or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gorebot 2008!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gorebot 2008! - Page 4

post #121 of 191
Wiki on global cooling.

Points made:

-- The 70s were the beginning of a growing awareness of human driven climate change.
-- While there was concern that "global cooling" was underway, the larger sense was that gross changes were being effected, without knowing what the outcome would be.
--Popular press descriptions of global cooling left out that sense of uncertainty, and caveats that are typical for science. Basically the research was saying "We think global cooling is underway, but we're not sure because the larger processes aren't that well understood. We are pretty sure some kind of large scale change is underway.
--The role of greenhouse gases was just starting to be understood.
--The consensus shifted fairly quickly from cooling to warming models, as more attention and research began to move to human driven climate change, and the role of greenhouse gases were factored in.

Now, when you link to something that purports to show how silly old science got it wrong, so how can we know they aren't getting it wrong again, that is, in fact, "mocking", Chris.

It's mocking because it substitutes "gotcha" for any awareness of how science works, how consensus is built and what it looks like.

Will climate science change its model again? It might. Will it turn out that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Maybe. But linking to medical journals of the 60s that are ambiguous about the cause and effect and mechanisms of that process doesn't make that any more likely, and it doesn't indicate that medical science is an ad hoc affair that might say one thing today and another thing tomorrow.

Although, as I and others have pointed out, that is precisely the tactic of the tobacco companies at the time. Find a few doctors, either on the payroll or just with an eccentric theory to flog, to say that there is no evidence that cigarettes cause cancer and therefore the whole idea was "controversial" and "by no means settled science". At the same time, try to poke holes in the whole idea of "medical science", broadly implying that these "ivory tower eggheads" were so full of themselves that they were given to grand pronouncements in incomprehensible jargon, so to hell with them, anyway.

That latter tactic, by the way, was designed to exploit the animosity of "regular joes" towards "intellectuals", who were understood to be untrustworthy and "out of touch".

Exploit ignorance, in other words, to protect profits. Use the less well educated to drive "public opinion", which already tended towards an anti-intellectual bias.

Personally, I think we should just stop teaching science in our public schools altogether. That way, when we are told that "cause and effect" are largely unknowable, on account of how complicated everything is and all, and that is why things like disease and environmental degradation might be on account of clear cutting and dioxins in the drinking water, it also might be God's way of telling us we're just getting too big for our britches, we can all just stand around slack-jawed and say "Gosh! That kinda figures! I know I couldn't figure that stuff out, and I surely do not want one of them white coat fellas that think they're so smart telling me no different! Let's just wait and see what happens!"

And when the hammer comes down we can humbly ask God what we have done to displease him.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #122 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So true...isn't it.

i dont think you're even trying anymore. stick your frickin head in the sand.

Quote:
How about a stroll down memory lane:

Gosh that was fun.

...so, you agree with scientists that think global climate changes are caused, in large part, by humanity? and that their timelines were off? or that some measures have been taken since the 70s to help reverse the negative effects? that further measure will obviously be needed? or is it no longer a concern? or perhaps you agree with the hypothesis but disagree with the suggested solutions- maybe a little warming would be good for us?

or is this something like "look at those idiots. they read books, write studies, conduct research AND they're wrong. lets write off climatology altogether." ?

i dont see what your getting at.
post #123 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How about a stroll down memory lane:

Gosh that was fun.

You don't seem to have the slightest clue what to do with that information.
post #124 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Now, when you link to something that purports to show how silly old science got it wrong, so how can we know they aren't getting it wrong again, that is, in fact, "mocking", Chris.

I was really just pointing out some interesting historical parallels. If you want to disavow, ignore or minimize them, fine. I think they are interesting.
post #125 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You don't seem to have the slightest clue what to do with that information.

Please enlighten me. I'd love to hear this.
post #126 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i dont see what your getting at.

Pay closer attention then.
post #127 of 191
I found this interesting too...a "smell test" for this subject:

Quote:
When the conventional view is challenged, do the proponents refuse to answer the facts and logic of the challenge?

...

The evasion of criticism is invariably accompanied by changing the subject.

Look for the following kinds of ploys of redirection:

a) "You are not qualified to question science,"

b) "All scientists say X; therefore, anyone who questions X is not of science,"

c) "You must be motivated by political loyalties, economic vested interests, or religious beliefs if you question X,"

d) "You must be ignorant or lacking intellectual honesty if you question X,"

e) You desire a personal insult that demonizes you and casts you in the role of a monster, an enemy, or a fool.
post #128 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I was really just pointing out some interesting historical parallels. If you want to disavow, ignore or minimize them, fine. I think they are interesting.

