Thurisaz

More facts for global warming deniers to deny *chuckles*

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

I was deeply involved in politics.  Everything that can be used as a crisis to extract more money or more favorable legislation, even a remote chance will be, and has been used to enrich themselves, their political benefactors,  and anyone who can convince, persuade, extort, or strong arm their way in more money, more regulatory environment, they do it.  They will commit fraud, use any means they can.  The education and research community is one of the leeches.  I have been in a state capitol and have seen the dirty back room deals.  I have followed the money, been a guy who took evidence to the FBI and the state version of that.  Understand this, any and all people or groups who use this funds don't see it as the taxpayer dollars.  They think it is THEIR money and the people are their ATM.  GW is a big hype they use to be extract more money.  That is why.

 

Your personal experience is not a validation of why your personal experience should be taken over anything else - in this case science. That's called circular reasoning.

 

Making a bunch of assertions the reasons for which are true is your personal experience is not a sound argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



6 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

I think I can answer for myself.  I don't need you to.  He asked me, not you.

 

I wasn't answering for you, just pointing out that he shouldn't expect an answer to a question you've never, and still really haven't, answered before.

 

I was saying "don't get your hopes up and expect an answer to that question" and was right. You immediately dodged it with yet another anecdote. It was simple pattern recognition and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Your personal experience is not a validation of why your personal experience should be take over anything else - in this case science. That's called circular reasoning.

 

Life is not a textbook.  You have not grown past that.  When you have lived long enough, you will likely figure that out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

I wasn't answering for you, just pointing out that he shouldn't expect an answer to a question you've never, and still really haven't, answered before.

 

I was saying "don't get your hopes up and expect an answer to that question" and was right. You immediately dodged it with yet another anecdote. It was simple pattern recognition and nothing more.

 

Whether you like it or not, your perception of reality are formed by your experiences.  Your trust of people are formed by your past experiences with those people.  Just because you say something is different, how do I know you really understand? If your whole concept of reality of the military had turned out to be nothing like you were told by the recruiters, your family, and close friends who had been in, would you not be even a little cynical? We all have to live our realities.  Just because you take a cold academic approach, does not preclude you from being conned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Life is not a textbook.  You have not grown past that.  When you have lived long enough, you will likely figure that out.  

 

It's funny that you think you have that level of trust with anyone here. Especially regarding subjects like this.

 

I'd trust the advice of an experienced electrician I've worked with and have seen the results and quality of their work if I needed to do electrical work.

 

Regarding some crotchety yahoo I only know on the internet, or my buddy Billy who teaches a wood shop class at a local high school who claims he's done some electrical work I've never seen any evidence of, I'll go with a textbook thanks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Whether you like it or not, your perception of reality are formed by your experiences.  Your trust of people are formed by your past experiences with those people.  Just because you say something is different, how do I know you really understand? If your whole concept of reality of the military had turned out to be nothing like you were told by the recruiters, your family, and close friends who had been in, would you not be even a little cynical? We all have to live our realities.  Just because you take a cold academic approach, does not preclude you from being conned.

 

This is pretty meaningless in the context of this. It doesn't have any value at all regarding why anyone should trust you over experts.

 

You're basically just telling us we should to listen to you on the basis that you're old.

 

I'm not young and I've seen some shit too and learned a healthy dose of skepticism, it's a big part of how I ended up on these forums in the first place. Cynicism leads to lost opportunities and a bad attitude. Two things I don't need.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Life is not a textbook.  You have not grown past that.  When you have lived long enough, you will likely figure that out.  

Again you bring up age as if it is the factor in being able to determine reality. This is demonstrably false from multiple lines of evidence. 

 

We have people on this forum who agree with the scientific consensus who are older than I am and possibly close to your age. Thus we can determine right away that age and experience is not the defining factors in figuring out what is true. 

 

Conversely I will bet that there are people in the world younger than myself who are as cynical as you are and who hold similar viewpoints. 

