lynn
12-20-2007, 04:14 AM
Okay...Everybody can take the 'Global Warming Test'....
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
View Full Version : Global Warming Fraud?
lynn
12-20-2007, 04:22 AM
And maybe some people could actually read some simple stuff from the test...
..."From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an "interglacial phase," or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.
Don't panic when you hear global alarmists warning the earth may have warmed almost 1 degree in the last 200 years. Although this still hasn't yet been proven, it is in fact exactly what should be happening if everything is normal.
If Global Warming stops, then you can start worrying! It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age!"...
..."From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an "interglacial phase," or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.
Don't panic when you hear global alarmists warning the earth may have warmed almost 1 degree in the last 200 years. Although this still hasn't yet been proven, it is in fact exactly what should be happening if everything is normal.
If Global Warming stops, then you can start worrying! It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age!"...
saysni
12-20-2007, 12:46 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">saysni wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=45144#post45144)
I like to think i'm not completely sold on ANYTHING, save for the idea that someone needs to quietly and quickly take George Bush AND Dick Cheney out back and put bullets in their brains asap. NSA/CIA/FBI are you there? Copy that? Over.
{WillieLL replied: Ummmm. . . as much as I agree with your sentiments, more indirect expressions might save you a lot of trouble. The fascist thought-police are automated, and one never knows when they are listening. You may go into somebody's files and then, some years later, simply disappear into Kazahkstan never to be seen again.}
Well if the goonies come a knockin' i can always wish i'd kept my trap shut. But you know what? Ain't gonna live my life that way. Besides, i've always wanted to see central asia. More than likely we are ALL in someone's files. And, frankly my dear, i don't give a damn. If the gov't is gonna come after lil'ol'me, well then god bless 'em. And let it be a lesson to you. I'll try and send a postcard from Alma-Ata...or wherever.
[with apologies for the diversion from the GW/CC thread - boy this sure brings out the maroon in us don't it?]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
<!-- / message --><!-- Waccco: reduce Top Margin <div style="margin-top: 10px" align="right"> -->
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">saysni wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=45144#post45144)
I like to think i'm not completely sold on ANYTHING, save for the idea that someone needs to quietly and quickly take George Bush AND Dick Cheney out back and put bullets in their brains asap. NSA/CIA/FBI are you there? Copy that? Over.
{WillieLL replied: Ummmm. . . as much as I agree with your sentiments, more indirect expressions might save you a lot of trouble. The fascist thought-police are automated, and one never knows when they are listening. You may go into somebody's files and then, some years later, simply disappear into Kazahkstan never to be seen again.}
Well if the goonies come a knockin' i can always wish i'd kept my trap shut. But you know what? Ain't gonna live my life that way. Besides, i've always wanted to see central asia. More than likely we are ALL in someone's files. And, frankly my dear, i don't give a damn. If the gov't is gonna come after lil'ol'me, well then god bless 'em. And let it be a lesson to you. I'll try and send a postcard from Alma-Ata...or wherever.
[with apologies for the diversion from the GW/CC thread - boy this sure brings out the maroon in us don't it?]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
<!-- / message --><!-- Waccco: reduce Top Margin <div style="margin-top: 10px" align="right"> -->
Zeno Swijtink
12-20-2007, 02:07 PM
I am wary of climate engineering ideas, such as the one mentioned by Willie, seeding the oceans with iron dust. These are not something to rush into. See cutting below.
Referring to these climate engineering ideas, Ross Gelbspan wrote on Grist:
"What these scientists are offering us are technological expressions of their own supercharged sense of desperation."
https://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/10/165845/92
Referring to these climate engineering ideas, Ross Gelbspan wrote on Grist:
"What these scientists are offering us are technological expressions of their own supercharged sense of desperation."
https://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/10/165845/92
Willie Lumplump
12-20-2007, 05:30 PM
the sun along with all kinds of other factors seem to have much more powerful influences on climate than humans currently do
This has been the subject of a hundred studies, and all have come to the same conclusion: Increased luminosity of the sun can account for only a small fraction, maybe around 2%-5%, of the amount of global warming observed in recent decades. Other natural factors have also been ruled out as major causes of the warming.
This has been the subject of a hundred studies, and all have come to the same conclusion: Increased luminosity of the sun can account for only a small fraction, maybe around 2%-5%, of the amount of global warming observed in recent decades. Other natural factors have also been ruled out as major causes of the warming.
Willie Lumplump
12-20-2007, 05:42 PM
What these scientists are offering us are technological expressions of their own supercharged sense of desperation."--R. GelbspanWell, yes, of course. The whole world would have to be desperate to attempt such a risky measure. But if climate change keeps heading the way it's heading now, we may eventually become desperate enough to accept the risk.
Willie Lumplump
12-20-2007, 05:50 PM
It's truly amazing that the overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, from 117 countries, can be so wrong when you obviously are so right. Why don't they believe you and the oil companies?There has always been a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in American life, and the Republican Party has very successfully exploited that streak ever since the beginning of the Reagan administration.
lynn
12-20-2007, 07:50 PM
Clancy..."It's truly amazing that the overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, from 117 countries, can be so wrong when you obviously are so right.
Isn't it though!....
Why don't they believe you and the oil companies?"
Actually, if you go to the link I posted, you could send your statement to the geologist who wrote the statement you responded to...
Isn't it though!....
Why don't they believe you and the oil companies?"
Actually, if you go to the link I posted, you could send your statement to the geologist who wrote the statement you responded to...
lynn
12-20-2007, 11:09 PM
Willie..."There has always been a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in American life, and the Republican Party has very successfully exploited that streak ever since the beginning of the Reagan administration."
Uh, huh...And what does this have to do with the 'debate' on 'climate change'...?...
When someone disagrees with you - or has a different opinion, perspective than you - do you automatically pull out your 'anti-intellectual' card?...eh?...
----------------
So, you don't believe the world's most respected climatologists from 117 different countries, but you do believe a geologist who disagrees with them. Why not consult a car mechanic re global warming? At least he works with greenhouse gas emitters.
What I don't presume to know...is that humans can change the direction of climate patterns on this planet...
If you want to be condescending, or think I am 'anti-intellectual', or other such ridiculous nonsense, just because of that...be my guest...
And for your info....I do know among scientists there is not just a lone geologist on the planet who disagrees with some of the 'climate change' hoopla goin' around...
Uh, huh...And what does this have to do with the 'debate' on 'climate change'...?...
When someone disagrees with you - or has a different opinion, perspective than you - do you automatically pull out your 'anti-intellectual' card?...eh?...
----------------
So, you don't believe the world's most respected climatologists from 117 different countries, but you do believe a geologist who disagrees with them. Why not consult a car mechanic re global warming? At least he works with greenhouse gas emitters.
What I don't presume to know...is that humans can change the direction of climate patterns on this planet...
If you want to be condescending, or think I am 'anti-intellectual', or other such ridiculous nonsense, just because of that...be my guest...
And for your info....I do know among scientists there is not just a lone geologist on the planet who disagrees with some of the 'climate change' hoopla goin' around...
Dark Shadows
12-20-2007, 11:38 PM
Brrrrrrrrr! Last time I checked my outdoor thermometer registered 35 degrees and dropping. With this chilly weather, its kind of hard to believe there's such a thing as global warming :)
I'm new here, is this typical for Sonoma Valley? I find the temperatures even more extreme in Santa Rosa. And you all think Washington is bad! I'd much rather have rain than be chapped all the time.
It sure has been getting warmer lately...
I'm new here, is this typical for Sonoma Valley? I find the temperatures even more extreme in Santa Rosa. And you all think Washington is bad! I'd much rather have rain than be chapped all the time.
It sure has been getting warmer lately...
Zeno Swijtink
12-21-2007, 08:53 AM
It's truly amazing that the overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, from 117 countries, can be so wrong when you obviously are so right. Why don't they believe you and the oil companies?
If the church across the street were larger, with better music and a more grand light show, you would not not necessarily join it, would you, and leave your trusted congregation behind, with all your families and friends?
If the church across the street were larger, with better music and a more grand light show, you would not not necessarily join it, would you, and leave your trusted congregation behind, with all your families and friends?
Zeno Swijtink
12-21-2007, 10:06 AM
If the church across the street were larger, with better music and a more grand light show, you would not not necessarily join it, would you, and leave your trusted congregation behind, with all your families and friends?
And, yes, Mykil, our girlz are way cuter.
https://ecobabes.org/images/Ecobabes/Bonny/BonnyCal.jpg
Ecobabes Go!
https://ecobabes.org/
And, yes, Mykil, our girlz are way cuter.
https://ecobabes.org/images/Ecobabes/Bonny/BonnyCal.jpg
Ecobabes Go!
https://ecobabes.org/
lynn
12-22-2007, 04:36 AM
Clancy...That is, at least, a start...
Not sure what you mean by 'a start'...I've basically stated the same thing before...
so why are you disputing the overwhelming majority of the world's experts on the subject?
Gee, Clancy...Where do you get...'majority' of the world's 'experts' from?....Is it the 'majority' of the world's 'experts', claiming to be the 'majority of the world's experts'?....Or, do you think it's the 'majority of the world's experts'?...Do you know how many of these so called 'experts' there are in the world?...Do you have a list of all of them, and why they should qualify for such a list?...If you do, then I'll give you credit for at least counting how many makes the 'overwhelming majority'...
I learned a long time ago, not to jump into believing something just because I might be surrounded by a bunch of "I-know-the-truth-ers'...It comes with almost any group, and group think...
---------------
Yes, that's the sad state we're in, lots of people would see little difference in comparing a large and a small church to overwhelming scientific consensus and fringe positions, especially when the consensus is so uncomfortable. Add to that the economic interests that have a stake in maintaining the status quo and we're in serious trouble.
Well, if the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' is so freakin' overwhelming...Then ya' got nothin' to worry about - do ya'...
Not sure what you mean by 'a start'...I've basically stated the same thing before...
so why are you disputing the overwhelming majority of the world's experts on the subject?
Gee, Clancy...Where do you get...'majority' of the world's 'experts' from?....Is it the 'majority' of the world's 'experts', claiming to be the 'majority of the world's experts'?....Or, do you think it's the 'majority of the world's experts'?...Do you know how many of these so called 'experts' there are in the world?...Do you have a list of all of them, and why they should qualify for such a list?...If you do, then I'll give you credit for at least counting how many makes the 'overwhelming majority'...
I learned a long time ago, not to jump into believing something just because I might be surrounded by a bunch of "I-know-the-truth-ers'...It comes with almost any group, and group think...
---------------
Yes, that's the sad state we're in, lots of people would see little difference in comparing a large and a small church to overwhelming scientific consensus and fringe positions, especially when the consensus is so uncomfortable. Add to that the economic interests that have a stake in maintaining the status quo and we're in serious trouble.
Well, if the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' is so freakin' overwhelming...Then ya' got nothin' to worry about - do ya'...
Braggi
12-22-2007, 10:04 AM
Sad that the news is dominated by articles about the Inhofe "report" presented as though the global warming "debate" was over and Exxon won.
Here's an all too rare editorial on the side of science complete with links: https://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/16436/710
-Jeff
Here's an all too rare editorial on the side of science complete with links: https://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/16436/710
-Jeff
Braggi
12-22-2007, 10:09 AM
Brrrrrrrrr! Last time I checked my outdoor thermometer registered 35 degrees and dropping. With this chilly weather, its kind of hard to believe there's such a thing as global warming :)
I'm new here, is this typical for Sonoma Valley? I find the temperatures even more extreme in Santa Rosa. And you all think Washington is bad! I'd much rather have rain than be chapped all the time.
Ha ha! I grew up in Escondido, in north San Diego County. That's another 550 miles south of where I am now. Winters there had far more frosty mornings than here. Overall, the climate here is milder than in Escondido, but we get about 6 times as much rain. I'll take it.
BTW, we get a Hel of a lot more sunny days here than Washington, and I think you'll agree that's a nice thing, global warming or not.
-Jeff
I'm new here, is this typical for Sonoma Valley? I find the temperatures even more extreme in Santa Rosa. And you all think Washington is bad! I'd much rather have rain than be chapped all the time.
Ha ha! I grew up in Escondido, in north San Diego County. That's another 550 miles south of where I am now. Winters there had far more frosty mornings than here. Overall, the climate here is milder than in Escondido, but we get about 6 times as much rain. I'll take it.
BTW, we get a Hel of a lot more sunny days here than Washington, and I think you'll agree that's a nice thing, global warming or not.
-Jeff
handy
12-22-2007, 12:31 PM
Yup... this guy has it about right, I think.
https://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4194/
This one seems spot on, as well.
https://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
enjoy
https://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4194/
This one seems spot on, as well.
https://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
enjoy
Tinque
12-22-2007, 01:40 PM
What a beautiful photograph ! :hello: :heart: :Yinyangv:
And, yes, Mykil, our girlz are way cuter.
https://ecobabes.org/images/Ecobabes/Bonny/BonnyCal.jpg
Ecobabes Go!
https://ecobabes.org/
And, yes, Mykil, our girlz are way cuter.
https://ecobabes.org/images/Ecobabes/Bonny/BonnyCal.jpg
Ecobabes Go!
https://ecobabes.org/
Willie Lumplump
12-22-2007, 02:52 PM
When someone disagrees with you - or has a different opinion, perspective than you - do you automatically pull out your 'anti-intellectual' card?...eh?...
Not automatically, but for a lay person to oppose the opinion of vast majority of experts in any scientific field is a profoundly anti-intellectual act. I can understand questioning the basis of any scientific opinion because one learns through questioning. But for a lay person to take a definite stance against what amounts to a near-consensus in a highly technical field, is, as I say, an act of anti-intellectualism. I don't consider the very few opposing experts to be anti-intellectual because they presumably have their own good reasons (corruption by petroleum interests or a skewed interpretation of facts that they well understand, etc.). But you have no expertise, at least none that I know of. You are a lay person.
Not automatically, but for a lay person to oppose the opinion of vast majority of experts in any scientific field is a profoundly anti-intellectual act. I can understand questioning the basis of any scientific opinion because one learns through questioning. But for a lay person to take a definite stance against what amounts to a near-consensus in a highly technical field, is, as I say, an act of anti-intellectualism. I don't consider the very few opposing experts to be anti-intellectual because they presumably have their own good reasons (corruption by petroleum interests or a skewed interpretation of facts that they well understand, etc.). But you have no expertise, at least none that I know of. You are a lay person.
Willie Lumplump
12-22-2007, 02:54 PM
Brrrrrrrrr! Last time I checked my outdoor thermometer registered 35 degrees and dropping. With this chilly weather, its kind of hard to believe there's such a thing as global warming :)
There is a BIG difference between weather and climate.
There is a BIG difference between weather and climate.
Willie Lumplump
12-22-2007, 03:00 PM
I simply don't believe that you are as ignorant of the facts (and mainstream news) as you pretend to be, nor do I think you are so stupid that you believe that the scientific method is equal to the 'group think' of almost 'any group'.
Whatever your motive is, your methods and lack of intellectual integrity in this thread are as entertaining as the Fox News commentators you're mimicking.
I doff my hat to a superior analytical mind.:tiphat:
Whatever your motive is, your methods and lack of intellectual integrity in this thread are as entertaining as the Fox News commentators you're mimicking.
I doff my hat to a superior analytical mind.:tiphat:
OrchardDweller
12-22-2007, 06:19 PM
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
Read entire text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence.
Read full text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
Read entire text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence.
Read full text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Zeno Swijtink
12-22-2007, 10:07 PM
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
Read entire text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence.
Read full text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
https://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/scientific_integrity/Finalist10.jpg
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
Read entire text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence.
Read full text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
https://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/scientific_integrity/Finalist10.jpg
Zeno Swijtink
12-23-2007, 12:09 PM
Consensus?
The following is a list of scientists who are signatories to this open letter (https://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002) dated Dec. 13, 2007, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, questioning conclusions of the IPCC report that are contradicted by recent major scientific studies (https://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908).
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
/snip/
Is this letter for real?? I have not found any other "source" for it, except this website from the National Post, a conservative Canadian newspaper that a while ago published the lie that Iran had ordered Jews to wear an identifying badge in public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post
There is also no return address for this letter. How is Ban Ki-Moon supposed to reply to his mail?
The following is a list of scientists who are signatories to this open letter (https://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002) dated Dec. 13, 2007, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, questioning conclusions of the IPCC report that are contradicted by recent major scientific studies (https://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908).
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
/snip/
Is this letter for real?? I have not found any other "source" for it, except this website from the National Post, a conservative Canadian newspaper that a while ago published the lie that Iran had ordered Jews to wear an identifying badge in public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post
There is also no return address for this letter. How is Ban Ki-Moon supposed to reply to his mail?
Zeno Swijtink
12-23-2007, 12:25 PM
Yup... this guy has it about right, I think.
https://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4194/
Always beware when the market extremist takes on the mantle of democracy!
What would democracy in a worldwide problem like global climate change look like?
Let's get some basic facts
I's a big world out there:
https://artswork.asu.edu/arts/students/content/wc/chinagraph1.jpg
How has the world contributed to this cumulative problem:
https://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2003/0303econ1.gif
Percentage of World Carbon Emissions, 1900-1999
What's going on right now:
https://maps.grida.no/library/files/web_national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita.jpg
Per Capita Emissions, 2002
What would democracy in a worldwide problem like global climate change look like? It's going to be rough to face the world democracy on this!!
https://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4194/
Always beware when the market extremist takes on the mantle of democracy!
