1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Your Attention Please! There are now 4 kinds of lies!

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by Wildkow, Sep 11, 2007.

Page 4 of 5
  1. hycamguy07

    hycamguy07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    2,707
    3
    0
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 13 2007, 09:14 AM) [snapback]511857[/snapback]</div>
    I am starting to think the line is drawn 50/50 on the idea that man is causing GW.. The facts are facts no matter where a person get them as long as the guy has a degree in the field... ;)

    I still think its a money making scheme, as a way to line the pockets of others under the fear of gloom and doom that is GW. <_<

    What if its true? What if GW is by natural cycle?? :unsure:

    Remember they said HAIR SPRAY was causing a hole to open up in the Ozone layer.. :lol: :rolleyes:
     
    #61 hycamguy07, Sep 13, 2007
  2. hycamguy07

    hycamguy07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    2,707
    3
    0
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 13 2007, 09:14 AM) [snapback]511857[/snapback]</div>
    I am starting to think the line is drawn 50/50 on the idea that man is causing GW.. The facts are facts no matter where a person get them as long as the guy has a degree in the field... ;)

    I still think its a money making scheme, as a way to line the pockets of others under the fear of gloom and doom that is GW. <_<

    What if its true? What if GW is by natural cycle?? :unsure:

    Remember they said HAIR SPRAY was causing a hole to open up in the Ozone layer.. :lol: :rolleyes:
     
    #62 hycamguy07, Sep 13, 2007
  3. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 13 2007, 06:14 AM) [snapback]511857[/snapback]</div>
    The only COULD I see in your entire post relates to the past tense use of putting drops into another solution. Used in this way it indicates ability, not possibility. The use of COULD to mean possibility requires its use in the present tense. So either you have a weak grasp of semantics or an uncanny ability to use words to obfuscate and deceive. Please, to avoid future confusion, indicate below which it could be . . .

    [ ] Weak Grasp

    [ ] Uncanny ability

    The funny and yet pathetic thing is that you go on in your explanation (spin) to reinforce the scenario you outlined above. I’m willing to look at the evidence if you could just supply me with some.

    But AGW and your hypothesis is weak and lacks evidence to support it, in fact some evidence that you and other supporters of AGW rely on actually refutes AGW and your scenario. The commonly used graph of temp and CO2 rise shows that in the middle of the last century when human CO2 production was being ramped up the temps actually went down. In fact they went down for another 3-4 decades.
    There is also scientific evidence that shows that the level of CO2 in the air, years ago, has already blocked all the wavelengths of heat that it is able to block. But you and other AGW fanatics continue to single-mindedly push the dogma in the face of mounting evidence that AGW is a fiction not a fact.

    F8L you say I don’t understand science, in some aspects that is true, but your brand of science is base conjecture, WAG’s, misapplied facts, obfuscation, outright deceit and lies. Regarding that kind of science I am happily ignorant. Your theories only help you bear your ignorance of facts and lack of observations.


    BTW this is the science I was taught and understand,

    1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
    2. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, which is consistent with what you have observed.
    3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
    4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
    5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

    Wildkow

    No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power. :Jacob Bronowski

    No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer. :Thomas Browne

    I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups rather than to make men happy. :Bertrand Russell

    Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. :Thomas Henry Huxley

    Maybe you need a more believable spokesman? I know! How about. . .

    <div align="center">[attachmentid=11403]</div>
     

    Attached Files:

    #63 Wildkow, Sep 13, 2007
  4. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 13 2007, 06:14 AM) [snapback]511857[/snapback]</div>
    The only COULD I see in your entire post relates to the past tense use of putting drops into another solution. Used in this way it indicates ability, not possibility. The use of COULD to mean possibility requires its use in the present tense. So either you have a weak grasp of semantics or an uncanny ability to use words to obfuscate and deceive. Please, to avoid future confusion, indicate below which it could be . . .

    [ ] Weak Grasp

    [ ] Uncanny ability

    The funny and yet pathetic thing is that you go on in your explanation (spin) to reinforce the scenario you outlined above. I’m willing to look at the evidence if you could just supply me with some.

    But AGW and your hypothesis is weak and lacks evidence to support it, in fact some evidence that you and other supporters of AGW rely on actually refutes AGW and your scenario. The commonly used graph of temp and CO2 rise shows that in the middle of the last century when human CO2 production was being ramped up the temps actually went down. In fact they went down for another 3-4 decades.
    There is also scientific evidence that shows that the level of CO2 in the air, years ago, has already blocked all the wavelengths of heat that it is able to block. But you and other AGW fanatics continue to single-mindedly push the dogma in the face of mounting evidence that AGW is a fiction not a fact.