 

So there is more than just age and experience going on here. It seems to me that mindsets and how one goes about determining what is true are far more influential factors. 

 

CB and I are different ages but agree that personal experiences and using personal senses to determine reality are unreliable. I also know BAA took this view as well and he was older than me. So I think I have clearly refuted any age argument you might bring to any discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Again you bring up age as if it is the factor in being able to determine reality. This is demonstrably false from multiple lines of evidence. 

 

We have people on this forum who agree with the scientific consensus who are older than I am and possibly close to your age. Thus we can determine right away that age and experience is not the defining factors in figuring out what is true. 

 

Conversely I will bet that there are people in the world younger than myself who are as cynical as you are and who hold similar viewpoints. 

 

So there is more than just age and experience going on here. It seems to me that mindsets and how one goes about determining what is true are far more influential factors. 

 

CB and I are different ages but agree that personal experiences and using personal senses to determine reality are unreliable. I also know BAA took this view as well and he was older than me. So I think I have clearly refuted any age argument you might bring to any discussion.

 

Basically, at least on this scale. Personal senses and experiences are useful to a limited degree within the sphere of the individual and local environment, but once we start getting into stuff like this they become less and less so. That's why Science exists in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

Basically, at least on this scale. Personal senses and experiences are useful to a limited degree within the sphere of the individual and local environment, but once we start getting into stuff like this they become less and less so. That's why Science exists in the first place.

Absolutely agree. Not discounting the value of PE and senses in their entirety.  If someone says there is an elephant in my back yard and I can't see it I don't believe them. If however they say they have measured 100 gallons of water into a tank and I look at it I don't trust my eyes to give me an accurate answer alone. I don't necessarily take their word for it but if they say they put 10 x 10gallon buckets in there and i can see the 10 gallon bucket then I have reason to believe them. Just a simple example into my reasoning there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK you two....

 

On a personal level, would you be apt to run up and pet a dog if every time you did in the past, the dog bit you, even though a dog expert said you could pet them?  Who are you going to believe your past experience with dogs or untested information from a dog expert,?  Translate that so-called expert says in a book, who are you going to believe, the book or your past experience? 

 

You two are sounding like Christians.  

 

Christian:  Trust the Bible absolutely...

 

You two:  Trust the textbook absolutely...

 

CB...You said that trusting between a person who claims to know vs a textbook on electrical wiring, you can test what is said in the book on wiring by testing it by yourself on a small scale and assuming you made all the connections and the components are working correctly, it will work virtually every time it is tried. 

 

The problem with a textbook claiming plantary warming on something long term as they claim, how do you test it the same way over and over again as you can wtih the electrical textbook?  You can't.  Last I read, the scientific method requires testing, rigorous testing.  You almost never get the exact same temperatures on a day to day basis in every place on earth.  Hell, you can't answer what the average temperature the earth is supposed to be. How do you expect to claim those scientists are right?  

 

Then throw in the money factor, to the tune of Billions of dollars in grants and other forms of support amounting to money, then you get greed and it ceases to be science, it becomes business disguised as science.  To the followers, it becomes a religion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Burnedout said:

OK you two....

 

On a personal level, would you be apt to run up and pet a dog if every time you did in the past, the dog bit you, even though a dog expert said you could pet them?  Who are you going to believe your past experience with dogs or untested information from a dog expert,?  Translate that so-called expert says in a book, who are you going to believe, the book or your past experience? 

 

You two are sounding like Christians.  

 

Christian:  Trust the Bible absolutely...

 

You two:  Trust the textbook absolutely...

 

CB...You said that trusting between a person who claims to know vs a textbook on electrical wiring, you can test what is said in the book on wiring by testing it by yourself on a small scale and assuming you made all the connections and the components are working correctly, it will work virtually every time it is tried. 

