[split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2017, 07:30 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-05-2017 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-05-2017 11:37 AM)Walter Wrote:  My father’s intellect was an order of magnitude (well, two really) above mine.

That ain't a compliment.

I was just telling TheBeardedDude that I actually knew someone who could have a discussion with a physicist or mathematician.

After his three years in the Army Signal Corps, Dad stopped by Cal Tech in 1947 for his MS in Electrical Engineering on his way to industry. Now, think of the guys at ATT’s Bell Labs being another order of magnitude above him.

Now, that is downright scary. In a fun way.

That same year, the transistor was invented.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2017, 07:44 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 07:30 AM)Walter Wrote:  
(24-05-2017 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  That ain't a compliment.

I was just telling TheBeardedDude that I actually knew someone who could have a discussion with a physicist or mathematician.

After his three years in the Army Signal Corps, Dad stopped by Cal Tech in 1947 for his MS in Electrical Engineering on his way to industry. Now, think of the guys at ATT’s Bell Labs being another order of magnitude above him.

Now, that is downright scary. In a fun way.

That same year, the transistor was invented.

Your anecdotes are still irrelevant. Now for fuck's sake stop being such a tinfoil hat wearing dickhead. You know fuck all about science. All of your posting is just fuel to your delusions, it is not anything to do with what is actually true.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
25-05-2017, 08:51 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 07:44 AM)morondog Wrote:  Your anecdotes are still irrelevant. Now for fuck's sake stop being such a tinfoil hat wearing dickhead. You know fuck all about science. All of your posting is just fuel to your delusions, it is not anything to do with what is actually true.

Can you give me any examples of the science community, going out of its way to frighten the general public, prior to World War II?

Could it be, Heaven forbid, that science was driven by the private sector and not politicians? Oh God! No!

Now, I have no doubt that Harry Smith, who developed pulsed Doppler radar in the early 1950s, was thinking about military applications (AWACS) along with the possibility of non-military ones (weather forecasting) in the back of his mind. And all those guys, like Dad, had top secret security clearance. So, there was no way to scare the general public. It was simply research and development by some smart engineers. You got to see the result of that R&D 25 years later.

The big difference? The military was purchasing a product under a particular set of specifications. That’s it. Like a toilet seat, but fancier.

It was not, as with current nutrition and climate scientists, using fear in an attempt to alter our behavior to their liking

I like to think I have some perspective, even if limited.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2017, 08:56 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 08:51 AM)Walter Wrote:  I like to think

But are apparently incapable of doing so. How very sad. Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2017, 09:17 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 08:51 AM)Walter Wrote:  I like to think I have some perspective, even if limited.

Walter,

Scientists know the climate is changing because they are measuring the changes. The Earth is heating up, glaciers and ice caps are melting, storms and droughts are becoming more severe, ocean levels are rising and so on. There is more than enough evidence for climate change.

So I have one question for you:

What do you think is causing the climate to change if not the accumulation of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere (caused by people through burning fossil fuels, deforestation, gas well leaks and so on)? There are only so many other possibilities.

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2017, 09:18 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 08:51 AM)Walter Wrote:  
(25-05-2017 07:44 AM)morondog Wrote:  Your anecdotes are still irrelevant. Now for fuck's sake stop being such a tinfoil hat wearing dickhead. You know fuck all about science. All of your posting is just fuel to your delusions, it is not anything to do with what is actually true.

Can you give me any examples of the science community, going out of its way to frighten the general public, prior to World War II?

Could it be, Heaven forbid, that science was driven by the private sector and not politicians? Oh God! No!

Now, I have no doubt that Harry Smith, who developed pulsed Doppler radar in the early 1950s, was thinking about military applications (AWACS) along with the possibility of non-military ones (weather forecasting) in the back of his mind. And all those guys, like Dad, had top secret security clearance. So, there was no way to scare the general public. It was simply research and development by some smart engineers. You got to see the result of that R&D 25 years later.

The big difference? The military was purchasing a product under a particular set of specifications. That’s it. Like a toilet seat, but fancier.

It was not, as with current nutrition and climate scientists, using fear in an attempt to alter our behavior to their liking

I like to think I have some perspective, even if limited.

"Can you give me any examples of the science community, going out of its way to frighten the general public, prior to World War II? "

Probably. And we could also cite example after example of pseudoscience conspiracies. The fact that you continue to come back to anecdotes to try and justify your disbelief in ACC, is as good a sign as any that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about with respect to the science.