What would democracy in a worldwide problem like global climate change look like?
Let's get some basic facts
I's a big world out there:
https://artswork.asu.edu/arts/students/content/wc/chinagraph1.jpg
How has the world contributed to this cumulative problem:
https://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2003/0303econ1.gif
Percentage of World Carbon Emissions, 1900-1999
What's going on right now:
https://maps.grida.no/library/files/web_national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita.jpg
Per Capita Emissions, 2002
What would democracy in a worldwide problem like global climate change look like? It's going to be rough to face the world democracy on this!!
lynn
12-24-2007, 02:07 AM
Clancy...I simply don't believe that you are as ignorant of the facts (and mainstream news) as you pretend to be, nor do I think you are so stupid that you believe that the scientific method is equal to the 'group think' of almost 'any group'.
Oh, stop it Clancy...I just read stuff here and there - and don't pay much attention to the 'mainstream news'...So, I know there's at least some scientists debating the whole 'climate change media hype' as some of them might call it...
Whatever your motive is, your methods and lack of intellectual integrity in this thread are as entertaining as the Fox News commentators you're mimicking.
Gee Clancy - again!!...I haven't had a t.v. for years, and have never watched Fox news!...Again, I just read stuff once in awhile...And if having a different perspective than you, or a bunch of other people, just makes you assume I possess a 'lack of intelletual integrity'...Well, be my guest in assuming all that...
Although, I wouldn't advise you to try and capitalize on your not-so-great psycho-analytical skills...
toootallloooo.....
Oh, stop it Clancy...I just read stuff here and there - and don't pay much attention to the 'mainstream news'...So, I know there's at least some scientists debating the whole 'climate change media hype' as some of them might call it...
Whatever your motive is, your methods and lack of intellectual integrity in this thread are as entertaining as the Fox News commentators you're mimicking.
Gee Clancy - again!!...I haven't had a t.v. for years, and have never watched Fox news!...Again, I just read stuff once in awhile...And if having a different perspective than you, or a bunch of other people, just makes you assume I possess a 'lack of intelletual integrity'...Well, be my guest in assuming all that...
Although, I wouldn't advise you to try and capitalize on your not-so-great psycho-analytical skills...
toootallloooo.....
lynn
12-24-2007, 02:34 AM
Willie...But for a lay person to take a definite stance against what amounts to a near-consensus in a highly technical field, is, as I say, an act of anti-intellectualism. I don't consider the very few opposing experts to be anti-intellectual because they presumably have their own good reasons (corruption by petroleum interests or a skewed interpretation of facts that they well understand, etc.). But you have no expertise, at least none that I know of. You are a lay person.
Oh, I love that Willie!...If it's a layperson, who doesn't have tons of time, or training, or inclination to read all that scientific stuff, and not follow in lock-step that 'near consensus', it's 'anti-intellectualism'....but if it's a 'real' intellectual who doesn't agree with the 'near-consensus'...of course, that doesn't mean they are 'anti-intellectual'...just a little greedy, or skewed maybe...Gee Willie!!...Great conclusion!!...
Although, I'd hate to think of what would happen in the 'science world' - if all scientists at all times NEVER questioned that 'near-consensus'!!!....
Oh, I love that Willie!...If it's a layperson, who doesn't have tons of time, or training, or inclination to read all that scientific stuff, and not follow in lock-step that 'near consensus', it's 'anti-intellectualism'....but if it's a 'real' intellectual who doesn't agree with the 'near-consensus'...of course, that doesn't mean they are 'anti-intellectual'...just a little greedy, or skewed maybe...Gee Willie!!...Great conclusion!!...
Although, I'd hate to think of what would happen in the 'science world' - if all scientists at all times NEVER questioned that 'near-consensus'!!!....
lynn
12-24-2007, 03:27 AM
Willie..."But for a lay person to take a definite stance against what amounts to a near-consensus in a highly technical field, is, as I say, an act of anti-intellectualism"....
You could also elaborate on what you mean by 'definite stance', 'near-consensus', 'anti-intellectualism', and 'skewed interpretation'...
---------------------------------
I doff my hat to a superior analytical mind.
Uh, oh...Now, THAT is scary...
---------------------------------
Now, if any layperson can explain how a layperson is suppose to know when a scientist has a 'skewed interpretation of facts' of a 'near-consensus', and all scientists can agree on that laypersons explanation...
I just might doff my hat to THEM!!...
You could also elaborate on what you mean by 'definite stance', 'near-consensus', 'anti-intellectualism', and 'skewed interpretation'...
---------------------------------
I doff my hat to a superior analytical mind.
Uh, oh...Now, THAT is scary...
---------------------------------
Now, if any layperson can explain how a layperson is suppose to know when a scientist has a 'skewed interpretation of facts' of a 'near-consensus', and all scientists can agree on that laypersons explanation...
I just might doff my hat to THEM!!...
d-cat
12-24-2007, 08:01 AM
You could also elaborate on what you mean by 'definite stance', 'near-consensus', 'anti-intellectualism', and 'skewed interpretation'...
"near-consensus"? - they were saying it was a consensus just a while ago
Excellent posts and points Lynn!
"near-consensus"? - they were saying it was a consensus just a while ago
Excellent posts and points Lynn!
d-cat
12-24-2007, 08:02 AM
"...independent Americans have to be scared, as well as shamed into conforming to an international agenda calling for Earth stewardship..."
'Greens' movement may have darker agenda
https://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2236
'Greens' movement may have darker agenda
https://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2236
d-cat
12-24-2007, 08:19 AM
Although, I'd hate to think of what would happen in the 'science world' - if all scientists at all times NEVER questioned that 'near-consensus'!!!....
Copernicus believed that the earth revolved around the sun, and was scorned and even thrown into prison for speaking up against the "consensus" that the sun revolved around the earth. Luckily, some listened to him. I wonder which side some of the people on this thread would have been on...
https://www.lehigh.edu/lts/connect/Copernicus.jpg
Copernicus believed that the earth revolved around the sun, and was scorned and even thrown into prison for speaking up against the "consensus" that the sun revolved around the earth. Luckily, some listened to him. I wonder which side some of the people on this thread would have been on...
https://www.lehigh.edu/lts/connect/Copernicus.jpg
Braggi
12-24-2007, 08:30 AM
...
The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence. ...
Actually, and very sadly, that's all that's in the papers recently. No actual fact based reporting, just this Exxon paid for nonsense.
There really is no global warming, I guess, The polar caps are melting because ... well, I guess we just don't know, we can't know, we don't want to know. Let's all party. Heck, they didn't need 400 experts to come up with this crap. Rush Limbaugh has been denying you can harm the environment for decades. Just tune into Rush.
You don't need science.
-Jeff
The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence. ...
Actually, and very sadly, that's all that's in the papers recently. No actual fact based reporting, just this Exxon paid for nonsense.
There really is no global warming, I guess, The polar caps are melting because ... well, I guess we just don't know, we can't know, we don't want to know. Let's all party. Heck, they didn't need 400 experts to come up with this crap. Rush Limbaugh has been denying you can harm the environment for decades. Just tune into Rush.
You don't need science.
-Jeff
d-cat
12-24-2007, 08:54 AM
They aren't saying the globe isn't warming. They're saying it's not catastrophic and it's not due to man; that it's a natural cycle due to the sun's output. I think that is a pretty important point to understand.
Kennedy appears to not understand this either:
John Stossel vs Robert Kennedy on Global Warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXRB4U3vW0
Actually, and very sadly, that's all that's in the papers recently. No actual fact based reporting, just this Exxon paid for nonsense.
There really is no global warming, I guess, The polar caps are melting because ... well, I guess we just don't know, we can't know, we don't want to know. Let's all party. Heck, they didn't need 400 experts to come up with this crap. Rush Limbaugh has been denying you can harm the environment for decades. Just tune into Rush.
You don't need science.
-Jeff
Kennedy appears to not understand this either:
John Stossel vs Robert Kennedy on Global Warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXRB4U3vW0
Actually, and very sadly, that's all that's in the papers recently. No actual fact based reporting, just this Exxon paid for nonsense.
There really is no global warming, I guess, The polar caps are melting because ... well, I guess we just don't know, we can't know, we don't want to know. Let's all party. Heck, they didn't need 400 experts to come up with this crap. Rush Limbaugh has been denying you can harm the environment for decades. Just tune into Rush.
You don't need science.
-Jeff
d-cat
12-24-2007, 09:03 AM
Columbus also reportedly took a lot of heat for believing that the earth was round and for going against the flat-earth consensus. But now they're calling scientists who don't go with the "consensus" flat-earthers. They should actually be calling the people who won't hear anything other than the "consensus" the flat-earthers!
https://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070220/070220_columbus_vmed_11a.widec.jpg
https://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070220/070220_columbus_vmed_11a.widec.jpg
Zeno Swijtink
12-24-2007, 10:47 AM
Columbus also reportedly took a lot of heat for believing that the earth was round and for going <br/>against the flat-earth consensus.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Ptolemaicsystem-small.png
The Ancient and Medieval cosmos as depicted in Peter Apian's Cosmographia (Antwerp, 1539).
The idea that people in Columbus's time believed that the earth was a flat disk is itself a myth. <br/>Even Aristotle did not believe this.
A very common myth, indeed, apparently invented by the USA writer Washington Irving (1783-1859), <br/>whose historical fiction was mistaken by his readers for fact.
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
Like a Michael Crichton, who may unwittingly have enforced in many a conservative the belief <br/>that people walked the Earth with dinosaurs.
https://www.christianpost.com/article/20070710/28375_Did_Dinosaurs_Live_with_Man%3F.htm
The sorry state of education in this country!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Ptolemaicsystem-small.png
The Ancient and Medieval cosmos as depicted in Peter Apian's Cosmographia (Antwerp, 1539).
The idea that people in Columbus's time believed that the earth was a flat disk is itself a myth. <br/>Even Aristotle did not believe this.
A very common myth, indeed, apparently invented by the USA writer Washington Irving (1783-1859), <br/>whose historical fiction was mistaken by his readers for fact.
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
Like a Michael Crichton, who may unwittingly have enforced in many a conservative the belief <br/>that people walked the Earth with dinosaurs.
https://www.christianpost.com/article/20070710/28375_Did_Dinosaurs_Live_with_Man%3F.htm
The sorry state of education in this country!
Zeno Swijtink
12-24-2007, 11:09 AM
They aren't saying the globe isn't warming. They're saying it's not catastrophic and it's not due to man; that it's a natural<br/> cycle due to the sun's output. I think that is a pretty important point to understand.
They are saying this (now, since they have lately changed their tune) in press releases and on conservative blogs. <br/>But, please, give me a scientific climate modeling study that fits the data with this hypothesis! <br/>Then we can, as lay people, start following the discussion about that study in the scientific literature, rather then depend on a war of <br/>words, images, and videos, that will not bring us any closer.
They are saying this (now, since they have lately changed their tune) in press releases and on conservative blogs. <br/>But, please, give me a scientific climate modeling study that fits the data with this hypothesis! <br/>Then we can, as lay people, start following the discussion about that study in the scientific literature, rather then depend on a war of <br/>words, images, and videos, that will not bring us any closer.
d-cat
12-24-2007, 12:10 PM
Great - more reason for the "environmentalists" to stop using this term!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Ptolemaicsystem-small.png
The Ancient and Medieval cosmos as depicted in Peter Apian's Cosmographia (Antwerp, 1539).
The idea that people in Columbus's time believed that the earth was a flat disk is itself a myth. <br/>Even Aristotle did not believe this.
A very common myth, indeed, apparently invented by the USA writer Washington Irving (1783-1859), <br/>whose historical fiction was mistaken by his readers for fact.
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
Like a Michael Crichton, who may unwittingly have enforced in many a conservative the belief <br/>that people walked the Earth with dinosaurs.
https://www.christianpost.com/article/20070710/28375_Did_Dinosaurs_Live_with_Man%3F.htm
The sorry state of education in this country!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Ptolemaicsystem-small.png
The Ancient and Medieval cosmos as depicted in Peter Apian's Cosmographia (Antwerp, 1539).
The idea that people in Columbus's time believed that the earth was a flat disk is itself a myth. <br/>Even Aristotle did not believe this.
A very common myth, indeed, apparently invented by the USA writer Washington Irving (1783-1859), <br/>whose historical fiction was mistaken by his readers for fact.
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
Like a Michael Crichton, who may unwittingly have enforced in many a conservative the belief <br/>that people walked the Earth with dinosaurs.
https://www.christianpost.com/article/20070710/28375_Did_Dinosaurs_Live_with_Man%3F.htm
The sorry state of education in this country!
theindependenteye
12-24-2007, 12:19 PM
Friends—
It's always been curious to me that in the approximately ten years I've been part of these kinds of discussions, I've never known anyone to change their mind or say, "You're right, I was wrong."
Not that there isn't a point to it all. Maybe some lurkers will learn something and be persuaded. Maybe some debaters will sharpen their research & writing skills. And definitely many varieties of irrational quarrel techniques will go through evolutionary refinement for application to daily functions, e.g. destroying relationships, etc.
In the current debate, i guess I'm on the side of the alarmists. While i don't trust Voices of Authority any more than I trust myself, there does come a point when it's foolhardy — for the sake of your own ass if not the rest of the planet — to trust the best evidence, and to me that suggests a very high likelihood of human-aggravated global warming and potential disasters.
There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about. I imagine there are still arguments put forth somewhere that smoking is a healthy way to purify the lungs. And unquestionably the workings of science are intertwined with politics: who gets the grants, who funds the studies, how is one's career affected by disputing the consentual realities? So skepticism is always warranted.
But at a certain point, there's the question of action. Studies of the effects of smoking were never "definitive," and though people went on dying, the threat to a major industry suggested that the issue "warranted further study."
So in the present situation, the threats are what? Economic dislocations from strictures on industrial growth? Expanding government regulation? Making fools of ourselves? I dunno: I'm not an Exxon executive, and they're paid to know.
But you know, I have health insurance, even though it's possible I might just drop dead tomorrow. I have property insurance even though I've never collected anything from it. Theft or hospital bills are risks I don't choose to take, because there's enough evidence that suggests to me I might be sorry otherwise.
Likewise, there's enough evidence — a vast mass of it, in fact — that suggests we're doing something to the Earth and might be sorry about it at some point. The results of action would, at worst, result in world-wide economic depression; at best, in creation of new industries, less flight of wealth to oil producers, a healthier environment, etc. That's all debatable too.
But whether the effects of human consumption make the shit hit the fan in two years or a hundred years, it's probably gonna hit the fan. It just seems more sensible to me that the risks of doing nothing vastly outweigh the risks of doing something, and that the benefits of the latter may likewise be immeasurably greater.
Not expecting, however, to change any minds, since human intransigence isn't really caused by humans but is just part of nature.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
It's always been curious to me that in the approximately ten years I've been part of these kinds of discussions, I've never known anyone to change their mind or say, "You're right, I was wrong."
Not that there isn't a point to it all. Maybe some lurkers will learn something and be persuaded. Maybe some debaters will sharpen their research & writing skills. And definitely many varieties of irrational quarrel techniques will go through evolutionary refinement for application to daily functions, e.g. destroying relationships, etc.
In the current debate, i guess I'm on the side of the alarmists. While i don't trust Voices of Authority any more than I trust myself, there does come a point when it's foolhardy — for the sake of your own ass if not the rest of the planet — to trust the best evidence, and to me that suggests a very high likelihood of human-aggravated global warming and potential disasters.
There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about. I imagine there are still arguments put forth somewhere that smoking is a healthy way to purify the lungs. And unquestionably the workings of science are intertwined with politics: who gets the grants, who funds the studies, how is one's career affected by disputing the consentual realities? So skepticism is always warranted.
But at a certain point, there's the question of action. Studies of the effects of smoking were never "definitive," and though people went on dying, the threat to a major industry suggested that the issue "warranted further study."
So in the present situation, the threats are what? Economic dislocations from strictures on industrial growth? Expanding government regulation? Making fools of ourselves? I dunno: I'm not an Exxon executive, and they're paid to know.
But you know, I have health insurance, even though it's possible I might just drop dead tomorrow. I have property insurance even though I've never collected anything from it. Theft or hospital bills are risks I don't choose to take, because there's enough evidence that suggests to me I might be sorry otherwise.
Likewise, there's enough evidence — a vast mass of it, in fact — that suggests we're doing something to the Earth and might be sorry about it at some point. The results of action would, at worst, result in world-wide economic depression; at best, in creation of new industries, less flight of wealth to oil producers, a healthier environment, etc. That's all debatable too.
But whether the effects of human consumption make the shit hit the fan in two years or a hundred years, it's probably gonna hit the fan. It just seems more sensible to me that the risks of doing nothing vastly outweigh the risks of doing something, and that the benefits of the latter may likewise be immeasurably greater.