"Disavow, ignore or minimize"?

I linked to a discussion of the science involved that puts theories about global cooling into context. There's nothing tricky about it, it's pretty clear why some theories got changed and how we got here from there.

Is that what you find "interesting"? If not, you should say what you mean.

Chris, your demeanor in threads is often akin to someone responding to a statement of fact by sort of raising your voice and leaning in and saying "Oh, is it now? Really?? And when the other person says "Yeah, it is, why, do you have another idea?", you say "Oh, no, no, not at all, I just think it's interesting that you're so sure".

And then later you abruptly mention some bit of contrary something that you've been carrying around, and when asked if you think that disproves the original point, you again demur, all the while smirking. And when your (let's say dinner host) gets a little testy at that point and wants to know what you think your point is, you get to say "Oooh, looks like I hit a button! Somebody doesn't want their sacred cow put up for examination!" And when then your host explodes and says "What the fuck are you on about, you're not debating me you're just insinuating and making little veiled remarks and smirking", you say "Hey, you believe what you want to, if you're that sensitive..."

And on and on. It's a little game playing style of rhetoric that has much more to do with "winning" by irritating the living fuck out of everybody else, than it does with looking at the world objectively.

I'm just saying. I don't expect you to change, but don't think that people are short with you because we are threatened by what you think.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #129 of 191
What is one single reason cutting emissions and investing in alternative energy is not something the world should do wholeheartedly?
post #130 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I found this interesting too...a "smell test" for this subject:

Therefore, if I insist that the Sun is sentient and people tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, that I may be an idiot, that every reputable scientist would flatly contradict my notion, that so called "scientists" who go around giving interviews about their theory of sun sentience are not behaving very scientifically, and that attributing same to a star is an oddly quasi-mystical notion at best that has nothing to do with science, it means I must really be on to something.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #131 of 191
rather interesting Chris. the politically motivated article your test comes from isn't written by a scientist. he's not qualified to speak on the subject. he's outside the scientific community. i suspect he's intellectually dishonest. to even it out, he's probably a dick too. you left our your link to your source

but really, a few of those items just dont make sense to me. if i may make an anology: i'm a programmer. when i have a problem with computer code, i don't talk to theoretical physicists, nor medical doctors, not even priests. i talk to programmers. people who study code, know algorithms, write programs and can actually contribute in a useful manner on a topic of computer code. when a person isn't a subject matter expert there are details and shit they miss or do not understand, or that require years of study to understand. when a lot of people who dedicate their lives to a subject agree on something, i generally think they are more or less correct. atleast, they are probably the most-correct on the issue at the time.
post #132 of 191
A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #133 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?

Could you provide some sourcing for your claim "A lot of scientists are leftist academics"?

By the way, I assume you eschew modern medical science, dentistry, electric power, plastics, manufactured products of all sorts, store bought food, automobiles, air conditioning, computers (whoops, apparently not), telephones, television, radio and prerecorded music of any sort, since they are all the products of research conducted by untrustworthy leftist scientists.

In fact, if you ever require life saving surgery, I urge you to refuse treatment, since the socialist doctor cutting into you wants your organs for the United Nations.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #134 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?

Anyway, the short answer is "Because their work is checked by rightist academics, politically neutral academics, and every other species of scientist affiliation, via a process known as peer review, which is based on broadly known and entirely accepted criteria of substantiation and repeatability".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #135 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
the politically motivated article your test comes from isn't written by a scientist. he's not qualified to speak on the subject. he's outside the scientific community. i suspect he's intellectually dishonest. to even it out, he's probably a dick too.

More ad hominem instead of real arguments. Thanks for proving the point.
post #136 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
More ad hominem instead of real arguments. Thanks for proving the point.

"I say that the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"

"You're not a chemist so you are not a credible source for a claim that flies in the face of what chemists consensually believe"

"Aha! Ad hominem attacks! You must not have a leg to stand on!"
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #137 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
"I say that the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"

"You're not a chemist so you are not a credible source for a claim that flies in the face of what chemists consensually believe"

"Aha! Ad hominem attacks! You must not have a leg to stand on!"

Exactly correct. Instead of disproving the statement "the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"...you attack the person. Fallacious argumentation. You have dont disproven the statement, but created the appearance that you have "won". you could have simply and precisely stated that water molecules are composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms and feldspar molecules is not.
post #138 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Exactly correct. Instead of disproving the statement "the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"...you attack the person. Fallacious argumentation. You have dont disproven the statement, but created the appearance that you have "won".

