| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The Dark Elf 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13055
|
 Posted: January 18 2017 at 21:54 |
 EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
So your not worried about the Antarctic Ice? |
Heavens no! I am not at all worried about the Antarctic ice, because it's too far south to concern me. And it's very dense ice, not unlike some posters on this forum.
|
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
 |
EddieRUKiddingVarese
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
|
Posted: January 18 2017 at 21:58 |
The Dark Elf wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
So your not worried about the Antarctic Ice? |
Heavens no! I am not at all worried about the Antarctic ice, because it's too far south to concern me. And it's very dense ice, not unlike some posters on this forum. |
Ah good, so the melting there and the imminent split of of the largest Ice Berg is history is OK
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/06/giant-iceberg-poised-to-break-off-from-antarctic-shelf-larsen-c
Yeah Don't worry sea levels will only rise in the Northern Hemisphere anyway ............ 
Not so sure about who is the denser North or South
Edited by EddieRUKiddingVarese - January 18 2017 at 21:58
|
|
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13055
|
Posted: January 18 2017 at 22:00 |
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
Not so sure about who is the denser North or South
|
I will say the density remains the thickest on this forum.
|
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
EddieRUKiddingVarese
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
|
Posted: January 18 2017 at 22:04 |
The Dark Elf wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
Not so sure about who is the denser North or South
|
I will say the density remains the thickest on this forum. |
They say the darkest ice is the thickest..............
|
|
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: January 18 2017 at 23:20 |
Mascodagama wrote:
I just voted the wrong way because the question in the actual poll reverses the question in the thread title. Yeah, I didn't read the poll question, but why do it that way to start with? |
Me too
Men are destroying the planet
|
|
|
|
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 11621
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 01:31 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mascodagama wrote:
I just voted the wrong way because the question in the actual poll reverses the question in the thread title. Yeah, I didn't read the poll question, but why do it that way to start with? |
Me too
Men are destroying the planet |
I'm glad to hear. Not that we're destroying the planet - but that many of us did the same mistake and it partly explains the absurd poll results.
|
|
Kingsnake
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 03 2006
Location: Rockpommelland
Status: Offline
Points: 1578
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 01:50 |
I voted wrong, because of the misleading title and the pollquestion. My Yes should be a No. Men are destroying the planet. And as far as I know, only far-right idiots think otherwise (Trump, Wilders, etc.)
|
|
Upbeat Tango Monday
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 10 2015
Location: Buenos Aires
Status: Offline
Points: 1189
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 04:06 |
|
Gotta love a good, smart, scientific debate.
"Tidal waves are upon us. Mankind is doomed. I feel it in my guts, we are condemned! We will pay for our sins against Gaia!"
You are talking about rapture and judgment day...show me hard proof God exists.
You are talking about men destroying the earth...show me hard proof it is so.
Clowns to the left. Jokers to the right.
|
|
Two random guys agreed to shake hands. Just Because. They felt like it, you know. It was an agreement of sorts...a random agreement.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 06:10 |
Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:
Gotta love a good, smart, scientific debate.
"Tidal waves are upon us. Mankind is doomed. I feel it in my guts, we are condemned! We will pay for our sins against Gaia!"
You are talking about rapture and judgment day...show me hard proof God exists.
You are talking about men destroying the earth...show me hard proof it is so.
Clowns to the left. Jokers to the right. |
And your point is... Gravity isn't real the Earth sucks?
|
|
What?
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 06:31 |
Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:
Gotta love a good, smart, scientific debate.
"Tidal waves are upon us. Mankind is doomed. I feel it in my guts, we are condemned! We will pay for our sins against Gaia!"
You are talking about rapture and judgment day...show me hard proof God exists.
You are talking about men destroying the earth...show me hard proof it is so.
Clowns to the left. Jokers to the right. |
So the evidence published by climate scientists the world over isn't proof as far as your concerned? You're equating religious psychosis with science. Good luck with that.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
Mascodagama
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5111
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 06:54 |
Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:
Gotta love a good, smart, scientific debate.
"Tidal waves are upon us. Mankind is doomed. I feel it in my guts, we are condemned! We will pay for our sins against Gaia!"
