Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[PrimeJunta]

A. Weather is not the same as climate. I can pretty confidently predict that the average temperature in January in Helsinki is going to be lower than the average temperature in July in Helsinki next year. I can even make a pretty good prediction of what each average temperature is going to be. (Around 22 degrees C high in July, about 0 degrees C high in January.) Yet I won't be able to predict what the temperature is on January 16 or July 12. 

 

B. It's a conspiracy I tell you. Conspiracy! NVM that climate-change denial is much better funded than the actual science, thanks to the oil industry.

 

C. Sea level changes vary locally. You can easily find a map of the changes with Google if you like.

[PrimeJunta]

BTW about the 9/11 truthism, what puzzles me about the conspiracy theories is this:

 

It's pretty much indisputable that someone did fly a couple of planes into the buildings. It got caught on video from multiple angles, tons of eyewitnesses, and so on and so forth. It takes a special kind of bloody-mindedness to argue the planes weren't real. So basically the people claiming the buildings collapsed wrong are saying that in addition to the planes, someone blew them up. 

 

Blowing up a building is a pretty complicated process. You have to plant lots of explosives in lots of places. You have to do that without anybody noticing. Then you have to also arrange to have someone fly the planes into the buildings. Then you have to set off the explosives. And you have to make sure your explosive setup works as intended even after someone has flown a plane into it. And you have to make sure you don't get caught.

 

That strikes me as incredibly complicated. So... why? Why would someone go through all that trouble? I'd think that just flying planes into the buildings would be dramatic enough for any intention you may have, even if the buildings don't actually collapse.

[Heresiarch]

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

 

I am no expert on global warming, but I know there are several contributing factors. Frankly, I am yet to see a study that proves that the bulk of gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth atmosphere is largely attributable to greenhouse gases. Why do you ask?

 

Your total inability to read and comprehend whatever it is I am saying is almost funny. Except it is not.

 

 

 

 

 

@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.

 

Congratulations. Here is your intellectual dishonesty of the month award. I am sure no one else has put so many lies in so few words so far.

[MLMII]

Besides, something that I've found is that the "Chicken Little" nutcases on Global Cooling no wait ... Population Bomb no wait ... Death of the Oceans no wait ... Global Warning ... err, Climate Change seldom want to address exactly what a "sustainable lifestyle" would actually look like in both the First as well as the Third Worlds, and even when they do they pad the actual capabilities of current alternate energy generation technology instead of using realistic numbers.

[scrotiemcb]

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.

They have, though. A little less than 3 inches during that time. We're all going to die.

[barakav]

A. Weather is not the same as climate. I can pretty confidently predict that the average temperature in January in Helsinki is going to be lower than the average temperature in July in Helsinki next year. I can even make a pretty good prediction of what each average temperature is going to be. (Around 22 degrees C high in July, about 0 degrees C high in January.) Yet I won't be able to predict what the temperature is on January 16 or July 12. 

 

B. It's a conspiracy I tell you. Conspiracy! NVM that climate-change denial is much better funded than the actual science, thanks to the oil industry.

 

C. Sea level changes vary locally. You can easily find a map of the changes with Google if you like.

A.Probably the only things that you can predict accurately are based on how far every point on the earth surface is from the sun , the fact that there are cooler seasons partly depends on the amount of heat that is getting into an area from the sun.

 

But predicting sea levels is something completely different and virtually impossible (as the examples I mentioned showed).

 

BTW ,this summer was the coolest/rainiest summer I remember in Israel on the last decade and no one predicted that.

 

B.It is not a conspiracy but a planned exaggeration. I personally met with many climate physicists that are more skeptical on the sea level theories but when it  comes to getting their donation for research ,you should see the crap everyone write in their donation requests to prove how important the stuff they do is. It is relevant to other fields as well and not only to climate science...

 

C. If it was such a great increase it would have been felt everywhere. The fact that it is local only shows how miniature the increase was (if there was any increase at all you know ,even scientific papers aren't always correct).

Edited April 16, 2015 by barakav

[scrotiemcb]

BTW about the 9/11 truthism, what puzzles me about the conspiracy theories is this:

 

It's pretty much indisputable that someone did fly a couple of planes into the buildings. It got caught on video from multiple angles, tons of eyewitnesses, and so on and so forth. It takes a special kind of bloody-mindedness to argue the planes weren't real. So basically the people claiming the buildings collapsed wrong are saying that in addition to the planes, someone blew them up.

Yep. That's a good summation of the evidence.

Blowing up a building is a pretty complicated process. You have to plant lots of explosives in lots of places. You have to do that without anybody noticing. Then you have to also arrange to have someone fly the planes into the buildings. Then you have to set off the explosives. And you have to make sure your explosive setup works as intended even after someone has flown a plane into it. And you have to make sure you don't get caught.

