The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
non crazies, tell me why climate change doesnt deserve more concern?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:51 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Ready to be red pilled on this, if you can do it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967882) |
 |
Date: December 21st, 2017 8:09 AM Author: snowy haunted graveyard church building Rofl (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34973721) |
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:52 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people It's getting MASSIVE concern already. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967887) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:52 PM Author: deranged disrespectful theater ceo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967888) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:53 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt you mean where I corrected the ship of xo to keep shit more interesting and intellectually honest? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967898) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:54 PM Author: deranged disrespectful theater ceo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967910) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:56 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt what does that say about conturd boart mental clarity? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967929) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:57 PM Author: deranged disrespectful theater ceo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967932) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:58 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt yawn.
Respond to this topic thread if you get tired of just being a pissy bitch. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:14 PM Author: useless provocative parlour spaceporn you are not very intelligent and your combination of stubbornness and penchant for buzzwords is very frustrating (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968126) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:20 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt I'm pretty clearly smarter than many many poasters here. but that's not my point ITT. I'm inviting you to red-pill me, but I'm smart and I'm going to push back until you can demonstrate the validity of your position. If its a valid position, you can do so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968190) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:32 PM Author: metal laser beams It's harder to do if your pushback is idiotic, though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968307) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:32 PM Author: useless provocative parlour Actually you're dumber than the average person here and it's obvious with your constant half-baked arguments and peppering "RATIONALITY" into every sentence you write. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968311) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:34 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt no it just hurts your head sometimes. that's one of the effects of educated thoughtful discourse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968332) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:35 PM Author: useless provocative parlour spaceporn deflects with more buzzwords haven't seen this one before (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968344) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:43 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt WTF is "buzzword" in what I just poasted, dipshit. "Discourse"? That's a fucking word, in the dictionary, with specific meaning. If you don't know the meaning of a word I use or you personally don't use that word, what does that mean, dipshit |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:44 PM Author: useless provocative parlour very logical, rational response, spaceporn. clearly indicative of a 140 IQ. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968426) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:42 PM Author: deranged disrespectful theater ceo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968400) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:43 PM Author: useless provocative parlour (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968408) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:43 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968417) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:49 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt As to the second part, EXACTLY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968462) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:52 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people Combustion powered cars will be thing of past in 20 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967890) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:54 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt But the power has to come from somewhere? And the batteries, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967909) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:59 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people Envinronmentl impact lowered by 80% even if COAL is used to make power. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967952) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:09 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt tell me what you mean when you say environmental impact lowered by 80 percent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968087) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:11 PM Author: milky costumed nowag school Most greenhouse gases come from cows, not cars. Where's your source that "environmental impact" (whatever the fuck that means) will be reduced by 80 percent? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968104) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:14 PM Author: useless provocative parlour Most young people are sexless herbivores. Look at Japan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968130) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:53 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people Burning carbon for fuel is projected to be minimal in 50 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967893) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:53 PM Author: disgusting native codepig There’s absolutely nothing that can be done about it.
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:55 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt but how do we know? Seems like it could be a pretty big deal. shouldn't we be trying, in light of how harmful even the most conservative predictions are? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967917) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:32 PM Author: disgusting native codepig The only way is for people to be happy with much less. And that will never happen.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-26/six-myths-about-climate-change-that-liberals-rarely-question/#_edn6 |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:56 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt interesting. But ... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968523) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:58 PM Author: Ebony Address Internal Respiration Cr. The only thing humans could do to reduce any potential impact on climate change is massive population reduction (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967948) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:00 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt how do we know this? Arent there other measures that could be implemented fairly easily which would at least mitigate the likely expected outcomes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967966) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:04 PM Author: Ebony Address Internal Respiration Not with this trajectory
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/World-population-doubling-time-1.png |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:08 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt that's just a population graph. I agree that population is increasing but this really isn't responsive to my point above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968074) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:11 PM Author: Ebony Address Internal Respiration What "measures" are you talking about? Sure we could implement all kinds of things that little by little could make a statistically significant impact, under current circumstances. But when billions of people are being added to the planet in less than 100 years, those small measures would make no difference at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968102) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:15 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "no difference at all." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968139) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:07 PM Author: Puce Appetizing Boltzmann Center or going vegetarian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969518) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:54 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people Harm to the environment may be worthwhile cost when considering the MASSIVE the gain in human wealth and subsequent lowering of human suffering. Especially looking at undeveloped world. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967906) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:56 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt okay. But the environmental harm looks like its going to fuck those countries the most. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:59 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people The degree to which they stand to gain from cheap energy DWARFS degree to which they will be harmed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967958) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:04 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt okay.
