Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[Heresiarch]

Then you're not looking.  Willful ignorance is not a counter to widespread professional consensus, nor is "nuh uh, they used a bunch of terms of art I don't understand wjem writing a paper meant for consumption by others who speak 'the language', so I'm going to accuse them of deliberate obfuscation."  I could sit here and spew "legalese" at you all day and your "nuh uh" approach to anything that inflames your confirmation bias would still fail to contradict my expertise. Denial is a helluva drug.

You are not reading. You quoted the very post where I demonstrated that wording is not the reason for my disbelief in their scientific method. Your argument is subject to confirmation bias, just as the article in question. You want to prove me wrong and cling to whatever shred of phrasing I sue in a futile attempt to undermine the whole argument without addressing its core. Ironically enough, you are the one in denial here.

[PrimeJunta]

@Heresiarch Ah, a global climate change skeptic as well. You an anti-vaxxer, moon landing denialist, or 9/11 truther too, by any chance?

[Namutree]

@Heresiarch Ah, a global climate change skeptic as well. You an anti-vaxxer, moon landing denialist, or 9/11 truther too, by any chance?

No one has been able to provide absolutely indisputable peer-reviewed studies by even handed people on those issues with resorting to some form of fallacy or relying on non-absolute disputable information that can't be 100% confirmed. Thus all things are likely false. Duh.

 

 

EDIT: I think looking for or asking proof on an internet forum is silly for something as complex as many of these social issues are. We don't prove people wrong/right here as much as spout our opinions at each other.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Namutree

[barakav]

People are still talking about this crap?

[PrimeJunta]

Nah it's turned into a SIJW-vs-SJW free-for-all on any and all subjects. We have some guy who wants us to prove sociology to him, another who's wondering if it's OK to be mean to Jewish bankers, some stuff about global climate change, Ferguson, and the moon landing. Grab a beer and join the party. Only 22 posts until mods lock the thread for length.

Edited April 16, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[scrotiemcb]

Nah it's turned into a SIJW-vs-SJW free-for-all on any and all subjects. We have some guy who wants us to prove sociology to him, another who's wondering if it's OK to be mean to Jewish bankers, some stuff about global climate change, Ferguson, and the moon landing. Grab a beer and join the party. Only 22 posts until mods lock the thread for length.

I'm not included on your list. I feel left out.

 

If you're looking for a new controversy, I'm more than willing to defend the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I am not a conspiracy theorist or anything (I offer no answer regarding who made them fall or why), I'm just saying the pure physics of how the buildings fell is not consistent with the official story.

 

I'm pro-vaccination, believe in the moon landing, etc. Feel like you're doing "9/11 truther" a disservice placing it in your list.

Edited April 16, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[sparklecat]

Amazing.

 

Well, after 24 pages of which I read maybe two, I have decided I am in favour of restricting this all to the one thread, like so.

[barakav]

Oh great I love climate ,Jewish ,sociology stuff!!

 

I am pretty sure that we are at the dawn of a new ice age thanks to the suns' neutral activity cycle as a neutral thermonuclear reactor so global warming is a good thing...

 

Go CO2!

 

I am also not very sure that the cause of the warming in the last decade was human ,again the sun did have a short spike of activity just before the heating.,.

[PrimeJunta]

Perpetual motion and the global conspiracy to suppress Nikola Tesla's free energy inventions, anyone?

 

(I'm not saying it was aliens, but ... :aliens:)

Edited April 16, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[barakav]

Perpetual motion and the global conspiracy to suppress Nikola Tesla's free energy inventions, anyone?

 

(I'm not saying it was aliens, but ... :aliens:)

Not aliens maybe the Illuminati but probably the Wendersnaven !

[scrotiemcb]

I think global climate change is a little exaggerated but overall true. I think it's very important that we do something about it in the next few centuries or so. Outside of the dangers of procrastination and inertia against social change, I doubt it's important to do anything about it during our lifetimes (unless you are passionately concerned about Amazonian frogs, etc). But those two things are actually pretty big social problems, so I genuinely believe Al Gore has our best interests at heart when he stretches the truth. He has a point: why wait?

Edited April 16, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[PrimeJunta]

I'm not saying it's Al Gore, but... :Al Gore:

[gkathellar]

I think global climate change is a little exaggerated but overall true. I think it's very important that we do something about it in the next few centuries or so. Outside of the dangers of procrastination and inertia against social change, I doubt it's important to do anything about it during our lifetimes. But those two things are actually pretty big problems, so I genuinely believe Al Gore has our best interests at heart when he stretches the truth. He has a point: why wait?

 

Not believing in science is sort of like not believing in microwave ovens.

[PrimeJunta]

I don't believe in microwave ovens. They cook everything soggy.

[scrotiemcb]

 

 

I think global climate change is a little exaggerated but overall true. I think it's very important that we do something about it in the next few centuries or so. Outside of the dangers of procrastination and inertia against social change, I doubt it's important to do anything about it during our lifetimes. But those two things are actually pretty big problems, so I genuinely believe Al Gore has our best interests at heart when he stretches the truth. He has a point: why wait?

Not believing in science is sort of like not believing in microwave ovens.

Never said I doubt the science. It's just that a realistic look at the data doesn't put us on the brink of catastrophe, unless you couple that with a cynical view of how long it takes to enact widespread social change.

 

I also admit that having such a cynical view is totally reasonable. Exaggeration for shock effect is arguably ethically justifiable.

 

Afterthought edit: But just as an example, if you're doing a calculation of how much polar ice will melt due to global warming, and you transfer all of the melted volume to ocean volume, you fail on two counts. First, obviously, solid water has more volume than liquid water. Second, the dew point rises as temperature increases, meaning more water vapor trapped in the air.