You are talking about rapture and judgment day...show me hard proof God exists.
You are talking about men destroying the earth...show me hard proof it is so.
Clowns to the left. Jokers to the right. |
If you actually want a good, smart, scientific debate then why don't you start it off by making a post that contains some element of reasoning, evidence or indeed coherent thought of any kind? Because on the basis of what you've contributed to this thread so far you come off as an opinionated, arrogant buffoon who is trolling the forum for laughs. Not much point in debating with someone like that.
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 07:38 |
Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:
Gotta love a good, smart, scientific debate.
"Tidal waves are upon us. Mankind is doomed. I feel it in my guts, we are condemned! We will pay for our sins against Gaia!"
You are talking about rapture and judgment day...show me hard proof God exists.
You are talking about men destroying the earth...show me hard proof it is so.
Clowns to the left. Jokers to the right. |
Funnily, no one has mentionned the name of "Gaïa" in this thread until now. I suppose that makes us "bad leftist hippies" since we can't even make references to our, er, "Goddess".  And if we're talking about men destroying the earth... Well, it's not exactly news: endangered species everywhere, rarefaction of natural resources, air pollution in China, Europe, Mexico (oh, could this also be linked to the climate change?!  ) , nuclear wastes poisoning deers in Scandinavia, etc...
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 10:49 |
33.33% of the people here think man-made global warming isn't real.
Well I guess Trump could also become main super-Admin of ProgArchives after all.
|
|
|
|
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 11621
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 10:55 |
The T wrote:
33.33% of the people here think man-made global warming isn't real.
Well I guess Trump could also become main super-Admin of ProgArchives after all. |
I think the poll is atleast a 66.66% mess (including a few deniers).
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 35798
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 11:10 |
|
Thee results of the poll itself are meaningless since I set up up the topic title question and poll question at odds with each-other in a joking way since I figured that the topic is quite absurd due to the overwhelming evidence for man's effect on greenhouse warming/ contribution to climate change (and to protect myself from the scorn of people asking such a "duh" thing, I resorted to my usual absurdity which does belie some lack of intellectual honesty at play in my psyche). I'm generally more interested in what people have to say in topics than how they vote in a poll, so the poll works more as a fun accessory to discussion.
I may have already mentioned it, but my family was friends with the inventor of a fuel cell for hybrid vehicles, and was amazed when my wife was talking to him when he said that he was not concerned with fossil fuels effect on climate and did not buy into climate change models that most scientists agree on. He was driven by business models rather than environmental concern.
|
|
|
|
Tillerman88
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 31 2015
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 11:48 |
|
LOL , long before the Sun death, there will be no human being on this planet to tell the well succeeded story of both the modern technologies and the business industry.
|
|
omphaloskepsis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6341
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 13:14 |
Most scientists, not paid by the government or the oil and gas industry believe that man made global warming is for real. And it's speeding up, as warming side effects are exacerbating situation.
For example, ice is white and reflects the sun's energy back into space. So as sea ice and land ice melt, less Solar energy is reflected into space. Since sea water is dark, it absorbs more heat which in turn causes higher world temperatures and so on...
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 35798
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 13:17 |
|
^ Exactly so.
|
|
|
|
omphaloskepsis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6341
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 13:28 |
When weighing the evidence, one must consider the authority. Does the scientist have a vested interest in denying Global Warming? For example, a scientist working for Exxon gets paid by Exxon to provide fodder for the Oil and Gas propaganda machine. Would a politician or lobbyist have a vested interest? Would a politician have the scientific background to speak intelligently on global warming? Maybe...Maybe not.
Here is blog post from Sabine Hossenfelder ( A theoretical physicist at CERN) on weighing (arguments from authority)
How to use an "argument from authority"
It has become a popular defense of science deniers to yell “argument from authority” when someone quotes an experts’ opinion. Unfortunately, the argument from authority is often used incorrectly.
What is an “argument from authority”?
An “argument from authority” is a conclusion drawn not by evaluating the evidence itself, but by evaluating an opinion about that evidence. It is also sometimes called an “appeal to authority”.