But there are a lot of unknown unknowns associated with global warming, so isn't it hard to perform this kind of equation at present? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:06 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people Correct. Which is why it's probably best to play it safe with global warming. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968046) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:11 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt not sure what you mean. If there are some substantial risks associated with anthropogenic rising temperatures, why wouldn't we want to take actions that seem on balance to mitigate those risks? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968095) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:34 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968338) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:35 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people That's what I juts said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968346) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:43 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt so we should take some action, then. Got it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968416) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:55 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people Yeah. Some action.
ALmost no one is against all action to protect envinromnent. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:57 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968525) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:55 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people Cost of rebuilding coastal cities inland is negligible compared to economic boost from burning carbon. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967913) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:57 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt okay. but then we have issues of the costs being passed on to those least able to bear them, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967935) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:00 PM Author: Vigorous pea-brained main people Yes.
Pointing out one issue with an argument is a dumb way to attach an argument. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:03 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt what? I'm just trying to get red-pilled here.
Seems like there's a moral component? Passing costs onto people who had the misfortune of being born poor sompleace shitty seems like a less than optimal outcome. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:20 PM Author: Boyish fantasy-prone useless brakes base They are reaping the benefits bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968179) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:56 PM Author: buff spectacular pit the earth is headed straight into the sun. that is what ((they)) dont want you to know (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967931) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:58 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt would be 180 if true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967942) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:59 PM Author: Razzmatazz jet-lagged pervert Because you can't have net population increase, net growth increases, and decrease pollution.
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:59 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate 1) The main "scientific" results are dubious & often the result of meddling by political bodies; I haven't looked into them much myself, but my prior is that it's hard to make good predictions for complex systems
(see generally http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/06/epistemic-caution-and-climate-change.html)
1.a. The politicization of the "climate change" issue provides extra reason to be skeptical - there are enormous incentives to find it's the biggest problem ever, and many out-and-out frauds (e.g., Mann, hockey-stick graph) have already been exposed.
2. As the models become less necessary & we go into the future, there's every reason to expect an accommodating market reaction, whether through investment in alt-fuels, or land, or whatever.
3. In contrast, there's no economic reason to think political intermeddling by national or supra-national bureaucrats will have the desired effect. They don't have the right incentives nor institutions, even if such engineering from above were even possible.
***
Simple version: if expert models can't even predict Trump's election, or even come close, why do we think they can game out something far more complicated, in a field just as politicized if not moreso?
##Coda: But note I don't take a position one way or the other, I have not looked at the debate much myself since reading The Skeptical Environmentalist years ago (and since the author has recanted, or something, I hear) -- I just figure if any really compelling arguments develop, I'll hear about it. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:01 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt so you mean there isn't global warming, or there is but its no big deal? Or there is and it could be a big deal but nonetheless some of the studies have bias and a couple have fraud? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967989) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:03 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate 1) We don't know if there's anthropogenic global warming; 2) If there is, we don't know if the trend will continue or if it is large enough to be of concern; 3) if trend will continue & large enough to be of concern, we don't know a market response will be ineffective to halt it or even turn it to profit; 4) if a market response can't work, we have no reason to suspect anything else within the realm of practicality will.
Hence not worth thinking about. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:06 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt So you give no credence to any of the studies that say it is happening and is caused by humans and it is IS likely big enough of a deal to cause lots of problems on a global scale? You just set aside the studies that say as much in light of a few highly publicized claims of bias and fraud?
In your analysis do you balance the claims of bias and fraud and trickery from those opposed to taking action concerning global warming as well? If so, that would seem most fair. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:09 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Re: first para, no, that's not the thrust of what I wrote, please re-read and also check the link I gave.
Re: second paragraph, I don't know what the incentive would be for people to point out global warming fraud. If you can point to any I'd be happy to look. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:13 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt this is what you said:
"1) We don't know if there's anthropogenic global warming;"
I'm not sure what you mean, unless you mean that because of a couple of biased studies and perhaps a case or two of outright fraud on the part of alarmed climate scientists, we cant tell whether global warming is caused by mankind's actions? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:14 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate This is what I also wrote, before what you quoted:
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:59 PM Author: twins
1) The main "scientific" results are dubious & often the result of meddling by political bodies; I haven't looked into them much myself, but my prior is that it's hard to make good predictions for complex systems (see generally http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/06/epistemic-caution-and-climate-change.html)
1.a. The politicization of the "climate change" issue provides extra reason to be skeptical - there are enormous incentives to find it's the biggest problem ever, and many out-and-out frauds (e.g., Mann, hockey-stick graph) have already been exposed.
2. As the models become less necessary & we go into the future, there's every reason to expect an accommodating market reaction, whether through investment in alt-fuels, or land, or whatever.
3. In contrast, there's no economic reason to think political intermeddling by national or supra-national bureaucrats will have the desired effect. They don't have the right incentives nor institutions, even if such engineering from above were even possible.
***
Simple version: if expert models can't even predict Trump's election, or even come close, why do we think they can game out something far more complicated, in a field just as politicized if not moreso?