I don't believe in microwave ovens. They cook everything soggy.

I boycott them myself. Not because I'm scared of radiation or anything, I just think microwaved food tastes horrible. Edited April 16, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Monte Carlo]

PrimeJunta I thought you'd made your last post on this topic about fifty posts back?

[barakav]

Wendersnaven!! Wendersnaven!!

 

 

I think global climate change is a little exaggerated but overall true. I think it's very important that we do something about it in the next few centuries or so. Outside of the dangers of procrastination and inertia against social change, I doubt it's important to do anything about it during our lifetimes. But those two things are actually pretty big problems, so I genuinely believe Al Gore has our best interests at heart when he stretches the truth. He has a point: why wait?

in 1995 I heard a news report that claimed that "scientists" estimate that by 2005 major cities worldwide will be flooded. in 2000 I heard reports that it will happen by 2010 now they are crapping about 2015!!

 

After working with some relevant fellas  in the academy myself I now understand how the media always publishes the nutjobs and the post apocalyptic prophecies trying to influence politics and stuff...

 

The truth is that ice takes more space than liquid water and most of the ice in the poles is under water so most models don't predict that the water levels will rise that much ,and some predict that it won't rise at all or decline. But some political parties world wide do need to scare people with their "science" to get more votes. This is the extent of much of the global warming propaganda...

Edited April 16, 2015 by barakav

[gkathellar]

 

 

I think global climate change is a little exaggerated but overall true. I think it's very important that we do something about it in the next few centuries or so. Outside of the dangers of procrastination and inertia against social change, I doubt it's important to do anything about it during our lifetimes. But those two things are actually pretty big problems, so I genuinely believe Al Gore has our best interests at heart when he stretches the truth. He has a point: why wait?

Not believing in science is sort of like not believing in microwave ovens.

Never said I doubt the science. It's just that a realistic look at the data doesn't put us on the brink of catastrophe, unless you couple that with a cynical view of how long it takes to enact widespread social change.

 

I also admit that having such a cynical view is totally reasonable. Exaggeration for shock effect is arguably ethically justifiable

 

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr

[PrimeJunta]

PrimeJunta I thought you'd made your last post on this topic about fifty posts back?

 

I haven't said anything about limerick-gate, nor do I intend to.

 

I have no intention whatsoever to stop posting about other political, social, or otherwise interesting stuff. 

[PrimeJunta]

Wendersnaven!! Wendersnaven!!

 

 

I think global climate change is a little exaggerated but overall true. I think it's very important that we do something about it in the next few centuries or so. Outside of the dangers of procrastination and inertia against social change, I doubt it's important to do anything about it during our lifetimes. But those two things are actually pretty big problems, so I genuinely believe Al Gore has our best interests at heart when he stretches the truth. He has a point: why wait?

in 1995 I heard a news report that claimed that "scientists" estimate that by 2005 major cities worldwide will be flooded. in 2000 I heard reports that it will happen by 2010 now they are crapping about 2015!!

 

After working with some relevant fellas  in the academy myself I now understand how the media always publishes the nutjobs and the post apocalyptic prophecies trying to influence politics and stuff...

 

The truth is that ice takes more space than liquid water and most of the ice in the poles is under water so most models don't predict that the water levels will rise that much ,and some predict that it won't rise at all or decline. But some political parties world wide do need to scare people with their "science" to get more votes. This is the extent of much of the global warming propaganda...

 

Most forecasts for sea level rise I've seen have it at around 1 meter per century, give or take a half-meter or so, to a maximum of 3-6 meters or so. That's pretty severe.

 

Science reporting in media is really bad though, that much is certainly true.

[barakav]

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr

 

Don't bother with adding stupid political sites. There is an argue in the scientific journals and I rather stick to that...

 

Suffice to say Global warming is probably real but it is not necessarily 100% human made and it might not be as dangerous as Manbearpig enthusiastic will have you believe...

 

I rather talk about Nikola Tesla and how ****ed Edison was for destroying and stealing his life work...

[PrimeJunta]

[scrotiemcb]

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr

First link: I like that site. If you use the graph to view actual temperature data, you will notice two things:

1. There is noticeable temperature increase from 1900 to present. Global warming exists.

2. The actual temperature data from 2000 to present is less than the projections from both the extreme SRES A2 and more conservative SRES B1 models, both originally presented in 2000.

 

Which lines up with what I've been saying almost precisely! It's a real problem, but one which "scientific" speculation has exaggerated.

 

As for the second link, ocean levels have been rising 0.35cm since the early 90s. The most likely estimate for how much they'll rise in the future is... 0.35cm per year. About 1cm per 3 years. About 1 meter in 300 years. It is, no doubt, a problem which needs solving. But let's get real about rate of escalation here. The scientific foundation for tripling this rate is mostly speculation!

Edited April 16, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[PrimeJunta]

Personally I'm as worried about the loss of biodiversity as I am about climate change. We need to do more to address both.

[barakav]

 

Most forecasts for sea level rise I've seen have it at around 1 meter per century, give or take a half-meter or so, to a maximum of 3-6 meters or so. That's pretty severe.

 

Science reporting in media is really bad though, that much is certainly true.

 

A. Most models in these fields are full of crap. You can't accurately predict the weather in the next week and you want to predict what will happen in 50 years? there are too many variables and the problem complexity is exponential.

 

B.There are also models that don't predict a meter in a decade. Anyone can create a forecast and the truth is that scientists are getting their fundings based on how important their work seems to be so scaring everyone is in their best interest...

 

C. So where is the rise of the sea levels then? I am living close to the sea and I can tell you that sea levels haven't risen in the last 20 years. At least the distance between the buildings on the shore and the water hasn't change.

Edited April 16, 2015 by barakav