There has been zero aggregate warming in a decade or so...
MoonShadow, I'm sorry to say - you're uninformed. tsk... Do I have to teach you English, too? If the above statement is incorrect, he is not uninformed, but misinformed. He's misinformed as well, in this instance. But I really did mean uninformed - meaning he's not really informed about climate change science. |
|
|
|
You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.
Creepy. |
|
|
|
There has been zero aggregate warming in a decade or so...
I suggest you stop relying on the libertarian sites giving you the news. Please do read up on current news - not selectively filtered news that latches on to a dated erroneous report. MoonShadow, I'm sorry to say - you're uninformed. As I said earlier, pay attention to credible reporting (and there's a lot of it). Until then, this conversation is over. You will come back and respond, I know. But there comes a point when one just has to wash his hands of a discussion when the opposite party is pulling material known to have been discredited. |
|
|
|
|
Dalkore, blablahblah, and others,
These same absolutely absurd things have been discussed over and over, a year and more ago. What these scenarios reveal, is what you guys are coming to realize. And the arguments are circular as well, meaning that they keep following an extraordinarily long and crazy form of logic which ignores key points until you're right back at the beginning, having to go through it all again.
Were any of you here during the discussion about the knife juggler on the inflatable life raft with four other individuals, floating in the ocean, with sharks swimming around? The conversation was actually rather creepy in what it revealed about these people. There was even mention of the first guy in the life raft as having a claim of ownership on the raft, but then it proceeded on to discussion about the knife juggler practicing juggling on board the raft...
|
|
|
|
Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.
In the interests of impartiality, I have considered that, because I always consider the possibility that intelligent people I encounter might be the first unbiased and educated person that I meet. Unfortunately, you didn't pass that test, either. The only unbiased people that I have ever meet are those who are too ignorant or too stupid to form a coherent opinion about a topic. Anyone who has made any attempt to self-educate invariablely chooses a side long before they are fully informed; which, in turn, colors their further assimilation of information. Also, the side that they choose is, in my own experience, pre-determined by their pre-existing ideologies. I am no exception. Sorry, but neither are you. I'm an INTP, and part of that personality type is that I'm more able, and inclined, to re-examine my own perspectives and conclusions on any given topic than any other personality type in the Myers-Briggs metric spectrum. Therefore, no one is less biased, by nature, than one such as myself. That said, I've found that, even as often I as do it; it has proven to be a very rare event that I would change my own mind concerning any topic. I generally believe that most people can't alter their perspectives past a certain age, somewhere around 35 or so; even when presented with quite a bit of evidence. The cognative dissonance might be significant, even stressful, but old people cannot change. They can only pretend to change. This is why these kinds of theological debates are not really conducted in public in order to convince the other party that they are incorrect, but to present the arguments to the yet unbiased reader in a manner that does not trigger the natural bullsh*t filters that raise red flags whenever we are directly preached to. And this, FirstAscent, is why libertarianism is so very common among the young & internet savvy; for this has been utilized as a deliberate tactic by libertarians for over a decade now. It's already too late to stop it, so whether you choose to participate personally in the destruction of your own worldview or not is already irrelevant. Everyday libertarian 'trolls' like us have been presenting these arguments across all of the Internet for so long, and for so often, that young people (who can still be convinced) have been gravitating to the libertarian worldview year by year; simply because they are the very people that can look at these arguments objectively and decide which set they find to be more credible, more likely, and therefore more trustworthy. And there it is, I've just exposed the entire goal of both of the Ron Paul campaigns (and pretty much his entire congressional career) as well as the reason for all of these libertarian leaning websites and think tanks dedicated to all of these various topics, such as Watts Up With That and Reason.com. They exist to give the seeker some place to go to branch out and learn more, once they have already decided that we are correct, and further arm them to do what then comes naturally, and spread the memes in the same manner that they received them. Your ideology has already lost, and I believe that I will live to see the rise and dominion of libertarianism in the public sphere within my own lifetime. MoonShadow, When you too want to spend some time reading up on the subject of climate science, ice ages, species migration, and so on, instead of Ron Paul's playbook and the drivel spewed from libertarian think tanks, I've got some reading recommendations for you. Until then, you're entitled to your opinion on the osmosis of knowledge. |
|
|
|
I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge. What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part).
<sigh> I will not attempt to intervene, if you continue to play right into his hands. This changes nothing with regard to the truth of myrkul's strong opinions on the subject combined with his general lack of knowledge on the subject. It doesn't matter what you feel is at stake here. But there is a truth here - myrkul's opinion on the matter doesn't match his knowledge on the subject. Using one's political ideology to drive how you read science will always be a failure. Unfortunately, for myrkul, that is his method. Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study. |
|
|
|
Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?