##Coda: But note I don't take a position one way or the other, I have not looked at the debate much myself since reading The Skeptical Environmentalist years ago (and since the author has recanted, or something, I hear) -- I just figure if any really compelling arguments develop, I'll hear about it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967957)
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:19 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Look man I'm smarter than that stuff and not to be distracted. Are you or are you not saying:
"1) We don't know if there's anthropogenic global warming;" |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:20 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Yes, I'm saying that, in part because, as I wrote:
Date: December 20th, 2017 2:59 PM Author: twins
1) The main "scientific" results are dubious & often the result of meddling by political bodies; I haven't looked into them much myself, but my prior is that it's hard to make good predictions for complex systems (see generally http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/06/epistemic-caution-and-climate-change.html)
1.a. The politicization of the "climate change" issue provides extra reason to be skeptical - there are enormous incentives to find it's the biggest problem ever, and many out-and-out frauds (e.g., Mann, hockey-stick graph) have already been exposed.
2. As the models become less necessary & we go into the future, there's every reason to expect an accommodating market reaction, whether through investment in alt-fuels, or land, or whatever.
3. In contrast, there's no economic reason to think political intermeddling by national or supra-national bureaucrats will have the desired effect. They don't have the right incentives nor institutions, even if such engineering from above were even possible.
***
Simple version: if expert models can't even predict Trump's election, or even come close, why do we think they can game out something far more complicated, in a field just as politicized if not moreso?
##Coda: But note I don't take a position one way or the other, I have not looked at the debate much myself since reading The Skeptical Environmentalist years ago (and since the author has recanted, or something, I hear) -- I just figure if any really compelling arguments develop, I'll hear about it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967957)
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:22 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt okay.
So when someone says "the scientific consensus is global warming is real, it's happening, and its man made" you don't believe this is a true statement? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:24 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate I would have to know what they meant by the "scientific consensus." If they mean it's the popular opinion of people who present themselves as scientists, they may or may not be true; likely accurate. If they mean it's the consensus of people capable of evaluating the evidence, using the scientific method, and who have done so in a rigorous way, I'd say it's untrue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968228) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:27 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "If they mean it's the consensus of people capable of evaluating the evidence, using the scientific method, and who have done so in a rigorous way, I'd say it's untrue."
yeah, this isn't going to get anywhere then. Just not reality-based. Experts are liars unless they say the things we like to hear. Got it. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:28 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate If your conclusion is it's not important to look at things like model accuracy, etc., rather, the question reduces to faith and credulity, then yes, we'll get nowhere, for you're engaging in religion, not the scientific method or anything resembling it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968266) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:33 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt on the contrary. I'm going with the approach that generates the most verifiably accurate predictions. that's part of science, what science does for us. Unlike religion or faith.
W respect to global warming, the predictions on balance have been pretty much on point. While OF COURSE we don't know WHEN a particular storm is going to happen, or exactly Where, we know we will see an increase in frequency. And this is what the SCIENCE is telling us. We will also expect to see increased disease, and tropical illnesses moving up north, and this is what is happening.
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:40 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate No, the predictions have not on balance been on point. As the link I gave showed, IPCC estimates of CO2 levels have varied by three orders of magnitude even in just a short period of time. Similar examples abound. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968378) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:44 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt please see below example, you are making a classic error. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968419) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:45 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Explain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968431) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:20 PM Author: metal laser beams "Look man I'm smarter than that stuff"
No, you're not. Whatever "that stuff" means, in any particular context. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:21 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt non responsive. And fuck you. I want to hear from Twins. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968199) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:23 PM Author: metal laser beams I'd say it's directly responsive to your claims of intelligence, but what do I know? I'm clearly not on your intellectual plane. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968216) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:28 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt what I mean is I'm not interested in going down a rabbit hole of discussing errors in a handful of studies on the subject. I'm too smart to fall for that, although evidently Twins, in a clear demonstration of motivated reasoning, isn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968265) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:30 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Here, look at this link again, let me know what you think and what evidence you have responsive to the arguments made therein. As I said, I'm not too invested in the subject, for the reasons I laid out, but you have not shifted my priors with your appeal to "faith" and a "consensus." http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/06/epistemic-caution-and-climate-change.html |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:38 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Now you are shifting into the crankery of calling science and conclusions drawn by science "faith". I know this trick and I'm not going to play along. Just tell your doctor not to vaccinate your family members and be done with it.
