or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Science is Real.

post #1 of 249
Thread Starter 

Yes, that includes anthropogenic global climate change (AGCG).  Here's a graph from the latest study that really puts the hockey stick graph into perspective.

 

 

marcott_graph.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

 

That acceleration is unprecedented.  Look at the last ten thousand years and look what we have done in the last hundred.  Phil Plait breaks down the whole situation in much more detail.

 

He concludes:

 

 

Quote:

And of course, the usual suspects are already trying to decry this new study, but as they always do they have to resort to twisting reality into a Möbius strip. But this is nothing new when it comes to denier claims. Their methods are always the same: cherry-picking data that supports their argument but ignores huge amounts of evidence refuting them,displaying misleading graphs, and out-and-out witch hunts and attacks. If you can’t attack the science, don’t worry, just keep attacking anyway.

The bottom line here is the same as it has been for a long, long time: The planet is warming up. The rate at which the temperature is rising took a huge leap starting a century ago, and it’s due to human activity. We’re seeing the effects now, from the ice caps melting to changes in vegetation growth ratesThere is no scientific controversy here, just a manufactured political and ideological one.

And if we don’t accept that and start working toward a solution, now, there won’t be much need to argue any more.

 

Science is real.  It's not a Democrat thing.  It's not a Republican thing.  It's not an Anarcho-Insanist Thing.  It's reality.  Reality doesn't give two shits whether you believe in it or not.  I, however, do.  Those who continually insist on distorting or plain old denying science are akin to assholes blocking the only exits during a fire--not only preventing people from getting out, but doing their best to keep the firemen from getting in.  They have the audacity of telling those firemen that no fire actually exists as the room burns in front of them.

 

Perhaps a little reminder from They Might Be Giants is in order for those who have the reasoning power of a brainwashed five year old.

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2 of 249

Economics is real too, and economic reality doesn't give two shits whether you believe it or not. But apparently that science is, well, bendable to your wishful thinking and Utopian dreams.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 249
Thread Starter 

Tu Quoque on post #2.  That was fast.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 249

You are confused, and have been, since someone told you to start using an accusation of the "tu quoque" fallacy, about exactly what is going on with this fallacy. I'll try to explain:

 

The tu quoque fallacy is in use when someone attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser.

 

I'm not trying to defend myself against anything here at all. There is nothing here I need to defend.

 

I am simply pointing out that economics is real and is a science also. And then I am accusing you of hypocrisy because you claim to be an adherent of science and scientific thinking yet frequently demonstrate flights of fancy and wishful thinking in direct contradiction to basic economic principles and laws.

 

 

Further, I'm not using my accusation of your hypocrisy as a support for any position I hold.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 249
Thread Starter 

No, you're just wasting everyone's time.  You did seem pretty defensive with your initial post, hence, the accusation of the tu quoque.  Regardless, comment on the actual topic or get the **** out of the thread.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #6 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion about what everyone else is feeling and thinking.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You did seem pretty defensive with your initial post...

 

lol.gif I seemed defensive?! lol.gif Nice. Perhaps that's just your biased inference about me. lol.gif I seemed defensive! Priceless!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Regardless, comment on the actual topic or get the **** out of the thread.

 

Comment on what? Your baiting?

 

I'll comment on any thread I like. This is a public forum. You don't want people to comment on it, then don't post. I made a comment perfectly relevant with the overall content of your OP...going with:

 

 

Quote:
Science is real.  It's not a Democrat thing.  It's not a Republican thing.  It's not an Anarcho-Insanist Thing.  It's reality.  Reality doesn't give two shits whether you believe in it or not.  I, however, do.  Those who continually insist on distorting or plain old denying science are akin to assholes blocking the only exits during a fire--not only preventing people from getting out, but doing their best to keep the firemen from getting in.  They have the audacity of telling those firemen that no fire actually exists as the room burns in front of them.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 249
Thread Starter 

Nope.  More offtopic derailment.  GTFO.  Here are some quotes from the original article.

 

 

 

Quote:

What they found is simply stunning: The rate at which the globe is warming right now is far, far faster than it ever has going back as far as they could measure, up to 11,300 years ago. In fact, over the past 5000 years, the Earth actually cooled by about 1.3°F…until the last 100 years, when our temperature spiked upwards by about the same amount.

Mind you, this is the rate of warming, how quickly the global temperature is increasing. But they also showed the actual temperature of the planet is warmer now than it has been for 70-80 percent of the past over that time period. There have been times when the Earth was warmer, but the important point isn’t the actual temperature, but what it’s doing.

And what it’s doing now is skyrocketing.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Nope.  More offtopic derailment.

 

If it was off-topic, what was it doing in your OP, consuming at least half of the content of the OP?!

 

You, hypocritically, want things both ways. You want to talk about science but then abuse anyone that mentions another aspect of science. You want to wheel off into histrionics about those with whom you disagree but then claim anyone touching on your ranting is "off-topic." Priceless!

 

Maybe sometime you'll chose to start a thread and make posts that don't contain these trolling diatribes and stick only to the real topic you wish to discuss. But, I suspect, that is the real topic you wish to discuss.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 249
Thread Starter 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html

 

Pie chart of global warming denier papers

 

 

 

Quote:

Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but insteadwrite error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

Emphasis added to the last paragraph.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Economics is real too, and economic reality doesn't give two shits whether you believe it or not. But apparently that science is, well, bendable to your wishful thinking and Utopian dreams.

 

Where did you get the notion that economics is a science?

post #11 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Where did you get the notion that economics is a science?

 

Why do you believe it is not?


Edited by MJ1970 - 3/14/13 at 6:30am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Where did you get the notion that economics is a science?

 

Why do you believe it is not?

It's a social science but it's far from conclusive as there are many schools of thought on this subject concluding in different results. All of them use the scientific method to get their results but much like the weather it's subject to chaos theory and change. Hence many different ideas about how it works. So far it's not quite the same as a provable science like physics. That has different schools of thought as well but is much closer to a single theory. 

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Where did you get the notion that economics is a science?

 

Why do you believe it is not?

 

Because it does not permit application of the scientific method. In economics one can hypothesize, but one cannot test those hypotheses; it is a set of uncontrolled experiments at best. You may have noticed that your Wikipedia link describes it as a social science.  If I may infer from that that you regard social sciences as science then you have answered my original question.

post #14 of 249

Oh, I get it, social sciences are not real science. Okay. 1rolleyes.gif

 

The subtle implication here is that the so-called "hard" sciences are the only true source of knowledge and understanding of our world and how it operates. Right. This is a common trap.

 

The problem here is that these so-called "hard" sciences have their limits too. And, fact is, the social sciences have something to contribute to our knowledge of the world and how it operates. And. while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry. It's incredible arrogant to suggest so.

 

And while there are aspects of economic science that are far from conclusive (as is true in all systems of inquiry) there are others that are very, very well established through broad, consistent and repeated observation and, in some cases, even experimentation. And it is fallacious to reject all of economic knowledge and thought because some areas are still subject to great debate.

 

The real problem here is that some (here and elsewhere) who believe that the well-established understandings and "laws" don't really apply in cases where they don't really want them to apply. They rejected the fundamentals while claiming to be "enlightened" and "open-minded" to the various interpretations of economic matters.


Edited by MJ1970 - 3/14/13 at 8:51pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 249
Thread Starter 

Do you think that there is more evidence for certain economic hypotheses than there is for the scientific theory of evolution?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes, that includes anthropogenic global climate change (AGCG).  Here's a graph from the latest study that really puts the hockey stick graph into perspective.

