The Letting Off Steam Thread

[TheMC5]

You have a really poor understanding of science and the scientific method.

I have no idea how you got that from what you quoted...or from anything I've ever said.

No? How about from this:

Treating "scientific consensus" as reality, is no different from believing religious texts literally.

Looks like a pretty flawed understanding of science to me.

So, to say that science is not reliable simply because at one time the consensus was different than it is now is completely false.

Well, you could also try to avoid putting words in my mouth, or inventing arguments I never made...problem solved.

So what does this mean, then?

When I was younger, we were supposed to be headed for a new ice age, because temperatures were dropping...Everyone on here grew up learning Pluto is a planet, now the science says it is not.

Seems to me that you're saying science isn't reliable because scientific opinions change. Either that, or you're saying global warming is bullshit because other stuff was bullshit, too.

The last time CO2 concentration was that high, sea levels were 30 meters higher than they currently are, which means say goodbye to all coastal cities.

Sounds like exactly what I was talking about...

So what you're saying is that global warming is bullshit, but that at the same time it's not?

So Eugenics was based on a flawed theory to begin, and as such is a pretty bad example. And science is certainly not immune to ideological distortions, which is exactly what happened with Eugenics.

Hmm...sounds a lot like "climate change" doesn't it...

No, not really. I don't know of any climate change activists that propose killing people or restricting their breeding. Eugenics, as I said, was based off an incredibly new and poorly understood theory, whereas global warming research has been going on for decades, based on sound scientific observations and procedures, and almost every single person who studies the issue comes to the same conclusion. Certainly not the case with Eugenics.

Believing "manmade climate change" is FACT (lol WOW), declaring "the debate over" and comparing people who think otherwise to Holocaust deniers is pretty fundamentalist I would think...yet, they're treated as the "mainstream." That's what I was bitching about, not all this cockamanie bullshit you must have read elsewhere and confused into the text of my post.

I'm just going to leave the "cockamamie bullshit" thing alone. I think your problem lies with the media and some extreme activists, not science or scientists. For the most part, the only scientists who dispute global warming are those heavily indebted to or financed by car manufacturers, oil companies, other huge producers of CO2, and generally any industry whose interests are not served by a climate control initiatives.. True, there is some debate about the root cause of global warming and the extent to which human activities contribute to it, but what is not debated is that human activity has some impact on global warming. It's pretty basic science. I won't bore you with it. You can look up how CO2 gases contribute to global warming pretty much anywhere.

Before I go,

You have a really poor understanding of science and the scientific method. Science has this thing called peer review, which religion is not really subject to. Science, rather scientific observations and conclusions, are constantly shifting and changing as we acquire more and more knowledge about the world and the way things operate. Therefor, if all or most of the evidence at one time points to the Earth being flat, for example, it is scientifically sound to assume it is so.

Science isn't fact, it is our understanding of reality at the current time.

Good day, sir. We hope to see you soon for tea.

That would be all fine and well, except you followed it up with this incredibly contradictory statement:

Treating "scientific consensus" as reality, is no different from believing religious texts literally.

Again, that's a pretty poor understanding of science.

And no, I don't think I'll join you for tea. I generally don't get along well with people who think universal health care is equivalent to fascism.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I almost forgot. How many times did you have to throw the ball in the air before it just didn't come down? I assume it happened, otherwise you wouldn't have had time to construct your retort.

[benji]

Looks like a pretty flawed understanding of science to me.

What is science? A bunch of stuff people believe. What is religion? a bunch of stuff people believe. Especially when both groups feel it is "proven" through their own methods.

I don't see how saying that believing what a bunch of people say about science, is no different from believing what a bunch of people say about religion is a "flawed understanding of science" in anyway.

You're also saying you have a pretty flawed understanding of science, since we both gave the same definition of science.

Seems to me that you're saying science isn't reliable because scientific opinions change. Either that, or you're saying global warming is bullshit because other stuff was bullshit, too.

No, I don't know why anyone would assume that. It's clearly saying that "scientific consensus" can be wrong, therefore we should not instantly accept what "experts" declare and refuse to cast a critical eye on it. Or the advocates of policies regarding it.

So what you're saying is that global warming is bullshit, but that at the same time it's not?

Um, no. I was merely pointing out that you were participating in the apocalyptic language of the faith.

No, not really. I don't know of any climate change activists that propose killing people or restricting their breeding.

Heh, I don't have time to find them for you, but that's not the point here. So you must be arguing that the fanatical movement for "climate change" cannot be compared to the fanatical movement for eugenics because, well, they were about different things!

Eugenics, as I said, was based off an incredibly new and poorly understood theory, whereas global warming research has been going on for decades, based on sound scientific observations and procedures, and almost every single person who studies the issue comes to the same conclusion. Certainly not the case with Eugenics.

I'm sure a lot of people back at the turn of the previous century would be interested to hear that.

the only scientists who dispute global warming are those heavily indebted to or financed by car manufacturers, oil companies, other huge producers of CO2, and generally any industry whose interests are not served by a climate control initiatives.

Heh, talking points. So, I'll just say.

They are heretics! EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM! TO THE GALLOWS WITH THEM!

True, there is some debate about the root cause of global warming and the extent to which human activities contribute to it, but what is not debated is that human activity has some impact on global warming. It's pretty basic science. I won't bore you with it. You can look up how CO2 gases contribute to global warming pretty much anywhere.

And you can look up how humans are basically meaningless in the face of nature, and that a little thing called the sun is more powerful than anything on earth.

Treating "scientific consensus" as reality, is no different from believing religious texts literally.

Again, that's a pretty poor understanding of science.

Again. That's completely irrelevant to an understanding of science.

Again. You already agreed with me that science is simply a current understanding of reality.

Again. It's not contradictory to believe blind faith is the same as blind faith.

And no, I don't think I'll join you for tea. I generally don't get along well with people who think universal health care is equivalent to fascism.

How is absolute state control of everyones lives not fascism/authoritarianism?

EDIT: Oh yeah, I almost forgot. How many times did you have to throw the ball in the air before it just didn't come down? I assume it happened, otherwise you wouldn't have had time to construct your retort.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Other than trying to make some sort of generalized argument (while decrying me for ones you attributed to me) about how because I accept that something causes the ball to appear to be falling back down, I'm required to accept the non-existant "scientific consensus" on the coming apocalypse brought on by our sinful ways.

[TheMC5]

Looks like a pretty flawed understanding of science to me.

What is science? A bunch of stuff people believe. What is religion? a bunch of stuff people believe. Especially when both groups feel it is "proven" through their own methods.

I don't see how saying that believing what a bunch of people say about science, is no different from believing what a bunch of people say about religion is a "flawed understanding of science" in anyway.

I didn't even read past that. Seriously, until you figure that one out, I'm done with this argument. That is the most asinine thing I've heard in a long time. I almost want to post the video of Miss Teen South Carolina as my response. Absolutely ludicrous.

[BigKaboom2]

Looks like a pretty flawed understanding of science to me.

What is science? A bunch of stuff people believe. What is religion? a bunch of stuff people believe. Especially when both groups feel it is "proven" through their own methods.

I don't see how saying that believing what a bunch of people say about science, is no different from believing what a bunch of people say about religion is a "flawed understanding of science" in anyway.

I didn't even read past that. Seriously, until you figure that one out, I'm done with this argument. That is the most asinine thing I've heard in a long time. I almost want to post the video of Miss Teen South Carolina as my response. Absolutely ludicrous.

Ad hominem BS - you can do better than that.

[TheMC5]

Ad hominem BS - you can do better than that.

Of course. But I honestly didn't read past that part. Why would I? The guy can't distinguish religion from science, so what am I supposed to say? It's like trying to convince a religious fundamentalist that there is no proof of God (don't misconstrue this to mean God doesn't exist, merely that it is unprovable). There's also some doublethink going on there, and I don't have any idea how to counter that.

[benji]

It's good to admit when you don't know what your own point is, or when people are talking about things above you, by talking about the person instead of trying to refute their arguments.

Science isn't fact, it is our understanding of reality at the current time.

You have a really poor understanding of science and the scientific method. ... Science ... [is] constantly shifting and changing as we acquire more and more knowledge

Tootles.

[BigKaboom2]

Of course he can distinguish religion from science - he's just comparing them. Nothing about either discipline is a universal truth. Instead of pointing out why nothing about popular science is definitive, I'll just point out that we may be living in a computer simulation [simulation-argument.com].

If that's true, nearly everything goes out the window. People who buy into these media reports are searching for clarity where there is none, which is what sells newspapers.

[TheMC5]

It's good to admit when you don't know what your own point is, or when people are talking about things above you, by talking about the person instead of trying to refute their arguments.

Science isn't fact, it is our understanding of reality at the current time.

You have a really poor understanding of science and the scientific method. ... Science ... [is] constantly shifting and changing as we acquire more and more knowledge

Tootles.

We can both play the quote game, my friend, but I think I've already established my point well enough, especially the prime quoting material. Like I said, talk to me when you figure out the difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking, because all your contradictory statements still stand.

Ciao.

[Jugs]

Bitches man, bitches.

How is it when I dont want to speak to a girl ever again, she keeps talking/pissing me off. And when I want to continue talking to a girl after its over, they avoid me like an 8 year old.

Seriously, what the hell. Oh well, the weird thing is, it's back to normal, i dont mind the girl talking to me and the other one not talking to me. Which seems normal to me.

[BigKaboom2]

Read the stuff in bold - you're basically repeating what he said and then drawing the exact opposite conclusion out of the blue. I can't follow it at all.

[J@3]

Ben wins as he suggested use of gallows, ye olde England is still alive.

[Oznogrd]

Fuck the social scene. If people claim to be friends with you and claim to want to hang out with you, they need to invite you to parties and the bar when they go out in giant groups, whats 1 or 2 more people when you already got 7 going to a bar? Also fuck coaches that dont do their job


That is all

[el badman]

We can both play the quote game, my friend, but I think I've already established my point well enough, especially the prime quoting material. Like I said, talk to me when you figure out the difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking, because all your contradictory statements still stand.

Completely agree with pretty much everything you said...
Really not worth it to argue with someone who basically claims that something like climate change is a liberal conspiracy and that it remains too vague and undocumented to be actually proven. Fuck that, some people like to believe that mother nature and whoever their god is are the only ones affecting their world, that's simply living in denial and shifting men's responsabilities to some kind of higher authority, just because they're too scared to look back and analyze their true impact on this planet.
Yes, science does evolve as we gain a better understanding of our world, fucking religions don't, they just keep people in their willingful ignorance. What could be more absurd than comparing both?

[Gundy]

Yes, science does evolve as we gain a better understanding of our world, fucking religions don't, they just keep people in their willingful ignorance. What could be more absurd than comparing both?

I believe his point was that both involve a group that dictates what the general public knows and therefore thinks. Of course they're completely different. Religion is people-made bull shit that much of the public absorbs without thinking twice about it. Science is people-made and people believe it without thinking twice about it. Science isn't made up bull shit but it isn't infallable truth either.

[benji]

Really not worth it to argue with someone who basically claims that something like climate change is a liberal conspiracy

There's nothing liberal about the "climate change" movement...

and that it remains too vague and undocumented to be actually proven.

All right, then YOU prove it. You prove that solar activity is less important to the climate of the planet than manmade CO2.

Fuck that, some people like to believe that mother nature and whoever their god is are the only ones affecting their world

I don't believe that, but you can't disprove it.

religions ... just keep people in their willingful ignorance.

Good to see you're open-minded.

Gundy gets it.

[el badman]

Quote:
religions ... just keep people in their willingful ignorance.

Good to see you're open-minded.

Precisely, that's because I've decided to take a hard long look at everything I used to believe in (rather, at everything society/family needed me to believe in), that I realized how useless religion is in my life. I questioned all of this, and I knew it didn't add anything good to my existence, and from past personal trouble and general observation of the world and its history, I choose to believe that all religions are man-made creations designed to keep people in fear and ignorance, and make them oblivious as to what their responsabilities as human beings are.
I don't really give a fuck whether or not that sounds close-minded to you, I'm glad with my choice and happy I don't feel forced to believe in myths and legends anymore.

All right, then YOU prove it. You prove that solar activity is less important to the climate of the planet than manmade CO2.

Wow, what a challenge...It's not like there's a zillion studies out there showing how much men's technology in the past century have exponentionally damaged pretty much everything our planet has to offer.
One small example among an ocean of facts: the day after 9/11 when all the planes were grounded, it was observed everywhere in the US that the skies had a much brighter color and were tested as the purest since decades.
Obviously, you can feel free to deny that, it's only proven science after all...