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:42 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate If you came into this discussion with the preconceived notion that questioning what you call the "consensus" on climate change is crankery, why even bother with a discussion in the first place? Your mind is made up. Faith-based. That's fine; I don't care one way or the other -- you're entitled to your beliefs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968396) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:47 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Lol. The old fliparoo. Okay, lets say 5 percent of the unbiased properly considered scientific consensus is there is no anthropogenic warming, and 95 percent says there is. And lets say we cant really read or understand the science itself one way or the other because we are not meteorologists. All we can understand are sentences that give broad conclusions. What's the reasonable, rational viewpoint for us to adopt then? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:55 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Twins? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968508) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:34 PM Author: metal laser beams I always hold out hope that you're flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968330) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:00 PM Author: Frisky house-broken dingle berry I hope so too. It's the lack of self awareness that makes me fear that it's not flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968558) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:41 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Someday, read more, and you will get that self-awareness, Muscadine. I'm sure of it. Keep at it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968850) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:41 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt this doesn't help me.
What I see are some fine tuned criticisms of a study, not contesting the ultimate conclusions so much as contesting the degree. What's your point?
This is like saying, See the world isn't round, it's really pear shaped, and all those other "scientists" who say it is round are just wrong! |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:47 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968451) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:49 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate No, you could easily manipulate the variables such that there would be a completely different conclusion. But hey I guess you know better than Steve Hsu.... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968461) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:52 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt hold on hold on.
I don't know better than Steve Hsu. (Nor do you). But I also don't know better than the consensus of the vast majority of trained scientists who say in principal after conducting studies and scientific inquiry that global warming is anthropogenic (And Hsu isn't saying otherwise!) (And neither do you!)
However, I do know how scientific methodology works, so I'm going to go with the vast majority's conclusion here. feel free to disagree, just don't bring your unvaccinated kid (or your negligently warming world) over to my kids to play. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:57 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate No, you don't know better than Steve Hsu re: model accuracy. (Nor do I). That's because that's, more or less, a matter of mathematics - he can just look at the model, the # of variables, the variable uncertainty, etc., and arrive at an estimate of whether there are sufficient observations to produce a rigorous model with predictive power. In principle either of us could go through the exercise and get the same result.
The consensus of the vast majority of trained scientists here, if it is NOT based on a rigorous model of the sort just discussed, is absolutely meaningless - just a guess about the future.
EDIT: and while it's a bit indelicate, I'd suggest your statement that:
"I do know how scientific methodology works, so I'm going to go with the vast majority's conclusion here."
implies you do NOT know how the scientific methodology works. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:02 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "absolutely meaningless" you have at the very least, just outted yourself as a trained meteorologist.
Alternatively, my friend, you don't know how science works.
There are some "great courses" materials on critical thinking I would recommend. I cant educate you further on this, but enough readers here see my point. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:06 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Re "trained meteorologist" point, no, the nice thing about stuff like math & model theory is it is generally applicable. So if I've studied a bit of stats or model theory for one field, it will carry over to others, at least for applications like this.
As for "don't know how science works," yes, that is your ipse dixit. You seem to think it works based on credentialism and popular votes. It's an old cliche but geez what would you say to Galileo?
Lastly, I'd be happy to take a poll of XO to see who the majority think "won" this exchange, since, on your logic, that's the measure of what is right and wrong. But I doubt you'd accept even those results, and I'd find them meaningless. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:35 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt jfc. Your argument is no different than the fraudulent arguments put forth by antivaxxers.
Scientific community has advanced beyond Galileo. Again, get educated on scientific method, peer review process, the scrupulous necessity of internal criticism, efforts to disprove conclusions, etc --as well as RELIABILITY of PREDICTIONS. I would again urge you to look into this. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:27 PM Author: Frisky house-broken dingle berry for the Piece de resistance - a self proclaimed victory (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968758) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:36 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt you've just lowered yourself in everyone's eyes by joining in with this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968825) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:19 PM Author: metal laser beams (reading comp masterman) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968171) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:35 PM Author: supple library Titcr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968340) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:35 PM Author: galvanic shitlib mad-dog skullcap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968351) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:00 PM Author: Razzmatazz jet-lagged pervert If you want to fight climate change, halt all aide to the continent of Africa. But libs would never do that, so climate change is flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34967962) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:05 PM Author: Razzmatazz jet-lagged pervert If these climate change models were so good at predicting the future in a 3D fluid environment with incalculable amount of variables, they wouldn't be climate scientists. They would be traders and multi billionaires. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968030) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:07 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt well isn't the main variable that the temperature is increasing over time? That's only one variable, right? lots of debate over the consequences, but in all scenarios the consequences seem less than optimal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968067) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:11 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Jesus, spaceporn. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968096) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:15 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Just tyring to cut through the bullshit here. Sure dynamic systems are complicated. But whats not complicated is the increase in global temperature. You can argue about the effects of this in a dynamic system all day long, sure, but the main thread--temp going up--isn't really all that complicated. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:17 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate In your view, then, if we just have enough thermometers there's no need for any models at all, we've got bang-on proof of anthropogenic global warming & should panic. Is that right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968154) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:18 PM Author: useless provocative parlour the temperature is going up! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968163) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:25 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt you wouldn't have the anthropogenic link, no.
