not interested in the way the issue is being handled currently by either the right or the left. Everything you're saying makes sense in terms of the politics, but I'm not interested in politics. I'm interested in trying to think outside the box of the current political pissing match and seeing if there are opportunities we are missing -- opportunities that could help us in the immediate present and future. If, for the sake of this discussion, we can agree to concede that CC is happening and irreversible (the cause is irrelevant in this hypothetical) and the current strategy by the left is complete hogwash then what are our options as a country? As JA said, we will ultimately adapt as a species, but that can be a painfully expensive process for any country. In this scenario, shouldn't the discourse be aimed at how to put our country in the best possible position to survive what, eventually, will be a very pressing issue? We've seen the financial cost mother nature can tally with Sandy and Katrina, simple prudence demands we start coming up with ways to soften the blow, doesn't it? I imagine there are jobs to be had, industries to be created, that can help strengthen infrastructure and spark innovation to better prepare our coastal cities and towns. Is this merely fantasy on my part or is there any truth to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I've said this before on these boards, and apparently it needs to be said again: If Climate Change really is truly and issue that needs solving, then it must be given to society's problem solvers: our engineers; and once given to the engineers; the lawyers, politicians, and alarmist social activists need to back the !@#$ away and let the engineers do what they do. But they won't. And that's because the issue is purely political. If it were anything other than political, it wouldn't be being used to advancetated this y the redistributive leftist agenda. It wouldn't be being solely addressed by those same lawyers and alarmist social activists who don't know how to address real problems or find real solutions. The warped! So the politicians are suppose to start humming and magically the engineers will just all get together and dream upmarket solution? WTF? And after you s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) I'm not a GW denier like some here. But the reality is that GW is happening (man made or not) and there's not much if anything we can do about, except act like the good humans we are and adapt. Florida is not flooding tomorrow and no doubt as more and more storms ravage the coast, people will move further from it. As food doesn't grow in one region, it will grow in another. It won't be an easy adaption but we'll do it. No....the decision is this....is the costing of preventing the effects more or less than the consequences?...adapting sounds so easy and painless....you are talking about moving 2/3 of the worlds population - yes - we will just move Manhattan, Miami, New Orleans, Shanghai.....the costs to bend the curve are huge as is the cost of the changes....since the costs are now and the consequences are later.... That is what an engineer would say.... We are just another animal on this planet behaving like any other would Edited May 21, 2014 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 We are just another animal on this planet behaving like any other would Wrong. Human arrogance is getting in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) "this is part of a phenomenion known as motivated reasoning, where instead of evidence being evaluated critically, it is deliberately interpreted in such a way as to reaffirm an existing belief, demanding impossibly stringent examination unwelcome evidence while accepting uncritically even the flimsiest information that meets ones needs" - from ther "guardian" article i cited a few pages back. We have some excellent example of this in the last few pages, none more illustrative than taskers. Edited May 21, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Warming, cooling, warming, cooling been happening for millions of years. I'm waiting for the definitive science that ties specific man-made causation to the cycle...and waiting...and waiting. Yeah because dumping a $#*+load of CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow good for the environment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Yeah because dumping a $#*+load of CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow good for the environment! it's certainly good for flora. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I think where we are losing each other is in my ****ty phrasing of my question. Let me try to restate it. I'm not interested in the way the issue is being handled currently by either the right or the left. Everything you're saying makes sense in terms of the politics, but I'm not interested in politics. I'm interested in trying to think outside the box of the current political pissing match and seeing if there are opportunities we are missing -- opportunities that could help us in the immediate present and future. If, for the sake of this discussion, we can agree to concede that CC is happening and irreversible (the cause is irrelevant in this hypothetical) and the current strategy by the left is complete hogwash then what are our options as a country? As JA said, we will ultimately adapt as a species, but that can be a painfully expensive process for any country. In this scenario, shouldn't the discourse be aimed at how to put our country in the best possible position to survive what, eventually, will be a very pressing issue? We've seen the financial cost mother nature can tally with Sandy and Katrina, simple prudence demands we start coming up with ways to soften the blow, doesn't it? I imagine there are jobs to be had, industries to be created, that can help strengthen infrastructure and spark innovation to better prepare our coastal cities and towns. Is this merely fantasy on my part or is there any truth to it? In our system, the politics is where it all starts by design, so all conversations must begin there. It's the world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 "this is part of a phenomenion known as motivated reasoning, where instead of evidence being evaluated critically, it is deliberately interpreted in such a way as to reaffirm an existing belief, demanding impossibly stringent examination unwelcome evidence while accepting uncritically even the flimsiest information that meets ones needs" - from ther "guardian" article i cited a few pages back. We have some excellent example of this in the last few pages, none more illustrative than taskers. Is that quote intended to define a generation of idiots who have never looked at ANY evidence but have based their "beliefs" on the word of ALGORE and other left wing politicians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 "this is part of a phenomenion known as motivated reasoning, where instead of evidence being evaluated critically, it is deliberately interpreted in such a way as to reaffirm an existing belief, demanding impossibly stringent examination unwelcome evidence while accepting uncritically even the flimsiest information that meets ones needs" - from ther "guardian" article i cited a few pages back. We have some excellent example of this in the last few pages, none more illustrative than taskers. We have excellent examples of that in global warming "research." For example, everything the IPCC does. You're such a retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 We have excellent examples of that in global warming "research." For example, everything the IPCC does. You're such a retard. what is the motivation for the climate scientists then? i've asked this before and no convincing answer was given. are people still going into climate science because they've invested too much to choose another profession? most do it because they want to make a difference, better the world or even save it. in that case, the motivation in their reasoning seems pure and unbiased. not so when "the redistributive leftist agenda" is injected into the mix. i'd like to see some citations quoting climate scientists discussing their ultimate goals of redistribution before entertaining the idea that this is their motivation. it takes logical gymnastics to get from here to there. not so much for the motivation of the deniers, especially when they blatantly state it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 are people still going into climate science because they've invested too much to choose another profession? YES, YOU MORON. Do you know anything about scientific research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 YES, YOU MORON. Do you know anything about scientific research? Do you have a point? GW isn't happening? GW is happening but it is not caused by human activities? GW is happening and is caused by humans and we should do something about it? GW is happening and is caused by humans but we won't do anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 YES, YOU MORON. Do you know anything about scientific research? no, you asshat. yes, i know plenty. i have a masters in analytical,chemistry, research experience in academic and industrial labs and publications. and i would never consider fudging results to fit my agenda. is it done? undoubtedly. is it common? i don't think so at all. it's too closely scrutinized by peers. and you misunderstood my point. why would a 20 year old undergrad decide tomorrow to major into climate study? why then would he/she go on to graduate school in the field. there's plenty of jump off points in between without losing the effort already invested in the career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 no, you asshat. yes, i know plenty. i have a masters in analytical,chemistry, research experience in academic and industrial labs and publications. and i would never consider fudging results to fit my agenda. is it done? undoubtedly. is it common? i don't think so at all. it's too closely scrutinized by peers. and you misunderstood my point. why would a 20 year old undergrad decide tomorrow to major into climate study? why then would he/she go on to graduate school in the field. there's plenty of jump off points in between without losing the effort already invested in the career. People who join fields directly tied to activism usually adhere to the activist mindset before entering. They join looking to prove their biases, rather than approaching objectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 most do it because they want to make a difference, better the world or even save it. in that case, the motivation in their reasoning seems pure and unbiased. this is apparently a point where you and I will disagree completely. in my world, science is a search for truth in understanding how everything works, from the cosmos all the way down to subatomic particles. to go into science 'to make a difference, better the world, or even save it' seems to me to be motivation that's purely agenda-driven. motivation inspired by a noble cause does not lend greater credibility to the research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 People who join fields directly tied to activism usually adhere to the activist mindset before entering. They join looking to prove their biases, rather than approaching objectively. really? i'd like to see the data to support that assertion, as would any scientist worth his salt. you'll likely need to search socia;l science sources for that. that should be fun for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 this is apparently a point where you and I will disagree completely. in my world, science is a search for truth in understanding how everything works, from the cosmos all the way down to subatomic particles. to go into science 'to make a difference, better the world, or even save it' seems to me to be motivation that's purely agenda-driven. motivation inspired by a noble cause does not lend greater credibility to the research. it's certainly about the quest for knowledge. that doesn't exclude the simultaneous quest to improve the world. i think humans, in general, endeavor to achieve that (with some obvious exclusionsthat are easily identified). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts