|
Replies: 85
| visibility 675
|
CU Medallion [56087]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31647
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Plot idea
Sep 16, 2014, 2:37 PM
|
|
 .
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Plot idea
Sep 16, 2014, 2:38 PM
|
|
Can Kevin Bacon play Lakebum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Jason Statham or GTFO***
Sep 16, 2014, 3:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Jason Statham or GTFO***
Sep 16, 2014, 3:23 PM
|
|
hmm, you got it..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
This saddens me.***
Sep 16, 2014, 2:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: This saddens me.***
Sep 16, 2014, 2:45 PM
|
|
you can live on my ark, just don't drill holes in the transom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47796]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44519
Joined: 9/5/02
|
what percentage of those 97% have salaries
Sep 16, 2014, 2:45 PM
|
|
paid by a government always looking for new tax vehicles and revenue streams?
further to this point, why is it that most of their so-called solutions to the climate crisis involve forms of wealth redistribution rather than tackling the problem outright?
also, those who believe the "environment" has existed in a static state until raped by modernity in the last 50 years need to have their reproductive rights revoked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Not sure people believe that. But do you believe we haven't
Sep 16, 2014, 2:50 PM
|
|
accelerated it or made an impact?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47796]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44519
Joined: 9/5/02
|
I believe the science supports the fact that there
Sep 16, 2014, 3:06 PM
|
|
are more variables to Earth's "climate" than we can possibly comprehend and certainly many more of which than we are presently aware. Even the most entrenched government-scientist will admit this as fact.
I think its possible humans have made an impact but I don't think it probable. Most likely the "changes" perceived by humans are a result of the ever dynamic forces from the sun and the Earth's own thermal and gaseous activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
You talk about all of these "variables"
Sep 16, 2014, 3:21 PM
|
|
You can't dispute that we have increased the variable CO2 exponentially since the industrial revolution/invention of the automobile, and the exponential increase is now increasing exponentially with the industrialization of China and India.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1723]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1842
Joined: 12/22/11
|
Not exponentially...not even close
Sep 16, 2014, 4:22 PM
|
|
During the recent geologic history of the planet, CO2 concentrations have been very stable. Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have varied regularly from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. In the very recent geologic history, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to over 390 parts per million.
There is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.
Was that when dinosours drove those climate killing cars? Did we just figure out how they went extinct?
But that doesn't sound cyclical right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Can you think of any historically massive volcanic eruptions
Sep 16, 2014, 4:23 PM
|
|
recently?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1723]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1842
Joined: 12/22/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1723]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1842
Joined: 12/22/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
A VEI of 4...***
Sep 16, 2014, 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
"historically massive"...like what was prevalent hundreds
Sep 16, 2014, 4:35 PM
[ in reply to As I type this there are 33 active erruptions ] |
|
of millions of years ago?
There hasn't been a volcanic eruption, which releases CO2 of magnitude, in over 25,000 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Let me know
Sep 16, 2014, 4:37 PM
[ in reply to Not exponentially...not even close ] |
|
When another football field sized asteroid slams into the planet. That seems to be the general consensus on the Dinosaurs.
So you're saying that the man made CO2 has not exponentially increased since the industrial revolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
You don't think scientists have considered those?
Sep 16, 2014, 3:35 PM
[ in reply to I believe the science supports the fact that there ] |
|
Take for instance, volcanoes (part of that thermal and gaseous activity you mention)
http://www.fox.com/cosmosontv/clips/269860931873
Watch that whole episode (it's on Netflix) as I'm pretty sure they talk about the sun too, but I can't find that clip.
I could link to some academic papers, but they don't feature a spaceship so what's the point, amirite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Considering, and being able to account for are two very
Sep 16, 2014, 3:38 PM
|
|
different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
That clip literally is accounting for one of them
Sep 16, 2014, 3:41 PM
|
|
The argument seems to be, "despite seeing climate change happening, we still think there are variables causing it other than humans. We don't know what those are but for whatever reason we're sure it's not human action, and disagree with scientists."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Disagreeing with the 'scientist' who are basing their
Sep 16, 2014, 3:56 PM
|
|
'science' on faulty computer models and guesses? Yes, I suppose. It's also funny you accuse me of that, considering you aren't even willing to contemplate the idea that it's not, in fact, humans causing this supposed climate change you perceive to be happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Thank god the mega billion dollar oil companies have you
Sep 16, 2014, 3:58 PM
|
|
believing that hook, line, & sinker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
but they aren't nerdy scientists
Sep 16, 2014, 4:00 PM
|
|
Most of them have awesome cowboy hats. That makes a difference bro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Humans are parasites to this earth, at least we'll figure
Sep 16, 2014, 4:02 PM
|
|
out a way to keep living. And my children's children's children can figure this shít out, not my problem.
Unfortunately the corporate fat-cats all have this same view on the world...but they're making millions of dollars for themselves.
Same thing with big pharama and inflating our health industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Corporate fat cats, but not the politicians and government
Sep 16, 2014, 4:07 PM
|
|
funded scientists? Interesting. Maybe if we bought some carbon credits that would get us on the right track.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Corporate fat cats and politicians are the same thing
Sep 16, 2014, 4:09 PM
|
|
now-a-days...but keep trying to keep your stereotype of my line of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
What you're missing is that it isn't "the governement'
Sep 16, 2014, 4:05 PM
|
|
It's multiple governments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
So the oil companies can conspire, but not multiple
Sep 16, 2014, 4:09 PM
|
|
governments? It's pretty clear the UN is nothing but a money sucking, leech of an organization. What are these 'multiple governments' going to do, tax away the climate change? That does seem to be the common solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
You're the one saying this isn't actually real...
Sep 16, 2014, 4:10 PM
|
|
Now you're trying to jump to a ridiculous proposed solution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
What do you think cape and trade and some of the
Sep 16, 2014, 4:16 PM
|
|
other ridiculous proposals to "combat climate change" are? Money. Scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: What do you think cape and trade and some of the
Sep 17, 2014, 11:56 AM
|
|
I am going to buy you a barrel of crude of oil for your birthday, then you can whisper softly into it and make sweet sweet love to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
"Invest in sustainable technology"
Sep 16, 2014, 4:18 PM
|
|
AKA, funnel money to their buddies. To be sure, soccerkrzy, seeing as you see politicians and corporate fat cats as one in the same, you'd agree with that assertion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
No. Eliminate the ridiculous energy subsidies that exist
Sep 16, 2014, 4:20 PM
|
|
for fossil fueled energy production...those are the ones that are "funneling money to their buddies".
Using nuclear energy isn't funneling money to their buddies, it's common sense.
Using other sustainable energy sources also have their benefits in the proper location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
how about, invest in public transporation
Sep 16, 2014, 4:21 PM
[ in reply to "Invest in sustainable technology" ] |
|
Also, I agree, there will be a certain amount of waste when investing in start up companies. The problem with sustainable energy at the moment is that oil and gas have had about a century head start. It might actually take some time and development before it can compete with petroleum. We can choose to start investing now, so that one day the technology is such that it can compete, or we can just say that it can't compete today, so it will never compete, and continue going down the same path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
I'll never be a proponent of public transportation for no
Sep 16, 2014, 4:29 PM
|
|
other reason than I hate it.
And all of that is well and good, but that doesn't quite fit with the "WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW OR WE'LL DIE" climate change narrative. Nobody is saying we shouldn't be developing these things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
How about
Sep 16, 2014, 4:32 PM
|
|
We need to start doing something now, or we're going to be leaving a total mess for the next few generations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
They may want to die once they see the debt we've left them***
Sep 16, 2014, 4:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
"the scam"
Sep 16, 2014, 4:06 PM
[ in reply to Oh yes, the oil companies! But not the benevolent government ] |
|
What is the scam?
Big oil companies control politics. There's a reason I think politics shouldn't be a career position. There's a reason I know to get to the level of president you need to be a corrupt scumbag to climb to the top. Not sure that fits your little stereotyping of me believing in a benevolent government does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
The scam is the idea that we must rush to do something
Sep 16, 2014, 4:47 PM
|
|
ASAP before the entire world gets a million degrees hotter, we have super mega storms, and we all die from climate change. Funny enough, a lot of the solutions to this call for more taxation and pet projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
So your plan is to do nothing?
Sep 16, 2014, 4:56 PM
|
|
That doesn't seem like a plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
You are dense***
Sep 17, 2014, 9:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
See, that's the thing, I do contemplate that idea....
Sep 16, 2014, 5:43 PM
[ in reply to Disagreeing with the 'scientist' who are basing their ] |
|
Or I should say, that I know scientists consider it. It only seems to be the deniers, who think this all a scam, who won't consider that scientists have and do consider things outside humans. The narrative of it being a scam has to believe that about scientists so that the rest of their beliefs make sense.
That's not necessary to scientific thought because all variables are tested and the results lead to a belief. It's not trying to fit a narrative, it's trying to form a narrative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60229]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42557
Joined: 11/30/98
|
this comment sort of agrees with my feelings on this
Sep 16, 2014, 2:54 PM
[ in reply to what percentage of those 97% have salaries ] |
|
stolen from an article I read yesterday:
Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century.
Lomborg, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”
Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries.
http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: this comment sort of agrees with my feelings on this
Sep 16, 2014, 2:56 PM
|
|
the lutz of the passage in bold is it was oil that fueled the absurd population growth in developing nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60229]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42557
Joined: 11/30/98
|
so throwing away more money makes it more or less laughable?
Sep 16, 2014, 3:08 PM
|
|
there's 1000 other things we should be spending trillions of dollars on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
If Global Warming is real, then it's the biggest threat
Sep 16, 2014, 3:12 PM
|
|
the entire world faces. What would we spend money on that's more important?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47796]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44519
Joined: 9/5/02
|
annexing Canada and Greenland?
Sep 16, 2014, 3:14 PM
|
|
also makes securing the border even more important - right? to keep out the countries which are going to fry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: If Global Warming is real, then it's the biggest threat
Sep 16, 2014, 3:14 PM
[ in reply to If Global Warming is real, then it's the biggest threat ] |
|
But if spending the money doesn't actually solve the problem, it's not worth it.
The question is how to best address the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Change your question a bit and I agree...
Sep 16, 2014, 3:19 PM
|
|
Money is going to have to be spent. That's a constant and is known.
The question then becomes, how to best spend that money to best address the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47796]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44519
Joined: 9/5/02
|
"Money is going to have to be spent."
Sep 16, 2014, 3:33 PM
|
|
lol. taxes and borrowed money from China
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
China is going to have to spend money as well
Sep 16, 2014, 3:36 PM
|
|
They are just figuring out that polluting your cities to the point where people can no longer live in them isn't sustainable. The Chinese are currently investing heavily in sustainable energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
How best to spend that money, you say?
Sep 16, 2014, 3:37 PM
[ in reply to Change your question a bit and I agree... ] |
|
Certainly not with ethanol subsidies and funding a corrupt UN. Let's cut out flushing that money down the toilet and see what kind of bank roll we've got to work with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
That's a good start.***
Sep 16, 2014, 3:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
A much better argument. Progress can be made...
Sep 16, 2014, 3:44 PM
[ in reply to How best to spend that money, you say? ] |
|
if everyone would agree that there is a problem with Climate Chage. So then we could move on to the question of how best to fix it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
That's not to say I believe there's a problem with man-made
Sep 16, 2014, 3:52 PM
|
|
climate change. I think it's nothing but a money grab by political elites. However, I see no reason to resist research and development of more environmentally friendly and sustainable energy sources. I'm not championing polluting just because we can, by any means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
The money grab is the other way, by big oil companies
Sep 16, 2014, 4:08 PM
|
|
keeping their ridiculous cash cow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Who makes more off of a gallon of gas?
Sep 16, 2014, 4:11 PM
|
|
The oil companies, or the government?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
You forget about the two additional steps required to
Sep 16, 2014, 4:12 PM
|
|
create gasoline that blows your comparison out of the water?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: If Global Warming is real, then it's the biggest threat
Sep 16, 2014, 3:22 PM
[ in reply to If Global Warming is real, then it's the biggest threat ] |
|
good point, SHOULD we have spent 3 trillion dollars forcing a democracy down the throats of an arab nation that was not ready, or invested that money in our reneable energy infrastructure?
Disclaimer: Al Gore probably would not have been able to to pull this off in our current system had he been elected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1599]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3020
Joined: 1/30/05
|
Which was a better bet on saving lives?
Sep 16, 2014, 4:10 PM
|
|
Supposed counter-terrorism on one hand
Supposed climate catastrophe diversion on the other
Both are political games to gain power and neither have been carried out with any real goal of global peace or saving the ice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56087]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31647
Joined: 8/27/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Na, scientists are always the good guys
Sep 16, 2014, 3:22 PM
|
|
Duh.
Also, who takes the time to come up with these idiotic memes?
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Na, scientists are always the good guys
Sep 16, 2014, 3:24 PM
|
|
Clearly they're the bad guys. 97% of them, all making sh!t up in order to promote their Communist schemes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
It's not the facts that should concern people
Sep 16, 2014, 3:28 PM
|
|
It's the politics extrapolated from the facts. Scientists are not experts in anything but their field of science, and should not be treated as political prophets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: It's not the facts that should concern people
Sep 16, 2014, 3:31 PM
|
|
Absolutely agreed! I didn't think 97% of scientists were agreed on policy anyway.
If we all agree that man-made global warming is real, THEN we can finally discuss policy. Science is important on that aspect too, of course, but we need more than science to determine the best solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Yes, but the scientific agreement is often misrepresented
Sep 16, 2014, 3:41 PM
|
|
as a policy agreement, or people seem to assume that the more associated with science a policy is the better it must be (as if policy were subject to the same kind of scientific thinking that climate modeling or physics is).
I also have a problem with people trying to use science as a sort of tribal marker for "the smart people" who know the "facts." Scientific facts are, by design, indifferent to politics (although, I guess you could argue that the kind of scientific questions we ask are always somewhat related to politics) so long as they're treated appropriately. So somebody with a scientific mindset really shouldn't be passionate about everybody else accepting their version of reality- the facts just are, and what everybody else thinks shouldn't matter. They're supposed to be disinterested, to let the facts speak for themselves.
So any rhetoric about the importance of science outside of the realm of scientific research is political rhetoric, not statement of scientific facts. There's an implicit view of what's good in scientific rhetoric, but those who use the rhetoric of science always claim to simply be neutral parties, arguing according to objective facts. I'm not against rhetoric, but what I'm against is this attempt to associate political rhetoric with science, which is supposed to be objective and politically blank. Memes like the one originally posted are obviously all about this kind of move, even with the anti- rich and anti- corporate message thrown in.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
We should disregard those misrepresentations, then.
Sep 16, 2014, 3:43 PM
|
|
Apparently I've been disregarding them very well, because I don't even know they exist.
It would be good to discuss possible ways of handling the problem, rather than discussing whether the problem is real to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I would say before we can talk about policy
Sep 16, 2014, 3:44 PM
[ in reply to Yes, but the scientific agreement is often misrepresented ] |
|
We have to get the people in the government that think it's a hoax on board. You can't discuss how to handle a problem when a bunch of people don't even agree there is a problem. I think someone may have posted this all ready.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I actually think you could
Sep 16, 2014, 4:45 PM
|
|
The problem is that the rhetoric being used isn't likely to convince anyone who is very (in my opinion, overly) skeptical of scientism. Plus, some of the "skeptics" think they're fighting science with science, when their rhetoric against the policies they don't like would probably be more convincing if it was less scientistic, too.
The problem overall, I think, is scientism in rhetoric motivated by a desire to seize the authority of science as the only arbiter of objectivity. Get rid of that idea, and you'll get more fruitful rhetoric and politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Please translate
Sep 16, 2014, 4:57 PM
|
|
thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Please translate
Sep 16, 2014, 5:17 PM
|
|
Scientism is the ideology that says that only the claims of natural science are valid. There is no other kind of knowledge, and natural science is always the most appropriate, truest, way to investigate something. It's an outgrowth of logical positivist philosophy from the early 20th century, and it's not particularly convincing to people who think the natural sciences aren't always the highest authority on everything. This is why both sides need to stop trying to make the whole argument about global warming about who's got natural science on their side, and they need to start focusing on more humanistic rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
What is the opposite of natural science?
Sep 16, 2014, 5:19 PM
|
|
Is there some sort of mystic cult involved with global warming that I'm not aware of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Huh? I'm talking about rhetoric
Sep 16, 2014, 5:25 PM
|
|
Not exclusively using rhetoric that tries to identify your political cause with natural science doesn't mean identifying with "the opposite," whatever that would be. The point is that there are other ways of talking about care for the environment than to try to associate yourself with natural scientific facts, which ought to be indifferent to politics anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I always thought the way you build an argument
Sep 16, 2014, 5:29 PM
|
|
Is to make an assertion (your opinion) and then back up your assertion with scientific facts. You're obviously advocating for a different style of argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Doesn't that introduce even more bias?
Sep 16, 2014, 5:34 PM
[ in reply to Re: Please translate ] |
|
And obsfucates the argument behind differing "humanist" rhetoric? The benefit of science is that it isn't subjective by definition. Great lengths are used to remove biases, so that an objective truth can be found. I feel like if we open the climate change debate to other philosophies other than science, we'll have another evolution vs religion debate. Not sure anyone wants that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24776]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42503
Joined: 7/31/10
|
That's what he's saying... Political rhetoric > science.***
Sep 17, 2014, 6:11 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73757
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56087]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31647
Joined: 8/27/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6272]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7290
Joined: 9/21/03
|
at one time, 97% of the world's scientists
Sep 17, 2014, 8:06 AM
|
|
believed that the world was flat, until more data or facts were collected.
97% of the world's scientists believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, until more data or facts were collected.
97% of the world's scientists believed ____________________________, until more data or facts were collected.
**fill in the blank**
it seems funny to me that the ones that consider themselves as the "intellectual illuminati", are so sheepish when it comes to liberal agendas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
97% of the world's scientists never believed that.
Sep 17, 2014, 10:56 AM
|
|
But your point more generally, that scientific knowledge can improve with more information, is of course true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 85
| visibility 675
|
|
|
50