Not expecting, however, to change any minds, since human intransigence isn't really caused by humans but is just part of nature.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
Willie Lumplump
12-24-2007, 12:54 PM
I just read stuff here and there - and don't pay much attention to the 'mainstream news'
I think it's wonderful that your "here and there" sources report the frequent international conferences on climatology and the nearly universal agreement among participants that the earth is warming and that man very likely is the cause. And it's great that your sources tell you that all the major climate models converge around a warming of 3.5 degrees in this century and that there is a small but significant probability of much greater warming. Since you're already aware of these events, you're in a much better position to dispute them.
I think it's wonderful that your "here and there" sources report the frequent international conferences on climatology and the nearly universal agreement among participants that the earth is warming and that man very likely is the cause. And it's great that your sources tell you that all the major climate models converge around a warming of 3.5 degrees in this century and that there is a small but significant probability of much greater warming. Since you're already aware of these events, you're in a much better position to dispute them.
Willie Lumplump
12-24-2007, 01:07 PM
Willie...But for a lay person to take a definite stance against what amounts to a near-consensus in a highly technical field, is, as I say, an act of anti-intellectualism. I don't consider the very few opposing experts to be anti-intellectual because they presumably have their own good reasons (corruption by petroleum interests or a skewed interpretation of facts that they well understand, etc.). But you have no expertise, at least none that I know of. You are a lay person.
Oh, I love that Willie!...If it's a layperson, who doesn't have tons of time, or training, or inclination to read all that scientific stuff, and not follow in lock-step that 'near consensus', it's 'anti-intellectualism'....but if it's a 'real' intellectual who doesn't agree with the 'near-consensus'...of course, that doesn't mean they are 'anti-intellectual'...just a little greedy, or skewed maybe...Gee Willie!!...Great conclusion!!...
Anti-intellectualism isn't necessarily identified with any particular scientific opinion. A scientist may disagree with a majority conclusion and still be an intellectual because he bases his disagreement on facts that he well understands. On the other hand, if you as a lay person disagree with the opinions of a large majority but are unable to refute those majority opinions with your own informed interpretations, you open yourself to charges of anti-intellectualism. That's the way I look at it. Maybe there are better ways of looking at it, but I think that my way is, by any definition, reasonable.
Although, I'd hate to think of what would happen in the 'science world' - if all scientists at all times NEVER questioned that 'near-consensus'!!!....But that's my point. YOU are NOT a scientist, and therefore it's unlikely that you have a rational basis for questioning the opinions of the vast majority of experts. If I'm wrong and you do in fact have a rational argument, I'm all ears to hear it. Argue away, and I'll follow along as well as my very limited understanding of this field will permit. But appealing to the authority of small-minority opinion when you have no idea yourself of the details of the argument is not, it seems to me, good judgment, and I'd even go so far as to call it anti-intellectual.
Oh, I love that Willie!...If it's a layperson, who doesn't have tons of time, or training, or inclination to read all that scientific stuff, and not follow in lock-step that 'near consensus', it's 'anti-intellectualism'....but if it's a 'real' intellectual who doesn't agree with the 'near-consensus'...of course, that doesn't mean they are 'anti-intellectual'...just a little greedy, or skewed maybe...Gee Willie!!...Great conclusion!!...
Anti-intellectualism isn't necessarily identified with any particular scientific opinion. A scientist may disagree with a majority conclusion and still be an intellectual because he bases his disagreement on facts that he well understands. On the other hand, if you as a lay person disagree with the opinions of a large majority but are unable to refute those majority opinions with your own informed interpretations, you open yourself to charges of anti-intellectualism. That's the way I look at it. Maybe there are better ways of looking at it, but I think that my way is, by any definition, reasonable.
Although, I'd hate to think of what would happen in the 'science world' - if all scientists at all times NEVER questioned that 'near-consensus'!!!....But that's my point. YOU are NOT a scientist, and therefore it's unlikely that you have a rational basis for questioning the opinions of the vast majority of experts. If I'm wrong and you do in fact have a rational argument, I'm all ears to hear it. Argue away, and I'll follow along as well as my very limited understanding of this field will permit. But appealing to the authority of small-minority opinion when you have no idea yourself of the details of the argument is not, it seems to me, good judgment, and I'd even go so far as to call it anti-intellectual.
Willie Lumplump
12-24-2007, 01:13 PM
They aren't saying the globe isn't warming. They're saying it's not catastrophic and it's not due to man; that it's a natural cycle due to the sun's output. I think that is a pretty important point to understand.I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There have been hundreds of studies of just this point, and all have reached the same conclusion: Increased solar radiation can account for only a tiny fraction of the global warming that's occurring.
Kennedy appears to not understand this either: John Stossel vs Robert Kennedy on Global Warming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXRB4U3vW0 John Stossel is a notoriously unreliable right-wing propagandist who regularly incorporates lies into his presentations.
Kennedy appears to not understand this either: John Stossel vs Robert Kennedy on Global Warming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXRB4U3vW0 John Stossel is a notoriously unreliable right-wing propagandist who regularly incorporates lies into his presentations.
Willie Lumplump
12-24-2007, 01:19 PM
The idea that people in Columbus's time believed that the earth was a flat disk is itself a myth. Even Aristotle did not believe this.Of course you're quite right about this. It's been known since very ancient times that the earth is not flat. Even the earliest sailors must have observed that the mast of an approaching ship appeared over the horizon before the rest of the ship did, something that could not happen if the earth were flat.
Willie Lumplump
12-24-2007, 01:24 PM
Friends—It's always been curious to me that in the approximately ten years I've been part of these kinds of discussions, I've never known anyone to change their mind or say, "You're right, I was wrong."I've changed my mind on several occasions and been persuaded to doubt on still more.
There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about.Well, not quite. Dispute follows evidence. If there is no believable counter-evidence to a proposition, there is no dispute, although the possibility of dispute can't be ruled out in the future.
There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about.Well, not quite. Dispute follows evidence. If there is no believable counter-evidence to a proposition, there is no dispute, although the possibility of dispute can't be ruled out in the future.
d-cat
12-24-2007, 01:34 PM
Hi IndyEye,
It's good advice to play it safe as you suggest. But to really play it safe, I think one should look into The United Nations, the people behind it (the Rockefellers for one), and their agenda (under the guise of internationalism) before coming to any conclusion about which is the safe side to be on. Also, the CFR should be looked into, as all UN ambassadors are members (the last time I checked anyway). I remember some links and info on the Ron Paul/UN thread regarding some of these subjects.
I remember Gore a few years back touting NAFTA as being good for the US, as well as his debate about it with Ross Perot on Larry King. I believe Gore could be another globalist helping to push in a one-world government, known as the "New World Order" (Bush Sr and Bill Clinton spoke of the New World Order and videos are available of this on YouTube). I understand that Gore also is a member of the CFR.
I recently heard one of the Rothschilds (who has written a book on man-made global warming for children) on radio explaining that the reason the polar caps on Mars are melting is because Mars is closer to the sun than the Earth! Very odd, coming from a well-learned Rothschild. He then went on to explain the science of man-made global warming.
Also, there was a book in the 60's called The Report From Iron Mountain about a supposed secret government meeting where it was discussed how the masses could continue to be controlled if there were no more wars. One of the discussions was about creating a story about a climate catastrophe to keep people scared, and willing to submit to a global government. Whether this book was a hoax or not, I do not know. But I do believe that if it were real, there would be people saying that it is a hoax. Whichever the case, I do find it interesting that it was being written about in the 60s. Some say that man-made global warming is to the left what the war on terror is to the right. A way of keeping people frightened and easy to control. It's known as the "problem-reaction-solution" paradigm and there is info available on this on the web.
Anyway, these are some of the reasons why I am cautious, and not buying hook, line and sinker into this man-made catastrophic global warming theory. Just my two cents. Others' mileage may vary.
Peace and joy to you too IndyEye :)
Friends—
It's always been curious to me that in the approximately ten years I've been part of these kinds of discussions, I've never known anyone to change their mind or say, "You're right, I was wrong."
Not that there isn't a point to it all. Maybe some lurkers will learn something and be persuaded. Maybe some debaters will sharpen their research & writing skills. And definitely many varieties of irrational quarrel techniques will go through evolutionary refinement for application to daily functions, e.g. destroying relationships, etc.
In the current debate, i guess I'm on the side of the alarmists. While i don't trust Voices of Authority any more than I trust myself, there does come a point when it's foolhardy — for the sake of your own ass if not the rest of the planet — to trust the best evidence, and to me that suggests a very high likelihood of human-aggravated global warming and potential disasters.
There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about. I imagine there are still arguments put forth somewhere that smoking is a healthy way to purify the lungs. And unquestionably the workings of science are intertwined with politics: who gets the grants, who funds the studies, how is one's career affected by disputing the consentual realities? So skepticism is always warranted.
But at a certain point, there's the question of action. Studies of the effects of smoking were never "definitive," and though people went on dying, the threat to a major industry suggested that the issue "warranted further study."
So in the present situation, the threats are what? Economic dislocations from strictures on industrial growth? Expanding government regulation? Making fools of ourselves? I dunno: I'm not an Exxon executive, and they're paid to know.
But you know, I have health insurance, even though it's possible I might just drop dead tomorrow. I have property insurance even though I've never collected anything from it. Theft or hospital bills are risks I don't choose to take, because there's enough evidence that suggests to me I might be sorry otherwise.
Likewise, there's enough evidence — a vast mass of it, in fact — that suggests we're doing something to the Earth and might be sorry about it at some point. The results of action would, at worst, result in world-wide economic depression; at best, in creation of new industries, less flight of wealth to oil producers, a healthier environment, etc. That's all debatable too.
But whether the effects of human consumption make the shit hit the fan in two years or a hundred years, it's probably gonna hit the fan. It just seems more sensible to me that the risks of doing nothing vastly outweigh the risks of doing something, and that the benefits of the latter may likewise be immeasurably greater.
Not expecting, however, to change any minds, since human intransigence isn't really caused by humans but is just part of nature.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
It's good advice to play it safe as you suggest. But to really play it safe, I think one should look into The United Nations, the people behind it (the Rockefellers for one), and their agenda (under the guise of internationalism) before coming to any conclusion about which is the safe side to be on. Also, the CFR should be looked into, as all UN ambassadors are members (the last time I checked anyway). I remember some links and info on the Ron Paul/UN thread regarding some of these subjects.
I remember Gore a few years back touting NAFTA as being good for the US, as well as his debate about it with Ross Perot on Larry King. I believe Gore could be another globalist helping to push in a one-world government, known as the "New World Order" (Bush Sr and Bill Clinton spoke of the New World Order and videos are available of this on YouTube). I understand that Gore also is a member of the CFR.
I recently heard one of the Rothschilds (who has written a book on man-made global warming for children) on radio explaining that the reason the polar caps on Mars are melting is because Mars is closer to the sun than the Earth! Very odd, coming from a well-learned Rothschild. He then went on to explain the science of man-made global warming.
Also, there was a book in the 60's called The Report From Iron Mountain about a supposed secret government meeting where it was discussed how the masses could continue to be controlled if there were no more wars. One of the discussions was about creating a story about a climate catastrophe to keep people scared, and willing to submit to a global government. Whether this book was a hoax or not, I do not know. But I do believe that if it were real, there would be people saying that it is a hoax. Whichever the case, I do find it interesting that it was being written about in the 60s. Some say that man-made global warming is to the left what the war on terror is to the right. A way of keeping people frightened and easy to control. It's known as the "problem-reaction-solution" paradigm and there is info available on this on the web.
Anyway, these are some of the reasons why I am cautious, and not buying hook, line and sinker into this man-made catastrophic global warming theory. Just my two cents. Others' mileage may vary.
Peace and joy to you too IndyEye :)
Friends—
It's always been curious to me that in the approximately ten years I've been part of these kinds of discussions, I've never known anyone to change their mind or say, "You're right, I was wrong."
Not that there isn't a point to it all. Maybe some lurkers will learn something and be persuaded. Maybe some debaters will sharpen their research & writing skills. And definitely many varieties of irrational quarrel techniques will go through evolutionary refinement for application to daily functions, e.g. destroying relationships, etc.
In the current debate, i guess I'm on the side of the alarmists. While i don't trust Voices of Authority any more than I trust myself, there does come a point when it's foolhardy — for the sake of your own ass if not the rest of the planet — to trust the best evidence, and to me that suggests a very high likelihood of human-aggravated global warming and potential disasters.
There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about. I imagine there are still arguments put forth somewhere that smoking is a healthy way to purify the lungs. And unquestionably the workings of science are intertwined with politics: who gets the grants, who funds the studies, how is one's career affected by disputing the consentual realities? So skepticism is always warranted.
But at a certain point, there's the question of action. Studies of the effects of smoking were never "definitive," and though people went on dying, the threat to a major industry suggested that the issue "warranted further study."
So in the present situation, the threats are what? Economic dislocations from strictures on industrial growth? Expanding government regulation? Making fools of ourselves? I dunno: I'm not an Exxon executive, and they're paid to know.
But you know, I have health insurance, even though it's possible I might just drop dead tomorrow. I have property insurance even though I've never collected anything from it. Theft or hospital bills are risks I don't choose to take, because there's enough evidence that suggests to me I might be sorry otherwise.
Likewise, there's enough evidence — a vast mass of it, in fact — that suggests we're doing something to the Earth and might be sorry about it at some point. The results of action would, at worst, result in world-wide economic depression; at best, in creation of new industries, less flight of wealth to oil producers, a healthier environment, etc. That's all debatable too.
But whether the effects of human consumption make the shit hit the fan in two years or a hundred years, it's probably gonna hit the fan. It just seems more sensible to me that the risks of doing nothing vastly outweigh the risks of doing something, and that the benefits of the latter may likewise be immeasurably greater.
Not expecting, however, to change any minds, since human intransigence isn't really caused by humans but is just part of nature.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
Zeno Swijtink
12-24-2007, 01:41 PM
Copernicus believed that the earth revolved around the sun, and was scorned and even thrown into prison for speaking up against the "consensus" that the sun revolved around the earth. Luckily, some listened to him. I wonder which side some of the people on this thread would have been on...
[/IMG]
Copernicus was never put in prison for his heliocentric theory. You confuse him with Galileo, who was put under house arrest. Please research your learning before spreading false rumors!
Copernicus did not just "believe" this. He based his theory on observations, by himself and others, and developed a mathematical model, with the Sun in the center, that provided best fit to these observations. He did not use publications like the National Post to "convert" people to "listen" to him. His work spoke for itself.
[/IMG]
Copernicus was never put in prison for his heliocentric theory. You confuse him with Galileo, who was put under house arrest. Please research your learning before spreading false rumors!
Copernicus did not just "believe" this. He based his theory on observations, by himself and others, and developed a mathematical model, with the Sun in the center, that provided best fit to these observations. He did not use publications like the National Post to "convert" people to "listen" to him. His work spoke for itself.
d-cat
12-24-2007, 01:50 PM
The point isn't to quibble about Galileo or Corpernicus - the point is about not dismissing a view just because it isn't the status quo. Do you not agree with this?
Copernicus was never put in prison for his heliocentric theory. You confuse him with Galileo, who was put under house arrest. Please research your learning before spreading false rumors!
Copernicus did not just "believe" this. He based his theory on observations, by himself and others, and developed a mathematical model, with the Sun in the center, that provided best fit to these observations. He did not use publications like the National Post to "convert" people to "listen" to him. His work spoke for itself.
Copernicus was never put in prison for his heliocentric theory. You confuse him with Galileo, who was put under house arrest. Please research your learning before spreading false rumors!
Copernicus did not just "believe" this. He based his theory on observations, by himself and others, and developed a mathematical model, with the Sun in the center, that provided best fit to these observations. He did not use publications like the National Post to "convert" people to "listen" to him. His work spoke for itself.
Zeno Swijtink
12-24-2007, 02:03 PM
The point isn't to quibble about Galileo or Corpernicus - the point is about not dismissing a view just because it isn't the status quo. Do you not agree with this?
Of course I agree with this, to the extent that you can produce something more than videos and letters in questionable newspapers that have no return address. Introduce serious work from the people that you find interesting so we can have a look at it.
Of course I agree with this, to the extent that you can produce something more than videos and letters in questionable newspapers that have no return address. Introduce serious work from the people that you find interesting so we can have a look at it.
d-cat
12-24-2007, 02:49 PM
The point isn't to quibble about Galileo or Corpernicus - the point is about not dismissing a view just because it isn't the status quo. Do you not agree with this?
Of course I agree with this, to the extent that you can produce something more than videos and letters in questionable newspapers that have no return address. Introduce serious work from the people that you find interesting so we can have a look at it.
Zeno,
If you agree with this, then why bother with all the Columbus stuff you posted. I only said it was reported that Columbus took heat for saying the world is round. Do you disagree that this has been reported?
And in regard to my point, who cares in this context if Galileo was under house arrest and not jailed. Does this info somehow make my point about the importance of looking at different viewpoints wrong?
You say now that you agree that minority viewpoints shouldn't be ignored, yet that has been your argument against the scientists who say global warming isn't catastrophic or man-made. This has been your big argument; that they are in the minority, and so their opinions are dismissable.
The things you choose to concentrate on aren't of much interest to me and seems to me like nitpicking details which I don't really care to be involved in. But for those who do, feel free.
