General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
Common sense argument in favor of GW in a nutshell:

1. I do not have the knowledge or resources to make any definitive conclusions about global warming.

I'm with you here...

Quote:
2. Such is the case with most complex scientific topics, so I accept the MAJORITY CONSENSUS of peer reviewed scientists when I lack the ability to investigate myself.
I follow this step...

Quote:
3. I reject the idea that scientists are conspiring to fool the public about the truth of global warming, because that idea is contradictory to my experience with peer reviewed scientists in ALL other scientific fields.
still here...

Quote:
4. I understand that science is constantly revising its own conclusions, so I accept nothing as an absolute truth. With that stated...
keep going...

Quote:
5. Even though I accept the majority position, whether the scientific community is absolutely correct about global warming or completely off base is totally irrelevant. Reduced emissions, smart energy policy, and clean, renewable energy are all important goals that we should strive for, regardless of political alignment.
great momentum....

Quote:
Unless you oppose a transition from fossil fuels or you're a scientist with vested interest in a competing theory, there is literally NO reason to argue against global warming. Additionally, the topic is pretty much moot since both party candidates, as well as the sitting president, have accepted global warming and the need for a change in energy policy.
ABSOLUTE COLLAPSE


The premises that we ought to seek out alternate and advanced fuel sources in the interest of secure and clean energy policy should in no way advocate the unconditional acceptance of current global warming theory and the reactionary politicizing thereof.
__________________
09 F9
Old 07-10-2008, 02:50 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#616  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
Oh! I love this technique! The partial quote defense. He quotes and responds to one little piece of a post and then ignores any INCONTINENT TRUTHS () that are too glaringly damning to merit refutation. Classic.
Aww, it's so cute that you came crawling back to this thread to help your goofy little posse of s.

It's only been, what, 20 pages or so since you last ran away embarrassed. And as expected, you've crawled back without any new point or argument, but just to join the pack.
Old 07-10-2008, 09:17 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#617  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
..I accept the MAJORITY CONSENSUS of peer reviewed scientists when I lack the ability to investigate myself.
Yet there is no "consensus", as has been shown.

Quote:
4. I understand that science is constantly revising its own conclusions, so I accept nothing as an absolute truth.
That is the first intelligent thing I've seen you post....ever.

Quote:
5. Even though I accept the majority position, whether the scientific community is absolutely correct about global warming or completely off base is totally irrelevant.
So you accept skewed/false data because it's irrelevant. Wow, just wow.

Quote:
Reduced emissions, smart energy policy, and clean, renewable energy are all important goals that we should strive for, regardless of political alignment.
That is the second intelligent thing I've ever seen you post... ever.

Quote:
Unless you oppose a transition from fossil fuels or you're a scientist with vested interest in a competing theory, there is literally NO reason to argue against global warming.
Or unless you oppose governments dumping billions and trillions into a fad that everyone will be laughing at in 10-15 years because it was all natural climate change (new iceage predicted in the 70's).
Old 07-10-2008, 09:42 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#618  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
The premises that we ought to seek out alternate and advanced fuel sources in the interest of secure and clean energy policy should in no way advocate the unconditional acceptance of current global warming theory and the reactionary politicizing thereof.
Amen.
Old 07-10-2008, 09:47 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#619  

Free_Willy
 
Free_Willy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Amen.


Wow, I happen to agree with Badger wholeheartedly for once. I never understood why energy and global flatulence were in any way connected. We need alternate energy *stat* simply because prices are raping us at this point, nothing more.
__________________
"It's a jungle here--right now we're advising our clients to put all they can into canned goods and shotguns!"

--- Brain Gremlin in the movie Gremlins II: The New Batch.

Discordian Resistance Front, Co. A, Semi-Conscious Liberation Army.
Old 07-10-2008, 10:02 AM Free_Willy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#620  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free_Willy View Post
Wow, I happen to agree with Badger wholeheartedly for once. I never understood why energy and global flatulence were in any way connected. We need alternate energy *stat* simply because prices are raping us at this point, nothing more.

That's basically the reason why it's pointless to be so vehemently opposed to the idea of man-made GW. Damn near every policy initiative that is being proposed to help fix GW is something we ought to be doing simply for energy purposes. The man-made GW debate can be left up to the scientists to resolve over the next decade or so, and we can start moving towards better sources of energy and more efficient use of energy. Using man-made GW as the prompt, correct or not, doesn't make it a bad goal.
Old 07-10-2008, 10:14 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#621  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
The premises that we ought to seek out alternate and advanced fuel sources in the interest of secure and clean energy policy should in no way advocate the unconditional acceptance of current global warming theory and the reactionary politicizing thereof.
You're not making sense my friend. Please show me where I stated that one should have "unconditional acceptance of current global warming theory".

In fact, I clearly stated the opposite:
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
I understand that science is constantly revising its own conclusions, so I accept nothing as an absolute truth
My point is that the discussion of global warming is irrelevant among laymen. Unless you're a scientist, the current prevailing theory has no bearing on your every day life. The fact that we need to reduce emissions and change our energy policy is valid regardless of what scientists are coming up with. It's like arguing over whether or not eating McDonalds causes cancer 50 years down the road, when we already KNOW that it causes heart disease and high blood pressure.