Ad as I think I'm seeing here, you discount the science that says as much, and the basis for your discounting same is a couple of biased studies and a case or two of fraud.
Furthermore, you don't consider ANY of the bias in studies generated by groups w vested interest in petroleum, etc.
This is yet again crankery, Twins. I have to say. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:29 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968269) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:34 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate No, you're the one who said "gee all we need is a thermometer," but that's a position at a complete remove from EITHER side of the debate. I posted a link, from a tenured physicist, which calls into serious question the accuracy of the models used, given the # of variables and latent variables, which oft are not reported (among other things) -- meaning any "consensus" could largely be a result of fine-tuning (and indeed, there is evidence it HAS been, in this very area, in the past).
You, on the other hand, have once again offered nothing of substance in debate. You haven't linked a single study, you haven't discussed data or the reason for your belief, all you've done is invoked belief in a "consensus" of unnamed people, all of whom apparently stand behind the very models you haven't, and cannot, defend. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:48 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Lol. The old fliparoo. Okay, lets say 5 percent of the unbiased properly considered scientific consensus is there is no anthropogenic warming, and 95 percent says there is.
And lets say we cant really read or understand the science itself one way or the other because we are not meteorologists. All we can understand are sentences that give broad conclusions.
What's the reasonable, rational viewpoint for us to adopt then?
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:58 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Go ahead.
Or do you reject the premise because *You Know* the science yourself? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:37 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt rejected the premise, I guess. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968831) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:21 PM Author: metal laser beams Unfortunately, your brain is too dull to cut through bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968202) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:10 PM Author: Sickened black woman trump supporter so 4 or 5 GOLD STANDARD IPCC reports being completely wrong damages the theory? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968092) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:28 PM Author: Razzmatazz jet-lagged pervert Think about what I said and what you asked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968264) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:06 PM Author: Sickened black woman trump supporter there are existing threads on this why do u want rehashes of this shit? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968049) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:12 PM Author: useless provocative parlour I'm not sure but since the early 2000s every stoner that's lectured me on the environment says that the world is going to end in 5 years due to climate change and the world hasn't ended yet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968112) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:20 PM Author: Pink national warm weather is 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968178) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:20 PM Author: Titillating tattoo It is a serious concern to 95% of the world. The extremes in weather and disruptions to weather patterns will only get worse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968188) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:26 PM Author: Sickened black woman trump supporter which is why liberals should NOT oppose The Wall or buy houses near the oceans |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:30 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt if only we could make a Wall for, like, Airplanes! Woah! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968279) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:34 PM Author: Titillating tattoo It boggles my mind that climate change was even politicized in the first place in America. Debates on culture and ethics can be subjective. Science? Less so. Even major oil producers like Exxon and countries that stand nothing to gain by acknowledging climate change are concerned from Saudi Arabia to Russia. Virtually the entire world is sold on climate change except right wing America.
Right now, assuming "business as usual" conditions, they're predicting a 5 degree Celsius rise by 2100. Put that in perspective, the last Ice Age was about 5 degrees below our current temperatures
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609620/global-warmings-worst-case-projections-look-increasingly-likely/ |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:35 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Well, if Saudi Arabia believes in it I'm sold. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968348) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:38 PM Author: Titillating tattoo Found the Chemistry PhD here
http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3631818&mc=60&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:40 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate I'm a US Marine and multiple Nobel-prize winner and if he said that to me I'd kick his ass while a bald eagle shed a single tear near an American flag for our fallen soldiers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968388) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:43 PM Author: Titillating tattoo All that flag waving and chest pounding isn't exactly preventing your futuregrandchildren from being cooked alive in the newly formed Midwestern desert (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968401) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:43 PM Author: Sickened black woman trump supporter you thought this was a good response?
if i were a lib id have literally 6 million better responses than this |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:59 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt be my guest. Sort of off track, but okay. Funny it up for me, son. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968548) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:37 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt go ahead man (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968833) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:33 PM Author: supple library Ain't shit we can do about it. Period. We don't control anything. Control is a farce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968316) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:36 PM Author: disgusting native codepig People would basically have to stop consuming shit, or vote for people who want to legislate against consuming shit. And by people I’m talking about the whole world. People just aren’t interested in that and never will be. The only thing that can be “done” is to fundamentally change human nature. That will not happen and anybody engaging in this “debate” is a retard.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-26/six-myths-about-climate-change-that-liberals-rarely-question/#_edn6 |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:39 PM Author: supple library Basically all credited (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968373) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:39 PM Author: Titillating tattoo ...and if we can't do shit about it, why not at least start planning for it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968369) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:40 PM Author: galvanic shitlib mad-dog skullcap Even if everyone in the U.S. and Europe stopped polluting completely tomorrow it wouldn't be nearly enough as long as China and India are still around. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968380) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:35 PM Author: galvanic shitlib mad-dog skullcap Despite the dire warnings from progressives, the best models show us that global warming is a problem that is expected to have only a limited impact on the world economy. Any attempt to do anything about those damages would be rife with unintended consequences and, in any case, is geopolitical fantasy.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:48 PM Author: Glassy Erotic Hospital Turdskin scholarship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968453) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:52 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968497) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:39 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt somehow I don't think your well-being or not would have much of an impact on the "world economy" either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968840) |
|
Date: December 21st, 2017 7:53 AM Author: aphrodisiac puppy trailer park Soaker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34973651) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:41 PM Author: Titillating tattoo Those who haven't studied meteorology, chemistry, biology, etc. aren't really qualified to comment on the matter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968391) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:43 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Can't wait for some biology experts to weigh in on this debate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968404) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:45 PM Author: Titillating tattoo What Did you study in undergrad or Grad school? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968429) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:46 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Nah. Partied. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968432) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:49 PM Author: galvanic shitlib mad-dog skullcap What is your academic background out of curiosity? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968467) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:52 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate I'm a standard issue polisci-or-similar shithead lawyer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968489) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:03 PM Author: galvanic shitlib mad-dog skullcap Figured you were STEM or Philosophy undergrad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968586) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:12 PM Author: Titillating tattoo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968643) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:05 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt absolutely abundantly not. The only way this would be possible is if twins went to a ttt and never got the way the scientific method works. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969005) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:03 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt no! that's the nice thing about the scientific method--we all get the bennies without doing the legwork! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968995) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:47 PM Author: Stirring Drab Plaza scientists don't know why cats purr but somehow they're 100% sure about infinitely more complex things like climate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968447) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:49 PM Author: galvanic shitlib mad-dog skullcap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968469) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 11:18 PM Author: buff spectacular pit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34972197) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:50 PM Author: Razzle peach principal's office I always recall how all of your recycling for 4-5 years is offset by one cross country flight. A transatlantic flight is your carbon footprint for an entire year. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968477) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 3:52 PM Author: Bossy canary brunch During my youth--the 80s--the scare for us was the next ice age. Then in the 90s it shifted to global warming caused by CFC from hairspray. Then around 2000 they realized that they weren't quite sure if stuff was getting warmer, or getting cooler, but that things were changing (supposedly), and it became climate change, which can explain every goddamn thing. More hurricanes? Climate change. Fewer hurricanes? Climate change. The drought? Climate change. Wet winter 2017? Climate change. etc. etc.
It's not worth thinking about. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:04 PM Author: Frisky house-broken dingle berry Libs, 1985: THE OZONE LAYER, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! WE'S ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!! SPF 2000000 TO GO OUTSIDE!!!!!
Ten years later, it's like it never happened. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:14 PM Author: Titillating tattoo Uh...that's because CFCs were banned and the ozone layer did recover as a result.
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:40 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Odd case. the same w vaccines. People all said get your polio shots o no and its like these diseases don't even exist. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:05 PM Author: galvanic shitlib mad-dog skullcap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968604) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:00 PM Author: razzle-dazzle toilet seat humanity faces much greater threats than a minor temperature rise over the course of 100 years. In 100 years, at the current pace of tech progress, we will be turning planets into computers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968554) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:03 PM Author: galvanic shitlib mad-dog skullcap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968587) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:42 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "minor temperature rise over the course of 100 years" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968865) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:48 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt So, just to be clear, no one here can red-pill me on global warning. There are of course different positions--one says there is no global warming caused by man at all, and everyone else seems to take some position saying, the change wont be that much, to it wont affect me or the world too much, to, we don't know how it will effect us, to we cant do anything about it. These are all different conclusions taken at different points along the continuum. But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.
In much the same way, no one was able to demonstrate to me how Trump's actions with respect to top secret information was okay. Interesting.
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:49 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Nor, spaceporn, can we teach calculus to a retard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968907) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:54 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt I don't think you can respond to this question:
Okay, lets say 5 percent of the unbiased properly considered scientific consensus is there is no anthropogenic warming, and 95 percent says there is.
And lets say we cant really read or understand the science itself one way or the other because we are not meteorologists. All we can understand are sentences that give broad conclusions. Nor can we parse through every study conducted.
What's the reasonable, rational viewpoint for us to adopt then?