 

 

marcott_graph.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

 

That acceleration is unprecedented.  Look at the last ten thousand years and look what we have done in the last hundred.  Phil Plait breaks down the whole situation in much more detail.

 

He concludes:

 

 

Quote:

And of course, the usual suspects are already trying to decry this new study, but as they always do they have to resort to twisting reality into a Möbius strip. But this is nothing new when it comes to denier claims. Their methods are always the same: cherry-picking data that supports their argument but ignores huge amounts of evidence refuting them,displaying misleading graphs, and out-and-out witch hunts and attacks. If you can’t attack the science, don’t worry, just keep attacking anyway.

The bottom line here is the same as it has been for a long, long time: The planet is warming up. The rate at which the temperature is rising took a huge leap starting a century ago, and it’s due to human activity. We’re seeing the effects now, from the ice caps melting to changes in vegetation growth ratesThere is no scientific controversy here, just a manufactured political and ideological one.

And if we don’t accept that and start working toward a solution, now, there won’t be much need to argue any more.

 

Science is real.  It's not a Democrat thing.  It's not a Republican thing.  It's not an Anarcho-Insanist Thing.  It's reality.  Reality doesn't give two shits whether you believe in it or not.  I, however, do.  Those who continually insist on distorting or plain old denying science are akin to assholes blocking the only exits during a fire--not only preventing people from getting out, but doing their best to keep the firemen from getting in.  They have the audacity of telling those firemen that no fire actually exists as the room burns in front of them.

 

Perhaps a little reminder from They Might Be Giants is in order for those who have the reasoning power of a brainwashed five year old.

 

 

If science is real, then why do the people claiming the mantel of it act so decidedly human in their actions?

 

As you note, reality and thus science doesn't give two shits, but then you turn it around and declare you do. In other words, you take a scientific conclusion and run off in a different direction with it.

 

The climate of the planet has never been a static thing. The graph declares a temperature anomaly. That would indicate a previous norm. However there is no known NORM for the climate on this planet. We can visit areas that are deserts that were once forests and mountains that were once on the ocean floor.

 

Declaring a norm, science hasn't done that, nor has science said that if humans overwhelm their eco-system and either learn to adjust or die off, that this will be a bad thing. Also science hasn't said that if we have a 1.3 degree C increase it will indicate massive chaos and death for us all.

 

None of those things has science said. The alarmism and crazy, dramatic conclusions are all human endeavors and on top of that, mostly attempts to control other humans, again a very human and unscientific thing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Tu Quoque on post #2.  That was fast.

 

Please learn what this means. Also declaring a logical fallacy while noting that objective reality cares nothing about human logic should make your own brain hurt with the irony.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html

 

Pie chart of global warming denier papers

 

 

 

Quote:

Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but insteadwrite error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

Emphasis added to the last paragraph.

 

So science is reality and reality is human consensus. Per your own reasoning just one of those 24 studies could be right and science and reality wouldn't give two shits about the other 13,950+ wrong conclusions.

 

Can you please make up your mind? So far you've said science is objective reality and people should support that because otherwise reality might not like them due to their logical fallacies and unwillingness to go along with the group consensus.

 

Mind you those are just your assertions, we haven't even gone in depth as to how you've applied some of those sub-points incorrectly, even while they are absurd.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oh, I get it, social sciences are not real science. Okay. 1rolleyes.gif

 

The subtle implication here is that the so-called "hard" sciences are the only true source of knowledge and understanding of our world and how it operates. Right. This is a common trap.

 

The problem here is that these so-called "hard" sciences have their limits too. And, fact is, the social sciences have something to contribute to our knowledge of the world and how it operates. And. while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry. It's incredible arrogant to suggest so.

 

And while there are aspects of economic science that are far from conclusive (as is true in all systems of inquiry) there are others that are very, very well established through broad, consistent and repeated observation and, in some cases, even experimentation. And it is fallacious to reject all of economic knowledge and thought because some areas are still subject to great debate.

 

The real problem here is that some (here and elsewhere) who believe that the well-established understandings and "laws" don't really apply in cases where they don't really want them to apply. They rejected the fundamentals while claiming to be "enlightened" and "open-minded" to the various interpretations of economic matters.

 

How did you infer from my observation that social sciences are not science that I think science is the only true (strange choice of word by the way) source of knowledge and understanding? That is your inference, and a particularly silly one IMO, not my implication. And, a semantic point I know, but how can an implication be a trap? I'd normally guess from your response that a scientist just offended an economist, but it's clear from many previous posts that you are not an economist. 

 

What do the "limits of hard science", whatever that means, have to do with whether economics is a science? Would you mind having a go at untangling the logic behind this sentence? "...while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry." Are you suggesting here that economics is a scientific method now? That surely cannot be what you mean, so could you suggest some way in which the scientific method is applicable to any aspect of economics?

 

It's pretty clear that you're not a scientist either, are you?

post #18 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oh, I get it, social sciences are not real science. Okay. 1rolleyes.gif

 

The subtle implication here is that the so-called "hard" sciences are the only true source of knowledge and understanding of our world and how it operates. Right. This is a common trap.

 

The problem here is that these so-called "hard" sciences have their limits too. And, fact is, the social sciences have something to contribute to our knowledge of the world and how it operates. And. while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry. It's incredible arrogant to suggest so.

 

And while there are aspects of economic science that are far from conclusive (as is true in all systems of inquiry) there are others that are very, very well established through broad, consistent and repeated observation and, in some cases, even experimentation. And it is fallacious to reject all of economic knowledge and thought because some areas are still subject to great debate.

 

The real problem here is that some (here and elsewhere) who believe that the well-established understandings and "laws" don't really apply in cases where they don't really want them to apply. They rejected the fundamentals while claiming to be "enlightened" and "open-minded" to the various interpretations of economic matters.

 

How did you infer from my observation that social sciences are not science that I think science is the only true (strange choice of word by the way) source of knowledge and understanding? That is your inference, and a particularly silly one IMO, not my implication. And, a semantic point I know, but how can an implication be a trap? I'd normally guess from your response that a scientist just offended an economist, but it's clear from many previous posts that you are not an economist. 

 

What do the "limits of hard science", whatever that means, have to do with whether economics is a science? Would you mind having a go at untangling the logic behind this sentence? "...while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry." Are you suggesting here that economics is a scientific method now? That surely cannot be what you mean, so could you suggest some way in which the scientific method is applicable to any aspect of economics?

 

It's pretty clear that you're not a scientist either, are you?

 

Not to be rude, but what is the point of all these rhetorical questions? This amounts to a rant about a inference you may not have liked. If you don't like his inference then just clarify. It appears (inference) that you've grown tired of your own self-proclaimed role here muppetry. You seldom state a position and instead prefer to pick apart how others state their position. People don't need life or position editors though. Likewise you don't seem particularly satisfied with the role you have chosen for yourself. So just change it. State what you mean and proclaim what you want instead of trying to kill the messenger or think you are right in a vacuum.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #19 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oh, I get it, social sciences are not real science. Okay. 1rolleyes.gif

 

The subtle implication here is that the so-called "hard" sciences are the only true source of knowledge and understanding of our world and how it operates. Right. This is a common trap.

 

The problem here is that these so-called "hard" sciences have their limits too. And, fact is, the social sciences have something to contribute to our knowledge of the world and how it operates. And. while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry. It's incredible arrogant to suggest so.

 

And while there are aspects of economic science that are far from conclusive (as is true in all systems of inquiry) there are others that are very, very well established through broad, consistent and repeated observation and, in some cases, even experimentation. And it is fallacious to reject all of economic knowledge and thought because some areas are still subject to great debate.