In what other fields of science do you question the overwhelming majority consensus? The fact is, it only happens when there is a political agenda, e.g. evolution, stem cells, etc...

You know there are some scientists out there saying that the LHC experiments at CERN could cause a terrible disaster, but we don't see people up in arms against the LHC because laymen don't have the expertise to make any worthwhile judgments. Instead, we recognize the scientific consensus and accept the fact that they're PROBABLY correct that the earth won't get sucked up into a black hole. In the same way, we accept that scientists are PROBABLY correct about global warming, just like they're PROBABLY correct about the big bang, evolution etc...

There is no reason to oppose the scientific majority unless you have vested interest in a competing theory or you have a political agenda. Period.
__________________
http://charizardevolves.ytmnd.com/
Old 07-10-2008, 10:30 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#622  

CRasch
A Righteous Infliction of Retribution
 
CRasch's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I'd link to the whole articles, but I doubt any of you people has a Science or Nature subscription.
Sorry, I usually access though my college or hopital library site. I really should get a subscription to those 2 journals, but since I sometimes do work for a college and a hospital system and I do get access to the peridocials for free.
__________________
http://www.crasch.net/
Self-realization. I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?"
Old 07-10-2008, 10:36 AM CRasch is offline  
Reply With Quote
#623  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Yet there is no "consensus", as has been shown.
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/–noun, plural -sus·es.
1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2.general agreement or concord; harmony.

ma·jor·i·ty /məˈdʒɔrɪti, -ˈdʒɒr- –noun, plural -ties.
1.the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority): the majority of the population

So, for your statement to be true, the scientific community must hold greater opposition than support for global warming. This is false.

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
Quote:
A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for
Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of
Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists
Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society
of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the
international scientific community
on climate change science
I know your counter-argument will be some shit about grant money blah blah blah, so I am just gonna nip that in the bud right now, by reminding you that all counter sources you've posted accept grant money from oil companies. When I questioned you about this double-standard in the last global warming thread, you totally ignored it, but I will let that slide since you're not stupid enough to make that argument again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
So you accept skewed/false data because it's irrelevant. Wow, just wow.
So the crux of your argument is that you don't accept the IPCC as a credible data source. Please direct me to a credible source. If you have none, then you cannot make any conclusions regarding global warming, so the topic is moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Or unless you oppose governments dumping billions and trillions into a fad that everyone will be laughing at in 10-15 years because it was all natural climate change (new iceage predicted in the 70's).
Please provide evidence of billions and trillions of dollars being invested in a "fad".
__________________
http://charizardevolves.ytmnd.com/
Old 07-10-2008, 11:10 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#624  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
So the crux of your argument is that you don't accept the IPCC as a credible data source. Please direct me to a credible source. If you have none, then you cannot make any conclusions regarding global warming, so the topic is moot.

A "credible source" in the badger_sly/Morlock school of argumentation is "one that agrees with me." How else would they be able to categorically label any scientist who either agrees with GW or refutes something used to deny GW as a "junk scientists" without even reading their papers, much less knowing anything about the field themselves?

Hence the reliance on blogs, newspaper analysis of scientific reports, etc, instead of any kind of primary source. And when you can't find one of those "sources" to support you (like about the ocean being a net CO2 emitter), just lie and say the other person is too fucking stupid for you to care about finding a source.
Old 07-10-2008, 12:01 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#625  

DigitalChaos
 
Old 07-10-2008, 03:02 PM DigitalChaos is offline  
Reply With Quote
#626  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
I'm going to watch this, but considering he's opened it with "Become the change you wish to see in the world," I'm not holding my breath

edit: okay, correction, Al Gore bores me to tears, I can't watch this. Cliffs?
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 07-10-2008, 03:08 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#627  

DigitalChaos
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by möbiustrip View Post
I'm going to watch this, but considering he's opened it with "Become the change you wish to see in the world," I'm not holding my breath

haha
he makes some good points. I would love to see several of them countered (stratosphere not warming, etc).
Old 07-10-2008, 03:24 PM DigitalChaos is offline  
Reply With Quote
#628  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
That's basically the reason why it's pointless to be so vehemently opposed to the idea of man-made GW. Damn near every policy initiative that is being proposed to help fix GW is something we ought to be doing simply for energy purposes. The man-made GW debate can be left up to the scientists to resolve over the next decade or so, and we can start moving towards better sources of energy and more efficient use of energy. Using man-made GW as the prompt, correct or not, doesn't make it a bad goal.
Wasting billions and trillions of dollars to attempt to alter natural climate change, while calling it GW, is stupid and pointless. Spending moderately to attempt to reduce pollution is a good objective, as it always has been.
Old 07-11-2008, 08:18 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#629  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Wasting billions and trillions of dollars to attempt to alter natural climate change, while calling it GW, is stupid and pointless. Spending moderately to attempt to reduce pollution is a good objective, as it always has been.
Still waiting on evidence of billions and trillions of dollars being spent on anything related to climate change.
__________________
http://charizardevolves.ytmnd.com/
Old 07-11-2008, 08:24 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#630  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:07 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.