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:58 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate You're positing someone incapable of understanding scientific evidence, even at a basic level, but capable of determining with 100% accuracy what constitutes "the unbiased properly considered scientific consensus," and also capable of determining whether the subject under discussion is something amenable to such consensus. Is that your hypothetical? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968954) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:00 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "even at a basic level"--not saying that, or I don't mean to. You can understand the basic principles if someone tells you, but you don't know the questions to ask or the way to go about criticizing a study on your own.
go ahead? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:01 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate How do you know you can understand basic principles if you don't know what questions to ask or how to apply critical thought? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968982) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:04 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt fighting the hypo, are we? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968999) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:05 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate I legitimately don't understand it, because it is internally incoherent. I'm trying to coax out of you something I can answer. For example, if you're told one of the principles is that models should have predictive power, and you learn the 95% consensus is based on scientists going off models with no predictive power, then I'd say you could probably disregard what those scientists say. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969011) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:06 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "no predictive power"
You are making your own hypo, which as aspie usual assumes facts not in evidence.
Please respond to mine, which you can do if you are being honest.
If it helps you, let's assume you have a typical undergraduate degree in poli sci. Okay, I'll even give you a law degree. Does that help? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:09 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Do you not see that you are assuming the conclusion with your question by presuming one can have no scientific knowledge or critical thinking skills whatsoever, yet still be able to determine with perfect accuracy what constitutes "the unbiased properly considered scientific consensus"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969037) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:12 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "perfect accuracy what constitutes "the unbiased properly considered scientific consensus"?"
Let's assume its provided to you. All in a library for you. You can read it all but that would take years you don't have. A specialist in library science has compiled this material together for you.
I think you need to answer, young man. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:17 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate spaceporn, your tone and demeaning remarks are not winning you any credibility. You would do well to learn to conduct yourself with a modicum of civility, if only for persuasive effect.
Now your hypothetical is I have a compilation of materials I am assured contains the right answer, but I don't have time to read it so I have to trust people who have read it. I'm not sure what that has to do with predictive models, but if that's your question, yes, I believe the majority of people who have read the magic book you posit which contains sure knowledge of the future. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:19 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt I haven't heard an answer yet. %5 one way %95 percent another way. Which way do you go? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969115) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:20 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate I've given a lot of answers, but you can't seem to get your hypothetical straight, even in your own head. Maybe slow down and try to think before you write. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969133) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:08 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt So, not going to answer? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969529) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:10 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate I've answered lots of times, even though you've modified the hypothetical bit by bit. You just don't like the answers you've gotten. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969538) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:11 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate If I have the Godlike power to determine what the "unbiased properly considered scientific consensus" is, a poll of scientists is unnecessary. In fact, even one scientist who offers an "unbiased" "properly considered" view would be enough. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969050) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:14 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "In fact, even one scientist who offers an "unbiased" "properly considered" view would be enough."
Okay.
But doesn't the scientific method entail peer review? a testing against error and other possibilities?
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:19 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Re: peer review, no, in fact peer review is only a fairly recent invention, & not at all necessary to the scientific method. Here's a popular summary: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think
Re: testing against error, I'm confused. Your hypothetical was that there was an "unbiased" "properly considered" "scientific" view. I took that to mean the person is not lying, considered the proper things, etc. That would include whatever tests against error necessary (and also encompass & preclude the need for peer review). Do you disagree? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:21 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt a study can be unbiased, properly considered and come to the wrong conclusions, correct? Or do you want to continue to play word games? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969140) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:24 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt re peer review: Its been around for a long time in one form or another, (newton, darwin etc had their scientific societies) and it is a necessary component of scientific inquiry. If you want to push back on this I don't know what to tell you.
Your link is dead, btw |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:20 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt I think you need to respond to this in light of your position that only one study is enough to come to conclusions about something as complicated as climate change. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969127) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:21 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate But that's not my position, and I've certainly not said that here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969138) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:22 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "In fact, even one scientist who offers an "unbiased" "properly considered" view would be enough."
Okay.
But doesn't the scientific method entail peer review? a testing against error and other possibilities?
|
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:27 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt yr going to have to explain this. it would seem to me that you are saying one study would be enough if it was done properly? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969165) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:29 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt I think at the end of the day Twins you don't know what science is or how it works. Odd, because presumably as a lawyer you would be familiar w Daubert standards and requirements, for one thing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969172) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:33 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate The link isn't dead. Try it again. Re: Royal Societies, it states:
"At early Royal Society meetings, research findings were presented, often demonstrated and frequently discussed. But while it is possible to say that this means they had undergone scrutiny by well-informed scholars, that could be deemed to be peer review only to the extent that material presented nowadays at workshops and conferences (or on preprint servers) can be said to have been peer-reviewed. A modern journal editor might, as Oldenburg was in effect doing, scout for potential submissions at a conference and take heed of the tenor of the discussions; but those discussions are part of the oral culture of scientific communication, which help a researcher firm up their analysis and interpretation before seeking publication. They serve a purpose of their own, distinct from any editorial process."
But, being charitable, you may not know the meaning scientists & generally knowledgeable adults (and bright teens and children) ascribe to the term "peer review."