    F8L you say I don’t understand science, in some aspects that is true, but your brand of science is base conjecture, WAG’s, misapplied facts, obfuscation, outright deceit and lies. Regarding that kind of science I am happily ignorant. Your theories only help you bear your ignorance of facts and lack of observations.


    BTW this is the science I was taught and understand,

    1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
    2. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, which is consistent with what you have observed.
    3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
    4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
    5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

    Wildkow

    No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power. :Jacob Bronowski

    No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer. :Thomas Browne

    I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups rather than to make men happy. :Bertrand Russell

    Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. :Thomas Henry Huxley

    Maybe you need a more believable spokesman? I know! How about. . .

    <div align="center">[attachmentid=11403]</div>
     
    #64 Wildkow, Sep 13, 2007
  5. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Sep 13 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]511924[/snapback]</div>
    Its just not worth it.....


    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]512108[/snapback]</div>
    Yes but you seem to do this:

    1. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis.
    2. Find anything consistent with your hypothesis, from any source and disregard the rest.
    3. Annoy everyone with your "convictions".
     
    #65 Alric, Sep 13, 2007
  6. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Sep 13 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]511924[/snapback]</div>
    Its just not worth it.....


    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]512108[/snapback]</div>
    Yes but you seem to do this:

    1. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis.
    2. Find anything consistent with your hypothesis, from any source and disregard the rest.
    3. Annoy everyone with your "convictions".
     
    #66 Alric, Sep 13, 2007
  7. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 13 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]512120[/snapback]</div>
    That's yours' and other AGW'ers MO Alric, please reread my 5 point flowchart once again. Sigh. . .

    Wildkow
     
    #67 Wildkow, Sep 13, 2007
  8. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 13 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]512120[/snapback]</div>
    That's yours' and other AGW'ers MO Alric, please reread my 5 point flowchart once again. Sigh. . .

    Wildkow
     
    #68 Wildkow, Sep 13, 2007
  9. vtie

    vtie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    436
    1
    0
    Location:
    Gent, Belgium
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 10:34 PM) [snapback]512108[/snapback]</div>
    That is a fairly correct summary of the scientific method indeed. BUT... you forget one thing. The most important aspect of the GW problem is not a scientific one. It's not a new law of physics or a model for a remote star. It's about the future of our own, unique Earth. The only one we were given, the place where we live. Mankind simply cannot react to a potential threat by keeping arguing and doing further tests until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt before doing something, because it might be too late at that moment.

    Scientifically spoken, I am personally not convinced neither that human CO2 is the major cause of the climate change. But I think it would be unwise to take any chances.

    If you want an example closer to your mind: think about Bush invading Iraq without certainty about the presence of WMD :D Did he really need 100% certainty about this before engaging in a very costly war, killing tens of thousands of people? So why should we need 100% certainty before we start to react on a planet-wide threat? Especially if the cure has other important positive side effects, such as reduced dependence on Middle East oil?
     
    #69 vtie, Sep 14, 2007
  10. patsparks

    patsparks An Aussie perspective

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    10,664
    567
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide South Australia
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    A very long time ago there was a planet spinning around a star not unlike may other stars. Over time there came to that planet life, algae, slime, grass trees, single cell creatures then more complex. The planet had some carbon in the environment which never went away but an amount of that carbon was over time locked away under ground.

    After many many years there come to be mammals on the planet, allowed to take over the earth from the cold blooded animals due to the cooling of the planet which may or may not have been due to the carbon being locked out of the atmosphere. Warm-blooded mammals did very well on this planet, and one species seemed to do better than the others, it seemed to take over even the other mammals.

    In making it's way to cover the earth this mammal found some parts of the planet were too cold even for them. This mammal found this carbon that it found a way to combine with oxygen and during this process there was a great deal of heat released. The master mammals found many uses for the heat from this carbon oxygen reaction so went looking for more carbon to combine with oxygen. The carbon and oxygen went into the air faster than the mechanisms that had removed it from the atmosphere could remove it again, this lead to an increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
    On this planet the temperature of the atmosphere increased and some of the mammals said it's OK because it's a natural fluctuation.
    Then ...
     
    #70 patsparks, Sep 14, 2007
  11. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]512108[/snapback]</div>
    But how do you make sure the experiments and their interpretation are correct? I use the peer review process and journal impact index.

    Your standards seem to include "some dorito stained guy in a basement".
     
    #71 Alric, Sep 14, 2007
  12. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 14 2007, 06:45 AM) [snapback]512459[/snapback]</div>
    How adequate is the peer review process upon experiments testing an open system? Reread the article Alric the guy has some good points.

