Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

No need, but you know when it's cold it's not warm, no matter who says it is.

It also helps if you grow some produce. You can't fool vegetation as easily as you can fool people who spend more time watching TV than they do watching nature. The vegetation doesn't listen to Al Gore or David Kawasaki.

bloodyminded, I don't think Saipan is being serious here in suggesting that casual observation is better than rigorous collection of data.

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

bloodyminded, I don't think Saipan is being serious here in suggesting that casual observation is better than rigorous collection of data.

I disagree you're giving him way too much credit, I've seen a enough of his posts to believe he means exactly what he posts... Edited by wyly

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

Posted

No need, but you know when it's cold it's not warm, no matter who says it is.

It also helps if you grow some produce. You can't fool vegetation as easily as you can fool people who spend more time watching TV than they do watching nature. The vegetation doesn't listen to Al Gore or David Kawasaki.

No, the vegetation loyally watches FOX news and reads Mark Steyn.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted

bloodyminded, I don't think Saipan is being serious here in suggesting that casual observation is better than rigorous collection of data.

In his next response, he goes even further, saying there's "no need" for the intricacies of thermometer reading...a person can simply ascertain that when "it's cold it's not warm."

QED, I guess.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted

bloodyminded, I don't think Saipan is being serious here in suggesting that casual observation is better than rigorous collection of data.

Prove it.

Posted

I've seen a enough of his posts to believe he means exactly what he posts...

That's right. I even have a photo evidence.

Open for anyone to disprove.

Posted

WOW! How scientific :)

This from the fellow who sniffs smugly that one can navigate the climate change issue personally by discovering whether it's warm or cold outside.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted

No, the vegetation loyally watches FOX news and reads Mark Steyn.

ZING! Nothing but net on that three-pointer!

:lol::lol::lol:

Posted

That's right. I even have a photo evidence.

Open for anyone to disprove.

the prosecution rests it's case... B)

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

Posted

If that's so, then really none of us should respond to him maybe. I mean how many times do you really want to have to spike that silly 'ice age' thing ?

very few of us do...and even then only when there is a semi-legitimate question asked or point made, which is rare...

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

Posted

No one can argue that it wouldn't be good if we didn't create any waste at all in our activities.

Of course, we should minimize our "pollution".

The argument is whether or not climate change (previously global warming) is anthropogenic in nature.

Once a U.N. bureaucracy gets hold of an issue they won't let it drop. For obvious reasons.

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted

If that's so, then really none of us should respond to him maybe. I mean how many times do you really want to have to spike that silly 'ice age' thing ?

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, you want intelligent and logical debate, but on the other you don't want to get drawn into the 'feed the troll' syndrome. Sometimes it's tough to draw the line, especially when the person you are discussing the issue with has formed an opinion, regardless of the established facts.

This is sounding really elitist, but bear with me.

I first started wondering about this 'debate vs. trolling' problem when I initially got interested in AGW a few years back. I had brought up climate change with my dad, who I respect, and got his opinion. He definitely falls into the 'denier' camp; he vehemently refuses to believe that there's AGW.

Now he's not an idiot or paid off by the oil lobby (har) but he would rather believe that there's a borderline global conspiracy amongst scientists to push AGW in order to secure easy funding.

So what do you do in this situation? Do you give up on any hope of debate? He's got his opinion, and its not worth the effort to try and change his mind?

Posted

So what do you do in this situation? Do you give up on any hope of debate? He's got his opinion, and its not worth the effort to try and change his mind?

I would try to find out how your dad forms his opinions. If he doesn't trust science, and thinks there's a shadowy conspiracy out there then there's not much you can do to convince him.

I guess he believes that if you show him temperature graphs, he would think that they're fake. If you showed him the raw data that it came from, he would think that it was falsified. If you traveled to Greenland, and took ice samples, showed him how to measure proxies, taught him how to do statistical regression... would he be convinced then ?

But your dad's position, at least, is an 'agree to disagree' type of end to the argument. He believes in a shadowy conspiracy and that's pretty much impossible to disprove.

Some on here restate opinions that are provably wrong, and they restate them again and again. That's a roadblock of a different kind - they refuse to ever concede a point and that`s anti-discussion.

Posted

I would try to find out how your dad forms his opinions. If he doesn't trust science, and thinks there's a shadowy conspiracy out there then there's not much you can do to convince him.

