Alex Jones Vs. Rothschild: The Best Global Warming Debate in History

[Kettenmonster]

I see you trying to understand. Jolly good approach, carry on!

[1713585733]

1713585733

[1713585733]

1713585733

[1713585733]

1713585733

[1713585733]

1713585733

[1713585733]

1713585733

[FirstAscent]

I see you trying to understand. Jolly good approach, carry on!

Yes - I understand your general lack and depth of understanding.

[Kluge]

It's pretty much what you would expect.  Jones makes some good points.  Rothschild makes some good points.  Then it devolves into name calling.

This thread appears to be a re-enactment, then?

[FirstAscent]

It's pretty much what you would expect.  Jones makes some good points.  Rothschild makes some good points.  Then it devolves into name calling.

This thread appears to be a re-enactment, then?

As long as there are buffoons who think the principles of greed and exploitation via an unconstrained free market are more important than the state of the Earth, then yeah, there will be a perpetual argument.

[notme]

It's pretty much what you would expect.  Jones makes some good points.  Rothschild makes some good points.  Then it devolves into name calling.

This thread appears to be a re-enactment, then?

As long as there are bufoons who think the principles of greed and exploitation via an unconstrained free market are more important than the state of the Earth, then yeah, there will be a perpetual argument.

So that's a yes... we've devolved into name calling.

[Kettenmonster]

My tl;dr is: sheep vs wolf
The sheep herd blaahme for murder, whilst wolf pack howls in starvation.

These Operas on TV aren´t meant to help at all, made to make money and remind me of the roman empire: panem et circenses
But still, whenever namecalling starts, ideologies pop to the surface. I consider that good! Not those names, getting ideologies pinpointed. So don´t worry or care too much about the names. Look underneath the surface ...
- Are there arguments?
- Do you understand it? (In the sense of disproving doesn´t fail just because you lack the details.)
Finally understand it does not bring aggree to it along.
Do the assumptions those arguments are based on collide with your attidudes?
If yes, rather attack the assumptions than the arguments, plus avoid attacking a person, you might easily just kill a messenger.

p.s.
Getting exited is either juvenial enthusiasm, so don´t blame for that. It could also be an underhand approach to disguise a lack of persuasiveness, beware of that. Once having that sorted you can decide to pick up war against demagogues or enjoy helping to get complexity sorted.

[bb113]

Arguing about the arguments is a distraction. If you aren't examining the data you're doing worse than wasting your time.

[notme]

Arguing about the arguments is a distraction. If you aren't examining the data you're doing worse than wasting your time.

Except both sides believe the other's data is falsified.  So that doesn't get you anywhere either.

[Kettenmonster]

Except both sides believe the other's data is falsified. ...

So get out of this sheep vs wolf, forget any ideology, ...
False data or wrong conclusions, whatsoever ideologies are just meant to distract.
The bane is to tell ideologies apart from the real thing.

The regular scientific approach runs like this: Falsify it!
Doesn´t work for the real thing or just improves it.
Plus ideologists usually do the rocket when confronted to such an approach.

[FirstAscent]

Arguing about the arguments is a distraction. If you aren't examining the data you're doing worse than wasting your time.

True. But when you can demonstrate quite clearly that those who argue against Global Warming constantly engage in falsifying data, typically have limited scientific credentials, are often associated with also being paid by the tobacco industry to claim cigarette smoke does not cause cancer, and are funded by Exxon/Mobil, then that should raise some flags.

- Falsifying data: Oregon Petition
- Limited scientific credentials: look up the credentials of the editors of such rags as Environment and Climate News.
- Limited scientific credentials: Google the credentials of the signers of the Oregon Petition
- Tobacco industry ties: learn about the background and history of Frederick Seitz
- Funded by Big Oil: look where the funding comes from regarding every report against Global Warming

Challenge #1: Find credible reports calling into question Global Warming that does not meet many if not all of the above that equal even five percent of the scientific studies saying Global Warming is real.

Challenge #2: State a classic Global Warming denier argument, and it will be explained why it is false or misleading. A classic example is the statement "Icebergs have already displaced the water, so even if they do melt, the sea level will not rise, and thus rising temperatures will not cause a sea level rise."

[Kettenmonster]

True. But when you can demonstrate quite clearly ...

uhm to whom?

Demonstrating might be quite impressive, ... but to whom?

[Hawker]

Except both sides believe the other's data is falsified. ...

So get out of this sheep vs wolf, forget any ideology, ...
False data or wrong conclusions, whatsoever ideologies are just meant to distract.
The bane is to tell ideologies apart from the real thing.

The regular scientific approach runs like this: Falsify it!
Doesn´t work for the real thing or just improves it.
Plus ideologists usually do the rocket when confronted to such an approach.

And there is the problem.  Large complex systems like the climate or the human body have been studied for some time.  The simple "X action causes Y reaction" stuff is pretty well understood.  But the stuff where you have massive numbers of simultaneous actions and reactions are not understood.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/02/features/trials-and-errors?page=all

Since the science probably can't provide an answer, all sides yell out their own preferences.  Not all the things people suggest are scientifically proven but the science will always be unclear enough that you can't get agreement.

[Kettenmonster]

... And there is the problem. ...

That is why fighting any simplifying demagogue is worthwhile.
Just prove wrong to get a better result at the long run.

[FirstAscent]

True. But when you can demonstrate quite clearly ...

uhm to whom?

Demonstrating might be quite impressive, ... but to whom?

Demonstrate it to yourself by simply digging a little deeper with regard to the authors of material denying Global Warming. This is not difficult to do. If your ideology insists that Global Warming isn't happening, then you won't bother digging deeper. I can't help you if you don't want to learn.

[interlagos]

If you're interested in what's really going on with the planet, here the best explanation I could find:
"Kryon - Changes on Earth"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4aT7LCfDcg

You'll find a small surprise (a metaphor) if you're patient enough to make it through the first half of the video.
Just my 2 bits.