 

The real problem here is that some (here and elsewhere) who believe that the well-established understandings and "laws" don't really apply in cases where they don't really want them to apply. They rejected the fundamentals while claiming to be "enlightened" and "open-minded" to the various interpretations of economic matters.

 

How did you infer from my observation that social sciences are not science that I think science is the only true (strange choice of word by the way) source of knowledge and understanding? That is your inference, and a particularly silly one IMO, not my implication. And, a semantic point I know, but how can an implication be a trap? I'd normally guess from your response that a scientist just offended an economist, but it's clear from many previous posts that you are not an economist. 

 

What do the "limits of hard science", whatever that means, have to do with whether economics is a science? Would you mind having a go at untangling the logic behind this sentence? "...while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry." Are you suggesting here that economics is a scientific method now? That surely cannot be what you mean, so could you suggest some way in which the scientific method is applicable to any aspect of economics?

 

It's pretty clear that you're not a scientist either, are you?

 

Not to be rude, but what is the point of all these rhetorical questions? This amounts to a rant about a inference you may not have liked. If you don't like his inference then just clarify. It appears (inference) that you've grown tired of your own self-proclaimed role here muppetry. You seldom state a position and instead prefer to pick apart how others state their position. People don't need life or position editors though. Likewise you don't seem particularly satisfied with the role you have chosen for yourself. So just change it. State what you mean and proclaim what you want instead of trying to kill the messenger or think you are right in a vacuum.

 

No offense taken, but I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.  MJ used the assertion that economics is a science to avoid addressing the substance of another post. I disputed that assertion. He then threw up a multitude of straw man arguments around my comment, and proceeded to make unconnected and incorrect statements to try to knock them down. That he failed even to defeat his own straw man arguments is odd, but I called him on those anyway. What is there to clarify? 

 

I only see one question in my post that could be mistaken for rhetorical - that would be the last one.

post #20 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

MJ used the assertion that economics is a science to avoid addressing the substance of another post.

 

Bullshit. This is merely your inference.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

He then threw up a multitude of straw man arguments around my comment, and proceeded to make unconnected and incorrect statements to try to knock them down. That he failed even to defeat his own straw man arguments is odd, but I called him on those anyway.

 

Right. 1rolleyes.gif Sheesh.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oh, I get it, social sciences are not real science. Okay. 1rolleyes.gif

 

The subtle implication here is that the so-called "hard" sciences are the only true source of knowledge and understanding of our world and how it operates. Right. This is a common trap.

 

The problem here is that these so-called "hard" sciences have their limits too. And, fact is, the social sciences have something to contribute to our knowledge of the world and how it operates. And. while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry. It's incredible arrogant to suggest so.

 

And while there are aspects of economic science that are far from conclusive (as is true in all systems of inquiry) there are others that are very, very well established through broad, consistent and repeated observation and, in some cases, even experimentation. And it is fallacious to reject all of economic knowledge and thought because some areas are still subject to great debate.

 

The real problem here is that some (here and elsewhere) who believe that the well-established understandings and "laws" don't really apply in cases where they don't really want them to apply. They rejected the fundamentals while claiming to be "enlightened" and "open-minded" to the various interpretations of economic matters.

 

How did you infer from my observation that social sciences are not science that I think science is the only true (strange choice of word by the way) source of knowledge and understanding? That is your inference, and a particularly silly one IMO, not my implication. And, a semantic point I know, but how can an implication be a trap? I'd normally guess from your response that a scientist just offended an economist, but it's clear from many previous posts that you are not an economist. 

 

What do the "limits of hard science", whatever that means, have to do with whether economics is a science? Would you mind having a go at untangling the logic behind this sentence? "...while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry." Are you suggesting here that economics is a scientific method now? That surely cannot be what you mean, so could you suggest some way in which the scientific method is applicable to any aspect of economics?

 

It's pretty clear that you're not a scientist either, are you?

 

Not to be rude, but what is the point of all these rhetorical questions? This amounts to a rant about a inference you may not have liked. If you don't like his inference then just clarify. It appears (inference) that you've grown tired of your own self-proclaimed role here muppetry. You seldom state a position and instead prefer to pick apart how others state their position. People don't need life or position editors though. Likewise you don't seem particularly satisfied with the role you have chosen for yourself. So just change it. State what you mean and proclaim what you want instead of trying to kill the messenger or think you are right in a vacuum.

 

No offense taken, but I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.  MJ used the assertion that economics is a science to avoid addressing the substance of another post. I disputed that assertion. He then threw up a multitude of straw man arguments around my comment, and proceeded to make unconnected and incorrect statements to try to knock them down. That he failed even to defeat his own straw man arguments is odd, but I called him on those anyway. What is there to clarify? 

 

I only see one question in my post that could be mistaken for rhetorical - that would be the last one.

 

 

What I am getting at is you need to stop picking at people about how they post and instead just state your positions and the support for them. People dismiss someone who wants to edit them rather than have a conversation with them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

What I am getting at is you need to stop picking at people about how they post and instead just state your positions and the support for them. People dismiss someone who wants to edit them rather than have a conversation with them.

 

I don't disagree with the sentiment but, firstly, that comment makes me think that you don't read many of my posts and, secondly, in the context of the level and type of discussion that predominates here in PO, that's a pretty bizarre criticism. My comments, unlike many here, are almost entirely about content, not style; I don't throw labels around as if they somehow contributed to, or enhanced, an argument, as opposed to just being ad hominem pejoratives; I don't blatantly deflect and change the subject in response to posts; I don't employ logical fallacies to try to win arguments, and if I make the mistake of using one I expect to be called on it.

 

On the other hand, if it is just that some of the regulars dislike being challenged more robustly than they are accustomed to, then too bad. If my standards for argument are too high it's not a problem - no one should feel compelled to engage. If you are disappointed that I have not provided an nice set of arbitrary beliefs for you guys to shoot at, then sorry - I don't hold arbitrary beliefs, and I'm not here to sell any.

post #23 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

What I am getting at is you need to stop picking at people about how they post and instead just state your positions and the support for them. People dismiss someone who wants to edit them rather than have a conversation with them.

 

I don't disagree with the sentiment but, firstly, that comment makes me think that you don't read many of my posts and, secondly, in the context of the level and type of discussion that predominates here in PO, that's a pretty bizarre criticism. My comments, unlike many here, are almost entirely about content, not style; I don't throw labels around as if they somehow contributed to, or enhanced, an argument, as opposed to just being ad hominem pejoratives; I don't blatantly deflect and change the subject in response to posts; I don't employ logical fallacies to try to win arguments, and if I make the mistake of using one I expect to be called on it.

 

On the other hand, if it is just that some of the regulars dislike being challenged more robustly than they are accustomed to, then too bad. If my standards for argument are too high it's not a problem - no one should feel compelled to engage. If you are disappointed that I have not provided an nice set of arbitrary beliefs for you guys to shoot at, then sorry - I don't hold arbitrary beliefs, and I'm not here to sell any.

 

If per you, the beliefs are arbitrary, and the people who are espousing them are irrational and illogical, then why to sell them a product, via countless corrections and criticism about their posting style, that they don't want and probably can't understand?

 

To use an analogy, I could imagine someone trying to sell obese people salad rather than letting them make other food choices. What I can't imagine is someone complaining that they are eating their high calories foods with the wrong fork.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #24 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

What I am getting at is you need to stop picking at people about how they post and instead just state your positions and the support for them. People dismiss someone who wants to edit them rather than have a conversation with them.