Consider Bob. Bob wants to know what follows from A. To find out, he has a bag full of knowledge. The perfect argument would be if Bob starts with A and then uses his knowledge to get to B to C to D and so on until he arrives at Z. But reality is never perfect.
Let’s say Bob wants to know what’s the logarithm of 350,000. In reality he can’t find anything useful in his bag of knowledge to answer that question. So instead he calls his friend, the Pope. The Pope says “The log is 4.8.” So, Bob concludes, the log of 350,000 is 4.8 because the Pope said so.
That’s an argument from authority – and you have good reasons to question its validity.
But unlike other logical fallacies, an argument from authority isn’t necessarily wrong. It’s just that, without further information about the authority that has been consulted, you don’t know how good the argument it is.
Suppose Bob hadn’t asked the Pope what’s the log of 350,000 but instead he’d have asked his calculator. The calculator says it’s approximately 5.544.
We don’t usually call this an argument from authority. But in terms of knowledge evaluation it’s the same logical structure as exporting an opinion to a trusted friend. It’s just that in this case the authority is your calculator and it’s widely known to be an expert in calculation. Indeed, it’s known to be pretty much infallible.
You believe that your friend the calculator is correct not because you’ve tried to verify every result it comes up with. You believe it’s correct because you trust all the engineers and scientists who have produced it and who also use calculators themselves.
Indeed, most of us would probably trust a calculator more than our own calculations, or that of the Pope. And there is a good reason for that – we have a lot of prior knowledge about whose opinion on this matter is reliable. And that is also relevant knowledge.
Therefore, an argument from authority can be better than an argument lacking authority if you take into account evidence for the authority’s expertise in the subject area.
Logical fallacies were widely used by the Greeks in their philosophical discourse. They were discussing problems like “Can a circle be squared?” But many of today’s problems are of an entirely different kind, and the Greek rules aren’t always helpful.
The problems we face today can be extremely complex, like the question “What’s the origin of climate change?” “Is it a good idea to kill off mosquitoes to eradicate malaria?” or “Is dark matter made of particles?” Most of us simply don’t have all the necessary evidence and knowledge to arrive at a conclusion. We also often don’t have the time to collect the necessary evidence and knowledge.
And when a primary evaluation isn’t possible, the smart thing to do is a secondary evaluation. For this, you don’t try to answer the question itself, but you try to answer the question “Where do I best get an answer to this question?” That is, you ask an authority.
We do this all the time: You see a doctor to have him check out that strange rush. You ask your mother how to stuff the turkey. And when the repair man says your car needs a new crankshaft sensor, you don’t yell “argument from authority.” And you shouldn’t, because you’ve smartly exported your primary evaluation of evidence to a secondary system that, you are quite confident, will actually evaluate the evidence *better* than you yourself could do.
But… the secondary evidence you need is how knowledgeable the authority is on the topic of question. The more trustworthy the authority, the more reliable the information.
This also means that if you reject an argument from authority you claim that the authority isn’t trustworthy. You can do that. But it’s here’s where things most often go wrong.
The person who doesn’t want to accept the opinion of scientific experts implicitly claims that their own knowledge is more trustworthy. Without explicitly saying so, they claim that science doesn’t work, or that certain experts cannot be trusted – and that they themselves can do better. That is a claim which can be made. But science has an extremely good track record in producing correct conclusions. Questioning that it’s faulty therefore carries a heavy burden of proof.
So. To use an argument from authority correctly, you have to explain why the authority’s knowledge is not trustworthy on the question under consideration.
But what should you do if someone dismisses scientific findings by claiming an argument from authority?
I think we should have a name for such a mistaken use of the term argument from authority. We could call it the fallacy of the “omitted knowledge prior.” This means it’s a mistake to not take into account evidence for the reliability of knowledge, including one’s own knowledge. You, your calculator, and the pope aren’t equally reliable when it comes to evaluating logarithms. And that counts for something.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/how-to-use-argument-from-authority.html
Edited by omphaloskepsis - January 19 2017 at 13:30
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: January 19 2017 at 13:29 |
A majority of PA pollsters, so far, think that the world is millions of years old but that climate change is false. What gives?
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Do you believe in man-made global warming?