Zeno, you have to understand that I don't really care what you think. I'm not here to try to persuade you and don't expect me to put a lot of effort into that. Believe what you want to believe. I post this stuff for people interested in looking into the subject. If you already "know" and have no interest in looking at the other side, that's ok with me. And if you want to believe that the govt and the UN are all good people with our best interests in mind, be my guest. But don't expect me to spend time with you arguing over the details of Columbus or Galileo over it. You're completely missing the point.
Of course I agree with this, to the extent that you can produce something more than videos and letters in questionable newspapers that have no return address. Introduce serious work from the people that you find interesting so we can have a look at it.
Zeno,
If you agree with this, then why bother with all the Columbus stuff you posted. I only said it was reported that Columbus took heat for saying the world is round. Do you disagree that this has been reported?
And in regard to my point, who cares in this context if Galileo was under house arrest and not jailed. Does this info somehow make my point about the importance of looking at different viewpoints wrong?
You say now that you agree that minority viewpoints shouldn't be ignored, yet that has been your argument against the scientists who say global warming isn't catastrophic or man-made. This has been your big argument; that they are in the minority, and so their opinions are dismissable.
The things you choose to concentrate on aren't of much interest to me and seems to me like nitpicking details which I don't really care to be involved in. But for those who do, feel free.
Zeno, you have to understand that I don't really care what you think. I'm not here to try to persuade you and don't expect me to put a lot of effort into that. Believe what you want to believe. I post this stuff for people interested in looking into the subject. If you already "know" and have no interest in looking at the other side, that's ok with me. And if you want to believe that the govt and the UN are all good people with our best interests in mind, be my guest. But don't expect me to spend time with you arguing over the details of Columbus or Galileo over it. You're completely missing the point.
d-cat
12-24-2007, 03:14 PM
Thanks for the articles. Interesting Gore quote:
In his speech at the climate change conference in Bali last week, Gore expressed some deeply anti-democratic views. He told an audience of 1,000, including NGOs, green campaigners and journalists, as well as UN representatives and government officials, that they should ‘feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference’. He suggested the audience should not be worried about being seen as a minority, a tiny brave group that recognises the ‘planetary emergency’ facing Earth and its inhabitants, but rather should consider it a ‘privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come’ (1).
Yup... this guy has it about right, I think.
https://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4194/
This one seems spot on, as well.
https://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
enjoy
In his speech at the climate change conference in Bali last week, Gore expressed some deeply anti-democratic views. He told an audience of 1,000, including NGOs, green campaigners and journalists, as well as UN representatives and government officials, that they should ‘feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference’. He suggested the audience should not be worried about being seen as a minority, a tiny brave group that recognises the ‘planetary emergency’ facing Earth and its inhabitants, but rather should consider it a ‘privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come’ (1).
Yup... this guy has it about right, I think.
https://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4194/
This one seems spot on, as well.
https://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
enjoy
Clancy
12-24-2007, 04:02 PM
Interesting Gore quote:
[I]In his speech at the climate change conference in Bali last week, Gore expressed some deeply anti-democratic views...
Here's his quote IN context, and I applaud Mr. Gore;
There are two paths you can choose. They lead to two different futures. Not too long from now, when our children assess what you did here in Bali, what we in our generation did here in this world. As they look backward, at 2007, they will ask one of two questions. I don’t know which one they will ask, I know which one I prefer they ask, but trust me, they will ask one of these two questions.
They’ll look back and either they will ask, “What were you thinking? Didn’t you hear the IPCC four times unanimously warning the world to act? Didn’t you see the glaciers melting? Didn’t you see the North Polar ice cap disappearing? Didn’t you see the deserts growing and the droughts deepening and the crops drying up? Didn’t you see the sea level rising, didn’t you see the floods, didn’t you pay attention to what was going on? Didn’t you care? What were you thinking?”
Or they will ask a second question, one that I much prefer them ask. I want them to look back on this time and ask “How did you find the moral courage to successfully address a crisis that some many have said was impossible to address? How were you able to start the process that unleashed the moral imagination of humankind to see ourselves as a single global civilization?” And when they ask that question, I want you to tell them that you saw it as a privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come. Instead of shaking our heads at the difficulty of this task and saying “woe is us, this is impossible, how can we do this? We’re so mad at the ones that are making it harder; we ought to feel a sense of joy that we have work that is worth doing that is so important to the future of all humankind. We ought to feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference. That’s who you are. You have everything you need. We have everything we need, save perhaps political will. But political will is a renewable resource. Thank you very much.
Here's the full speech
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=465
[I]In his speech at the climate change conference in Bali last week, Gore expressed some deeply anti-democratic views...
Here's his quote IN context, and I applaud Mr. Gore;
There are two paths you can choose. They lead to two different futures. Not too long from now, when our children assess what you did here in Bali, what we in our generation did here in this world. As they look backward, at 2007, they will ask one of two questions. I don’t know which one they will ask, I know which one I prefer they ask, but trust me, they will ask one of these two questions.
They’ll look back and either they will ask, “What were you thinking? Didn’t you hear the IPCC four times unanimously warning the world to act? Didn’t you see the glaciers melting? Didn’t you see the North Polar ice cap disappearing? Didn’t you see the deserts growing and the droughts deepening and the crops drying up? Didn’t you see the sea level rising, didn’t you see the floods, didn’t you pay attention to what was going on? Didn’t you care? What were you thinking?”
Or they will ask a second question, one that I much prefer them ask. I want them to look back on this time and ask “How did you find the moral courage to successfully address a crisis that some many have said was impossible to address? How were you able to start the process that unleashed the moral imagination of humankind to see ourselves as a single global civilization?” And when they ask that question, I want you to tell them that you saw it as a privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come. Instead of shaking our heads at the difficulty of this task and saying “woe is us, this is impossible, how can we do this? We’re so mad at the ones that are making it harder; we ought to feel a sense of joy that we have work that is worth doing that is so important to the future of all humankind. We ought to feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference. That’s who you are. You have everything you need. We have everything we need, save perhaps political will. But political will is a renewable resource. Thank you very much.
Here's the full speech
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=465
Zeno Swijtink
12-24-2007, 04:51 PM
Zeno,
If you agree with this, then why bother with all the Columbus stuff you posted. I only said it was reported that Columbus took heat for saying the world is round. Do you disagree that this has been reported?
And in regard to my point, who cares in this context if Galileo was under house arrest and not jailed. Does this info somehow make my point about the importance of looking at different viewpoints wrong?
You say now that you agree that minority viewpoints shouldn't be ignored, yet that has been your argument against the scientists who say global warming isn't catastrophic or man-made. This has been your big argument; that they are in the minority, and so their opinions are dismissable.
The things you choose to concentrate on aren't of much interest to me and seems to me like nitpicking details which I don't really care to be involved in. But for those who do, feel free.
Zeno, you have to understand that I don't really care what you think. I'm not here to try to persuade you and don't expect me to put a lot of effort into that. Believe what you want to believe. I post this stuff for people interested in looking into the subject. If you already "know" and have no interest in looking at the other side, that's ok with me. And if you want to believe that the govt and the UN are all good people with our best interests in mind, be my guest. But don't expect me to spend time with you arguing over the details of Columbus or Galileo over it. You're completely missing the point.
The point of elaborating on your misinformation on Columbus or Copernicus is that, as you say, you are just "reporting" what others are "reporting."
You also do this with the issue of climate change, and get entangled in an endless web of misinformation and gossip, reducing everything to the level of world conspiracy theories.
If I am asking to show me some real studies and discuss them for me, the kind of work Galileo, Copernicus, and Columbus, a superb dead reckoning navigator who kept meticulous records of his voyages, stood for, you call this "nitpicking" details.
You must live in a different cognitive universe where all your reasoning reduces to ad hominem arguments, gleaned from talk radio and right wing blogs.
If you reread my messages you will see that I did not make the argument about majority vs minority viewpoints. That has not been my line. Scientific truth is not established by voting. My line has been the "nitpicking" one.
If you agree with this, then why bother with all the Columbus stuff you posted. I only said it was reported that Columbus took heat for saying the world is round. Do you disagree that this has been reported?
And in regard to my point, who cares in this context if Galileo was under house arrest and not jailed. Does this info somehow make my point about the importance of looking at different viewpoints wrong?
You say now that you agree that minority viewpoints shouldn't be ignored, yet that has been your argument against the scientists who say global warming isn't catastrophic or man-made. This has been your big argument; that they are in the minority, and so their opinions are dismissable.
The things you choose to concentrate on aren't of much interest to me and seems to me like nitpicking details which I don't really care to be involved in. But for those who do, feel free.
Zeno, you have to understand that I don't really care what you think. I'm not here to try to persuade you and don't expect me to put a lot of effort into that. Believe what you want to believe. I post this stuff for people interested in looking into the subject. If you already "know" and have no interest in looking at the other side, that's ok with me. And if you want to believe that the govt and the UN are all good people with our best interests in mind, be my guest. But don't expect me to spend time with you arguing over the details of Columbus or Galileo over it. You're completely missing the point.
The point of elaborating on your misinformation on Columbus or Copernicus is that, as you say, you are just "reporting" what others are "reporting."
You also do this with the issue of climate change, and get entangled in an endless web of misinformation and gossip, reducing everything to the level of world conspiracy theories.
If I am asking to show me some real studies and discuss them for me, the kind of work Galileo, Copernicus, and Columbus, a superb dead reckoning navigator who kept meticulous records of his voyages, stood for, you call this "nitpicking" details.
You must live in a different cognitive universe where all your reasoning reduces to ad hominem arguments, gleaned from talk radio and right wing blogs.
If you reread my messages you will see that I did not make the argument about majority vs minority viewpoints. That has not been my line. Scientific truth is not established by voting. My line has been the "nitpicking" one.
mykil
12-24-2007, 04:56 PM
I was watching another boring documentary on the big TV, and these particular scientists were in the northern part of our continent with satellite aerials from this time last year and now on a piece of ice that was about the size of the states here. One third melted in one year exactly! That is a lot. they are concerned. With great respect, I find their concerns genuine! The pictures themselves are worth a thousand words and more, way more! From what these particular scientists wee babbling on about was; we are about thirty years ahead of what they were thinking we would be this time last year… HERE WE GO!!! THE ICE IS GOING TO MELT!!! PREPARE YOURSELVES AS MUCH AS ANYONE CAN!!! The government will be late as usual to this disaster, so you need to prepare yourselves… Nothing else matters, preparation is the key to this scenario just as you would prepare for any winter, preparation needs to be done on an individual level as much as possible. If we are prepared to our best abilities we can help others in need that have no clue how this is going to play out. WE are not going to be able to help others if we are not ready for this event ourselves!!! The ice is go9ng to melt, do you think this will be as uneventful as Y2K?
Zeno Swijtink
12-24-2007, 05:14 PM
Now that we are in this holiday game of invoking past scientific heros I am nominating Charles Keeling to be the Tycho Brahe of climate change science.
https://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/images/hdr_obituary.jpg
As Tycho, Keeling was a careful and persistent measurer. He was the first to record the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawai over many decennia, and against unfavorable odds.
"The data collection started by Dr. Keeling and continued at Mauna Loa is the longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the world and is considered a reliable indicator of the global trend in the mid-level troposhere. Dr Keeling's research shows that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has grown from 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 380 (ppm) in 2005 with increases correlated to fossil fuel emissions"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
https://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/images/hdr_obituary.jpg
As Tycho, Keeling was a careful and persistent measurer. He was the first to record the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawai over many decennia, and against unfavorable odds.
"The data collection started by Dr. Keeling and continued at Mauna Loa is the longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the world and is considered a reliable indicator of the global trend in the mid-level troposhere. Dr Keeling's research shows that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has grown from 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 380 (ppm) in 2005 with increases correlated to fossil fuel emissions"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Willie Lumplump
12-24-2007, 06:53 PM
Hi IndyEye, It's good advice to play it safe as you suggest. But to really play it safe, I think one should look into The United Nations, the people behind it (the Rockefellers for one), and their agenda (under the guise of internationalism) before coming to any conclusion about which is the safe side to be on. Also, the CFR should be looked into, as all UN ambassadors are members (the last time I checked anyway). I remember some links and info on the Ron Paul/UN thread regarding some of these subjects. I must say that I think you've got entirely the wrong take on the UN problem. You should know that the UN is actually preparing the way for the Anti-Christ who will establish a world government before the final battle against God on the plains of Armageddon. The Messiah cannot return until that battle takes place, so by opposing the United Nations in any way you will delay the return of the Messiah and the Day of Final Judgment as prophesied in the Old Testament. Remember this the next time that Ron Paul criticizes the UN.
Willie Lumplump
12-24-2007, 07:00 PM
Or would you give just as much credence to the theory that global warming is due to aliens terraforming our planet more to their liking?The point is not to quibble about Copernicus, Galileo, or aliens, which are all equally likely. The point is that when I have a point I have a point and whatever I might say in support of my point shouldn't be taken as important because my point is more important than any quibble. Now, do we finally have that straight, or are you still having trouble absorbing all this?
d-cat
12-24-2007, 07:39 PM
Someone posted some articles and I thank this person and say I found a particular quote interesting. I don't know what you're going on about.
Quoting out of context is a favorite tactic of the obnoxious RW blogs you copied your response from.
Here's his quote IN context, and I applaud Mr. Gore;
There are two paths you can choose. They lead to two different futures. Not too long from now, when our children assess what you did here in Bali, what we in our generation did here in this world. As they look backward, at 2007, they will ask one of two questions. I don’t know which one they will ask, I know which one I prefer they ask, but trust me, they will ask one of these two questions.
They’ll look back and either they will ask, “What were you thinking? Didn’t you hear the IPCC four times unanimously warning the world to act? Didn’t you see the glaciers melting? Didn’t you see the North Polar ice cap disappearing? Didn’t you see the deserts growing and the droughts deepening and the crops drying up? Didn’t you see the sea level rising, didn’t you see the floods, didn’t you pay attention to what was going on? Didn’t you care? What were you thinking?”
Or they will ask a second question, one that I much prefer them ask. I want them to look back on this time and ask “How did you find the moral courage to successfully address a crisis that some many have said was impossible to address? How were you able to start the process that unleashed the moral imagination of humankind to see ourselves as a single global civilization?” And when they ask that question, I want you to tell them that you saw it as a privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come. Instead of shaking our heads at the difficulty of this task and saying “woe is us, this is impossible, how can we do this? We’re so mad at the ones that are making it harder; we ought to feel a sense of joy that we have work that is worth doing that is so important to the future of all humankind. We ought to feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference. That’s who you are. You have everything you need. We have everything we need, save perhaps political will. But political will is a renewable resource. Thank you very much.
Here's the full speech
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=465
Quoting out of context is a favorite tactic of the obnoxious RW blogs you copied your response from.
Here's his quote IN context, and I applaud Mr. Gore;
There are two paths you can choose. They lead to two different futures. Not too long from now, when our children assess what you did here in Bali, what we in our generation did here in this world. As they look backward, at 2007, they will ask one of two questions. I don’t know which one they will ask, I know which one I prefer they ask, but trust me, they will ask one of these two questions.
They’ll look back and either they will ask, “What were you thinking? Didn’t you hear the IPCC four times unanimously warning the world to act? Didn’t you see the glaciers melting? Didn’t you see the North Polar ice cap disappearing? Didn’t you see the deserts growing and the droughts deepening and the crops drying up? Didn’t you see the sea level rising, didn’t you see the floods, didn’t you pay attention to what was going on? Didn’t you care? What were you thinking?”
Or they will ask a second question, one that I much prefer them ask. I want them to look back on this time and ask “How did you find the moral courage to successfully address a crisis that some many have said was impossible to address? How were you able to start the process that unleashed the moral imagination of humankind to see ourselves as a single global civilization?” And when they ask that question, I want you to tell them that you saw it as a privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come. Instead of shaking our heads at the difficulty of this task and saying “woe is us, this is impossible, how can we do this? We’re so mad at the ones that are making it harder; we ought to feel a sense of joy that we have work that is worth doing that is so important to the future of all humankind. We ought to feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference. That’s who you are. You have everything you need. We have everything we need, save perhaps political will. But political will is a renewable resource. Thank you very much.
Here's the full speech
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=465
d-cat
12-24-2007, 07:50 PM
Replace Copernicus with Galileo then if that's correct. Big deal. My point is that voices outside of the status quo have been right, and I don't think they should be dismissed for simply being different from the status quo. If you believe my point is wrong because I might have gotten Copernicus and Galileo mixed up, then that's your choice.
You can bring aliens into the discussion and ridicule things as a "conspiracy theory", but I've looked into the history of the League of Nations and the UN, and also into the CFR, and I have a different opinion about it than you. And I don't feel any need to try to convince you.
You can bring aliens into the discussion and ridicule things as a "conspiracy theory", but I've looked into the history of the League of Nations and the UN, and also into the CFR, and I have a different opinion about it than you. And I don't feel any need to try to convince you.