 

First, you're eating your own tail here, in that you're very explicitly "picking at" how Muppetry posts.

 

But more generally, MJ1970 hasn't said a single word about the topic, so there really isn't anything to respond to except his efforts to derail the thread with specious parsings of the status of economics as a science, which apparently is some pet peeve of his.

 

So in the interests of stating positions, Climate Change:  It's Real.  Science is real, as the OP points out, and the evidence is ever mounting. It has nothing to do with some (completely implausible) hippy/science/socialist axis of evil bent on world control, it has nothing to do with Al Gore, it has nothing to do with bitter, civilization hating, government grant taking "scientists" attempting to force us all to live in yurts.  I mean, how anyone ever has ever settled on such nonsense as being explanatory is beyond me, but it doesn't matter.  Climate change is happening anyway, and anyone that thinks they can ride it out while enjoying summer vacation in formerly frost bit lands hasn't been paying attention. Climate change will hurt you, in our lifetimes.

 

I assume what will happen is that the results of climate change will becomes so glaring that the deniers will switch to post Iraq invasion mode: that, of course, now everyone agrees about certain things, but at the time it was right to think certain things because the evidence was compelling.  That, or just pretend like it never happened and change the subject.

post #25 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

What I am getting at is you need to stop picking at people about how they post and instead just state your positions and the support for them. People dismiss someone who wants to edit them rather than have a conversation with them.

 

I don't disagree with the sentiment but, firstly, that comment makes me think that you don't read many of my posts and, secondly, in the context of the level and type of discussion that predominates here in PO, that's a pretty bizarre criticism. My comments, unlike many here, are almost entirely about content, not style; I don't throw labels around as if they somehow contributed to, or enhanced, an argument, as opposed to just being ad hominem pejoratives; I don't blatantly deflect and change the subject in response to posts; I don't employ logical fallacies to try to win arguments, and if I make the mistake of using one I expect to be called on it.

 

On the other hand, if it is just that some of the regulars dislike being challenged more robustly than they are accustomed to, then too bad. If my standards for argument are too high it's not a problem - no one should feel compelled to engage. If you are disappointed that I have not provided an nice set of arbitrary beliefs for you guys to shoot at, then sorry - I don't hold arbitrary beliefs, and I'm not here to sell any.

 

If per you, the beliefs are arbitrary, and the people who are espousing them are irrational and illogical, then why to sell them a product, via countless corrections and criticism about their posting style, that they don't want and probably can't understand?

 

To use an analogy, I could imagine someone trying to sell obese people salad rather than letting them make other food choices. What I can't imagine is someone complaining that they are eating their high calories foods with the wrong fork.

 

No - I'm afraid you are now doing the same thing as MJ - my statement that I have no arbitrary beliefs to sell cannot be extrapolated to mean that I think all the positions espoused on this forum (other than mine) are arbitrary beliefs, or that I regard those espousing them as irrational and illogical. There is some measure of that IMO, but if that were all that were here I would not waste my time posting. And my point was that I am not selling anything.

 

Your analogy makes sense, but, as I said, does not apply well to me, since mostly I engage content, not style. A simple check of my posting history should demonstrate that I seldom comment on style except when noting lack of relevant content. Most of my posts are reasoned argument on topic, so I really have no idea where this is coming from.

post #26 of 249

Let's be serious here signal1. This thread was about four things:

 

  1. Declaring things that are real (science in this case)
  2. Declaring what is science
  3. Ranting about people those who don't agree with 1 and/or 2.
  4. (Only tangentially) about "climate change"

 

My posts hit on 3 of the 4 of those actually.

 

Finally, I note that you have pulled out a few things here:

 

  1. Climate change is real. Yes we know. We know the climate changes. Constantly. Anyone who would deny this is a moron. But you (and others) attempt to use denial of what you really mean (where "Climate Change" is code language for a whole package of shit both scientific and decidedly not scientific) as a bat with which to beat people and imply stupidity or nutbaggery.
  2. Science is real. Yes, we know. Science is real. The scientific method is a real and credible methodology for many knowledge inquiries. Anyone who would deny this is a moron. But you have tried to couple "Climate Change," this ever vague and changing and broad bag of shit that includes things both scientific and decidedly not scientific implying that everything "Climate Change" is subject to the rigors of the scientific method, and claim that that anyone who disagrees with the non-scientific parts of "Climate Change" is anti-science or scientifically illiterate or has some other agenda.
  3. You beg the question when it comes to whether a) "Climate Change" has net negative effects and b) can even be affected by human effort.
  4. Finally, you pull out this almost imperceptible fallacy wherein denial of past events for which there is concrete and not reasonably disputable evidence is equated with reasonable questionable and reasonably debatable predictions about future events and situations. This is a fairly common tactic among the "Climate Change" chicken littles, for example comparing future "Climate Change" consequence prediction deniers with something like Jewish holocaust deniers. This serves two wonderful purposes of course. First is that, to the casual observer is sounds reasonable and makes future "Climate Change" consequence prediction deniers sound like moronic nutbaggers. Second, it makes them sound ever worst...like people who are racists, even those who are anti-semites, etc. They have been conveniently shoved off in the corner with all those other scumbags who deny things like the Jewish holocaust (for example.)

 

Nice work.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 249

Economics.  Priority #1.  That's why Rand Paul is out worrying about religious questions or something like that.

 

OK.

 

I've asked this before and will do so again.

 

If GW is wrong and we do nothing about it, no problem; we get to keep making lots of money and polluting our lives.  More health problems.

If GW is wrong and we try to clean things up, we make a little less money, perhaps, but get cleaner beaches and parks.  Fewer health problems.

 

If GW is right and we do something about it, then we might actually leave a place for our grandkids to live.

 

If GW is right and we ignore it, some might get rich now, but what happens long term?

 

If the GOP is soooooooo worried about not leaving our kids in debt, then they should think about also leaving our kids a place to live and work so that they can continue living without debt.  They are sooooo worried about defining life (Dakota now says heart beat)... when will they start caring about that life?

 

 

 

Or will the GOP continue to try to make life easier on the rich in the short term and totally screw everyone on the planet (yes, there are people beyond our borders) in the long term?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #28 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

If GW is wrong and we do nothing about it, no problem; we get to keep making lots of money and polluting our lives.  More health problems.

If GW is wrong and we try to clean things up, we make a little less money, perhaps, but get cleaner beaches and parks.  Fewer health problems.

 

If GW is right and we do something about it, then we might actually leave a place for our grandkids to live.

 

If GW is right and we ignore it, some might get rich now, but what happens long term?

 

If the GOP is soooooooo worried about not leaving our kids in debt, then they should think about also leaving our kids a place to live and work so that they can continue living without debt.  They are sooooo worried about defining life (Dakota now says heart beat)... when will they start caring about that life?

 

Or will the GOP continue to try to make life easier on the rich in the short term and totally screw everyone on the planet (yes, there are people beyond our borders) in the long term?

 

I love all the unsupported and unproven assumptions and illogical connections and fallacies herein. But is does have the air of reasonableness and wisdom.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

What I am getting at is you need to stop picking at people about how they post and instead just state your positions and the support for them. People dismiss someone who wants to edit them rather than have a conversation with them.

 

First, you're eating your own tail here, in that you're very explicitly "picking at" how Muppetry posts.

 

But more generally, MJ1970 hasn't said a single word about the topic, so there really isn't anything to respond to except his efforts to derail the thread with specious parsings of the status of economics as a science, which apparently is some pet peeve of his.