    As for your second paragraph, whatever.

    Wildkow
     
    #72 Wildkow, Sep 15, 2007
  13. vtie

    vtie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    436
    1
    0
    Location:
    Gent, Belgium
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 15 2007, 10:17 PM) [snapback]513104[/snapback]</div>
    As I said before, the mental construction

    We only have one Earth to model
    -> It is very hard to come to a conclusion in a traditional scientific way (no 'control cases' etc.)
    -> we should not act

    it is a clear case of completely flawed reasoning. If anything, the fact that we only have one Earth should urge us to act quicker.

    Traditional scientific methodoly was developed for cases where you have many objects of study. Our Earth is unique, and our approach towards is should be unique as well. It would be perverse to remain inactive because our traditional scientific reasoning doesn't work well for the investigation of the future of our Earth.
     
    #73 vtie, Sep 16, 2007
  14. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 16 2007, 02:24 AM) [snapback]513249[/snapback]</div>
    Seems silly to waste time, effort and money on something you're not sure of when you could be investing that money on something that brings real results, (cleaner energy) and at the same time be addressing something that quite frankly doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of ever coming about.

    Wildkow
     
    #74 Wildkow, Sep 16, 2007
  15. vtie

    vtie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    436
    1
    0
    Location:
    Gent, Belgium
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 16 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]513260[/snapback]</div>
    You might be surprised, but I actually agree to a large extend with that. But it is precisely because the CO2 reduction effort aligns well with other, more tangible goals that I support it. To me "recuding CO2" basically means "reducing burning fossile fuels". And that doesn't have to hurt the economy, as the U.K. has proven. It can even make one's industrial processes more efficient and hence more competitive.

    But IF it turns out to be true that human CO2 production indeed causes the global climate change, then the efforts that are currently undertaken are futile. In that case, we are doomed anyway unless we find an innovative technological solution to it (which is not impossible). But that doesn't mean we should do nothing right now. Burning less fossile fuel is a good thing for several reasons.

    For several reasons, I'm not a fan myself of types like Al Gore. Their agenda is inconsequent and misleading. The real "inconvenient truth" is that any solution advocated by them is completely irrelevant if what they claim is true (which is quite possible). You only have to look at what's going on in China and India to realise this. I hate it when people are talking about making classical incandescent bulb illegal. As if that is going to save the world!
     
    #75 vtie, Sep 16, 2007
  16. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ 2007 09 16 07:42) [snapback]513298[/snapback]</div>
    There's no one single thing that's going to 'save' the world. Many small things, done by many people, will make a significant difference.
     
    #76 hyo silver, Sep 16, 2007
  17. vtie

    vtie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    436
    1
    0
    Location:
    Gent, Belgium
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 16 2007, 05:39 PM) [snapback]513310[/snapback]</div>
    Personally, I am not convinced about that. With billions of people making a huge jump in their consumption pattern right now, this just won't be enough. The effect of your small things done by many people will be completely washed away by that.
    IF the climate change is caused by human CO2 exhaust, none of the measures that are being proposed or executed now are going to solve the problem or even reduce it significantly. That is the real inconvenient truth.

    It's also a matter of personal freedom. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to use an incandescent lamp if she/he wants this and is prepared to pay for the consequences? Maybe this person never flies a plane and compensates in that way? Or should we also forbid to travel on planes for leisure? After all, it is perfectly possible to relax on a bycicle holiday. How far should we go forbidding things?
     
    #77 vtie, Sep 16, 2007
  18. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ 2007 09 16 09:36) [snapback]513331[/snapback]</div>
    I'm with you on the bicycle holidays, and I don't even need to take my socks off to count the number of times I've been on an airplane. Call it a delusional fantasy if you must, but I'm not giving up.
     
    #78 hyo silver, Sep 16, 2007
  19. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 16 2007, 04:24 AM) [snapback]513249[/snapback]</div>
    It works very well. Thank you very much. What makes it appears inadequate is the noise created by contratrians and the inability of people to tell the difference.
     
    #79 Alric, Sep 16, 2007
  20. vtie

    vtie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    436
    1
    0
    Location:
    Gent, Belgium
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 16 2007, 07:47 PM) [snapback]513352[/snapback]</div>
    Yes and no. There is an undeniable problem associated with building models for Earth's climate: there is only one object to study. That makes it difficult to correlate observations to underlying causes. Some of the most powerful scientific methods, such as generalisation or case/control contrasts, are not applicable.

    That is a very rare situation in science. In cosmology, scientists have recognised this unique problem for a while already, and it is the subject of an ongoing philosophical discussion.
     
    #80 vtie, Sep 16, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 5