Willie Lumplump
12-24-2007, 09:14 PM
My point is that voices outside of the status quo have been right, and I don't think they should be dismissed for simply being different from the status quo.If you understand the issues well enough to evaluate the pros and cons, then go ahead and we'll all listen and follow you as best we can. But if (1) all you can do is refer to other people's ideas (like the rest of us do here regarding climate change), and if (2) you support the opinions ideas of the small minority, then obviously there is something odd going on with you that you're not talking about. The existence of a small minority opinion does not, in itself, constitute evidence that the small minority opinion is correct. That would be circular reasoning. If you believe the small minority to be correct, it is up to you to show, based on your own knowledge or understanding, where the vast majority is wrong. To do this you would have to have a deep understanding of the issues. Do you have a deep understanding of the issues? Do you understand all the terms in the mathematical models and why they are constructed in the way that they are? Do you understand how one model differs from another and why? Do you understand the sensitivities of the various models to changes in assumptions? The rest of us here don't understand all this, and that's why we accept the opinion of the vast majority.
Zeno Swijtink
12-24-2007, 10:44 PM
Hi IndyEye,
It's good advice to play it safe as you suggest. But to really play it safe, I think one should look into The United Nations, the people behind it (the Rockefellers for one), and their agenda (under the guise of internationalism) before coming to any conclusion about which is the safe side to be on. Also, the CFR should be looked into, as all UN ambassadors are members (the last time I checked anyway). I remember some links and info on the Ron Paul/UN thread regarding some of these subjects.
Are you saying that Sudan’s UN ambassador Abdelmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamed is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? The last time I looked into this only American citizens and resident aliens who have applied to be American citizens can be members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
https://www.cfr.org/about/membership/
It's good advice to play it safe as you suggest. But to really play it safe, I think one should look into The United Nations, the people behind it (the Rockefellers for one), and their agenda (under the guise of internationalism) before coming to any conclusion about which is the safe side to be on. Also, the CFR should be looked into, as all UN ambassadors are members (the last time I checked anyway). I remember some links and info on the Ron Paul/UN thread regarding some of these subjects.
Are you saying that Sudan’s UN ambassador Abdelmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamed is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? The last time I looked into this only American citizens and resident aliens who have applied to be American citizens can be members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
https://www.cfr.org/about/membership/
Melodymama
12-26-2007, 08:15 AM
d-cat said "Replace Copernicus with Galileo then if that's correct. Big deal. My point is that voices outside of the status quo have been right, and I don't think they should be dismissed for simply being different from the status quo."
Just so I do not get more confused and start to wonder what the heck this particular quibble is about (with most of the same players as most others on the site), please define who is inside and outside the 'status quo' and how far outside are the voices you have heard?
Isn't it frustrating that there is no ultimate authority on such things as weather and atmosphere? The process has a life of its' own and does not seek permission to change. Methods of measuring what is happening are still not accurate enough or global enough to have the bigger answers. In the mean time, my action will be to pick up trash and recycle and take my bags to the store with me, etc. No amount of debate will change what is evident; we are consuming and trashing at such a rapid rate. We will end up drowning in our garbage or the oceans, whichever comes first, if we do not take responsibility on these seemingly small areas of concern. Maybe this debate and others are simply good for draining some of that pent up frustration that we all feel about the way things are. If so, then vent on. Do not count on being right. Exploration is the piece of creativity that keeps us and the world changing. If so, there may be no definitive answers, as they will always be evolving.
Just so I do not get more confused and start to wonder what the heck this particular quibble is about (with most of the same players as most others on the site), please define who is inside and outside the 'status quo' and how far outside are the voices you have heard?
Isn't it frustrating that there is no ultimate authority on such things as weather and atmosphere? The process has a life of its' own and does not seek permission to change. Methods of measuring what is happening are still not accurate enough or global enough to have the bigger answers. In the mean time, my action will be to pick up trash and recycle and take my bags to the store with me, etc. No amount of debate will change what is evident; we are consuming and trashing at such a rapid rate. We will end up drowning in our garbage or the oceans, whichever comes first, if we do not take responsibility on these seemingly small areas of concern. Maybe this debate and others are simply good for draining some of that pent up frustration that we all feel about the way things are. If so, then vent on. Do not count on being right. Exploration is the piece of creativity that keeps us and the world changing. If so, there may be no definitive answers, as they will always be evolving.
Sonomamark
12-26-2007, 01:06 PM
D-cat, what people keep getting at with you in this discussion is the reason why your having "looked into the history of the League of Nations and the UN" &c doesn't carry much weight. And that reason is that you have demonstrated repeatedly here that you simply aren't a critical thinker.
Global climate change--the degree to which it is happening, and why-- is a scientific topic. In a discussion of a scientific topic, there is no place for your pattern of throwing around wild claims, then waving your hands and saying "big deal" when it is shown again and again that you are getting your facts wrong, repeating snips out of context and often from sources with very poor credibility. Trying to equate the positions of those who have arrived at positions "different from the status quo" through meticulous data collection and rational analysis with those who just believe wild theories because such beliefs reinforce their world views (like the Creeping Conspiracy of the New World Order) is simply irrational. There is no earthly reason for a rational person searching for truth to do it.
Apparently, you find some value--perhaps a smugness in being "in the know" about "mysterious secrets" that most others do not credit--in embracing conspiracy and fringe theories. You seem to exhibit satisfaction in NOT being able to convince others, despite your protests that you don't care, which tends to make me think this is so. It doesn't make any sense that you would invest time in a discussion like this if you didn't get some kind of satisfaction out of it, and clearly, a search for truth isn't what you're after.
Replace Copernicus with Galileo then if that's correct. Big deal. My point is that voices outside of the status quo have been right, and I don't think they should be dismissed for simply being different from the status quo. If you believe my point is wrong because I might have gotten Copernicus and Galileo mixed up, then that's your choice.
You can bring aliens into the discussion and ridicule things as a "conspiracy theory", but I've looked into the history of the League of Nations and the UN, and also into the CFR, and I have a different opinion about it than you. And I don't feel any need to try to convince you.
Global climate change--the degree to which it is happening, and why-- is a scientific topic. In a discussion of a scientific topic, there is no place for your pattern of throwing around wild claims, then waving your hands and saying "big deal" when it is shown again and again that you are getting your facts wrong, repeating snips out of context and often from sources with very poor credibility. Trying to equate the positions of those who have arrived at positions "different from the status quo" through meticulous data collection and rational analysis with those who just believe wild theories because such beliefs reinforce their world views (like the Creeping Conspiracy of the New World Order) is simply irrational. There is no earthly reason for a rational person searching for truth to do it.
Apparently, you find some value--perhaps a smugness in being "in the know" about "mysterious secrets" that most others do not credit--in embracing conspiracy and fringe theories. You seem to exhibit satisfaction in NOT being able to convince others, despite your protests that you don't care, which tends to make me think this is so. It doesn't make any sense that you would invest time in a discussion like this if you didn't get some kind of satisfaction out of it, and clearly, a search for truth isn't what you're after.
Replace Copernicus with Galileo then if that's correct. Big deal. My point is that voices outside of the status quo have been right, and I don't think they should be dismissed for simply being different from the status quo. If you believe my point is wrong because I might have gotten Copernicus and Galileo mixed up, then that's your choice.
You can bring aliens into the discussion and ridicule things as a "conspiracy theory", but I've looked into the history of the League of Nations and the UN, and also into the CFR, and I have a different opinion about it than you. And I don't feel any need to try to convince you.
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 01:44 PM
What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. - Nietzsche.
The first reaction to truth is hatred. - Tertullian
Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley
The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it. - Ayn Rand
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth. - Pierre Abelard
There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings. - Dorothy Thompson
The search for truth is more precious than its possession. - Albert Einstein
Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false. - Bertrand Russell
The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear. - Herbert Sebastien Agar
The modern susceptibility to conformity and obedience to authority indicates that the truth endorsed by authority is likely to be accepted as such by a majority of the people. - David Edwards
Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. - Buddha
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
The first reaction to truth is hatred. - Tertullian
Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley
The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it. - Ayn Rand
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth. - Pierre Abelard
There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings. - Dorothy Thompson
The search for truth is more precious than its possession. - Albert Einstein
Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false. - Bertrand Russell
The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear. - Herbert Sebastien Agar
The modern susceptibility to conformity and obedience to authority indicates that the truth endorsed by authority is likely to be accepted as such by a majority of the people. - David Edwards
Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. - Buddha
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
Sonomamark
12-26-2007, 02:00 PM
Frederick, I note that of your lengthly list of quotees, pretty much everyone is a non-scientist. The one who is, Einstein, is talking about the search for truth, not what it is.
The rest are all philosophers, which, on the face of it, means they're unqualified even to opine on physical truth. We're not talking about morals here, or ethics. We're talking about physical facts in the physical Universe, which would be the same whether we were here or not. The only testable system we have for identifying what is most likely to be that kind of truth is the scientific method, and these Big Name Thinkers have no credentials in that department.
Your list of quotees is mostly made up of people who believed things that are pretty easily demonstrable as false, however attractive their philosophies may have been. While a philosopher may (or may not) come up with useful ways of approaching the challenges of living human life, none has anything of value to say at all about about actual, physical, material, capital-t Truth.
Put simply: Nietzsche, Jesus, Buddha and Rand were just talkers. Pretty talkers, certainly, and maybe--at least in some cases, though I'd certainly scratch Rand--worth listening to in some cases on questions of values and morals. But truth--real truth, like "what temperature is the Sun?"--isn't "illusion", much as Nietzsche might have wanted it to be. There is an answer to that question; other answers are wrong. It isn't a matter of philosophy.
When charismatic people without credentials start talking about "truth", I recommend 1) Becoming alert; 2) Engaging critical thinking; and 3) Holding onto your wallet.
SM
What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. - Nietzsche.
The rest are all philosophers, which, on the face of it, means they're unqualified even to opine on physical truth. We're not talking about morals here, or ethics. We're talking about physical facts in the physical Universe, which would be the same whether we were here or not. The only testable system we have for identifying what is most likely to be that kind of truth is the scientific method, and these Big Name Thinkers have no credentials in that department.
Your list of quotees is mostly made up of people who believed things that are pretty easily demonstrable as false, however attractive their philosophies may have been. While a philosopher may (or may not) come up with useful ways of approaching the challenges of living human life, none has anything of value to say at all about about actual, physical, material, capital-t Truth.
Put simply: Nietzsche, Jesus, Buddha and Rand were just talkers. Pretty talkers, certainly, and maybe--at least in some cases, though I'd certainly scratch Rand--worth listening to in some cases on questions of values and morals. But truth--real truth, like "what temperature is the Sun?"--isn't "illusion", much as Nietzsche might have wanted it to be. There is an answer to that question; other answers are wrong. It isn't a matter of philosophy.
When charismatic people without credentials start talking about "truth", I recommend 1) Becoming alert; 2) Engaging critical thinking; and 3) Holding onto your wallet.
SM
What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. - Nietzsche.
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 02:11 PM
A plea for fallacy: not all of the standard logical fallacies are fallacious, at least not all of the time. Sometimes it's quite relevant, in trying to figure out what's gone wrong with a dialogue or conversation, to explore the character of the participants in the discussion. For instance, in a discussion of to what extent it's legitimate to restrict free expression say in the case of hate speech, and where one party to the debate seems to be incapable of recognizing that little harm and much good might be done by banning the public use of certain racial slurs and appeals to a hyper-rigid conception of free speech that admits of no exceptions, it might be quite relevant to point out that those making the argument are Americans whose views have been shaped by a Constitutional history that encourages extremism compared to the way Europeans might look at the matter. Similarly, it's easy to imagine situations where pointing out that a party to a debate is making a specifically defensive use ("defensive" in the Freudian sense) of the idea that some gender differences are caused by nurture rather than nature would yield some important insights into the character of the debate. Maybe we should beware of the "fallacy fallacy," the idea that if something is logically fallacious it is argumentatively irrelevant.
Right, you did not use the term "denialist" but wrote: "They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be" which is a definition of "denialist," isn't it?
Quoting Wikipedia:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
So, even though your posting made good points, you ended with an ad hominem argument I would say.
Right, you did not use the term "denialist" but wrote: "They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be" which is a definition of "denialist," isn't it?
Quoting Wikipedia:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
So, even though your posting made good points, you ended with an ad hominem argument I would say.
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 02:34 PM
I didn't post a long list of quotations. I posted one, from Nietzsche. I just wanted to throw up there and add to the mix a perspective on the value of truth that is very different from all the others. I wasn't really concerned with the difference between the truths of physics and the truths of religion (for example), but rather with throwing a spanner into the consensus about the value of truth that the previous list of quotations expresses. Admittedly off-topic; a (perhaps flat) attempt at a witty aside.
Frederick, I note that of your lengthly list of quotees, pretty much everyone is a non-scientist. The one who is, Einstein, is talking about the search for truth, not what it is.
The rest are all philosophers, which, on the face of it, means they're unqualified even to opine on physical truth. We're not talking about morals here, or ethics. We're talking about physical facts in the physical Universe, which would be the same whether we were here or not. The only testable system we have for identifying what is most likely to be that kind of truth is the scientific method, and these Big Name Thinkers have no credentials in that department.
Your list of quotees is mostly made up of people who believed things that are pretty easily demonstrable as false, however attractive their philosophies may have been. While a philosopher may (or may not) come up with useful ways of approaching the challenges of living human life, none has anything of value to say at all about about actual, physical, material, capital-t Truth.
Put simply: Nietzsche, Jesus, Buddha and Rand were just talkers. Pretty talkers, certainly, and maybe--at least in some cases, though I'd certainly scratch Rand--worth listening to in some cases on questions of values and morals. But truth--real truth, like "what temperature is the Sun?"--isn't "illusion", much as Nietzsche might have wanted it to be. There is an answer to that question; other answers are wrong. It isn't a matter of philosophy.
When charismatic people without credentials start talking about "truth", I recommend 1) Becoming alert; 2) Engaging critical thinking; and 3) Holding onto your wallet.
SM
Frederick, I note that of your lengthly list of quotees, pretty much everyone is a non-scientist. The one who is, Einstein, is talking about the search for truth, not what it is.
The rest are all philosophers, which, on the face of it, means they're unqualified even to opine on physical truth. We're not talking about morals here, or ethics. We're talking about physical facts in the physical Universe, which would be the same whether we were here or not. The only testable system we have for identifying what is most likely to be that kind of truth is the scientific method, and these Big Name Thinkers have no credentials in that department.
Your list of quotees is mostly made up of people who believed things that are pretty easily demonstrable as false, however attractive their philosophies may have been. While a philosopher may (or may not) come up with useful ways of approaching the challenges of living human life, none has anything of value to say at all about about actual, physical, material, capital-t Truth.
Put simply: Nietzsche, Jesus, Buddha and Rand were just talkers. Pretty talkers, certainly, and maybe--at least in some cases, though I'd certainly scratch Rand--worth listening to in some cases on questions of values and morals. But truth--real truth, like "what temperature is the Sun?"--isn't "illusion", much as Nietzsche might have wanted it to be. There is an answer to that question; other answers are wrong. It isn't a matter of philosophy.
When charismatic people without credentials start talking about "truth", I recommend 1) Becoming alert; 2) Engaging critical thinking; and 3) Holding onto your wallet.
SM
Sonomamark
12-26-2007, 02:50 PM
Okay, understood, but on the fallacy thing, I think it bears saying that when you're talking about a question of fact, as opposed to opinion, there is no "fallacy fallacy": a fallacy is an illegitimate argument, period.
"A discussion of to what extent it's legitimate to restrict free expression say in the case of hate speech" isn't a question of truth: it's a question of opinion. Based on how people feel about freedom of speech, sensitivity to discrimination issues, etc., what people will conclude is "true" will be all over the map. There is no "truth" at issue--just dueling values and priorities.
Something which is True in a logical sense is true no matter how you feel about it. There's no "should" to it, and it doesn't require cultural reference.
I think people get confused about this a lot because religious movements claim to present all kinds of "truths" which are utter hogwash. A position is viewed as weaker if it is "opinion" as opposed to True, and to some degree, that is so. But people are in love with their opinions and want them to have the weight of truth, even if there is no evidential support for that.
SM
I didn't post a long list of quotations. I posted one, from Nietzsche. I just wanted to throw up there and add to the mix a perspective on the value of truth that is very different from all the others. I wasn't really concerned with the difference between the truths of physics and the truths of religion (for example), but rather with throwing a spanner into the consensus about the value of truth that the previous list of quotations expresses. Admittedly off-topic; a (perhaps flat) attempt at a witty aside.
"A discussion of to what extent it's legitimate to restrict free expression say in the case of hate speech" isn't a question of truth: it's a question of opinion. Based on how people feel about freedom of speech, sensitivity to discrimination issues, etc., what people will conclude is "true" will be all over the map. There is no "truth" at issue--just dueling values and priorities.
Something which is True in a logical sense is true no matter how you feel about it. There's no "should" to it, and it doesn't require cultural reference.
I think people get confused about this a lot because religious movements claim to present all kinds of "truths" which are utter hogwash. A position is viewed as weaker if it is "opinion" as opposed to True, and to some degree, that is so. But people are in love with their opinions and want them to have the weight of truth, even if there is no evidential support for that.
SM
I didn't post a long list of quotations. I posted one, from Nietzsche. I just wanted to throw up there and add to the mix a perspective on the value of truth that is very different from all the others. I wasn't really concerned with the difference between the truths of physics and the truths of religion (for example), but rather with throwing a spanner into the consensus about the value of truth that the previous list of quotations expresses. Admittedly off-topic; a (perhaps flat) attempt at a witty aside.