 

So in the interests of stating positions, Climate Change:  It's Real.  Science is real, as the OP points out, and the evidence is ever mounting. It has nothing to do with some (completely implausible) hippy/science/socialist axis of evil bent on world control, it has nothing to do with Al Gore, it has nothing to do with bitter, civilization hating, government grant taking "scientists" attempting to force us all to live in yurts.  I mean, how anyone ever has ever settled on such nonsense as being explanatory is beyond me, but it doesn't matter.  Climate change is happening anyway, and anyone that thinks they can ride it out while enjoying summer vacation in formerly frost bit lands hasn't been paying attention. Climate change will hurt you, in our lifetimes.

 

I assume what will happen is that the results of climate change will becomes so glaring that the deniers will switch to post Iraq invasion mode: that, of course, now everyone agrees about certain things, but at the time it was right to think certain things because the evidence was compelling.  That, or just pretend like it never happened and change the subject.

 

Wait, the thread had a legitimate topic per you? It was a rant punctuated by a music video. Also I directly addressed BR's post on it. There isn't anything to "pick at" with regard to how Muppetry posts because he doesn't try to post a position. He wants to be everyone's editor and increasingly acts aggressively toward those who don't care about his writing tips. I'd be happy to address something other than that, but that is the entire substance of his posts.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - I'm afraid you are now doing the same thing as MJ - my statement that I have no arbitrary beliefs to sell cannot be extrapolated to mean that I think all the positions espoused on this forum (other than mine) are arbitrary beliefs, or that I regard those espousing them as irrational and illogical. There is some measure of that IMO, but if that were all that were here I would not waste my time posting. And my point was that I am not selling anything.

 

Your analogy makes sense, but, as I said, does not apply well to me, since mostly I engage content, not style. A simple check of my posting history should demonstrate that I seldom comment on style except when noting lack of relevant content. Most of my posts are reasoned argument on topic, so I really have no idea where this is coming from.

 

However the point is exactly that, you are wasting your time posting here. The passive-aggressive tone within your posts is showing this more day, by day. Look within this thread. You spent the first several posts sniping away about economics and who thinks it is what when the topic (weak though it may be) is never addressed by you. I'm familiar with your posting history thanks.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let's be serious here signal1. This thread was about four things:

 

  1. Declaring things that are real (science in this case)
  2. Declaring what is science
  3. Ranting about people those who don't agree with 1 and/or 2.
  4. (Only tangentially) about "climate change"

 

My posts hit on 3 of the 4 of those actually.

 

Finally, I note that you have pulled out a few things here:

 

  1. Climate change is real. Yes we know. We know the climate changes. Constantly. Anyone who would deny this is a moron. But you (and others) attempt to use denial of what you really mean (where "Climate Change" is code language for a whole package of shit both scientific and decidedly not scientific) as a bat with which to beat people and imply stupidity or nutbaggery.
  2. Science is real. Yes, we know. Science is real. The scientific method is a real and credible methodology for many knowledge inquiries. Anyone who would deny this is a moron. But you have tried to couple "Climate Change," this ever vague and changing and broad bag of shit that includes things both scientific and decidedly not scientific implying that everything "Climate Change" is subject to the rigors of the scientific method, and claim that that anyone who disagrees with the non-scientific parts of "Climate Change" is anti-science or scientifically illiterate or has some other agenda.
  3. You beg the question when it comes to whether a) "Climate Change" has net negative effects and b) can even be affected by human effort.
  4. Finally, you pull out this almost imperceptible fallacy wherein denial of past events for which there is concrete and not reasonably disputable evidence is equated with reasonable questionable and reasonably debatable predictions about future events and situations. This is a fairly common tactic among the "Climate Change" chicken littles, for example comparing future "Climate Change" consequence prediction deniers with something like Jewish holocaust deniers. This serves two wonderful purposes of course. First is that, to the casual observer is sounds reasonable and makes future "Climate Change" consequence prediction deniers sound like moronic nutbaggers. Second, it makes them sound ever worst...like people who are racists, even those who are anti-semites, etc. They have been conveniently shoved off in the corner with all those other scumbags who deny things like the Jewish holocaust (for example.)

 

Nice work.

 

 

You've hit the nail on the head. Thanks.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 249
Thread Starter 

A new study shows that Hurricane Sandy was likely intensified due to the record melting of Arctic ice.  If not for the northern ocean's higher temperatures, Sandy most likely would have veered east like most other late season hurricanes.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-melting-stacked-weather-deck-in-favor-of-superstorm-sandy

 

 

 

Quote:

A large kink in the jet stream, a high-pressure blocking pattern over Greenland and a mass of Arctic air pushing southward over North America's middle latitudes each contributed to Sandy's unusual strength.

An increasing body of research reveals that these weather events can be linked to loss of sea ice in the Arctic, said Charles Greene, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell University, who contributed to the article.

Other natural phenomena like high tides also came into play, but "greenhouse warming and Arctic sea ice loss stacked the deck in favor of the conditions that allowed something like Sandy to occur the way it did," Greene said.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #31 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - I'm afraid you are now doing the same thing as MJ - my statement that I have no arbitrary beliefs to sell cannot be extrapolated to mean that I think all the positions espoused on this forum (other than mine) are arbitrary beliefs, or that I regard those espousing them as irrational and illogical. There is some measure of that IMO, but if that were all that were here I would not waste my time posting. And my point was that I am not selling anything.

 

Your analogy makes sense, but, as I said, does not apply well to me, since mostly I engage content, not style. A simple check of my posting history should demonstrate that I seldom comment on style except when noting lack of relevant content. Most of my posts are reasoned argument on topic, so I really have no idea where this is coming from.

 

However the point is exactly that, you are wasting your time posting here. The passive-aggressive tone within your posts is showing this more day, by day. Look within this thread. You spent the first several posts sniping away about economics and who thinks it is what when the topic (weak though it may be) is never addressed by you. I'm familiar with your posting history thanks.

 

The topic of economics was not introduced into this thread by me - so why are you not criticizing MJ for talking about economics in post #2? Maybe you could have provided some examples of what you mean, rather than just flinging accusations. Can't you even be bothered to review a short 29 post thread before making demonstrably incorrect statements? My first post asked MJ why he thought economics was a science - a reasonable question, I thought, since he used that assertion in his response to the OP. Since he declined to answer, instead turning the question around as he often does, my second post directly answered his question as to why it isn't a science. My third post refuted a substantial, though very weak, straw man attack (that I was arguing that social sciences have no value). My fourth was a response to your criticism (that I was debating style rather than content and never stated a position - somewhat odd in the context of my second post), and my fifth another defense in the face of your continued criticism that completely ignored the content of my second and fifth posts. So where do you see passive-aggressive? My arguments and questions seemed pretty direct and to the point to me - perhaps you just don't know what passive-aggressive means. And are you now accusing me of arguing off-topic about economics rather than only ever criticizing posting style? I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

It still looks to me as if you are just frustrated that I don't hang any unsupported beliefs out for you to take pot shots at. Welcome to the world of rational argument - it must feel rather alien. And in case you are tempted to accuse me of being off-topic again, or of not addressing content - note that I am just responding to the substance (what little I can find) of your posts. I'm familiar with your posting history too and, since it is apparently open season for personal criticism rather than discussion, I'd have to characterize your posts, with a few lucid exceptions that always surprise me, as pseudo-intellectual drivel. Also very poor style - since I'm sure you were hoping for some pointers on that issue too. Of course until you made it clear in this thread that you wanted an open exchange of opinion on such things, I did not feel any need to point those failings out to you but, since you initiated it, now we both know where we stand. You can continue this discussion as you wish, but if all you want to do is continue to whine that I'm being mean to MJ then it will be a monologue. You probably won't notice the difference though.

post #32 of 249

 

Quote:
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oh, I get it, social sciences are not real science. Okay. 1rolleyes.gif

 

The subtle implication here is that the so-called "hard" sciences are the only true source of knowledge and understanding of our world and how it operates. Right. This is a common trap.