I want you to look into the concept of "appeal to reasonable authority".

It's how we can "know" things with some confidence, without having to become experts in every field that we seek to have knowledge of.

For instance, if I am obliged to have a degree in astrophysics, to "authoritatively" refute the statement " interstellar space is filled with dense clouds of neon", than I am at a real disadvantage, "knowledge" wise, at least if I seek to have a generalist's overview of the world. The same principle would apply to, say, my being able to refute holocaust deniers without I, myself, having done definitive original research.

If, on the other hand, I may confidently point to the consensus opinion of astrophysicists, who are pretty uniform in the finding that interstellar space is, in fact, not filled with dense clouds of neon, than I have a much better chance of forming a coherent picture of the world.

Ditto the consensus opinion of historians, chemists, roofers, dentists, barge captains and lute players.

That is, people of whom I have a reasonable expectation to possess specialized knowledge acquired through study or experience.

Now, if you are saying that in refuting a falsehood by appeal to reasonable authority I am obliged to educate the holder of the falsehood on the state of consensus of reasonable authority and present some arbitrary amount of documentation attesting to same, then I shall call you a tedious ninny and move on.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #139 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Exactly correct. Instead of disproving the statement "the chemical composition of water is identical to that of feldspar"...you attack the person. Fallacious argumentation. You have dont disproven the statement, but created the appearance that you have "won". you could have simply and precisely stated that water molecules are composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms and feldspar molecules is not.

Excellent point!

Now get to it, laypersons! CC has presented you with statements by a source of dubious credibility, and as he has pointed out, to attack the credibility of the course is a fallacy. Obviously, therefore, your task as laypersons, is to disprove attacks on something in which most of us have no expertise at all. Unless you can do that, global warming is obviously false!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #140 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?

A lot of people are leftist. We shouldn't trust anyone!
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #141 of 191
I found out my carpenter voted for Bush. I fired him because I can't trust him.

My plumber had a "W" sticker on his toolbox. It appears I can't trust him to do a good job because the properties of PVC glue are based on scientific "theories" and he may relying too much of faith that it will, in fact, dry.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #142 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
I found out my carpenter voted for Bush. I fired him because I can't trust him.

My plumber had a "W" sticker on his toolbox. It appears I can't trust him to do a good job because the properties of PVC glue are based on scientific "theories" and he may relying too much of faith that it will, in fact, dry.

It's clearly up to you to prove that it will.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #143 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
I found out my carpenter voted for Bush. I fired him because I can't trust him.

My plumber had a "W" sticker on his toolbox. It appears I can't trust him to do a good job because the properties of PVC glue are based on scientific "theories" and he may relying too much of faith that it will, in fact, dry.

Oh that's easy to deal with. Just ask your plumber to explain the chemical process by which the PVC glue dries. If he says he can't, suggest that there are hundreds of scientists who argue that the glue doesn't dry. And then ask him to refute them. If he can't, you've won, and it has been proven that the glue doesn't dry.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #144 of 191
Well, I mean, isn't it blatantly apparent that because I need a plumber to FIX my plumbing that it's proof that the first batch of glue did not, in fact, dry?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #145 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Well, I mean, isn't it blatantly apparent that because I need a plumber to FIX my plumbing that it's proof that the first batch of glue did not, in fact, dry?

How do you know the glue dried and something else didn't happen?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #146 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I want you to look into the concept of "appeal to reasonable authority".

It's how we can "know" things with some confidence, without having to become experts in every field that we seek to have knowledge of.

For instance, if I am obliged to have a degree in astrophysics, to "authoritatively" refute the statement " interstellar space is filled with dense clouds of neon", than I am at a real disadvantage, "knowledge" wise, at least if I seek to have a generalist's overview of the world. The same principle would apply to, say, my being able to refute holocaust deniers without I, myself, having done definitive original research.

If, on the other hand, I may confidently point to the consensus opinion of astrophysicists, who are pretty uniform in the finding that interstellar space is, in fact, not filled with dense clouds of neon, than I have a much better chance of forming a coherent picture of the world.

Ditto the consensus opinion of historians, chemists, roofers, dentists, barge captains and lute players.

That is, people of whom I have a reasonable expectation to possess specialized knowledge acquired through study or experience.

Now, if you are saying that in refuting a falsehood by appeal to reasonable authority I am obliged to educate the holder of the falsehood on the state of consensus of reasonable authority and present some arbitrary amount of documentation attesting to same, then I shall call you a tedious ninny and move on.

