Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 06:47:59 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Alex Jones Vs. Rothschild: The Best Global Warming Debate in History  (Read 2080 times)
Kettenmonster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}


View Profile
April 07, 2012, 09:47:59 PM
 #21

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

The paining (sic!) is done with the QPainter class inside the paintEvent() method.
(source: my internet)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481136479
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481136479

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481136479
Reply with quote  #2

1481136479
Report to moderator
1481136479
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481136479

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481136479
Reply with quote  #2

1481136479
Report to moderator
1481136479
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481136479

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481136479
Reply with quote  #2

1481136479
Report to moderator
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 04:50:04 AM
 #22

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

Yes - I understand your general lack and depth of understanding.
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 05:13:20 AM
 #23

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?

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 05:26:30 AM
 #24

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 05:30:54 AM
 #25

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.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
Kettenmonster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 10:45:38 AM
 #26

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.


The paining (sic!) is done with the QPainter class inside the paintEvent() method.
(source: my internet)
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 12:43:45 PM
 #27

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

Activity: 1526


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
 #28

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.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
Kettenmonster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 02:40:34 PM
 #29

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.

The paining (sic!) is done with the QPainter class inside the paintEvent() method.
(source: my internet)
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 07:08:32 PM
 #30

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 08:29:29 PM
 #31

True. But when you can demonstrate quite clearly ...
uhm to whom?

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

The paining (sic!) is done with the QPainter class inside the paintEvent() method.
(source: my internet)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 08, 2012, 09:12:14 PM
 #32

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 09:41:42 PM
 #33

... 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.

The paining (sic!) is done with the QPainter class inside the paintEvent() method.
(source: my internet)
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 03:02:32 AM
 #34

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
 #35

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.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!