 

The problem here is that these so-called "hard" sciences have their limits too. And, fact is, the social sciences have something to contribute to our knowledge of the world and how it operates. And. while yes, the scientific method is not always applicable to all aspects of the subject of economics, this does not invalidate it as a method of scientific inquiry. It's incredible arrogant to suggest so.

 

And while there are aspects of economic science that are far from conclusive (as is true in all systems of inquiry) there are others that are very, very well established through broad, consistent and repeated observation and, in some cases, even experimentation. And it is fallacious to reject all of economic knowledge and thought because some areas are still subject to great debate.

 

The real problem here is that some (here and elsewhere) who believe that the well-established understandings and "laws" don't really apply in cases where they don't really want them to apply. They rejected the fundamentals while claiming to be "enlightened" and "open-minded" to the various interpretations of economic matters.

 

Quote:

The problem here is that these so-called "hard" sciences have their limits too.

However they're ultimately more provable. Right now we're living in times that don't really match any of the theories. Like the weather it's very complex and subject to chaos theory and like the weather predictions are just plain wrong a good part of the time. So " hard " " Exact " not really. I mean they have a problems predicting earth quakes as well. Too many variables. Perhaps when we get to quantum computing we might have more success in these things.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #33 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - I'm afraid you are now doing the same thing as MJ - my statement that I have no arbitrary beliefs to sell cannot be extrapolated to mean that I think all the positions espoused on this forum (other than mine) are arbitrary beliefs, or that I regard those espousing them as irrational and illogical. There is some measure of that IMO, but if that were all that were here I would not waste my time posting. And my point was that I am not selling anything.

 

Your analogy makes sense, but, as I said, does not apply well to me, since mostly I engage content, not style. A simple check of my posting history should demonstrate that I seldom comment on style except when noting lack of relevant content. Most of my posts are reasoned argument on topic, so I really have no idea where this is coming from.

 

However the point is exactly that, you are wasting your time posting here. The passive-aggressive tone within your posts is showing this more day, by day. Look within this thread. You spent the first several posts sniping away about economics and who thinks it is what when the topic (weak though it may be) is never addressed by you. I'm familiar with your posting history thanks.

 

The topic of economics was not introduced into this thread by me - so why are you not criticizing MJ for talking about economics in post #2? Maybe you could have provided some examples of what you mean, rather than just flinging accusations. Can't you even be bothered to review a short 29 post thread before making demonstrably incorrect statements? My first post asked MJ why he thought economics was a science - a reasonable question, I thought, since he used that assertion in his response to the OP. Since he declined to answer, instead turning the question around as he often does, my second post directly answered his question as to why it isn't a science. My third post refuted a substantial, though very weak, straw man attack (that I was arguing that social sciences have no value). My fourth was a response to your criticism (that I was debating style rather than content and never stated a position - somewhat odd in the context of my second post), and my fifth another defense in the face of your continued criticism that completely ignored the content of my second and fifth posts. So where do you see passive-aggressive? My arguments and questions seemed pretty direct and to the point to me - perhaps you just don't know what passive-aggressive means. And are you now accusing me of arguing off-topic about economics rather than only ever criticizing posting style? I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

It still looks to me as if you are just frustrated that I don't hang any unsupported beliefs out for you to take pot shots at. Welcome to the world of rational argument - it must feel rather alien. And in case you are tempted to accuse me of being off-topic again, or of not addressing content - note that I am just responding to the substance (what little I can find) of your posts. I'm familiar with your posting history too and, since it is apparently open season for personal criticism rather than discussion, I'd have to characterize your posts, with a few lucid exceptions that always surprise me, as pseudo-intellectual drivel. Also very poor style - since I'm sure you were hoping for some pointers on that issue too. Of course until you made it clear in this thread that you wanted an open exchange of opinion on such things, I did not feel any need to point those failings out to you but, since you initiated it, now we both know where we stand. You can continue this discussion as you wish, but if all you want to do is continue to whine that I'm being mean to MJ then it will be a monologue. You probably won't notice the difference though.

 

Quote:

My first post asked MJ why he thought economics was a science - a reasonable question, I thought, since he used that assertion in his response to the OP. Since he declined to answer, instead turning the question around as he often does, my second post directly answered his question as to why it isn't a science

Yes he uses that tactic a lot.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I've asked this before and will do so again.

 

This is some really terrible reasoning and conclusions Berger.

 

Quote:

If GW is wrong and we do nothing about it, no problem; we get to keep making lots of money and polluting our lives.  More health problems.

 

Completely incorrect. The "pollutant" will never cause more health problems for humans. Never. The claims related to health problems are from alarmist chain reactions claiming the planet will change. If there is more CO2 in the air, then more plants grow and do so more quickly. Humans have nothing happen to them. However there could be per the law of unintended consequences, a very bad downside to addressing this and that is there is less energy, money and time to address actual pollutants. If addressing a false pollution means less energy, money and time to address sewage treatment, lead acid battery recycling and other major issues, then we do end up worse when we get no a negative return from our investment instead of merely no return.

 

Quote:

If GW is wrong and we try to clean things up, we make a little less money, perhaps, but get cleaner beaches and parks.  Fewer health problems.

 

Can you point me to the last time I needed a park or beach scrubbed of CO2?

Quote:

If GW is right and we do something about it, then we might actually leave a place for our grandkids to live.

 

Our grandkids will live on this planet. I'd prefer they not start right out of the womb having to pay back 200-300% of the nations entire GDP as debt to fight a false problem with no real benefit from the solution.

 

Quote:

If GW is right and we ignore it, some might get rich now, but what happens long term?

 

If GW is wrong and we ignore, will some people not get rich? Will the long term be guaranteed to be worse when trillions are owed, the entire economy is derailed, there is a lack of growth, jobs and monies to invest into the children instead of investing in back schemes that deliver little real benefit.

 

Quote:

If the GOP is soooooooo worried about not leaving our kids in debt, then they should think about also leaving our kids a place to live and work so that they can continue living without debt.  They are sooooo worried about defining life (Dakota now says heart beat)... when will they start caring about that life?

 

Or will the GOP continue to try to make life easier on the rich in the short term and totally screw everyone on the planet (yes, there are people beyond our borders) in the long term?

 

The Democrats have made it clear they have no real plan and no real budget. Their "solution" is to borrow and keep spending until utopia arrives. When it doesn't arrive you blame the opposition and rinse and repeat. We have borrowed $6 trillion dollars in Obama's first term. That is enough to GIVE every child in the United States $80,000 CASH. Instead they will be borrowing their monies for school from a federalized loan program while paying back this borrowed money, working at imaginary green jobs that never came to be.