 

The problem with a textbook claiming plantary warming on something long term as they claim, how do you test it the same way over and over again as you can wtih the electrical textbook?  You can't.  Last I read, the scientific method requires testing, rigorous testing.  You almost never get the exact same temperatures on a day to day basis in every place on earth.  Hell, you can't answer what the average temperature the earth is supposed to be. How do you expect to claim those scientists are right?  

 

Then throw in the money factor, to the tune of Billions of dollars in grants and other forms of support amounting to money, then you get greed and it ceases to be science, it becomes business disguised as science.  To the followers, it becomes a religion.  

 

Thanks for proving our point.

 

You can't test that stuff like you've been claiming you have the ability to. It's not something you can personally observe as you've been claiming up till now. You've just literally admitted that you can't possibly know this based on personal observations and wouldn't be able to see the changes for yourself.

 

The money factor is a problem on both sides of this, and the larger pool of money is on your side. By that logic, you're also admitting that you are wrong and that your side is the least trustworthy. At the least, based on that logic, both sides would be equally untrustworthy.

 

It can be tested, just not by one person or in one human's career span. It requires specialized tools and regular tests on a global scale by multiple sources over long periods of time and the use of verifiable records to find patterns. Which is exactly what is happening. Like I said, this is why Science exists in the first place. The data is available to check, and again, if one side is as untrustworthy as you say, then both sides are. Also, again, this is the Piltdown Man situation. Isolated incidents of fraud do not disprove the entire data pool as false. It still favors climate change as factual and the most likely correct conclusion.

 

Based on your personal position in this regarding fraud and money as factors that discredit the evidence that has been gathered as a whole, the only logical conclusion would be null and that a conclusion cannot be reached. Not that one side is lying and the other is correct.

 

Also, your analogy is overly simplistic. What kind of dog expert? A vet? A behavioral expert? A breeder?

 

First of all, no behavioral expert would tell you to pet a strange dog unless it was acting like it wanted to be pet. There are cues that dogs show that they are friendly. Even then, any expert would advise caution when dealing with any animal you don't know.

 

If such an expert told me to pet a strange dog that I knew they had no interaction with and had never seen before, I would wonder why they were giving advice that goes against the consensus of other animal behavior experts and known records of data about the subject over decades of study about dogs and be skeptical of such advice because. I would require more evidence to support their claim that the dog was friendly aside from their claim. You know, the opposite of what you're doing regarding climate change.

 

Also, if they know the dog, who is to say that the dog would not be usually friendly, but some other abnormal factor caused it to bite? Maybe I did something that hurt it, such as attempted to pet the dog on an injury, maybe it was unusually stressed and afraid [which again, there would be cues that show the animal is in such a state], maybe it was sick, maybe the animal associates me with a former abuser due to some resemblance, maybe I approached it in a manner that seemed aggressive, or it is protecting its young or owner from a perceived threat by me?

 

Either way that is a local situation and social interaction regarding myself and the animal as individuals, and I could reasonably rely on my senses and personal experience to observe the animal and its reactions to me to determine whether I should attempt to pet it or not. It is nothing like climate change, which requires a much larger pool of data over an extended period of time to determine a reasonable conclusion about and cannot be observed by an individual relying on personal observation via their senses.

 

Details in a situation like that matter a lot, and you're excluding them from your analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in need of serious alteration to fix the strawman arguments made. I have been kind enough to do so.

 

12 hours ago, Burnedout said:

OK you two....

 

On a personal level, would you be apt to run up and pet a dog if every time you did in the past, the dog bit you, even though a dog expert said you could pet them?  Who are you going to believe your past experience with dogs or untested information from a dog expert,?  Translate that so-called expert says in a book, who are you going to believe, the book or your past experience? 

 

You two are sounding like Christians.  

 

Christian:  Trust the Bible absolutely... to varying degrees, ranging from literal absolute, to very washy liberal fluff.

 

You two:  Trust the textbook absolutely... scientific findings tentatively with varying degrees of confidence.

 

 

There, fixed :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now