Do you have any knowledge that is not spoon fed to you from your most trusted sources? If it comes down to that, I feel I could I could discredit the sources frequently cited here by the libertarians far better than others could discredit the sources I might cite. Do we need to go through this all again? Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen, The Oregon Petition, The George C. Marshall Institute, The Heartland Institute, Exxon/Mobil funding, Environment and Climate News, etc. Then follows the ugly deflections from the libertarian crowd. Sun cycles. Iceberg water displacement. Classification of CO2, The Little Ice Age... Then follows the ignorance of: Earth's orbital patterns, Milankovich cycles, axis wobble, glacier calving, water volumes based on heat... Then follows the failed acknowledgement of the potential dangers of a wait and see attitude. Then follows the lies and propaganda to create the sense that scientists aren't in general agreement, where such lies are funded by Exxon/Mobil. The information is out there. Do you think the libertarian think tanks are genuinely interested in sharing such information? You can have a fundamental understanding of climate science if you want. Nothing is stopping you. Why would one only choose to source their data from libertarian think tanks? |
|
|
|
lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.
Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.
You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past. Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites? First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about. Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy. If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more. Your opinions have been duly noted, Mister "I think I actually know something about climate science because I get my info from libertarian bloggers". And you have my permission to laugh all night long if it makes you happy. I personally don't see any value in even having a discussion with someone such as you who is simultaneously extremely opinionated about a subject and extremely ignorant of said subject at the same time. And yet, you keep doing it... What does that say about how much you value your time? I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge. What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part). |
|
|
|
Cool! Education for the rich.
I think you may be confusing education and schooling. Schooling for the rich, education for the masses. You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful. Once again, you're confusing schooling and education. Everyone gets the same education (as I said, reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) but not everyone gets the same schooling - classes, curriculum, etc. So you're saying they really don't get the same thing? Some get the Yugo of education, and others get the Rolls Royce of education. |
|
|
|
lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.
Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.
You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past. Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites? First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about. Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy. If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more. Your opinions have been duly noted, Mister "I think I actually know something about climate science because I get my info from libertarian bloggers". And you have my permission to laugh all night long if it makes you happy. I personally don't see any value in even having a discussion with someone such as you who is simultaneously extremely opinionated about a subject and extremely ignorant of said subject at the same time. |
|
|
|
Cool! Education for the rich.
I think you may be confusing education and schooling. Schooling for the rich, education for the masses. You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful. |
|
|
|
lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.
Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.
You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past. Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites? |
|
|
|
3. At this point, most children and most schools. If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school. Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling. Its tough out there.
Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate? I point these things out because they would persist in both systems. Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone. Yes they would. [You're] patently wrong in this assertion. The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence. Keep dreaming Myrkul. I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same? I do not believe you can. I note that this is not a yes, indicating that you cannot. That's beside the point, however, so I won't address it. As I said, I can explain why private schools would be affordable, and why they would teach the curriculum the parents want, and as I said, it can be summed up by the fact that even the poorest Americans can afford color televisions. Think about that for a few minutes before continuing. OK, is it good and soaked in? Have you thought about why even the poorest people in America have color TVs? The answer is the market. People want color TVs. People want education. Because the people want these things, other people, seeking to make a buck, provide these things to those people. They know that the more people that can afford to buy their product, the more money they will make from selling that product. So they sell it at a price that people can afford. If they cannot sell it a profit, they can reduce the featureset until they get a profitable product for that pricepoint. A basic television is cheap to produce. Likewise a basic education (Reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) can be provided very cheaply, and not take too long to instil. Extra features (classes) can be added on, but they raise the price a little bit. If a school does not offer the curriculum that the parent wants, then they will enroll the child in a different school, which does, or they can always teach the child anything that they want beyond the basics themselves. Monopolies do not serve the customers. Companies in market competition do. That is why private schools would be more affordable and teach the curriculum that the parents (their customers) want. Cool! Education for the rich. |
|
|
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that. How am I being contradictory by calling you on a genetic fallacy? Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics. Ah. So, basically, Your logical fallacy is... (particularly stupid, since I'm not even the one you're accusing of committing a fallacy) And, three strikes, you're out. Thanks for playing. I've never clicked on those fallacy links, just for your future reference. Anyway, please address the following: 1. Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics. 2. Explain your understanding of the cause for ice ages, as I have indications from another recent thread in which you have participated in that you're relatively misinformed and devoid of much knowledge in that domain. 3. Summarize the findings of the paper you have cited, as I have, at your various requests in the past, summarized edge effects, trophic cascades, island biogeography, the value of biodiversity to humanity, and ecosystem services. |
|
|
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that. How am I being contradictory by calling you on a genetic fallacy? Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics. |
|
|
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that. |
|
|
|
|
In fact, I'll require the following from you before we continue:
1. Reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data.
2. Explain your understanding of the cause for ice ages.
3. Summarize the findings of the paper you have cited, as I have, at your request, summarized edge effects, trophic cascades, island biogeography, the value of biodiversity to humanity, and ecosystem services.
|
|
|
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