Zeno Swijtink
12-26-2007, 03:41 PM
Frederick, I note that of your lengthly list of quotees, pretty much everyone is a non-scientist. The one who is, Einstein, is talking about the search for truth, not what it is.
The rest are all philosophers, which, on the face of it, means they're unqualified even to opine on physical truth. We're not talking about morals here, or ethics. We're talking about physical facts in the physical Universe, which would be the same whether we were here or not. The only testable system we have for identifying what is most likely to be that kind of truth is the scientific method, and these Big Name Thinkers have no credentials in that department.
Your list of quotees is mostly made up of people who believed things that are pretty easily demonstrable as false, however attractive their philosophies may have been. While a philosopher may (or may not) come up with useful ways of approaching the challenges of living human life, none has anything of value to say at all about about actual, physical, material, capital-t Truth.
Put simply: Nietzsche, Jesus, Buddha and Rand were just talkers. Pretty talkers, certainly, and maybe--at least in some cases, though I'd certainly scratch Rand--worth listening to in some cases on questions of values and morals. But truth--real truth, like "what temperature is the Sun?"--isn't "illusion", much as Nietzsche might have wanted it to be. There is an answer to that question; other answers are wrong. It isn't a matter of philosophy.
When charismatic people without credentials start talking about "truth", I recommend 1) Becoming alert; 2) Engaging critical thinking; and 3) Holding onto your wallet.
SM
You confuse discussing a particular truth of physics, in which physicists may claim a prerogative, with discussing the concept of factual or physical truth, which physicists presuppose and do not talk about, and if they do, often have a rather naive concept of. This discussion is part of epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, and something many philosophers have said insightful things about.
The rest are all philosophers, which, on the face of it, means they're unqualified even to opine on physical truth. We're not talking about morals here, or ethics. We're talking about physical facts in the physical Universe, which would be the same whether we were here or not. The only testable system we have for identifying what is most likely to be that kind of truth is the scientific method, and these Big Name Thinkers have no credentials in that department.
Your list of quotees is mostly made up of people who believed things that are pretty easily demonstrable as false, however attractive their philosophies may have been. While a philosopher may (or may not) come up with useful ways of approaching the challenges of living human life, none has anything of value to say at all about about actual, physical, material, capital-t Truth.
Put simply: Nietzsche, Jesus, Buddha and Rand were just talkers. Pretty talkers, certainly, and maybe--at least in some cases, though I'd certainly scratch Rand--worth listening to in some cases on questions of values and morals. But truth--real truth, like "what temperature is the Sun?"--isn't "illusion", much as Nietzsche might have wanted it to be. There is an answer to that question; other answers are wrong. It isn't a matter of philosophy.
When charismatic people without credentials start talking about "truth", I recommend 1) Becoming alert; 2) Engaging critical thinking; and 3) Holding onto your wallet.
SM
You confuse discussing a particular truth of physics, in which physicists may claim a prerogative, with discussing the concept of factual or physical truth, which physicists presuppose and do not talk about, and if they do, often have a rather naive concept of. This discussion is part of epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, and something many philosophers have said insightful things about.
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 03:54 PM
What you have to say about the difference between logical and empirical truth, the difference between facts and values, etc., the degree and the nature of rigor with which matters of opinion as opposed to matters of fact may be discussed and explored -- all this is HIGHLY controversial -- and I don't mean controversial to the general lay public or stemming from confusions caused by using the same terms in different contexts (e.g. moral truths and the truths of physics); the controversies are real, they are genuinely and deeply puzzling and have absorbed the energies of the some of the best minds of the past century and more. I'm not sure that these problems can be productively discussed in a forum like this, but we probably should do what we can to avoid giving the impression that distinctions of the sort you're invoking are settled.
Okay, understood, but on the fallacy thing, I think it bears saying that when you're talking about a question of fact, as opposed to opinion, there is no "fallacy fallacy": a fallacy is an illegitimate argument, period.
"A discussion of to what extent it's legitimate to restrict free expression say in the case of hate speech" isn't a question of truth: it's a question of opinion. Based on how people feel about freedom of speech, sensitivity to discrimination issues, etc., what people will conclude is "true" will be all over the map. There is no "truth" at issue--just dueling values and priorities.
Something which is True in a logical sense is true no matter how you feel about it. There's no "should" to it, and it doesn't require cultural reference.
I think people get confused about this a lot because religious movements claim to present all kinds of "truths" which are utter hogwash. A position is viewed as weaker if it is "opinion" as opposed to True, and to some degree, that is so. But people are in love with their opinions and want them to have the weight of truth, even if there is no evidential support for that.
SM
Okay, understood, but on the fallacy thing, I think it bears saying that when you're talking about a question of fact, as opposed to opinion, there is no "fallacy fallacy": a fallacy is an illegitimate argument, period.
"A discussion of to what extent it's legitimate to restrict free expression say in the case of hate speech" isn't a question of truth: it's a question of opinion. Based on how people feel about freedom of speech, sensitivity to discrimination issues, etc., what people will conclude is "true" will be all over the map. There is no "truth" at issue--just dueling values and priorities.
Something which is True in a logical sense is true no matter how you feel about it. There's no "should" to it, and it doesn't require cultural reference.
I think people get confused about this a lot because religious movements claim to present all kinds of "truths" which are utter hogwash. A position is viewed as weaker if it is "opinion" as opposed to True, and to some degree, that is so. But people are in love with their opinions and want them to have the weight of truth, even if there is no evidential support for that.
SM
Zeno Swijtink
12-26-2007, 04:38 PM
Maybe we should beware of the "fallacy fallacy," the idea that if something is logically fallacious it is argumentatively irrelevant.
Please argue this!
Please argue this!
Zeno Swijtink
12-26-2007, 05:09 PM
What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. - Nietzsche.
Now how would Nietzsche say this to us if he were to speak outloud? Whispering? With a smirk, a simper, a snicker, a snigger, a leer? Between two jokes?
Just before this quote he wrote, developing some form of nominalism: "We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us. For even our contrast between individual and species is something anthropomorphic and does not originate in the essence of things; although we should not presume to claim that this contrast does not correspond to the essence of things: that would of course be a dogmatic assertion and, as such, would be just as indemonstrable as its opposite.*" [My emphasis]
* Das Uebersehen des Individuellen und Wirklichen giebt uns den Begriff, wie es uns auch die Form giebt, wohingegen die Natur keine Formen und Begriffe, also auch keine Gattungen kennt, sondern nur ein für uns unzugängliches und undefinirbares X. Denn auch unser Gegensatz von Individuum und Gattung ist anthropomorphisch und entstammt nicht dem Wesen der Dinge, wenn wir auch nicht zu sagen wagen, dass er ihm nicht entspricht: das wäre nämlich eine dogmatische Behauptung und als solche ebenso unerweislich wie ihr Gegentheil. (Über Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne)
Now how would Nietzsche say this to us if he were to speak outloud? Whispering? With a smirk, a simper, a snicker, a snigger, a leer? Between two jokes?
Just before this quote he wrote, developing some form of nominalism: "We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us. For even our contrast between individual and species is something anthropomorphic and does not originate in the essence of things; although we should not presume to claim that this contrast does not correspond to the essence of things: that would of course be a dogmatic assertion and, as such, would be just as indemonstrable as its opposite.*" [My emphasis]
* Das Uebersehen des Individuellen und Wirklichen giebt uns den Begriff, wie es uns auch die Form giebt, wohingegen die Natur keine Formen und Begriffe, also auch keine Gattungen kennt, sondern nur ein für uns unzugängliches und undefinirbares X. Denn auch unser Gegensatz von Individuum und Gattung ist anthropomorphisch und entstammt nicht dem Wesen der Dinge, wenn wir auch nicht zu sagen wagen, dass er ihm nicht entspricht: das wäre nämlich eine dogmatische Behauptung und als solche ebenso unerweislich wie ihr Gegentheil. (Über Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne)
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 05:23 PM
I'll say how I think the argument would be developed, but note that I don't really believe that it's fallacious to say that there are mistakes in reasoning -- i.e., the "fallacy fallacy" is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
But the basic idea concerns the importance of rhetoric as well as logic in argument. Argument is a kind of action; more specifically interaction, a social process going on among and between people, and the logical element of an argument is only one among others that pertain to this activity. To put it in rhetorical terms, one not only makes "logos" appeals but "ethos" and "pathos" appeals as well. In crafting a speech act, so to speak, one communicates not only a logical structure but a sense of who is speaking (one's character or ethos) and of emotional tonality (pathos). In assessing what is said, in deciding what to make of what is said, all these elements are relevant even though different kinds of professional discourse may foreground one while pushing others into the background.
Given this basic premise about what arguing and inquiry are (forms of interaction), a lot of what look narrowly like fallacies might not be. The appeal to tradition, for instance, can look like a simple mistake in reasoning if you present it in a sufficiently narrow and schematic form: "We did X in the past, so we should do X now." But in the real world, where we deal with incomplete information and where a great deal can be put at risk by changing how things are done, there might easily be an argumentative context in which an appropriately nuanced version of that "fallacy" might be just exactly the thing that needed to be said.
Please argue this!
But the basic idea concerns the importance of rhetoric as well as logic in argument. Argument is a kind of action; more specifically interaction, a social process going on among and between people, and the logical element of an argument is only one among others that pertain to this activity. To put it in rhetorical terms, one not only makes "logos" appeals but "ethos" and "pathos" appeals as well. In crafting a speech act, so to speak, one communicates not only a logical structure but a sense of who is speaking (one's character or ethos) and of emotional tonality (pathos). In assessing what is said, in deciding what to make of what is said, all these elements are relevant even though different kinds of professional discourse may foreground one while pushing others into the background.
Given this basic premise about what arguing and inquiry are (forms of interaction), a lot of what look narrowly like fallacies might not be. The appeal to tradition, for instance, can look like a simple mistake in reasoning if you present it in a sufficiently narrow and schematic form: "We did X in the past, so we should do X now." But in the real world, where we deal with incomplete information and where a great deal can be put at risk by changing how things are done, there might easily be an argumentative context in which an appropriately nuanced version of that "fallacy" might be just exactly the thing that needed to be said.
Please argue this!
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 05:31 PM
Yep. This is an early work and Nietzsche is still struggling to free himself from Schopenhauerian and Kantian concepts. His real topic is not so much what is truth as what is the VALUE of truth. What is it that we desire when we desire the truth? What passions and drives does it satisfy or appear to satisfy? If truth is a form of the will to power, what is the nature of the will to power we call truth?
Now how would Nietzsche say this to us if he were to speak outloud? Whispering? With a smirk, a simper, a snicker, a snigger, a leer? Between two jokes?
Just before this quote he wrote, developing some form of nominalism: "We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us. For even our contrast between individual and species is something anthropomorphic and does not originate in the essence of things; although we should not presume to claim that this contrast does not correspond to the essence of things: that would of course be a dogmatic assertion and, as such, would be just as indemonstrable as its opposite.*" [My emphasis]
Now how would Nietzsche say this to us if he were to speak outloud? Whispering? With a smirk, a simper, a snicker, a snigger, a leer? Between two jokes?
Just before this quote he wrote, developing some form of nominalism: "We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us. For even our contrast between individual and species is something anthropomorphic and does not originate in the essence of things; although we should not presume to claim that this contrast does not correspond to the essence of things: that would of course be a dogmatic assertion and, as such, would be just as indemonstrable as its opposite.*" [My emphasis]
Willie Lumplump
12-26-2007, 07:14 PM
Yep. This is an early work and Nietzsche . . .Is anybody else besides me who's reading all this getting dizzy? Pardon me while I go take a Dramamine.
Zeno Swijtink
12-26-2007, 07:26 PM
Is anybody else besides me who's reading all this getting dizzy? Pardon me while I go take a Dramamine.
Yea, the postmodernists have arrived. Fasten your seatbelt, with the right sedation this can be a fun ride.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Dimenhydrinate.png
Yea, the postmodernists have arrived. Fasten your seatbelt, with the right sedation this can be a fun ride.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Dimenhydrinate.png
Sonomamark
12-26-2007, 09:40 PM
Please know that I am saying this with all possible due respect:
It's only controversial among poor thinkers.
Rather than making even a passing attempt to tackle my analysis on this issue, instead you pull the appeal-to-authority fallacy, airily waving that "some of the best minds" think this is all still up in the air, as if this claim will somehow make the point go away.
These "controversies" aren't "real", and anyone who thinks they are is pretty well automatically stricken from the potential list of "best minds". The only way you can get to believing that human political opinions, moral principles and other value judgments have any kind of inherent reality is to accept as root principles premises which are completely unsubstantiated by available evidence.
The kinds of people you're thinking about--philosophers and religionists--are not "best minds" when it comes to talking about truth. Some of them may have very useful advice on techniques and philosophies for dealing with life, but that doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on when it comes to understanding the actual nature of the cosmos, the only demonstrably useful process we have for which is the scientific method. Most of them, especially the religionists, are in fact far more invested in supporting their cosmological fantasies than they are in truth.
Just because someone is good at something doesn't mean s/he is a credible figure in something else. Nietzsche was a writer--a good one. Cosmologist? Not so good. You read such people and take from them what may be instructive for future living, and if you're a rational person, you toss the rest.
The Big Name argument is fallacious because it isn't having a Big Name that makes something likely to be true: it's evidence. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarianism?
The only reason there is any question about whether these issues are "settled" is because so many people--even, perhaps especially, Big Name "wise" people--are so deeply in love with their delusions.
SM
What you have to say about the difference between logical and empirical truth, the difference between facts and values, etc., the degree and the nature of rigor with which matters of opinion as opposed to matters of fact may be discussed and explored -- all this is HIGHLY controversial -- and I don't mean controversial to the general lay public or stemming from confusions caused by using the same terms in different contexts (e.g. moral truths and the truths of physics); the controversies are real, they are genuinely and deeply puzzling and have absorbed the energies of the some of the best minds of the past century and more. I'm not sure that these problems can be productively discussed in a forum like this, but we probably should do what we can to avoid giving the impression that distinctions of the sort you're invoking are settled.
It's only controversial among poor thinkers.
Rather than making even a passing attempt to tackle my analysis on this issue, instead you pull the appeal-to-authority fallacy, airily waving that "some of the best minds" think this is all still up in the air, as if this claim will somehow make the point go away.
These "controversies" aren't "real", and anyone who thinks they are is pretty well automatically stricken from the potential list of "best minds". The only way you can get to believing that human political opinions, moral principles and other value judgments have any kind of inherent reality is to accept as root principles premises which are completely unsubstantiated by available evidence.
The kinds of people you're thinking about--philosophers and religionists--are not "best minds" when it comes to talking about truth. Some of them may have very useful advice on techniques and philosophies for dealing with life, but that doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on when it comes to understanding the actual nature of the cosmos, the only demonstrably useful process we have for which is the scientific method. Most of them, especially the religionists, are in fact far more invested in supporting their cosmological fantasies than they are in truth.
Just because someone is good at something doesn't mean s/he is a credible figure in something else. Nietzsche was a writer--a good one. Cosmologist? Not so good. You read such people and take from them what may be instructive for future living, and if you're a rational person, you toss the rest.
The Big Name argument is fallacious because it isn't having a Big Name that makes something likely to be true: it's evidence. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarianism?
The only reason there is any question about whether these issues are "settled" is because so many people--even, perhaps especially, Big Name "wise" people--are so deeply in love with their delusions.
SM
What you have to say about the difference between logical and empirical truth, the difference between facts and values, etc., the degree and the nature of rigor with which matters of opinion as opposed to matters of fact may be discussed and explored -- all this is HIGHLY controversial -- and I don't mean controversial to the general lay public or stemming from confusions caused by using the same terms in different contexts (e.g. moral truths and the truths of physics); the controversies are real, they are genuinely and deeply puzzling and have absorbed the energies of the some of the best minds of the past century and more. I'm not sure that these problems can be productively discussed in a forum like this, but we probably should do what we can to avoid giving the impression that distinctions of the sort you're invoking are settled.
Sonomamark
12-26-2007, 09:49 PM
Please do NOT count me among them. Having had the sorry fate of being in graduate school during the late 80s, I concur with Noam Chomsky that postmodernism is, if not completely a pseudointellectual sham, certainly the refuge of so many poseurs that it might as well be.
I think their game was pretty well revealed by the Sokal Affair. Wikipedia:
The criticism of postmodernism as ultimately meaningless rhetorical gymnastics was demonstrated in the Sokal Affair, where Alan Sokal, a physicist, proposed and delivered for publication an article purportedly about interpreting physics and mathematics in terms of postmodern theory, which he had deliberately distorted to make it nonsensical. It was nevertheless published by Social Text, a journal which he and most of the scientific community considered postmodernist. Interestingly, never acknowledged that the article's publication had been a mistake but supported a counter-argument defending the "interpretative validity" of Sokal's article, despite the author's later rebuttal of his own article.
The linguist Noam Chomsky has suggested that postmodernism is meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals won't respond as "people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames."