[benji]

Precisely, that's because I've decided to take a hard long look at everything I used to believe in (rather, at everything society/family needed me to believe in), that I realized how useless religion is in my life. I questioned all of this, and I knew it didn't add anything good to my existence, and from past personal trouble and general observation of the world and its history, I choose to believe that all religions are man-made creations designed to keep people in fear and ignorance, and make them oblivious as to what their responsabilities as human beings are.
I don't really give a fuck whether or not that sounds close-minded to you, I'm glad with my choice and happy I don't feel forced to believe in myths and legends anymore.

I'm glad you're happy with your decisions, but I guess I don't see why you need to disparage others who do believe it, or be ignorant by calling them ignorant or insulting their beliefs.

Usually people who disparage others in this manner are actually anxious about their own beliefs.

Wow, what a challenge...It's not like there's a zillion studies out there showing how much men's technology in the past century have exponentionally damaged pretty much everything our planet has to offer.

There's also zillions about the benefits of man's involvement in his environment. And none of the ones you're referencing have anything to say about solar activities effect on global temperatures. Man is but a smidgen against nature, the Sun is not.

One small example among an ocean of facts: the day after 9/11 when all the planes were grounded, it was observed everywhere in the US that the skies had a much brighter color and were tested as the purest since decades.

Obviously, you can feel free to deny that, it's only proven science after all...

That sounds like random personal observations and not "proven science" and does nothing to support or defy the fundalmentalist "climate change" theory.

[Silas]

Benji you have read too many Michael Chrichton books... haha

[el badman]

but I guess I don't see why you need to disparage others who do believe it

Indeed that was inconsiderate, you're obviously free to believe in whatever you want.

Man is but a smidgen against nature, the Sun is not.

Yeah...I'm not sure the sun waited all this time and all of sudden decided to pound our planet with various events that have no documented equivalent in past centuries. If you're telling me that you really, REALLY can't admit that men's negative effect on the Earth has considerably accelerated in the past 50-60 years and been proven in too many ways to list here, then I'm not too sure why I'm typing all of this anyway. This time, it has nothing to do with personal beliefs, it's well-documented facts that clearly show what a dump we're making of this planet, not what the sun is doing with it. The sun only seems like one of the causes precisely because we're destroying our natural barriers against it.

That sounds like random personal observations and not "proven science" and does nothing to support or defy the fundalmentalist "climate change" theory.

Okay sure, that was random stuff I just made up to prove my point, since I really have so much time to waste...

[benji]

Yeah...I'm not sure the sun waited all this time and all of sudden decided to pound our planet with various events that have no documented equivalent in past centuries

Except, it is documented, over centuries. There's a reason we had things called "Ice Ages" and the "Medieval Warm Period" in the olden days. There were once vineyards in England. Imagine that. The Holocene peroid was far warmer than today, and for a few millenia. All of that is documented.

The amount of cosmic rays we recieve has been inverse to global temperatures over a 500 million year period. Solar activity correlates with the amount of cosmic rays we recieve.

The ocean produces more CO2 than like everything else on Earth doesn't it? Don't farts produce more CO2 than all of the world's industries?

When CO2 was increasing at it's fastest after The War, temperatures were dropping. When CO2 fell off during the recession of the 70s temperatures began to rise again.

Don't be too sure about those "well-documented facts." They don't want to let people look into it apparently: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" - Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Or when reacting to critics who find errors in data that throw a wrench into your claims...

if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.

[TheMC5]

I'm sorry. I said I was done, but I just had to.

James Hansen

Not the greatest guy for you to quote on this subject, benji.

[benji]

How so? Re-read in the context I quoted him.

[Silas]

He's an Iowa Hawkeye, can't complain there, though I suppose there are other things...

[[Q]]

Fuck the social scene. If people claim to be friends with you and claim to want to hang out with you, they need to invite you to parties and the bar when they go out in giant groups, whats 1 or 2 more people when you already got 7 going to a bar?

yeah i know how you feel man. i have friends that only calll when they need something. it's like c'mon, we go way back and you can't even call me to hang out? bullshit. nothing i hate more than is to hear about friends going out and doing shit when i didn't even get a call to go too.

[TheMC5]

How so? Re-read in the context I quoted him.

It's generally not a good idea to cite someone's work to back up your theory when the two of you seem to hold contrary viewpoints. That particular quote certainly works in that context, but otherwise you two would seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum here.

But I propose we let this disagreement die. It's not going anywhere except in circles. To that end, I hereby solemnly vow that this will be my last post in this thread regarding global warming and whatnot.