I guess he believes that if you show him temperature graphs, he would think that they're fake. If you showed him the raw data that it came from, he would think that it was falsified. If you traveled to Greenland, and took ice samples, showed him how to measure proxies, taught him how to do statistical regression... would he be convinced then ?

But your dad's position, at least, is an 'agree to disagree' type of end to the argument. He believes in a shadowy conspiracy and that's pretty much impossible to disprove.

Some on here restate opinions that are provably wrong, and they restate them again and again. That's a roadblock of a different kind - they refuse to ever concede a point and that`s anti-discussion.

Your argument is coloured by your own biases, Michael. Again, tie seems to go with the GW faith.

It may not be that his dad distrusts science at all! I have a great deal of respect for science. As I've said before, my first book was a science text given to me by my grade 1 teacher who was impressed by my advanced knowledge and interest for my age.

More likely, he distrusts many spokespeople of science! And it is not a "shadowy conspiracy". That is a value judgement, not a scientific one. It implies that anyone who disbelieves must be some kind of a nut. Total ad hominem.

There are a LOT of people who respect science and don't agree with the GW premise, or at least the idea that it is man-made. Some of them are very highly educated and respected people within the scientific field.

There HAS been a lot of evidence manipulation by spokespeople for GW! So there's good reason to be suspicious and any unwillingness to listen is understandable. To be fair, it is ALWAYS scientific to listen but after a while the repetition can wear your ears out!

It's a pity none of us will live long enough to see who's right in this argument.

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

-- George Bernard Shaw

"There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."

Posted

Your argument is coloured by your own biases, Michael. Again, tie seems to go with the GW faith.

There's no faith there. There is a system that's set up to find answers to questions and it works across the board. Thinking that a secret conspiracy has undermined it seems to be more an act of faith.

It may not be that his dad distrusts science at all! I have a great deal of respect for science. As I've said before, my first book was a science text given to me by my grade 1 teacher who was impressed by my advanced knowledge and interest for my age.

More likely, he distrusts many spokespeople of science! And it is not a "shadowy conspiracy". That is a value judgement, not a scientific one. It implies that anyone who disbelieves must be some kind of a nut. Total ad hominem.

Distrusting the spokespersons for science makes a little more sense. One should be suspicious of spokespeople.

But - let's be specific here: the science tells us one thing, and the spokespeople say something that is different. You can believe one and not the other.

There are a LOT of people who respect science and don't agree with the GW premise, or at least the idea that it is man-made. Some of them are very highly educated and respected people within the scientific field.

True, but they are a small minority from what I've seen. Climate science is overwhelmingly behind AGW (see Namoi Oreskes' study). If you cast a wider net, including anyone with a background in science, you can find hundreds of doubters, I'm sure. But how many people in the world have backgrounds in science ? Likely millions.

There HAS been a lot of evidence manipulation by spokespeople for GW! So there's good reason to be suspicious and any unwillingness to listen is understandable. To be fair, it is ALWAYS scientific to listen but after a while the repetition can wear your ears out!

I concur that this has happened.

It's a pity none of us will live long enough to see who's right in this argument.

We're already seeing warming now, and people still don't believe it.

NASA says 2010 hootest on record.

Sadly, there are people who won't believe it until the change is so significant that analysis isn't necessary, i.e. winter starts several weeks later, etc.

Posted
There HAS been a lot of evidence manipulation by spokespeople for GW! So there's good reason to be suspicious and any unwillingness to listen is understandable. To be fair, it is ALWAYS scientific to listen but after a while the repetition can wear your ears out!

given your emphatic "HAS", it shouldn't be difficult for you to offer several evidence manipulation examples to allow a review of both your examples as well as their sources... equally... if they are genuine, a relative weighting of those examples could be gauged against the overwhelming scientific consensus that supports AGW. Batter up!

Posted

Sadly, there are people who won't believe it until the change is so significant that analysis isn't necessary, i.e. winter starts several weeks later, etc.

Or earlier, like lately.

Nothing like checking it yourself, traveling to Europe and Asia. Not just in Canada.

Posted

Sadly, there are people who won't believe it until the change is so significant that analysis isn't necessary, i.e. winter starts several weeks later, etc.

winter does come later and summer earlier, in moderate climates it isn't that noticable as yet because we have more variation in weather but in the arctic it is more noticable as winter sea ice forms later and melts away sooner than 30 years ago...

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,913
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    MDP
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...