Yea, the postmodernists have arrived. Fasten your seatbelt, with the right sedation this can be a fun ride.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Dimenhydrinate.png
I think their game was pretty well revealed by the Sokal Affair. Wikipedia:
The criticism of postmodernism as ultimately meaningless rhetorical gymnastics was demonstrated in the Sokal Affair, where Alan Sokal, a physicist, proposed and delivered for publication an article purportedly about interpreting physics and mathematics in terms of postmodern theory, which he had deliberately distorted to make it nonsensical. It was nevertheless published by Social Text, a journal which he and most of the scientific community considered postmodernist. Interestingly, never acknowledged that the article's publication had been a mistake but supported a counter-argument defending the "interpretative validity" of Sokal's article, despite the author's later rebuttal of his own article.
The linguist Noam Chomsky has suggested that postmodernism is meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals won't respond as "people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames."
Yea, the postmodernists have arrived. Fasten your seatbelt, with the right sedation this can be a fun ride.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Dimenhydrinate.png
Zeno Swijtink
12-26-2007, 10:35 PM
Please do NOT count me among them. Having had the sorry fate of being in graduate school during the late 80s, I concur with Noam Chomsky that postmodernism is, if not completely a pseudointellectual sham, certainly the refuge of so many poseurs that it might as well be.
I think their game was pretty well revealed by the Sokal Affair. Wikipedia:
I am the last one to see in postmodernism more than some superficial philosophical errors but when has an Affair ever settled an issue of this magnitude? They're too contingent. The Bogdanov Affair did not do in physics, did it?
I think their game was pretty well revealed by the Sokal Affair. Wikipedia:
I am the last one to see in postmodernism more than some superficial philosophical errors but when has an Affair ever settled an issue of this magnitude? They're too contingent. The Bogdanov Affair did not do in physics, did it?
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 10:37 PM
I wasn't airily waving anything. My point was simply to solicit agreement as to the existence of a controversy in the interest of not misleading the uninformed. It's interesting (to me) that I failed to do so. The thinkers I had in mind in referring to how controversial the distinctions and categories you posed were not the "postmodernists" but W.V.O. Quine, Donald Davidson, Thomas Nagel, Robert Brandom, David Lewis, Bernard Williams, and John McDowell -- by no stretch of the imagination, even on the part of the most bigoted, could they be considered poor thinkers.
I really don't want to get involved, in a forum like this, in what a phrase like "inherent reality" must mean such that someone can say that a moral principle has no inherent reality, nor in the kind of extended technical conversation that would be necessary in order clarify what would count as "available evidence" for the substantiation of claims about the status of moral principles. This is not because I flinch from "tackling" such issues (I've written on these topics and anyone who wanted to could easily find out what I've had to say about them), but because in my experience these sorts of forums do not support the kind of conversation and exchange that is necessary to sustain a real debate. (The main reason for this is the tendency to ignore the principle of charity.)
I mention the "big names" because (a) I'm not going to take the time necessary to get involved in the kind of discussion necessary to clarify the issues and (b) so that anyone reading this who might feel intimidated by your rhetoric will know where to go for a fairer and more intelligent presentation of the issues.
Please know that I am saying this with all possible due respect:
It's only controversial among poor thinkers.
Rather than making even a passing attempt to tackle my analysis on this issue, instead you pull the appeal-to-authority fallacy, airily waving that "some of the best minds" think this is all still up in the air, as if this claim will somehow make the point go away.
These "controversies" aren't "real", and anyone who thinks they are is pretty well automatically stricken from the potential list of "best minds". The only way you can get to believing that human political opinions, moral principles and other value judgments have any kind of inherent reality is to accept as root principles premises which are completely unsubstantiated by available evidence.
The kinds of people you're thinking about--philosophers and religionists--are not "best minds" when it comes to talking about truth. Some of them may have very useful advice on techniques and philosophies for dealing with life, but that doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on when it comes to understanding the actual nature of the cosmos, the only demonstrably useful process we have for which is the scientific method. Most of them, especially the religionists, are in fact far more invested in supporting their cosmological fantasies than they are in truth.
Just because someone is good at something doesn't mean s/he is a credible figure in something else. Nietzsche was a writer--a good one. Cosmologist? Not so good. You read such people and take from them what may be instructive for future living, and if you're a rational person, you toss the rest.
The Big Name argument is fallacious because it isn't having a Big Name that makes something likely to be true: it's evidence. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarianism?
The only reason there is any question about whether these issues are "settled" is because so many people--even, perhaps especially, Big Name "wise" people--are so deeply in love with their delusions.
SM
I really don't want to get involved, in a forum like this, in what a phrase like "inherent reality" must mean such that someone can say that a moral principle has no inherent reality, nor in the kind of extended technical conversation that would be necessary in order clarify what would count as "available evidence" for the substantiation of claims about the status of moral principles. This is not because I flinch from "tackling" such issues (I've written on these topics and anyone who wanted to could easily find out what I've had to say about them), but because in my experience these sorts of forums do not support the kind of conversation and exchange that is necessary to sustain a real debate. (The main reason for this is the tendency to ignore the principle of charity.)
I mention the "big names" because (a) I'm not going to take the time necessary to get involved in the kind of discussion necessary to clarify the issues and (b) so that anyone reading this who might feel intimidated by your rhetoric will know where to go for a fairer and more intelligent presentation of the issues.
Please know that I am saying this with all possible due respect:
It's only controversial among poor thinkers.
Rather than making even a passing attempt to tackle my analysis on this issue, instead you pull the appeal-to-authority fallacy, airily waving that "some of the best minds" think this is all still up in the air, as if this claim will somehow make the point go away.
These "controversies" aren't "real", and anyone who thinks they are is pretty well automatically stricken from the potential list of "best minds". The only way you can get to believing that human political opinions, moral principles and other value judgments have any kind of inherent reality is to accept as root principles premises which are completely unsubstantiated by available evidence.
The kinds of people you're thinking about--philosophers and religionists--are not "best minds" when it comes to talking about truth. Some of them may have very useful advice on techniques and philosophies for dealing with life, but that doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on when it comes to understanding the actual nature of the cosmos, the only demonstrably useful process we have for which is the scientific method. Most of them, especially the religionists, are in fact far more invested in supporting their cosmological fantasies than they are in truth.
Just because someone is good at something doesn't mean s/he is a credible figure in something else. Nietzsche was a writer--a good one. Cosmologist? Not so good. You read such people and take from them what may be instructive for future living, and if you're a rational person, you toss the rest.
The Big Name argument is fallacious because it isn't having a Big Name that makes something likely to be true: it's evidence. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarianism?
The only reason there is any question about whether these issues are "settled" is because so many people--even, perhaps especially, Big Name "wise" people--are so deeply in love with their delusions.
SM
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 10:40 PM
Sincere apologies -- I didn't mean to make anyone seasick!
Is anybody else besides me who's reading all this getting dizzy? Pardon me while I go take a Dramamine.
Is anybody else besides me who's reading all this getting dizzy? Pardon me while I go take a Dramamine.
Frederick M. Dolan
12-26-2007, 10:49 PM
I'm new to this community, but I have the feeling that you're using "postmodernist" as a nasty name, the way Republicans use the word "liberal." In my world, talk about postmodernism ceased years and years ago, and none of the thinkers I mentioned in this thread have anything to do with it. If I recall correctly, the Sokal thing exposed some writers who were using scientific-sounding but empty formulae to support their positions. Worth identifying, of course, but not relevant to anything under discussion here.
Please do NOT count me among them. Having had the sorry fate of being in graduate school during the late 80s, I concur with Noam Chomsky that postmodernism is, if not completely a pseudointellectual sham, certainly the refuge of so many poseurs that it might as well be.
I think their game was pretty well revealed by the Sokal Affair. Wikipedia:
Please do NOT count me among them. Having had the sorry fate of being in graduate school during the late 80s, I concur with Noam Chomsky that postmodernism is, if not completely a pseudointellectual sham, certainly the refuge of so many poseurs that it might as well be.
I think their game was pretty well revealed by the Sokal Affair. Wikipedia:
Braggi
12-27-2007, 08:34 AM
[quote=Frederick M. Dolan; ... Worth identifying, of course, but not relevant to anything under discussion here.[/quote]
Frederick, what are you doing here? Your posts fill up my digest but I'm not learning anything from them.
What is truth? Excuse me, but how stupid is the questioner? Is there truth without language? How stupid is the questioner? These questions are barely worth considering in a philosophy discussion. Start a new thread on philosophy if you want to discuss such ephemera.
I'm willing to learn about reality and that's why I'm here. I've learned a lot on Waccobb and I appreciate serious posts and serious posters. I make a lot of assumptions about what reality is, but the fact is, there is such a thing as "consensus reality." We don't really need to argue that.
I welcome posts that enlighten or inform.
-Jeff
Frederick, what are you doing here? Your posts fill up my digest but I'm not learning anything from them.
What is truth? Excuse me, but how stupid is the questioner? Is there truth without language? How stupid is the questioner? These questions are barely worth considering in a philosophy discussion. Start a new thread on philosophy if you want to discuss such ephemera.
I'm willing to learn about reality and that's why I'm here. I've learned a lot on Waccobb and I appreciate serious posts and serious posters. I make a lot of assumptions about what reality is, but the fact is, there is such a thing as "consensus reality." We don't really need to argue that.
I welcome posts that enlighten or inform.
-Jeff
Zeno Swijtink
12-27-2007, 10:11 AM
Frederick, what are you doing here? Your posts fill up my digest but I'm not learning anything from them.
What is truth? Excuse me, but how stupid is the questioner? Is there truth without language? How stupid is the questioner? These questions are barely worth considering in a philosophy discussion. Start a new thread on philosophy if you want to discuss such ephemera.
I'm willing to learn about reality and that's why I'm here. I've learned a lot on Waccobb and I appreciate serious posts and serious posters. I make a lot of assumptions about what reality is, but the fact is, there is such a thing as "consensus reality." We don't really need to argue that.
I welcome posts that enlighten or inform.
-Jeff
I agree that we need to get back to Global Warming in this tread.
On the other hand, I find this post philistine: There are more things in heaven and earth, Bragi, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
PS Isn't WaccoLand living proof that there is no "consensus reality?" :):
What is truth? Excuse me, but how stupid is the questioner? Is there truth without language? How stupid is the questioner? These questions are barely worth considering in a philosophy discussion. Start a new thread on philosophy if you want to discuss such ephemera.
I'm willing to learn about reality and that's why I'm here. I've learned a lot on Waccobb and I appreciate serious posts and serious posters. I make a lot of assumptions about what reality is, but the fact is, there is such a thing as "consensus reality." We don't really need to argue that.
I welcome posts that enlighten or inform.
-Jeff
I agree that we need to get back to Global Warming in this tread.
On the other hand, I find this post philistine: There are more things in heaven and earth, Bragi, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
PS Isn't WaccoLand living proof that there is no "consensus reality?" :):
mykil
12-27-2007, 10:36 AM
I agree that we need to get back to Global Warming in this tread.
On the other hand, I find this post philistine: There are more things in heaven and earth, Bragi, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
PS Isn't WaccoLand living proof that there is no "consensus reality?" :):
Careful there Ole Zeno Boy, you are on the verge of calling us two dimensional creatures living in this wacco cyber world, at any moment we will all be traveling at the speed of light!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
On the other hand, I find this post philistine: There are more things in heaven and earth, Bragi, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
PS Isn't WaccoLand living proof that there is no "consensus reality?" :):
Careful there Ole Zeno Boy, you are on the verge of calling us two dimensional creatures living in this wacco cyber world, at any moment we will all be traveling at the speed of light!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Melodymama
12-27-2007, 11:06 AM
quote mykil, a really really cute guy, wrote: Careful there Ole Zeno Boy, you are on the verge of calling us two dimensional creatures living in this wacco cyber world, at any moment we will all be traveling at the speed of light.
Yes, Mykil, I too feel like this is getting a bit testy and spinning in too many directions. It seems that at least some brains on this thread are traveling faster than others. However, I think the Warming will come and go before this discussion reaches any real consensus. The problem with consensus reality is that it is dependent on the perspective of the individuals, and those are usually divergent (thus the on and onness of the thread.) Also, the inquiry would have to be done in a small cross section of time (whatever that is) and with the exact same wording and inflection. Maybe when the census takers do their next head count, they could ask everyone a few important questions about the world and come up with something. Then a big computer could reduce the answers to some arbitrary yes, no, maybe, all of the above, or signs are foggy-ask again later. Oh, that is the eight ball, but not a bad idea. And then the project would be cancelled because it was costing too much money and power, and the Governor needed the energy to fill up all his Humvies. Seriously, consensus is possible in relatively small groups of like minded individuals who hold similar stakes in the answer. REALFIRE, do you have some intuitive take on this? Let's take a break and sing and dance while we still have time. Really, I appreciate the intellectual part, but the sarcasm and pointed phrases are amping up and feeling like you guys need to go out back and duke it out.
In the meantime, not many have weighed in on the color of underwear, but maybe that is because it is not a debatable question. I guess we would just have to trust that the reporter was telling the truth.
Yes, Mykil, I too feel like this is getting a bit testy and spinning in too many directions. It seems that at least some brains on this thread are traveling faster than others. However, I think the Warming will come and go before this discussion reaches any real consensus. The problem with consensus reality is that it is dependent on the perspective of the individuals, and those are usually divergent (thus the on and onness of the thread.) Also, the inquiry would have to be done in a small cross section of time (whatever that is) and with the exact same wording and inflection. Maybe when the census takers do their next head count, they could ask everyone a few important questions about the world and come up with something. Then a big computer could reduce the answers to some arbitrary yes, no, maybe, all of the above, or signs are foggy-ask again later. Oh, that is the eight ball, but not a bad idea. And then the project would be cancelled because it was costing too much money and power, and the Governor needed the energy to fill up all his Humvies. Seriously, consensus is possible in relatively small groups of like minded individuals who hold similar stakes in the answer. REALFIRE, do you have some intuitive take on this? Let's take a break and sing and dance while we still have time. Really, I appreciate the intellectual part, but the sarcasm and pointed phrases are amping up and feeling like you guys need to go out back and duke it out.
In the meantime, not many have weighed in on the color of underwear, but maybe that is because it is not a debatable question. I guess we would just have to trust that the reporter was telling the truth.
Sonomamark
12-27-2007, 12:50 PM
So...you're unwilling to discuss the substance of the issue, expect us to take your word that these Big Names you have invoked somehow lend weight to the position you refuse to defend (while somehow mysteriously avoiding the appeal to authority fallacy), and, in essence, are doing us all the favor of not confusing our little brains with "the kind of extended technical conversation that would be necessary in order (to) clarify what would count as 'available evidence' for the substantiation of claims about the status of moral principles"?
Well, thanks so much. That's terribly cogent, persuasive, and downright generous. I feel much better now.
But I have to ask: if you didn't plan to say anything, what's with all the typing, Frederick?
SM
I wasn't airily waving anything. My point was simply to solicit agreement as to the existence of a controversy in the interest of not misleading the uninformed. It's interesting (to me) that I failed to do so. The thinkers I had in mind in referring to how controversial the distinctions and categories you posed were not the "postmodernists" but W.V.O. Quine, Donald Davidson, Thomas Nagel, Robert Brandom, David Lewis, Bernard Williams, and John McDowell -- by no stretch of the imagination, even on the part of the most bigoted, could they be considered poor thinkers.
I really don't want to get involved, in a forum like this, in what a phrase like "inherent reality" must mean such that someone can say that a moral principle has no inherent reality, nor in the kind of extended technical conversation that would be necessary in order clarify what would count as "available evidence" for the substantiation of claims about the status of moral principles. This is not because I flinch from "tackling" such issues (I've written on these topics and anyone who wanted to could easily find out what I've had to say about them), but because in my experience these sorts of forums do not support the kind of conversation and exchange that is necessary to sustain a real debate. (The main reason for this is the tendency to ignore the principle of charity.)
I mention the "big names" because (a) I'm not going to take the time necessary to get involved in the kind of discussion necessary to clarify the issues and (b) so that anyone reading this who might feel intimidated by your rhetoric will know where to go for a fairer and more intelligent presentation of the issues.
Well, thanks so much. That's terribly cogent, persuasive, and downright generous. I feel much better now.
But I have to ask: if you didn't plan to say anything, what's with all the typing, Frederick?
SM
I wasn't airily waving anything. My point was simply to solicit agreement as to the existence of a controversy in the interest of not misleading the uninformed. It's interesting (to me) that I failed to do so. The thinkers I had in mind in referring to how controversial the distinctions and categories you posed were not the "postmodernists" but W.V.O. Quine, Donald Davidson, Thomas Nagel, Robert Brandom, David Lewis, Bernard Williams, and John McDowell -- by no stretch of the imagination, even on the part of the most bigoted, could they be considered poor thinkers.
I really don't want to get involved, in a forum like this, in what a phrase like "inherent reality" must mean such that someone can say that a moral principle has no inherent reality, nor in the kind of extended technical conversation that would be necessary in order clarify what would count as "available evidence" for the substantiation of claims about the status of moral principles. This is not because I flinch from "tackling" such issues (I've written on these topics and anyone who wanted to could easily find out what I've had to say about them), but because in my experience these sorts of forums do not support the kind of conversation and exchange that is necessary to sustain a real debate. (The main reason for this is the tendency to ignore the principle of charity.)
I mention the "big names" because (a) I'm not going to take the time necessary to get involved in the kind of discussion necessary to clarify the issues and (b) so that anyone reading this who might feel intimidated by your rhetoric will know where to go for a fairer and more intelligent presentation of the issues.