An excellent post. Chris isn't going to reply to it.
post #147 of 191
Good job making sure that he will.
post #148 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
A lot of scientists are leftist academics. Why trust them?


Why should we trust you?
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 #149 of 191
Jesus Christ. It's like watching 3 year olds claim gravity doesn't exist. Or worse...fundies claim evolution doesn't exist.

Chris I'm reading a book currently called "Critical Thinking." It's all about how to analyze claims. Before you spout off tripe that is making you look pathetic, read that book.

What do you have a degree in Chris?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #150 of 191
If you'd watched the google video I linked to, you would have noticed that IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. There is debate among lay people, because they are too stupid and/or lazy to understand what the hell they are talking about. Yes, that is in reference to you as well.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #151 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
It's like watching 3 year olds claim gravity doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Before you spout off tripe that is making you look pathetic, read that book.

Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
What do you have a degree in Chris?

Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
There is debate among lay people, because they are too stupid and/or lazy to understand what the hell they are talking about. Yes, that is in reference to you as well.

You appear to be incapable of (or unwilling to) arguing the issue, instead only attacking the person.

Yes, yes...I know...I am the issue.
post #152 of 191
Chris what do you have a degree in?

What specific research or papers have you read about climate science? (Bullshit news article do not count.)

Why should we listen to your claims? What are your credentials?

Thanks.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #153 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Chris what do you have a degree in?

What specific research or papers have you read about climate science? (Bullshit news article do not count.)

Why should we listen to your claims? What are your credentials?

Thanks.

See. Exactly my point.

Quote:
Look for the following kinds of ploys of redirection:

a) "You are not qualified to question science,"

b) "All scientists say X; therefore, anyone who questions X is not of science,"

c) "You must be motivated by political loyalties, economic vested interests, or religious beliefs if you question X,"

d) "You must be ignorant or lacking intellectual honesty if you question X,"

e) You desire a personal insult that demonizes you and casts you in the role of a monster, an enemy, or a fool.
post #154 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
See. Exactly my point.

Please keep in mind addabox's comment about people being short with you.

And your "point" isn't being proven by responding to the chaff from rightly frustrated people.
post #155 of 191
Chris, have you heard of the concept of "critical thinking"? Be honest.

What are your credentials? What do you have a degree in?

Unless you answer these questions, this debate is over. Additionally, the thread may be in jeopardy of being locked. In a debate, experts must explain their background and other relevant information related to themselves and the topic at hand. I've never even taken a debate class or anything and I know this. Why are you more qualified to talk about climate change than bus driver or a plumber?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #156 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You appear to be incapable of (or unwilling to) arguing the issue, instead only attacking the person.

Yes, yes...I know...I am the issue.

Don't single yourself out like that, Chris. You and people like you are the issue.
post #157 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Chris, have you heard of the concept of "critical thinking"? Be honest.

Yes. Have you? Do you practice it regularly? I see very little evidence of it in the later pages of this thread. You cannot (will not?) even recognize one of the most commonly used logical fallacies in logical argumentation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
What are your credentials? What do you have a degree in?

What difference does this make? Are you going to suggest that if I do not have a degree in climatology that I have no right to make statements on the subject of global warming? Isn't that another example of:

Quote:
a) "You are not qualified to question science,"

Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Unless you answer these questions, this debate is over.

The debate was over when you (and others) chose the fallacious ad hominem tactic as opposed to addressing the actual issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
In a debate, experts must explain their background and other relevant information related to themselves and the topic at hand. I've never even taken a debate class or anything and I know this.

Perhaps you should.

Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Why are you more qualified to talk about climate change than bus driver or a plumber?

When you do, then you'll learn that this statement is classic ad hominem.
post #158 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes. Have you? Do you practice it regularly? I see very little evidence of it in the later pages of this thread. You cannot (will not?) even recognize one of the most commonly used logical fallacies in logical argumentation.



What difference does this make? Are you going to suggest that if I do not have a degree in climatology that I have no right to make statements on the subject of global warming? Isn't that another example of:





The debate was over when you (and others) chose the fallacious ad hominem tactic as opposed to addressing the actual issue.



Perhaps you should.



When you do, then you'll learn that this statement is classic ad hominem.


What does all of this say? If anything..........

By the way do you have any kind of associated degree to be making these statements in opposition to the many experts around the world?

Chris Culla : Armchair Expert!
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 #159 of 191


Go chase 'em, Cuilla.
post #160 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
By the way do you have any kind of associated degree to be making these statements in opposition to the many experts around the world?

1) It wasn't me making the statements.

2) It doesn't matter. Argue the issue, not the person.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gorebot 2008!