Tiberius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 You must love coming to this site to exorcise your conservative boogeymen by attributing things that people never said. Here's a quick summary of why your post is totally off base. The largest pushback to global warming/climate change whatever you want to call it is the urgency that's being placed by the Cassandras of Doom, without solid tangible evidence that anything serious is happening or even an approximate time frame over which these disasters are supposed to occur. So you are preaching to the people who live by a cost benefit rulebook to toss it all away and trust a bunch of guys who don't have a clue in how the world works and how economies function. All because some unverifiable models are projecting a possible shift in climate, which no one can quantify. So all the executives who make real life decisions to determine the course of their companies have to trust a bunch of ivory tower prognosticators who haven't proven any dire predictions right yet. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of alarmists because for the many scary scenarios, no one discusses the possible benefits of climate change, and are totally ignoring humans' penchant for adaptability. It was less than 40,000 years ago that most of the Northeast was covered in a sheet of ice, or that Eskimos traversed Siberia onto Alaska over a navigable land bridge. Reality is, if climate change is real, humans have the capacity to adapt and prosper just like we have since we left the caves. It's a common liberal fallacy to think that humans are incapable of surviving without the benevolent academics and intellectuals shining the right path. When in fact, it's been proven that private enterprise is much more effective in dealing with change than the collective mass of governments. So go ahead and repeat your conservative bonafides in the mirror. You're smart enough, you're good enough, and doggone it people like you. I'll respond to this in greater length later, but boy sure wish we had your posts from the pre-Iraq War time. Would have been gold! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'm sure the heard mentality will help him sell more books Nice! Now you are "hearing" mentality? Is that like voices in the head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Now you are "hearing" mentality? Is that like voices in the head? Lol, you got me there. I guess daylight savings and dealing with tards like you and GG softens my brain a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Oh please, you are Mr. Deflector. I'm not arguing the science, and you know it. I'm asking a question about why the scientists would be pushing this is it's wrong, questionable or somehow twisted. What is their motive? I've heard conspiracy, they are wrong and they are searching, and your ignorant insults. I've loved you hair splitting tango like dance to obfuscate the issue though. It's pretty funny. You obviously think you are a genius or something, lol. But I'd love to hear your explanation of why these scientific organizations are not listening to you. Now, I'm going to defy gravity, which I believe in, and get up for work. Ha! It's not obfuscation, you're just !@#$ing ignorant. As you demonstrate perfectly with your implication that an incomplete theory of gravity (it has major holes in it) equates to denial that gravity exists. In your little !@#$ of a world, all research into gravity should cease, since a consensus exists. And we understand more about gravity than we do the climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Oh please, you are Mr. Deflector. I'm not arguing the science, and you know it. I'm asking a question about why the scientists would be pushing this is it's wrong, questionable or somehow twisted. What is their motive? I've heard conspiracy, they are wrong and they are searching, and your ignorant insults. Many of us understand that science/research is often very incomplete and theory. To make the major economic changes that are suggested based on incomplete/inaccurate or potentially wrong science/research is a very bad idea. Science/research is oftentimes just wrong. Look at all the money and time thrown at cancer research and up until now they have been pretty much 100% wrong with coming up with cures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Many of us understand that science/research is often very incomplete and theory. To make the major economic changes that are suggested based on incomplete/inaccurate or potentially wrong science/research is a very bad idea. Science/research is oftentimes just wrong. Look at all the money and time thrown at cancer research and up until now they have been pretty much 100% wrong with coming up with cures. That still does not address my point. Don't you think the scientist know what you just wrote? They understand that, yet they still stand by their research. Why is that. And why so many? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 That still does not address my point. Don't you think the scientist know what you just wrote? They understand that, yet they still stand by their research. Why is that. And why so many? Because they all are working on the same data and coming up with the same theories which could all be 100% wrong just as all those scientists/researchers have been 100% wrong regarding the cure for cancer. But all the climate researchers are saying "this is what we THINK is going on." So you want to make major economic changes based on what they THINK? Kind of like going to war based on some research that some people (and they were experts too) THOUGHT was true. Oh that's right, they all lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Because they all are working on the same data and coming up with the same theories which could all be 100% wrong just as all those scientists/researchers have been 100% wrong regarding the cure for cancer. But all the climate researchers are saying "this is what we THINK is going on." So you want to make major economic changes based on what they THINK? No, they are saying they KNOW this is going on. Sort of like a doctor saying he knows cancer will kill you. Your logic about comparing this to a cure for cancer is even worse than the conspiracy theory. My God, do you even read what you write??? Kind of like going to war based on some research that some people (and they were experts too) THOUGHT was true. Oh that's right, they all lied. Many experts challanged the Bush administration on yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, mobil weapons labs, Saddam's supposed drones, his connection to al-quida and many other things. But 9-11 and people were scared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 No, they are saying they KNOW this is going on. That right there is all you need to know that they're not being