Short-term Weather Patterns: They Mean Nothing.

12346

Comments

  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Or maybe the people believe in what the science has shown what's happening, despite the deniers' attempts to discredit the science.





    "believe" is the right word. Most people cannot know that it's true. The vast majority of public doesn't even understand hypothesis driven research. How can they know that global warming is true unless the believe what other people tell them.
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    "believe" is the right word. Most people cannot know that it's true. The vast majority of public doesn't even understand hypothesis driven research. How can they know that global warming is true unless the believe what other people tell them.



    Everyone should know that Global Warming is true. There is no doubt. None whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada... NO DEBATE.



    What IS debated is man-made climate change.



    But you know what?



    It doesn't matter a fuck whether it's man made or not......it's HAPPENING and there is NO POINT in debating whether OR NOT humans are responsible.



    What DOES matter is the fact that man-made toxicity spewing into the atmosphere under conditions of Climate Change CANNOT HELP BUT WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE AND HINDER ANY ATTEMPTS TO REVERSE THINGS.



    WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT THAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO GRASP??????
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    "believe" is the right word. Most people cannot know that it's true. The vast majority of public doesn't even understand hypothesis driven research. How can they know that global warming is true unless the believe what other people tell them.



    Same applies to religion or politics?
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Same applies to religion or politics?



    Definitely in some cases....
  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Everyone should know that Global Warming is true. There is no doubt. None whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada... NO DEBATE.



    What IS debated is man-made climate change.



    But you know what?



    It doesn't matter a fuck whether it's man made or not......it's HAPPENING and there is NO POINT in debating whether OR NOT humans are responsible.



    What DOES matter is the fact that man-made toxicity spewing into the atmosphere under conditions of Climate Change CANNOT HELP BUT WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE AND HINDER ANY ATTEMPTS TO REVERSE THINGS.



    WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT THAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO GRASP??????



    QED
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT THAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO GRASP??????



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    QED



    I wasn't referring to you - we know why it's difficult for you to grasp.



  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Everyone should know that Global Warming is true. There is no doubt. None whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada... NO DEBATE.



    What IS debated is man-made climate change.



    Actually the debate that should occur even before that is whether or not the net effects of so-called Global Warming (remember it's now called Climate Change because the globe, apparently, isn't warming anymore at this point) are negative or positive.



    The logical progression of questions ought to go something like this:



    1. Is the earth warming? Yes? No?

    2. If yes, then is it warming to a degree or at a rate that threatens humankind? Yes? No?

    3. If yes, is there anything we can do about it? Yes? No?



    Question 3 might, of course, be dependent on whether we're actually causing it or not. But that's really a secondary concern.



    So where are we with these questions?



    1. The assumption is yes. OK. Let's just take that at face value. The earth probably has been warming. Probably also been cooling too. But this is not our concern. The really important questions are the next ones.

    2. The assumption here is yes. This is the far more important question to be debated.

    3. The assumption here is yes. This is based on the assumption that the warming is a result of human action.
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    So where are we with these questions?



    1. The assumption is yes. OK. Let's just take that at face value. The earth probably has been warming. Probably also been cooling too. But this is not our concern. The really important questions are the next ones.

    2. The assumption here is yes. This is the far more important question to be debated.

    3. The assumption here is yes. This is based on the assumption that the warming is a result of human action.



    Q2 merely shifts the ground for the deniers to start denying at a later point. This is not surprising - as I have said many times: they will deny right down the line and at any point....even sitting in a world in the grip of an ice age and with their last breath. They are deniers (of rationality) and supporters (of their leaders who they are brainwashed to support unquestioningly).



    Q3 is not really a question at all. For example if the answer were 'no there is nothing we can do about it and we're all going to die' the deniers would never accept that answer. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.



    They won't accept THERE IS something we can do and they won't accept THERE IS NOT something we can do.



    Their function is to deny.There's no logic involved...no rationality....no 'desire for truth'.



    They are just cheering for their team and programmed to destroy anything whatsoever that interferes with that. It's really that simple.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Q2 merely shifts the ground for the deniers to start denying at a later point.



    Wrong. This is a perfectly valid question. If you wish to deny it, then I guess this makes you a "denialist" of a different sort.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Q3 is not really a question at all.



    Of course it is and a perfectly valid one.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    They won't accept THERE IS something we can do and they won't accept THERE IS NOT something we can do.



    This is a separate issue. If there is something that could be done to change things there will certainly be people who reject this.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Their function is to deny.There's no logic involved...no rationality....no 'desire for truth'.



    They are just cheering for their team and programmed to destroy anything whatsoever that interferes with that. It's really that simple.