 

That strikes me as incredibly complicated. So... why? Why would someone go through all that trouble? I'd think that just flying planes into the buildings would be dramatic enough for any intention you may have, even if the buildings don't actually collapse.

I haven't the foggiest, either. Like I said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. All I know is, according to physics and video of the towers falling, the planes alone didn't cause the fall.

 

It's a hard thing to accept. Because it's not all wrapped up with a nice little bow. It's why crazies make nice little implausible bows to put on the whole thing. I don't.

Edited April 16, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Namutree]

 

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.

 

Congratulations. Here is your intellectual dishonesty of the month award. I am sure no one else has put so many lies in so few words so far.

 

WTF are you talking about? What did I lie about?

 

Anyone got any theories here? I'm confused.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Namutree

[PrimeJunta]

Besides, something that I've found is that the "Chicken Little" nutcases on Global Cooling no wait ... Population Bomb no wait ... Death of the Oceans no wait ... Global Warning ... err, Climate Change seldom want to address exactly what a "sustainable lifestyle" would actually look like in both the First as well as the Third Worlds, and even when they do they pad the actual capabilities of current alternate energy generation technology instead of using realistic numbers.

 

It's pretty simple really: reduce resource consumption by 50% or so. That's quite easy to achieve technically: manufacture things for recycling, then recycle them, stop wasting masses of energy uselessly, stop ridiculously wasteful stuff like flushing our toilets with purified drinking water, and phase out fossil fuels for sustainable energy (wind and solar, primarily). We'd only need to cover a tiny fraction of the Sahara with solar panels to provide enough electricity for all of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

 

Lifestyle changes that would help would be a shift to higher-quality, more durable goods rather than junk you buy and throw away after a few months to a year, as well as reuse of goods. This is already happening in lots of places. I'm living in Denmark for the time being for example and "genbrug" -- buying, selling, and donating second-hand goods -- is a national pastime. We equipped our entire kitchen by raiding the local genbrug -- got much higher-quality stuff for much less with less fuss than a trip to IKEA.

 

The reasons it's not happening are social and political, not technological.

[PrimeJunta]

It's a hard thing to accept. Because it's not all wrapped up with a nice little bow. It's why crazies make nice little implausible bows to put on the whole thing. I don't.

 

It's also possible the engineers etc. are just, y'know, wrong. 

 

I'm not a construction engineer (either) but the "official" explanation for the collapse seems pretty plausible to me. Things tend to fall down. If a skyscraper weakens in the middle, how else is it going to collapse? It's not stiff enough to keel over like a tree, so it seems logical to me that the top would crush the bottom and then collapse into rubble from the speed it's acquired when falling, like it looks like it did.

[gkathellar]

 

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...

 

The National Climate Assessment (which has generally been criticized for being too conservative) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administrations are political sites?

 

 

 

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.

 

a) Modeling the next 50 years is a lot easier than modeling tomorrow, because tomorrow can be influenced by any number of minute factors, whereas in 50 years, said factors tend to get drowned out.

b) On the one hand: first you say, "give me scientific journal articles," and then you say that scientists are all lying to keep their jobs? Never mind that the fossil fuel industry will happily shell out money to any credible climate scientist willing to deny the correlation between pollution and climate change. On the other hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

c) "The science doesn't reflect my perceived immediate personal experience, therefore, it must be wrong!"

 

 

 

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.

 

Congratulations. Here is your intellectual dishonesty of the month award. I am sure no one else has put so many lies in so few words so far.

 

WTF are you on about? What did I lie about?

 

 

Pretty sure Heresiarch is misinterpreting your sarcasm.

 

At least I hope it was sarcasm.

 

See also: Poe's Law.

 

I haven't the foggiest, either. Like I said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. All I know is, according to physics and video of the towers falling, the planes alone didn't cause the fall.

It's a hard thing to accept. Because it's not all wrapped up with a nice little bow. It's why crazies make nice little implausible bows to put on the whole thing. I don't.

 

https://xkcd.com/258/

Edited April 16, 2015 by gkathellar

[achaye]

Wow, I go away for a few hours and now we have hardcore human-caused climate-change denialists, to go with denialists for systemic racism and sexism.

 

What next, I don't suppose any amount of scientific and clinical research will make you believe in the safety and efficacy of vaccines either? Or perhaps the moon landing was faked? Or perhaps evolution by natural selection and genetic drift is an evil progressive ploy meant to poison the minds of the vulnerable young?

 

What I really don't understand is how people can claim that the evidence doesn't add up, or that the experiment is poor, when they've very likely never done a single day's worth of scientific research on said phenomenon that they deny, yet think themselves as capable enough to invalidate hundreds or even thousands of peer-reviewed literature. That is truly jaw-dropping.

 

Do you believe in the existence of quarks? What's that, you do? Well okay, prove that they exist. What's that, you need a particle accelerator but don't have one to prove it to me? Fine, explain how it works, and what you would analyze to detect them in a hypothetical collision, and how you know that they're quarks and not some other non-fundamental particle.