 

When does it become appropriate to care about that instead of some imaginary utopia?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The topic of economics was not introduced into this thread by me - so why are you not criticizing MJ for talking about economics in post #2? Maybe you could have provided some examples of what you mean, rather than just flinging accusations. Can't you even be bothered to review a short 29 post thread before making demonstrably incorrect statements? My first post asked MJ why he thought economics was a science - a reasonable question, I thought, since he used that assertion in his response to the OP. Since he declined to answer, instead turning the question around as he often does, my second post directly answered his question as to why it isn't a science. My third post refuted a substantial, though very weak, straw man attack (that I was arguing that social sciences have no value). My fourth was a response to your criticism (that I was debating style rather than content and never stated a position - somewhat odd in the context of my second post), and my fifth another defense in the face of your continued criticism that completely ignored the content of my second and fifth posts. So where do you see passive-aggressive? My arguments and questions seemed pretty direct and to the point to me - perhaps you just don't know what passive-aggressive means. And are you now accusing me of arguing off-topic about economics rather than only ever criticizing posting style? I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

It still looks to me as if you are just frustrated that I don't hang any unsupported beliefs out for you to take pot shots at. Welcome to the world of rational argument - it must feel rather alien. And in case you are tempted to accuse me of being off-topic again, or of not addressing content - note that I am just responding to the substance (what little I can find) of your posts. I'm familiar with your posting history too and, since it is apparently open season for personal criticism rather than discussion, I'd have to characterize your posts, with a few lucid exceptions that always surprise me, as pseudo-intellectual drivel. Also very poor style - since I'm sure you were hoping for some pointers on that issue too. Of course until you made it clear in this thread that you wanted an open exchange of opinion on such things, I did not feel any need to point those failings out to you but, since you initiated it, now we both know where we stand. You can continue this discussion as you wish, but if all you want to do is continue to whine that I'm being mean to MJ then it will be a monologue. You probably won't notice the difference though.

 

You have worked very hard to prove my point for me so thank you. You note that you've spent the entire thread ignoring the topic and chasing a forum user around asking them rhetorical questions and demanding they alter their posts for your edits. The whole second paragraph documents the passive-aggressive tone I note you've adopted because no one cares about your edits or critiques. You've made my case in the clearest way possible so thank you.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #35 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I've asked this before and will do so again.

 

This is some really terrible reasoning and conclusions Berger.

 

Quote:

If GW is wrong and we do nothing about it, no problem; we get to keep making lots of money and polluting our lives.  More health problems.

 

Completely incorrect. The "pollutant" will never cause more health problems for humans. Never. The claims related to health problems are from alarmist chain reactions claiming the planet will change. If there is more CO2 in the air, then more plants grow and do so more quickly. Humans have nothing happen to them. However there could be per the law of unintended consequences, a very bad downside to addressing this and that is there is less energy, money and time to address actual pollutants. If addressing a false pollution means less energy, money and time to address sewage treatment, lead acid battery recycling and other major issues, then we do end up worse when we get no a negative return from our investment instead of merely no return.

 

Quote:

If GW is wrong and we try to clean things up, we make a little less money, perhaps, but get cleaner beaches and parks.  Fewer health problems.

 

Can you point me to the last time I needed a park or beach scrubbed of CO2?

Quote:

If GW is right and we do something about it, then we might actually leave a place for our grandkids to live.

 

Our grandkids will live on this planet. I'd prefer they not start right out of the womb having to pay back 200-300% of the nations entire GDP as debt to fight a false problem with no real benefit from the solution.

 

Quote:

If GW is right and we ignore it, some might get rich now, but what happens long term?

 

If GW is wrong and we ignore, will some people not get rich? Will the long term be guaranteed to be worse when trillions are owed, the entire economy is derailed, there is a lack of growth, jobs and monies to invest into the children instead of investing in back schemes that deliver little real benefit.

 

Quote:

If the GOP is soooooooo worried about not leaving our kids in debt, then they should think about also leaving our kids a place to live and work so that they can continue living without debt.  They are sooooo worried about defining life (Dakota now says heart beat)... when will they start caring about that life?

 

Or will the GOP continue to try to make life easier on the rich in the short term and totally screw everyone on the planet (yes, there are people beyond our borders) in the long term?

 

The Democrats have made it clear they have no real plan and no real budget. Their "solution" is to borrow and keep spending until utopia arrives. When it doesn't arrive you blame the opposition and rinse and repeat. We have borrowed $6 trillion dollars in Obama's first term. That is enough to GIVE every child in the United States $80,000 CASH. Instead they will be borrowing their monies for school from a federalized loan program while paying back this borrowed money, working at imaginary green jobs that never came to be.

 

When does it become appropriate to care about that instead of some imaginary utopia?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The topic of economics was not introduced into this thread by me - so why are you not criticizing MJ for talking about economics in post #2? Maybe you could have provided some examples of what you mean, rather than just flinging accusations. Can't you even be bothered to review a short 29 post thread before making demonstrably incorrect statements? My first post asked MJ why he thought economics was a science - a reasonable question, I thought, since he used that assertion in his response to the OP. Since he declined to answer, instead turning the question around as he often does, my second post directly answered his question as to why it isn't a science. My third post refuted a substantial, though very weak, straw man attack (that I was arguing that social sciences have no value). My fourth was a response to your criticism (that I was debating style rather than content and never stated a position - somewhat odd in the context of my second post), and my fifth another defense in the face of your continued criticism that completely ignored the content of my second and fifth posts. So where do you see passive-aggressive? My arguments and questions seemed pretty direct and to the point to me - perhaps you just don't know what passive-aggressive means. And are you now accusing me of arguing off-topic about economics rather than only ever criticizing posting style? I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

It still looks to me as if you are just frustrated that I don't hang any unsupported beliefs out for you to take pot shots at. Welcome to the world of rational argument - it must feel rather alien. And in case you are tempted to accuse me of being off-topic again, or of not addressing content - note that I am just responding to the substance (what little I can find) of your posts. I'm familiar with your posting history too and, since it is apparently open season for personal criticism rather than discussion, I'd have to characterize your posts, with a few lucid exceptions that always surprise me, as pseudo-intellectual drivel. Also very poor style - since I'm sure you were hoping for some pointers on that issue too. Of course until you made it clear in this thread that you wanted an open exchange of opinion on such things, I did not feel any need to point those failings out to you but, since you initiated it, now we both know where we stand. You can continue this discussion as you wish, but if all you want to do is continue to whine that I'm being mean to MJ then it will be a monologue. You probably won't notice the difference though.

 

You have worked very hard to prove my point for me so thank you. You note that you've spent the entire thread ignoring the topic and chasing a forum user around asking them rhetorical questions and demanding they alter their posts for your edits. The whole second paragraph documents the passive-aggressive tone I note you've adopted because no one cares about your edits or critiques. You've made my case in the clearest way possible so thank you.

 

Quote:

The claims related to health problems are from alarmist chain reactions claiming the planet will change. If there is more CO2 in the air, then more plants grow and do so more quickly. Humans have nothing happen to them.

I think it really funny that someone with such a small understanding of the science here can try to make claims about GW. You do know how CO2 affects sunlight right? The planet Venus has very high levels of CO2 and it has a run away green house effect. Now while it's true that the planet is closer to the sun than earth that doesn't account for the high temp. It's because the gas traps the heat under the thick cloud layer where the surface temperature can melt lead. So if we have unusual levels of CO2 it doesn't just make the plants grow faster trumpy. It traps the heat at the surface. So we might not get as hot as Venus it can get hot enough to truly screw things up.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

 

Anyone who is in denial about GW and how we have a part in it is delusional these days with all of the evidence around. Geez!1rolleyes.gif We could follow your ideas but by the time it became more than obvious it would be far too late. The thing is trumpy GW is having an effect right now. It doesn't have to poison us. Toxic levels could be reached but the danger to us comes long before it gets to that level. It just has to screw up our environment enough to cause wide spread famine and death. Large enough to set back civilization for a long while. Ultimately many species will parish. I know you probably don't care about them. Sad really. All I can say is I'm super glad you're not in charge.