    Whatever.
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Wrong. This is a perfectly valid question. If you wish to deny it, then I guess this makes you a "denialist" of a different sort.



    Absolutely. I am a denier of irrationality, unreason and stupidity. I won't admit those things are worthy of sharing a level playing field with reason.



    Speaking of which, I guess this is where our roads diverge and dialogue ends....[/QUOTE]
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Absolutely. I am a denier of irrationality, unreason and stupidity. I won't admit those things are worthy of sharing a level playing field with reason.



    And you seem to be implying that the questions I've listed are examples of "irrationality, unreason and stupidity."





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Speaking of which, I guess this is where our roads diverge and dialogue ends....



    Certainly if you are implying that the questions I've listed are examples of "irrationality, unreason and stupidity."
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Absolutely. I am a denier of irrationality, unreason and stupidity. I won't admit those things are worthy of sharing a level playing field with reason.



    Speaking of which, I guess this is where our roads diverge and dialogue ends....



    You wouldn't be the first to give up on a particular poster's inability to present any valid argument or debate.
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    You wouldn't be the first to give up on a particular poster's inability to present any valid argument or debate.



    Im sure not....nor the last either I guess.



    Shame but sooner or later the law of diminishing returns sets in.



  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    You wouldn't be the first to give up on a particular poster's inability to present any valid argument or debate.



    So now tonton's chiming in. Good.



    For the record, based on the implications of their posts and absent any denial, both tonton and segovius consider the following questions:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970


    1. Is the earth warming? Yes? No?

    2. If yes, then is it warming to a degree or at a rate that threatens humankind? Yes? No?

    3. If yes, is there anything we can do about it? Yes? No?



    To be examples of "irrationality, unreason and stupidity."



  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Absolutely. I am a denier of irrationality, unreason and stupidity. I won't admit those things are worthy of sharing a level playing field with reason.



    Speaking of which, I guess this is where our roads diverge and dialogue ends....



    Are you seriously stating that since he does not accept your position that anything he has to say is "irrationality, unreason and stupidity"?
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Are you seriously stating that since he does not accept your position that anything he has to say is "irrationality, unreason and stupidity"?



    Are you seriously saying - seriously saying - that this is how you understand what I wrote ?????



  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Are you seriously saying - seriously saying - that this is how you understand what I wrote ?????







    Well, I am overstating it a bit. I admit. So from your response I will take that be a no, not a general position. Which is good. So Just for the specific point that you addressed which was a response to:
    2. If yes, then is it warming to a degree or at a rate that threatens humankind? Yes? No?
    Can we assume you are saying that this is an irrational, unreasonable and stupid (henceforth IUS) question?



    Or was his response to your dismissal of the question what was IUS?



    Wrong. This is a perfectly valid question. If you wish to deny it, then I guess this makes you a "denialist" of a different sort.



    Just trying to find out why you are cutting of communication on this with him. He has not taken a stand yet, just asked questions to help clarify your position before debating.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    The precedent is set now that whenever any right wing loonies want to present evidence and studies collected and performed by experts in whatever field, we can just ignore whatever is presented as long as there exists some fringe element who disagrees, no matter what kind of faulty logic, reasoning, or science is used.



    Of course, the chances of that happening are relatively low because...



    a) right wing loonies rarely give two shits about evidence, studies, or experts



    and



    b) if there actually exists a consensus amongst a plethora of scientists in a particular field, chances are the rest of us actually accept the science anyway
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    The precedent is set now that whenever any right wing loonies want to present evidence and studies collected and performed by experts in whatever field, we can just ignore whatever is presented as long as there exists some fringe element who disagrees, no matter what kind of faulty logic, reasoning, or science is used.



    Of course, the chances of that happening are relatively low because...



    a) right wing loonies rarely give two shits about evidence, studies, or experts



    and



    b) if there actually exists a consensus amongst a plethora of scientists in a particular field, chances are the rest of us actually accept the science anyway



    No such precedent is set.



    But if one wishes to one must first agree that what you claim is happening is indeed happening, and then one must acknowledge that you are willing to compromise your principles to become just like that which you despise. If you are then you have lost any moral high ground you claim to have. Have fun with that...
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    That's what letter b was for. It wouldn't happen. But the precedent is still set. I won't use it because I don't bury my head in the sand when reality doesn't match what I really want to believe. But the precedent is still set.



    Also, I clarified my position on large families and you never responded. Are you still super sensitive about such a mild comment? I mean, hell, I'm the one who should be offended because you're the one who told ME that I don't value life. Now that's a rather strong and offensive assertion. It's ok, I'm not offended. You were emotional and said something stupid. I get it. I'll forgive you.
Sign In or Register to comment.