 

What, you don't know how that works either at the most intricate level? THEN WHY THE HELL DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF QUARKS??

[Namutree]

 

 

Pretty sure Heresiarch is misinterpreting your sarcasm.

 

At least I hope it was sarcasm.

 

It was sarcasm. I thought maybe he was referring to the second bit. I dunno.

 

I thought the "duh" would be an indicator I wasn't serious.

[Mungri]

Climate change denialists are idiots.

[PrimeJunta]

Evidence for quark is very easy. You can buy it at well-equipped supermarkets. 

 

[gkathellar]

 

 

 

Pretty sure Heresiarch is misinterpreting your sarcasm.

 

At least I hope it was sarcasm.

 

It was sarcasm. I thought maybe he was referring to the second bit. I dunno.

 

I thought the "duh" would be an indicator I wasn't serious.

 

 

In the absence of gestures, tone, and so on, linguistic cues are never as clear as you want them to be.

 

/shrug

 

Poe's Law is why I use the color red for sarcasm.

[PrimeJunta]

Half the fun of sarcasm is people missing it.

[Namutree]

 

It was sarcasm. I thought maybe he was referring to the second bit. I dunno.

 

 

 

I thought the "duh" would be an indicator I wasn't serious.

 

 

In the absence of gestures, tone, and so on, linguistic cues are never as clear as you want them to be.

 

/shrug

 

Poe's Law is why I use the color red for sarcasm.

 

That's a good idea.

[achaye]

Evidence for quark is very easy. You can buy it at well-equipped supermarkets. 

 

 

Hmm, well since I personally have never seen any such Quark, much less in that flavor (zing!) in my local supermarket, which I believe to be extremely well-equipped, I find your "evidence" underwhelming at best. And even if I did fine it, it can't REALLY be a quark now could it? Real quarks can't possibly be made in Vermont.

 

So HAH *pfffttt!*

[MLMII]

Hmm, vaccines ... witchcraft I say! Sickness is clearly a curse from God to smite the Sinners! --- Uh-oh, is that a tickle in the back of my throat?

 

 

Moon Landing ... actually happened but the footage that was broadcast was faked in order to cover up what they really found up there.

 

 

Evolution you say? Get your hands off me you dirty stinking apes!

 

 

Quarks? You trying to destroy the world son? I swear, kids these days with their strangelets and ice-9.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The moon landing was faked to save face after the USSR beat the US in the space race.

[PrimeJunta]

What really boggles my mind is Opportunity. I mean, how long do they expect to keep that up?

[PrimeJunta]

The moon landing was faked to save face after the USSR beat the US in the space race.

 

Pss, everybody knows the Germans got there first.

 

[MLMII]

Well to be fair, if "The Bell" hadn't crash landed some decades later on America soil then the Third Reich's mastery of temporal displacement would have rendered all this talk of racism rather ... moot I suppose.   

[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...

 

The National Climate Assessment (which has generally been criticized for being too conservative) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administrations are political sites?

Yes, of course everyone who is getting their salary from a government based on how terrifying their predictions are ,do have interests in keeping their predictions that way.

 

 

a) Modeling the next 50 years is a lot easier than modeling tomorrow, because tomorrow can be influenced by any number of minute factors, whereas in 50 years, said factors tend to get drowned out.

b) On the one hand: first you say, "give me scientific journal articles," and then you say that scientists are all lying to keep their jobs? Never mind that the fossil fuel industry will happily shell out money to any credible climate scientist willing to deny the correlation between pollution and climate change. On the other hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

c) "The science doesn't reflect my perceived immediate personal experience, therefore, it must be wrong!"

a.You never saw how physicists make such models have you? approximations upon approximations because the exact problem is too complicated to be solved directly by any means available (Exponential complexity as I already stated ).

 

The truth is that history shows pretty well that trying to predict the long term sea levels is very difficult. The earth atmosphere is influenced by the activity of the sun ,by cosmic radiation and by all kind of chemical reactions that might influence sea temperatures and levels.

 

For example right now China is dumping tons of waste into the oceans  and this process makes the plankton finish all of the air supply in the shallow waters and die. This by itself changes the amount of photosynthesis worldwide and might as well influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the coming years. Tell me now ,how do you factor something like that into a rigid physical model? the answer is you can't ,at least not without getting enough data for a few years...

 

b. They are not "lying" but exaggerating when it comes to publicity and convincing others to give them grants. Usually the highly technical papers in the scientific journals are more objective (Not always as everyone are prone to being skewed)

 

c.Again ,if sea levels rising was such a severe problem in the last decades ,everyone should have been influenced by now.

 

 

I'll just repeat that I don't think that global warming is a lie but I do believe that the prediction that sea levels will rise at an alarming rate is not very well supported.

Edited April 16, 2015 by barakav