|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:17:47 [Permalink]
|
HalfMooner---I asked.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:24:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
j911ob asked, "HalfMooner---What do I have to gain from a 'hoax being perpetrated by MMGW deniers'?" I have no idea. You'd have to explain this political or psychological mystery yourself. Certainly not credibility, though.
|
I asked no such thing. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:25:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave---"So you let yourself get suckered, and now you're bitter and angry about it. You've got an emotional interest in showing the current climate scientists to be inept fools, because that's what "they" did to you."
You must be a psychoanalyst.
To think of the money I could have saved over the years!
But seriously folks, the movement began as a political tool in the late fifties. Why would it have stopped? |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:35:02 [Permalink]
|
"The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact."
Two opposite outcomes (warming,cooling) are claimed caused by the same action(mans burning of carbon based fuel).
The mission statement would imply that extraordinary claims be balanced with extraordinary proof.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:36:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
MMGW is total hogwash. The correlation between CO2 gas and temperature is the other way around. I dont care what the supposed consensus is. It used to be the consensus that the earth was flat. |All physicists believed gravity was a force until einstein proved them wrong. Your appeals to authority mean absolutely nothing. Human beings are having zero effect on global warming.
|
(bolding mine)
Now you're being absolutely ridiculous. Do you intend to support that claim?
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:40:38 [Permalink]
|
JohnOAS---To be fair, one can not prove a negative.
Maybe you could provide proof of a positive.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:50:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
JohnOAS---To be fair, one can not prove a negative.
Maybe you could provide proof of a positive.
|
One place you might want to look is in the summary that you have been trying to debunk. Just because you're (admittedly) cynical doesn't mean the facts that might convince you are not in that report... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:51:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hondo
Secondly, I never said you or anyone else here wasn't "allowed" to "parrot the scientific consensus" Dude, that's just twisting my words. We all do it when we agree with it, my point to H. Humbert was that it doesn't make the one doing it a scientist/expert by default. |
But that's the thing, Hondo. It really doesn't matter whether you "agree" with it or not. The only question is: "Are you more or equally as informed as the experts?" If the answer is no, then you must realize your limitations and accept the consensus view. Anything less would be sheer hubris.
Many times part of being a reasonable person is simply being aware of the boundaries of your knowledge. Sure, you can choose to go with a "gut instinct," but that's not rational skepticism.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:51:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
MMGW is total hogwash. The correlation between CO2 gas and temperature is the other way around. I dont care what the supposed consensus is. It used to be the consensus that the earth was flat. |All physicists believed gravity was a force until einstein proved them wrong. Your appeals to authority mean absolutely nothing. Human beings are having zero effect on global warming. |
The funny thing is, that was the consensus until the consensus changed. But thanks for offering such a beautiful bit of ranting denial while cherry-picking which changes you'll accept in science and which ones you'll reject. The "don't care" part is an absolutely brilliant touch.
Please, do continue!  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:56:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
But seriously folks, the movement began as a political tool in the late fifties. Why would it have stopped? |
Why would it have done a 180? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:59:05 [Permalink]
|
Kil---"look is in the summary that you have been trying to debunk"
I am not trying to debunk the data.
I believe the data shows current warming.
The point is that its most likely natural and not man made.
It most probably is also not catastrophic.
In fact an argument could be made that a little warming (.1 to .2 per decade) would be good for the planet and mankind.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 21:00:47 [Permalink]
|
j911ob:
MMGW is total hogwash. |
As I said before, you just don't deal in uncertainty. And that pretty much disqualifies you from making a scientific argument about anything…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 21:05:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
"The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact."
Two opposite outcomes (warming,cooling) are claimed caused by the same action(mans burning of carbon based fuel).
The mission statement would imply that extraordinary claims be balanced with extraordinary proof. |
There's no extraordinary claim there that hasn't been backed by tons and tons of evidence. Didn't you just - a couple of pages ago - tell us that you don't dispute the data, just the mass-media headlines drawn from it? If you're now going to dispute the actual data, then why are you giving us the run-around?
Oh, it's because you're just an Internet troll, looking for a fight, not a discussion, debate or education.
That's why I no longer expect answers to my questions from you. You've proven yourself to be inept at the whole "logical discussion" thing which you once said you wanted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 21:08:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
But seriously folks, the movement began as a political tool in the late fifties. Why would it have stopped? |
Why would it have done a 180?
|
Political ideas change.
The tool is used by different groups for different reasons.
MMGW was first used to promote nuclear energy.
Now MMGW is used for a different political purpose.
There are many ways to move a population to your will, one of the better ones being fear.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 21:12:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil---"look is in the summary that you have been trying to debunk"
I am not trying to debunk the data.
I believe the data shows current warming.
The point is that its most likely natural and not man made.
It most probably is also not catastrophic.
In fact an argument could be made that a little warming (.1 to .2 per decade) would be good for the planet and mankind.
|
Right, I understand. What I am asking is for you to try and see it the way the scientists see it. Ask yourself, while reading the data, why the scientists are fairly convinced that at least part of the warming is do to man's interference with the natural cycles.
Forget what you think for a bit and try seeing it the way the scientists are seeing it. If it still doesn't add up to you, well, you will have at least given it your best shot at understanding why there is a scientific consensus on the subject.
And I know what I am suggesting is a tall order. We all filter information through our own biases. Critical thinking is not always so easy to default to.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