Even so, this is a bit of a blind alley, given that my response was about one SCIENTIST, not one STUDY, and then only in your artificial hypo in which I somehow have absolute knowledge the opinion of this one scientist is properly considered. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:34 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate "it would seem to me that you are saying one study would be enough if it was done properly?"
No, read what I wrote in context again and you will see you are wrong. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:04 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt I knew what you are saying but the fact that there is confusion on this point is what signals you don't get how scientific inquiry works. not trying to be harsh on you, but you can have perfect testing protocols and results and still need peer review and cross testing to rule out inherent bias or conclusions that may be too broad or making wrong inferences from the data. This is part of how the scientific method works.
Did you ever answer my question above? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:09 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Not sure why it matters either way. You requested I make a forced choice between two groups of scientists, one that considered the proper things in the proper manner and was unbiased and one that did not. Also in your hypothetical, I have no ability to independently evaluate the answer, and (I take it) I'm to assume properly considering things in the proper way would be expected to the right answer (or as close as we can get).
In that hypo, I'd go with the former group, no matter if it's 1% or 100% of the total # of scientists. The # is irrelevant. Also irrelevant, though, is your hypothetical to what we've been discussing, since the whole question in contention is whether and to what extent scientists have considered the proper things properly. That's why I said you were begging the question. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:13 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt "You requested I make a forced choice between two groups of scientists, one that considered the proper things in the proper manner and was unbiased and one that did not."
That's not what I asked. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:16 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate What were you trying to ask? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969600) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:18 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt okay, I'll start in another thread, call you out, and tbf I will clarify as much as I can so we don't have any linguistic fights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969622) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:36 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt ive repoasted w the hypo drafted in light of your concerns. Shall you respond? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969771) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:18 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt can you respond to the hypothetical or not? If you can't at this point it may signal that you've made a cognitive error about how the scientific method works. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:19 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate Your argument is that if I can't respond to your ill-posed hypothetical AGAIN (after I've already responded several times) it perforce means I don't know how the scientific method works? Come on, man.
Let's cut through all of this. You're trying to make the point that it is reasonable to trust in the "scientific consensus" here because there is polling data of climate scientists indicating the majority believe AGW is real and a concern. Is that right? |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:09 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt I see you didn't, feigning some problem with my hypothetical... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969535) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 4:58 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34968957) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:10 PM Author: Sickened black woman trump supporter But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic.But no one puts forth a compelling argument sufficient to red-pill someone with as open a mind as possible on this topic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969049) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:15 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt aspergers is a bitch, huh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969079) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:30 PM Author: Sickened black woman trump supporter *looks up at thread* yup |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:39 PM Author: metal laser beams I guess by some measures your flame is successful, but it's pretty gratingly obvious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969261) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:45 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate I think it's damn good flame. Keeps you sharp. Wish he'd turn up the difficulty level a smidge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969303) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:48 PM Author: metal laser beams It works because he has a reputation for being thick anyway, so you're willing to overlook the obvious inconsistencies and stupicity. But when he goes over the top with the "most open minded" shit, it becomes a lot more obvious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969334) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 5:54 PM Author: Racy parlor doctorate True, but the execution is still very good, since it's natural to get galled and be like "oh no he DIDN'T say that!!!" I'd give strong MPM credit if the flame artisan were to step forward. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969397) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:05 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt I think it was TOO difficult for you, tbh Twins. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969506) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:12 PM Author: floppy hominid abode How many flights have you taken this year? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969556) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:13 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt five or six. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969574) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:19 PM Author: floppy hominid abode Ok. You, like others, are unlikely to make any change to reduce carbon footprint. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34969628) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 6:40 PM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt Agreed!
BUT ...
I'm asking why climate change shouldn't receive more concern, not whether I'd make any changes. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2017 11:12 PM Author: abusive hell partner Seems like we can still make millions and billions in traditional energy sourcing while also feeding our dying industrial economy with 'green' tech and infrastructure. There is no good economic argument against pumping money into alternative energy including government subsidy. Oil will shit out eventually and then the standing green providers will be the new oligarch GC class. All this at least facially supports open recognition and tandem policy initiatives in favor or moving away from fossil fuel production. It's a small blow to an already wildly rich economic subdivision that I think we can all agree is probably a net negative in most areas of civilization aside from raw utility and cheap equity expansion for the wealthy.
Plus even if we are just sucking at the teat of some fraud fake false 'scientific' religion, we at least tried to show some sense of lucid concern for the generations to come. We hate the mindlessly self-righteous opportunism of Boomers but we all agree the Greatest Generation was largely 180. Do you want to be a Boomer? If you don't think you're a Boomer, then imagine justifying your dispersed moral culpability to your water-taxed great-grandchildren all about how my life got flipped-turned upside down and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel-Air. |
|
Date: December 21st, 2017 8:55 AM Author: Maniacal station people who are hurt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835564&forum_id=2#34973996) |