Frederick M. Dolan
12-27-2007, 01:04 PM
I thought I was participating in a discussion about the nature of truth claims, what they are, how they are verified, that sprang from the topic of whether global warming was a fraud and began with questions about the significance (or even existence) of a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. Admittedly a digression, but I don't believe I introduced the digression -- if so, my sincere apologies. If it's desired to return to the topic of global warming itself, needless to say that's fine with me.
Frederick, what are you doing here? Your posts fill up my digest but I'm not learning anything from them.
What is truth? Excuse me, but how stupid is the questioner? Is there truth without language? How stupid is the questioner? These questions are barely worth considering in a philosophy discussion. Start a new thread on philosophy if you want to discuss such ephemera.
I'm willing to learn about reality and that's why I'm here. I've learned a lot on Waccobb and I appreciate serious posts and serious posters. I make a lot of assumptions about what reality is, but the fact is, there is such a thing as "consensus reality." We don't really need to argue that.
I welcome posts that enlighten or inform.
-Jeff
Frederick, what are you doing here? Your posts fill up my digest but I'm not learning anything from them.
What is truth? Excuse me, but how stupid is the questioner? Is there truth without language? How stupid is the questioner? These questions are barely worth considering in a philosophy discussion. Start a new thread on philosophy if you want to discuss such ephemera.
I'm willing to learn about reality and that's why I'm here. I've learned a lot on Waccobb and I appreciate serious posts and serious posters. I make a lot of assumptions about what reality is, but the fact is, there is such a thing as "consensus reality." We don't really need to argue that.
I welcome posts that enlighten or inform.
-Jeff
Frederick M. Dolan
12-27-2007, 06:33 PM
This is what I meant by these forums not being conducive to some kinds of debate and inquiry: yes, I do expect you to assume that I am being sincere -- that I'm suggesting in good faith some relevant and reliable authors that you should consult if you want to get up to speed on my allusions to the current state of the debate among realists and anti-realists. Ordinarily I'm only too happy to lay out, discuss, and debate these ideas, but I'm not about to waste my time doing so with someone who seems to converse in order to achieve as many "GOTCHA!" moments as he can. In forums like this, the principle of charity is essential: we must assume that people assert what they assert because they have good reasons for doing so, and if what they say sounds odd or wrong, we respond initially by probing to understand why they believe what they believe, why the idea makes sense to them. In my experience, not following the principle of charity means never arriving at the really interesting intellectual questions because everyone's energy is dissipated by the zeal to identify seemingly damning errors or fallacies that invariably turn out not to lead us to the real issues. The hermeneutics of suspicion may have its uses, but in my experience it destroys online forums like these. It should be tempered (if not replaced) by the principle of charity.
So...you're unwilling to discuss the substance of the issue, expect us to take your word that these Big Names you have invoked somehow lend weight to the position you refuse to defend (while somehow mysteriously avoiding the appeal to authority fallacy), and, in essence, are doing us all the favor of not confusing our little brains with "the kind of extended technical conversation that would be necessary in order (to) clarify what would count as 'available evidence' for the substantiation of claims about the status of moral principles"?
Well, thanks so much. That's terribly cogent, persuasive, and downright generous. I feel much better now.
But I have to ask: if you didn't plan to say anything, what's with all the typing, Frederick?
SM
So...you're unwilling to discuss the substance of the issue, expect us to take your word that these Big Names you have invoked somehow lend weight to the position you refuse to defend (while somehow mysteriously avoiding the appeal to authority fallacy), and, in essence, are doing us all the favor of not confusing our little brains with "the kind of extended technical conversation that would be necessary in order (to) clarify what would count as 'available evidence' for the substantiation of claims about the status of moral principles"?
Well, thanks so much. That's terribly cogent, persuasive, and downright generous. I feel much better now.
But I have to ask: if you didn't plan to say anything, what's with all the typing, Frederick?
SM
lynn
12-27-2007, 07:58 PM
Whooooah Nellie!!....This board sure took off into never-never land!!...
------------------
d-cat...Excellent posts and points Lynn!
Thanks d-cat!...Since there is enough heady gibberish, and bs. on this thread already...I will try and not let it 'go to my head'...:)
-----------------
Clancy...Your prepetual whining about Gore isn't relevant. Forget Gore, listen to the scientists.
Hhmmmmm...Were you saying that when his film...'The Inconvenient Truth' came out?...
But, FORGET GORE!!!...is right!!...Some scientists are still waiting for that debate!!....
--------------------
Willie..."Anti-intellectualism isn't necessarily identified with any particular scientific opinion"...and the paragraph goes on...
Gee Willie...Can't make heads nor tails out of your gibberish here...
But that's my point. YOU are NOT a scientist, and therefore it's unlikely that you have a rational basis for questioning the opinions of the vast majority of experts. If I'm wrong and you do in fact have a rational argument, I'm all ears to hear it. Argue away, and I'll follow along as well as my very limited understanding of this field will permit.
Yup...I'm not a scientist...just an ignorant 'layman'...and I still don't know what you mean by 'experts'...
I'm wondering what you think my 'irrational argument' is?...
--------------------
Melody...However, I think the Warming will come and go before this discussion reaches any real consensus.
Now, THAT'S insight!!....
In the meantime, not many have weighed in on the color of underwear, but maybe that is because it is not a debatable question.
I would say it depends on how much one would like to show off...Personally, I DO notice if a woman is wearing a dark color of underwear under her sheer white skirt!...
------------------
d-cat...Excellent posts and points Lynn!
Thanks d-cat!...Since there is enough heady gibberish, and bs. on this thread already...I will try and not let it 'go to my head'...:)
-----------------
Clancy...Your prepetual whining about Gore isn't relevant. Forget Gore, listen to the scientists.
Hhmmmmm...Were you saying that when his film...'The Inconvenient Truth' came out?...
But, FORGET GORE!!!...is right!!...Some scientists are still waiting for that debate!!....
--------------------
Willie..."Anti-intellectualism isn't necessarily identified with any particular scientific opinion"...and the paragraph goes on...
Gee Willie...Can't make heads nor tails out of your gibberish here...
But that's my point. YOU are NOT a scientist, and therefore it's unlikely that you have a rational basis for questioning the opinions of the vast majority of experts. If I'm wrong and you do in fact have a rational argument, I'm all ears to hear it. Argue away, and I'll follow along as well as my very limited understanding of this field will permit.
Yup...I'm not a scientist...just an ignorant 'layman'...and I still don't know what you mean by 'experts'...
I'm wondering what you think my 'irrational argument' is?...
--------------------
Melody...However, I think the Warming will come and go before this discussion reaches any real consensus.
Now, THAT'S insight!!....
In the meantime, not many have weighed in on the color of underwear, but maybe that is because it is not a debatable question.
I would say it depends on how much one would like to show off...Personally, I DO notice if a woman is wearing a dark color of underwear under her sheer white skirt!...
lynn
12-27-2007, 09:45 PM
Clancy...That you can't keep up says far more about you than everyone else.
Yeah, that I actually live life and have priorities!!...
Have fun floating around in that superiority complex of yours Clancy!...
Yeah, that I actually live life and have priorities!!...
Have fun floating around in that superiority complex of yours Clancy!...
lynn
12-28-2007, 03:18 AM
Clancy...The difference between you and I is that while I enjoy encountering people who are brighter and smarter than I, you obviously feel very uncomfortable, and for that, I am truly sorry.
Oh, brother!...Get off it Clancy - I can't stand arrogant bs...ing!...
Rather than ridicule people when they're talking about things you don't understand, you could ask them how it applies to the discussion thus far, because it does, and you are missing out.
I didn't ridicule...If people want to go off on a subject - be my guest...They can write and discuss all they want...Doesn't matter to me...I just might NOT be interested....
Clancy...Do you spend time on threads, or posts you are not interested in reading?...
Get off it Clancy!...
Oh, brother!...Get off it Clancy - I can't stand arrogant bs...ing!...
Rather than ridicule people when they're talking about things you don't understand, you could ask them how it applies to the discussion thus far, because it does, and you are missing out.
I didn't ridicule...If people want to go off on a subject - be my guest...They can write and discuss all they want...Doesn't matter to me...I just might NOT be interested....
Clancy...Do you spend time on threads, or posts you are not interested in reading?...
Get off it Clancy!...
handy
12-30-2007, 10:02 AM
Uncle Al has a fun essay (rant) on the subject:https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/NewSmilies/wink.gif
https://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/carbad.htm
https://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/carbad.htm
Willie Lumplump
12-30-2007, 11:08 AM
Willie..."Anti-intellectualism isn't necessarily identified with any particular scientific opinion"...and the paragraph goes on...
Gee Willie...Can't make heads nor tails out of your gibberish here...In other words, people can hold different scientific opinions without being anti-intellectual.
Yup...I'm not a scientist...just an ignorant 'layman'...I too am a layman where climatology is concerned, and I don't mind describing myself as ignorant in major respects. If I were to attend a world climatological conference, I'm sure many papers would be delivered that I didn't understand at all.
and I still don't know what you mean by 'experts'...Try this experiment: The next time you have a major electrical malfunction in your house, proclaim yourself to be a qualified interpreter of electricity and perform the repairs yourself. You will soon get an unmistakable signal that tells you the difference between an expert and a layman.
Gee Willie...Can't make heads nor tails out of your gibberish here...In other words, people can hold different scientific opinions without being anti-intellectual.
Yup...I'm not a scientist...just an ignorant 'layman'...I too am a layman where climatology is concerned, and I don't mind describing myself as ignorant in major respects. If I were to attend a world climatological conference, I'm sure many papers would be delivered that I didn't understand at all.
and I still don't know what you mean by 'experts'...Try this experiment: The next time you have a major electrical malfunction in your house, proclaim yourself to be a qualified interpreter of electricity and perform the repairs yourself. You will soon get an unmistakable signal that tells you the difference between an expert and a layman.
OrchardDweller
12-30-2007, 12:54 PM
Some say that man-made global warming is to the left what the war on terror is to the right. A way of keeping people frightened and easy to control. It's known as the "problem-reaction-solution" paradigm and there is info available on this on the web.
I see the similarities: if you questioned the war, you were accused of being unpatriotic; if you question (man-made) global warming you're considered an anti-environmentalist. Question the war? You're a "lefty commie liberal". Question global warming? You're a "right wing fascist". There seems to be a lot of effort made to intimidate people into a certain line of thinking.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/twogunkitten/190505COPS.jpg
I see the similarities: if you questioned the war, you were accused of being unpatriotic; if you question (man-made) global warming you're considered an anti-environmentalist. Question the war? You're a "lefty commie liberal". Question global warming? You're a "right wing fascist". There seems to be a lot of effort made to intimidate people into a certain line of thinking.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/twogunkitten/190505COPS.jpg
Zeno Swijtink
12-30-2007, 04:26 PM
I see the similarities: if you questioned the war, you were accused of being unpatriotic; if you question (man-made) global warming you're considered an anti-environmentalist. Question the war? You're a "lefty commie liberal". Question global warming? You're a "right wing fascist". There seems to be a lot of effort made to intimidate people into a certain line of thinking.
Does this make Ron Paul a "lefty commie liberal?" He is more ambigious about Global Climate Change:
I don't think everybody knows everything about global warming, because you have reputable scientists on both sides of that argument. ... [If the government were to play a role] then you have to deal with the volcanoes and you have to deal with the pollution of China. So, do you want to invade China to make sure they don't pollute? And what are you going to do about the volcanoes? They are all contributing factors to global warming. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies.
— "Real Time with Bill Maher," March 30, 2007
https://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html
Does this make Ron Paul a "lefty commie liberal?" He is more ambigious about Global Climate Change:
I don't think everybody knows everything about global warming, because you have reputable scientists on both sides of that argument. ... [If the government were to play a role] then you have to deal with the volcanoes and you have to deal with the pollution of China. So, do you want to invade China to make sure they don't pollute? And what are you going to do about the volcanoes? They are all contributing factors to global warming. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies.
— "Real Time with Bill Maher," March 30, 2007
https://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html
lynn
12-31-2007, 04:58 AM
Handy...
Re: Uncle Al's article...LOVED IT!!...
That was soooo funnyyy!!...And BRILLIANT!...
Thanks....:)
Re: Uncle Al's article...LOVED IT!!...
That was soooo funnyyy!!...And BRILLIANT!...
Thanks....:)
lynn
12-31-2007, 05:03 AM
Willie....In other words, people can hold different scientific opinions without being anti-intellectual.<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
Nah! Ya' don't say!!...Well, golly gee Willie....Ya' finally admitted it!!...I ain't no anti-intellectualer after all!!....
Try this experiment: The next time you have a major electrical malfunction in your house, proclaim yourself to be a qualified interpreter of electricity and perform the repairs yourself. You will soon get an unmistakable signal that tells you the difference between an expert and a layman.
I keep waiting for you to figure a couple things out...but I ain't gonna' hold my breath...I'll give you a clue though - It's completely absurd that you even wrote me that above statement!...
Nah! Ya' don't say!!...Well, golly gee Willie....Ya' finally admitted it!!...I ain't no anti-intellectualer after all!!....
Try this experiment: The next time you have a major electrical malfunction in your house, proclaim yourself to be a qualified interpreter of electricity and perform the repairs yourself. You will soon get an unmistakable signal that tells you the difference between an expert and a layman.
I keep waiting for you to figure a couple things out...but I ain't gonna' hold my breath...I'll give you a clue though - It's completely absurd that you even wrote me that above statement!...
Willie Lumplump
12-31-2007, 10:32 AM
Nah! Ya' don't say!!...Well, golly gee Willie....Ya' finally admitted it!!...I ain't no anti-intellectualer after all!!....The key word here was "scientific." When discussing scientific subjects, many people hold opinions for political or psychological reasons that have nothing to do with science.
I keep waiting for you to figure a couple things out...but I ain't gonna' hold my breath...I'll give you a clue though - It's completely absurd that you even wrote me that above statement!...Actually, after reflecting on our exchange, I realized that your question about what qualifies a person as an expert is both fair and interesting. It's not at all self-evident. I'm still thinking about it.
I keep waiting for you to figure a couple things out...but I ain't gonna' hold my breath...I'll give you a clue though - It's completely absurd that you even wrote me that above statement!...Actually, after reflecting on our exchange, I realized that your question about what qualifies a person as an expert is both fair and interesting. It's not at all self-evident. I'm still thinking about it.
handy
01-03-2008, 03:16 PM
Just another Russian scientist's take:
https://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
enjoy
https://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
enjoy
Nemea Laessig
01-03-2008, 05:00 PM
Hope this simple message can help folks figure this one out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
Willie Lumplump
01-03-2008, 05:49 PM
Just another Russian scientist's take:
https://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
enjoyThe Russian scientist in question, Oleg Sorokhtin, made the following statement: "Heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming." The good doctor seems unaware that about 30% of the sun's incoming radiation is reflected back into space. As for cooling by air currents, this might work if interplanetary space were filled with cold air. But space is a vacuum, and vacuums do not conduct heat. Heat passes through vacuums only as radiation. Perhaps Oleg drank the same old beer as Mykil.
https://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
enjoyThe Russian scientist in question, Oleg Sorokhtin, made the following statement: "Heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming." The good doctor seems unaware that about 30% of the sun's incoming radiation is reflected back into space. As for cooling by air currents, this might work if interplanetary space were filled with cold air. But space is a vacuum, and vacuums do not conduct heat. Heat passes through vacuums only as radiation. Perhaps Oleg drank the same old beer as Mykil.
Willie Lumplump
01-07-2008, 05:22 PM
I still don't know what you mean by 'experts'...
I've been thinking about this, and what I've decided is that everyone must have at least an intuitive notion of what an expert is, and where intuition fails, a dictionary can fill in. The harder question is, "Expert in what?" If an expert biologist studies the northward advance of European tarweed in response to global warming, does that make him an expert in global warming or an expert in plant ecology or just an expert in tarweeds or maybe an expert in something else? Or if a geologist analyzes ice cores to determine how the atmosphere changed over a period of a couple of million years, what is he an expert in? Ice? Atmospheres? Global warming? It seems to me that the study of global warming in an extremely integrative discipline, and to be an expert in it you have to know (1) the various disciplines, and (2) how they all relate to each other to affect climate. I know of only two groups of experts with this competence, (1) experts that construct mathematical models of the earth's climate, and (2) specialists in other fields that are so well-informed and mathematically inclined that they understand what the climate modelers are doing.
I've been thinking about this, and what I've decided is that everyone must have at least an intuitive notion of what an expert is, and where intuition fails, a dictionary can fill in. The harder question is, "Expert in what?" If an expert biologist studies the northward advance of European tarweed in response to global warming, does that make him an expert in global warming or an expert in plant ecology or just an expert in tarweeds or maybe an expert in something else? Or if a geologist analyzes ice cores to determine how the atmosphere changed over a period of a couple of million years, what is he an expert in? Ice? Atmospheres? Global warming? It seems to me that the study of global warming in an extremely integrative discipline, and to be an expert in it you have to know (1) the various disciplines, and (2) how they all relate to each other to affect climate. I know of only two groups of experts with this competence, (1) experts that construct mathematical models of the earth's climate, and (2) specialists in other fields that are so well-informed and mathematically inclined that they understand what the climate modelers are doing.