truthful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 No, they are saying they KNOW this is going on. Sort of like a doctor saying he knows cancer will kill you. Your logic about comparing this to a cure for cancer is even worse than the conspiracy theory. My God, do you even read what you write??? They do not know. There is zero definitive proof that if climate change even exist that there is a goddamn thing we can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 That right there is all you need to know that they're not being truthful. Oh good. Why are they lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Oh good. Why are they lying? I know that was a response to Azalin but I don't think they're lying. I have yet to see anyone say that they know exactly, 100% definitively what's going on and if there is anything we can do about this. It's science....you know the gathering of information and coming up with a hypothesis. It's people like you that are saying their science is 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Oh good. Why are they lying? Why is it that you think that I'm claiming that they're lying? They can very easily be being sincere and still be wrong. Newton wasn't lying about gravity, but he was wrong about it. Everyone just assumed that he was right for several hundred years. Did Einstein accuse Newton of lying? No, he simply illustrated how Newton was incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 That right there is all you need to know that they're not being truthful. Isn't not being truthful lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Isn't not being truthful lying? They're not being truthful about their work being conclusive. But go ahead and ignore the more detailed explanation I gave in post # 593. You're not trying to learn anything anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Why is it that you think that I'm claiming that they're lying? They can very easily be being sincere and still be wrong. Newton wasn't lying about gravity, but he was wrong about it. Everyone just assumed that he was right for several hundred years. Did Einstein accuse Newton of lying? No, he simply illustrated how Newton was incorrect. Newton was not wrong. He was incomplete. Newtonian dynamics is the special case of the more general Special Relativity (which was little more than a Lorentz transformation applied to Newton's laws, which is what results in E=m^2.) General relativity is the generalized derivative of Special relativity. And General Relativity isn't complete - it can't explain gravity on very small space-time scales (nothing can, in fact.) And given the past ten years' discoveries in cosmology, there's a good argument to be made that General Relativity is inaccurate on very large space-time scales ("dark energy" is a very ugly patchwork explanation. When you have to invent entire new forces to fix your theory, it's less "Occam's Razor" than "Rube Goldberg's bludgeon.") Gravity is very poorly understood. Not even close to being "settled" science, like I said. None of those theories is wrong; each just provides a more complete view able to describe a greater variety of observations more accurately. THAT'S what sciences is - the development of testable hypotheses to explain and predict observable phenomena. Or consider Millikan's measurement of the charge of the electron. His published result was off (low - not by much, but still off) because of a minor error he made with a constant in his calculations. But as people re-ran his experiment, using the correct constant, and got the correct value...they fudged their results to be closer to his measurement (accept at face value measurements closer to Millikan's result, but look for sources of inaccuracy to explain results higher.) Because Millikan's oil drop experiment was such a great, elegant piece of research that no one wanted to go against the "consensus" recognition of it, even though it was wrong. And that was a time before research was funded by parties with an a priori interest in the results, when scientific disagreement meant shouting matches at symposiums, not career suicide through lack of funding. And that's why climate change "science" is such a crock of **** these days - the community throws out or ignores viable skepticism, observations, and hypotheses that counter the current consensus for no reason other than "there's consensus." Of course, gatorman, being the world's only living brain donor, thinks this is just "deflection" and "obfuscation." Because he's a !@#$ing insect. Isn't not being truthful lying? Of course not. You, for example, aren't truthful simply because you're a ****head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 And that's why climate change "science" is such a crock of **** these days - the community throws out or ignores viable skepticism, observations, and hypotheses that counter the current consensus for no reason other than "there's consensus." Ah!! The Community is behind it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Newton was not wrong. He was incomplete. Newtonian dynamics is the special case of the more general Special Relativity (which was little more than a Lorentz transformation applied to Newton's laws, which is what results in E=m^2.) General relativity is the generalized derivative of Special relativity. And General Relativity isn't complete - it can't explain gravity on very small space-time scales (nothing can, in fact.) And given the past ten years' discoveries in cosmology, there's a good argument to be made that General Relativity is inaccurate on very large space-time scales ("dark energy" is a very ugly patchwork explanation. When you have to invent entire new forces to fix your theory, it's less "Occam's Razor" than "Rube Goldberg's bludgeon.") Gravity is very poorly understood. Not even close to being "settled" science, like I said. I see how 'incomplete' better describes my point than 'wrong' does. Despite my interest in both subjects, you know much more than I do regarding physics and cosmology. My knowledge of Einstein extends more to the man himself than the actual mechanics of his theories (in fact I usually have to use the 'bowling ball on a rubber sheet' analogy when discussing General Relativity). It may not have been the best example to use relativity vs Newtonian physics in my example, but that seemed the best method for making my point given that Gator brought up the subject of gravity as being another 'settled' science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'll respond to this in greater length later, but boy sure wish we had your posts from the pre-Iraq War time. Would have been gold! lol Waiting............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Ah!! The Community is behind it! Yeah, it's called "consensus," you !@#$ing twit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts