[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I difference lies in the fact that I’m not prepared to ensconce myself in tin foil hat territory with the majority of climate scientists.[/quote]
Please show me a single tinfoil hat opinion, belief, or suggestion I’ve offered in this thread. A single one.
Tinfoil hat territory is the calling of climatology “pseudoscience.”[/quote]
“I have little choice but to figure out what the scientific community says and go with that.”
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
To take your example, Newtonian physics finds itself in a strange and hairy spot now–an “approximation” of a deeper and truer physics. Does this mean that it would’ve been wise for a cobbler to deny classical mechanics in 1803? I say no.[/quote]
The difference is that:
A) Newtonian physics had reproducible results
And
B) There was no serious challenges to the theory in 1803
And
C) Physicists were not engaged in falsifying results
And
D) Physicists were not making outlandish claims unsupported by evidence
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I difference lies in the fact that I’m not prepared to ensconce myself in tin foil hat territory with the majority of climate scientists.[/quote]
Please show me a single tinfoil hat opinion, belief, or suggestion I’ve offered in this thread. A single one.
Tinfoil hat territory is the calling of climatology “pseudoscience.”[/quote]
“I have little choice but to figure out what the scientific community says and go with that.”
[/quote]
Yep that’s tinfoil hat material alright. As opposed to, I have no clue what I’m talking about and am not remotely close in education or employment to being a professional scientist, let alone a scientist who studies the atmosphere and climate, but my heart/gut/cockatoo tells me that 85/100 climatologists are full of shit.
Anyway, when I say that, based on what I can tell is the truest interpretation of the evidence, I believe that:
–AGW is true.
–It will have some perceptible effect on human civilization in the relatively near future.
I am in tinfoil hat territory? Please.
Tinfoil hat material is:
–This entire group of scientists–people with years’ worth of education, who have forgotten more about the climate than I’ll ever know–are pseudoscientists. You know, because I say so.
–I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but I’m nevertheless going to imply that global warming has been cooked up by some nefarious intergovernmental cabal of would-be world-despots in order to implement a global shift to a permanent Orwellian nightmare.
That is what tinfoil hats are made of.
I don’t base my opinion on what my gut, heart or cockatoo tells me. I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but as you brought it up I have a degree with first class honours and an IQ of 148. One of the subjects I studied was philosophy wherein logic and proof theory were covered. Whilst not a scientist I am capable of critically examining the methods used and conclusions drawn. I also know bullshit when I smell it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but as you brought it up I have a degree with first class honours and an IQ of 148.[/quote]
I believe it, and I was not suggesting that you are uneducated or unintelligent. I was talking about particular expertise, which is what matters here. My academic record isn’t shabby either, but it doesn’t get me an inch closer to being an authority on the climate, or stomach cancer, or weapons engineering.
[quote]
One of the subjects I studied was philosophy wherein logic and proof theory were covered.[/quote]
Then you must understand and agree with what I’ve been saying about selective appeals to authority.
[quote]
I also know bullshit when I smell it.[/quote]
In other words, your gut/heart/cockatoo is telling you something here.
I do agree with what you said about appeals to authority. However it was you who attempted to ground your argument in appeals to authority. I merely showed that there exists authoritative opinions on the other side too. I was not attempting to base my entire argument on appeals to authority as you have done(and continue to do.)
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I do agree with what you said about appeals to authority. However it was you who attempted to ground your argument in appeals to authority.[/quote]
My argument is unabashedly grounded in an appeal to authority. The point I was trying to make was a little more nuanced, and it was really about special pleading.
[quote]
I merely showed that there exists authoritative opinions on the other side too. I was not attempting to base my entire argument on appeals to authority as you have done(and continue to do.)[/quote]
I believe the chronology was reversed. But anyway, there isn’t much need to recreate the argument here.
I don’t believe there is an organised conspiracy aiming at world government. I do believe that a tendency towards internationalism and authoritarianism exists within the environmental movement. This tendency is expressed through appeals for international sovereignty and enforcement powers for the UN and environmental agencies. This is an extremely concerning development as the potential for abuse of international enforcement powers and the consequences of such abuse are extraordinary and constitute an egregious threat to the sovereignty of nation states and individual liberty.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I difference lies in the fact that I’m not prepared to ensconce myself in tin foil hat territory with the majority of climate scientists.[/quote]
Please show me a single tinfoil hat opinion, belief, or suggestion I’ve offered in this thread. A single one.
Tinfoil hat territory is the calling of climatology “pseudoscience.”[/quote]
“I have little choice but to figure out what the scientific community says and go with that.”
[/quote]
That’s not tinfoil hat wearing stuff and you know it SM. Further you posit a strawman by suggesting that the majority of climate scientists are tinfoil hat alarmists. It may be true, but you haven’t constructed any argument for it–you know very well, and have argued in the past, that the most vocal contingent of any political group/party is usually the minority. The loud minority gets all the headlines, causes all the noise, but doesn’t necessarily reflect the majority’s actual opinions.
If they did reflect the majority’s opinions we’d have much MUCH stricter gun laws than we do. At least based on the press anti-gun groups make and receive.
I don’t know how many are watching Cosmos , but it has addressed so much of this discussion . I know Neil Degrass Tyson is a liberal.
I also know this board and it’s participants are so much smarter ,than common :). But if you are interested in this subject , it is a must watch
Scientists race to develop farm animals to survive Climate Change.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not tinfoil hat wearing stuff and you know it SM. Further you posit a strawman by suggesting that the majority of climate scientists are tinfoil hat alarmists. It may be true, but you haven’t constructed any argument for it–you know very well, and have argued in the past, that the most vocal contingent of any political group/party is usually the minority. The loud minority gets all the headlines, causes all the noise, but doesn’t necessarily reflect the majority’s actual opinions.
If they did reflect the majority’s opinions we’d have much MUCH stricter gun laws than we do. At least based on the press anti-gun groups make and receive.[/quote]
What you say is only true of the conservative press. The liberal media ignore the craziest claims and promote mainstream climate science. I realise that not all climate scientists are making ridiculous claims but they are all making predictions based on climate models that bear no relation to the real world. Climatologists can’t even predict next week’s weather accurately let alone next decades. Their results are also always overstated - never understated. This is because almost all of them are pushing an ideological agenda. This is why I consider the field a pseudoscience. Not because I believe anthropogenic climate change to be non existent but because I believe it is currently not possible to measure it.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Scientists race to develop farm animals to survive Climate Change.
with out reading the article , I would agree there are nuts on both sides . It may how ever have some validity
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not tinfoil hat wearing stuff and you know it SM. Further you posit a strawman by suggesting that the majority of climate scientists are tinfoil hat alarmists. It may be true, but you haven’t constructed any argument for it–you know very well, and have argued in the past, that the most vocal contingent of any political group/party is usually the minority. The loud minority gets all the headlines, causes all the noise, but doesn’t necessarily reflect the majority’s actual opinions.
If they did reflect the majority’s opinions we’d have much MUCH stricter gun laws than we do. At least based on the press anti-gun groups make and receive.[/quote]
What you say is only true of the conservative press. The liberal media ignore the craziest claims and promote mainstream climate science. I realise that not all climate scientists are making ridiculous claims but they are all making predictions based on climate models that bear no relation to the real world. Climatologists can’t even predict next week’s weather accurately let alone next decades. Their results are also always overstated - never understated. This is because almost all of them are pushing an ideological agenda. This is why I consider the field a pseudoscience. Not because I believe anthropogenic climate change to be non existent but because I believe it is currently not possible to measure it.
[/quote]
most of the valid claims are made by past observations . If you did watch Comos you would have heard his OPINION that we are writing our future’s past , right now
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What you say is only true of the conservative press. The liberal media ignore the craziest claims and promote mainstream climate science.
[/quote]
There is something to be said for giving attention to serious science and news rather than pointing one’s finger and screaming bloody murder at a radical fringe. The same applies to the stuff about “radical gays.” The reason that you have examples of weird, lurid instances of gay radicalism (e.g., a few hundred “fisting kits,” which were actually dental dams, passed out to high school students a decade and a half ago) awaiting recall in your mind is this: You have allowed or forced yourself to forget that every position and every ideology and every politic has its inconsequential nutjob fringe, and you have in error convinced yourself that the inconsequential nutjob fringe of a few choice political persuasions are worthy of your attention and worry. This is why people who read good news enjoy such a manifest advantage over people who read partisan news.
To take a more presently relevant example than “fisting kits,” had never heard of the UFO thing you linked to a few pages back. Not because I have an agenda, but because it doesn’t matter. It wasn’t some enormous study. It was some SETI guy’s essay about shit Hollywood thought up a half a century ago. Fatuous as it is, it doesn’t belong within a hundred miles of an actual climate change debate.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What you say is only true of the conservative press. The liberal media ignore the craziest claims and promote mainstream climate science.
[/quote]
There is something to be said for giving attention to serious science and news rather than pointing one’s finger and screaming bloody murder at a radical fringe. The same applies to the stuff about “radical gays.” The reason that you have examples of weird, lurid instances of gay radicalism (e.g., a few hundred “fisting kits,” which were actually dental dams, passed out to high school students a decade and a half ago) awaiting recall in your mind is this: You have allowed or forced yourself to forget that every position and every ideology and every politic has its inconsequential nutjob fringe, and you have in error convinced yourself that the inconsequential nutjob fringe of a few choice political persuasions are worthy of your attention and worry. This is why people who read good news enjoy such a manifest advantage over people who read partisan news.
To take a more presently relevant example than “fisting kits,” had never heard of the UFO thing you linked to a few pages back. Not because I have an agenda, but because it doesn’t matter. It wasn’t some enormous study. It was some SETI guy’s essay about shit Hollywood thought up a half a century ago. Fatuous as it is, it doesn’t belong within a hundred miles of an actual climate change debate.[/quote]
For the record, the UFO story was published as a serious story in the UK Guardian. And then there’s this from the Ottawa Citizen:
‘A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change. “I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation…that could be a way to save our planet,” Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.’
And fistgate I and II were perpetrated by the GLSEN - probably the largest and most influential anal rights group in the US; headed by former Obama Czar and pederast Kevin Jennings. They’re currently running ‘day of silence’ events, sodomy courses children, one on one ‘counselling’ and pushing for the ‘right’ of transsexual boys to use female toilets in schools. They are also pushing phoney anti-bullying legislation in their effort to infiltrate schools.