Edited by jimmac - 3/16/13 at 3:57pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #36 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think it really funny that someone with such a small understanding of the science here can try to make claims about GW. You do know how CO2 affects sunlight right? The planet Venus has very high levels of CO2 and it has a run away green house effect. Now while it's true that the planet is closer to the sun than earth that doesn't account for the high temp. It's because the gas traps the heat under the thick cloud layer where the surface temperature can melt lead. So if we have unusual levels of CO2 it doesn't just make the plants grow faster trumpy. It traps the heat at the surface. So we might not get as hot as Venus it can get hot enough to truly screw things up.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

 

Anyone who is in denial about GW and how we have a part in it is delusional these days with all of the evidence around. Geez!1rolleyes.gif We could follow your ideas but by the time it became more than obvious it would be far too late. The thing is trumpy GW is having an effect right now. It doesn't have to poison us. Toxic levels could be reached but the danger to us comes long before it gets to that level. It just has to screw up our environment enough to cause wide spread famine and death. Large enough to set back civilization for a long while. Ultimately many species will parish. I know you probably don't care about them. Sad really. All I can say is I'm super glad you're not in charge.

 

You are sort of hilarious here Jimmac. I don't even know where to begin because your post is such a mess. Of course we all know how CO2 works. Then you cite as an example a planet that has no plant life that converts the CO2 back to oxygen, it is closer to the sun and oh, by the way, it also has no humans to have caused the run away greenhouse effect that you worry about. Finally you mention that rather large "sun" thing which is what all us "skeptics" believe really drives temperature variation including the vast, historic array of massive climate change that has occurred in our planet's past which humans in no way influenced.

 

You declare yourself brilliant and actually, with a straight face, claim we could become as hot as Venus when there hasn't been a single sensation claim anywhere near that by any scientist supporting human caused climate change. Please point me to a single study that claims our planet would become "Venus-like."

 

Keep calling names to advance your politics jimmac and keep supporting a warmonger who has a peace prize and has borrowed $6 trillion dollars in four years to fix problems and wars that cost much less than that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think it really funny that someone with such a small understanding of the science here can try to make claims about GW. You do know how CO2 affects sunlight right? The planet Venus has very high levels of CO2 and it has a run away green house effect. Now while it's true that the planet is closer to the sun than earth that doesn't account for the high temp. It's because the gas traps the heat under the thick cloud layer where the surface temperature can melt lead. So if we have unusual levels of CO2 it doesn't just make the plants grow faster trumpy. It traps the heat at the surface. So we might not get as hot as Venus it can get hot enough to truly screw things up.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

 

Anyone who is in denial about GW and how we have a part in it is delusional these days with all of the evidence around. Geez!1rolleyes.gif We could follow your ideas but by the time it became more than obvious it would be far too late. The thing is trumpy GW is having an effect right now. It doesn't have to poison us. Toxic levels could be reached but the danger to us comes long before it gets to that level. It just has to screw up our environment enough to cause wide spread famine and death. Large enough to set back civilization for a long while. Ultimately many species will parish. I know you probably don't care about them. Sad really. All I can say is I'm super glad you're not in charge.

 

You are sort of hilarious here Jimmac. I don't even know where to begin because your post is such a mess. Of course we all know how CO2 works. Then you cite as an example a planet that has no plant life that converts the CO2 back to oxygen, it is closer to the sun and oh, by the way, it also has no humans to have caused the run away greenhouse effect that you worry about. Finally you mention that rather large "sun" thing which is what all us "skeptics" believe really drives temperature variation including the vast, historic array of massive climate change that has occurred in our planet's past which humans in no way influenced.

 

You declare yourself brilliant and actually, with a straight face, claim we could become as hot as Venus when there hasn't been a single sensation claim anywhere near that by any scientist supporting human caused climate change. Please point me to a single study that claims our planet would become "Venus-like."

 

Keep calling names to advance your politics jimmac and keep supporting a warmonger who has a peace prize and has borrowed $6 trillion dollars in four years to fix problems and wars that cost much less than that.

No trumpy I'm afraid it's you who are the laughable mess. Yourself and the skeptics you mention are to most of us out there crazy. You might as well come from the land of OZ. That's how we view your logic. We're all aware of how volcanism and other factors can drive GW and have in the past. That's not happening now and that's pretty evident. A main factor that's belching gas into the air is us trumpy. Not some natural process. When large portions of both poles start melting off in a way that hasn't happened before in recorded history that's a large change taking place. In the past it's been driven by continental shift and volcanic activity. Do you see a rise in that in the news enough to account for this? I sure as hell don't.

 

By the way on a side note I've never declared myself " Brilliant " but as most hard core conservatives you seem bent on putting words in someone else's mouth. I also didn't say our planet would become Venus like. Just the opposite.

 

Here's what I said on that note :

 

Quote:

Now while it's true that the planet is closer to the sun than earth that doesn't account for the high temp. It's because the gas traps the heat under the thick cloud layer where the surface temperature can melt lead. So if we have unusual levels of CO2 it doesn't just make the plants grow faster trumpy. It traps the heat at the surface. So we might not get as hot as Venus it can get hot enough to truly screw things up.

So you say that this is a natural process and the earth has experienced this before right? Well when we don't have much ice in the poles left we'll be much like the earth was in oh say during the Cretaceous. Here's an example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Polar_dinosaurs.

 

Now we won't have dinosaurs so don't try to say I said that ( 1rolleyes.gif ) but our environment  would be very different and the climate would be very different. The places where people live and grow food would be very different. That's a problem trumpy because lots of people would starve. Entire countries would have to move. As a matter of fact it would seriously threaten civilization. Many species of animal and plant life would die off in this change and trumpy it's already begun.

http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/endangered-species/species-most-endangered-by-global-warming/4256

 

Do you really think this doesn't matter and won't affect us? Really?1rolleyes.gif

 

 So your claim of no humans would be harmed is laughable at best short sighted at worst. Also when that happened before it was a very slow process ( as it was driven by those natural processes and cycles you're so fond of ). This is happening fairly rapidly by comparison. Guess what's different?

 

But honestly I don't know why I even try. You and your kind aren't going to come out of your little fantasy ( despite all the evidence to the contrary ) until it's too late. That's why I say again I'm extremely glad you guys aren't in charge. 


Edited by jimmac - 3/17/13 at 2:18pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #38 of 249
Thread Starter 

Myth:  The sun is driving current climate change.

 

 

 

Here's the simple version:

Quote:

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

 

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climatemove together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

 

Here's a slightly a snippet from a more complex one...click the intermediate tab to find this:

 

 

 

Quote:

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence onclimate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose whilesolar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

 

 

 

So, anyone still claiming that the Sun is the driver of the last 30 years of climate change is grossly misinformed.  Anyone who, after seeing the evidence now, continues to make such a claim is willfully ignorant and/or a big fucking liar. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #39 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So, anyone still claiming that the Sun is the driver of the last 30 years of climate change is grossly misinformed.  Anyone who, after seeing the evidence now, continues to make such a claim is willfully ignorant and/or a big fucking liar. 

 

So does anyone who posts a chart with the opposite conclusion get to rant incoherently that you are a big fucking liar and willfully ignorant?

 

Also the massive discussion that takes place under your graphs at the same website is what, people that need to be shot for your new police state?

 

Don't worry, we don't expect answers. You ignore all contrary information. Keep the blinders on. Even keep them on when they are within your own sources.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 249
Thread Starter 

Pretty moving pictures with a voice-over for those who prefer that medium:

 

 

The evidence is clear: the sun is not responsible for the climate change experienced over the last 30 years.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.