"Could it be, Heaven forbid, that science was driven by the private sector and not politicians? Oh God! No! "

Could it be, Darwin forbid, that your overgeneralization that asserts that the "private sector" exerts a strong control on the whole of science is a stupid proposition?

You presume that scientists pushing ACC are apparently in on it for the money from the private sector, but this ignores the fact that the money from the oil and gas industry is there too. Why the fuck would scientists go after private sector money from one source over the other if it meant having to falsify data and push a conspiracy when there is grave danger in getting caught? It is an asinine assertion that is baseless.

"I like to think I have some perspective, even if limited."

Your perspective is based on bullshit. So your conclusions are too. Surprising? No Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
25-05-2017, 10:00 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 07:16 AM)Walter Wrote:  I can hear you perfectly fine. We just have different perspectives on science.

That's one way to put it. Another appears to be that I know what the scientific method practiced by individual members of various fields is, and you appear to think of science as a monolithic body of dogmas pressured upon others by a priest class. Yes, how very skeptical of you.

(25-05-2017 07:16 AM)Walter Wrote:  What is it about government, using science to frighten the general public, do you like most? Simple question. My answer: I like none of it.

You got the wrong one to push this strawman upon, asshole. I used to be one of those "the government" scientists, working for a state environmental/regulatory agency. There was no point where we attempted to "frighten" people, though we were often accused of that when we presented very real data to people who simply did not want to listen, and who had a bizarre skepticism about the motives of government employed scientists. Wonder where they get that? Well, in my state it was the agricultural and factory-ranching/slaughterhouse megabusiness lobbyists, trying to convince the congress and the people who elect/support them that we gub'mint scientists were the problem, not the actions of the big companies we so carefully monitored and took to court when they flagrantly disregarded the health of people and the land on which we people depend, in pursuit of profit.

How science is used does not impact on the science itself, nor upon the scientists who discover the things they discover. No amount of public perception distortion (for or against) changes what the scientists themselves are doing, and why they are saying what they say.

But I want to know what "government" you're fucking talking about here, since we're talking about the overwhelming consensus among literally tens of thousands of scientists in multiple (though related) disciplines, across dozens of nations and hundreds of competing research organizations, all around the globe. What government do you think is causing them all to say the same thing, and with increasing degrees of alarm and urgency in the way they say it? Is it the Illuminati?


(25-05-2017 07:16 AM)Walter Wrote:  We share skepticism about everything else (fear of Hell, fear of saccharine, fear of animal fat, fear of evolution, fear of Hussein’s weapons). The private sector has even gotten into the act with fear of wheat and fear of sugar. There is only one exception which comes to mind. Fear of carbon dioxide.

Are there others I missed?

As others have pointed out (and as I have, previously), it is not your skepticism which we are criticizing, but the method by which you are skeptical of these things. We are trying to point out flaws in your thinking, in your comparisons, and in your reliance upon nonrelated anecdotes.

There is no basis for the claims of people promoting ideas like hell, and the claims of those trying to establish that basis fall clearly hollow. As such, I am not just skeptical (the initial reaction and analysis) of the claim, but I reject it based upon that analysis. If someone managed to come along and show me a better basis for that claim, or showed me that my method of evaluating the previous claims was missing something, I would reevaluate the claim and either accept or reject it based upon the strength of the new claim. I live in a permanent state of skepticism over every claim, in that new data can always overturn what I think, and I review every new piece of data with a skeptical eye. But that is not what you're talking about, here.

You're talking about a conspiracy theory of literally global proportions, among the diverse and normally-counter/competitive, international groups I mentioned, before. You're talking about tends of thousands of people who would have to sacrifice their integrity and hide the truth, all agreeing to lie, in order to further some unspecified agenda that is powerful enough to unite them all and convince all of them to sacrifice their honor and integrity. That is the same accusation made against evolutionary biology by Creationists, to explain why their fringe ideas are not being given traction, and it has exactly the same amount of merit: zero.

The Creationists, like you, talk a lot about anecdotes, and unrelated topics that they try to link to the pursuit of scientific knowledge, in an attempt to discredit the practice of science as it currently stands, because the findings of the scientific community are in outright opposition to something to which the Creationists have a clear emotional attachment. The Creationists, like you, talk endlessly of conspiracy theories, and being locked out of the conversation, and claim they're just asking questions and being skeptical, when they're doing nothing of the sort. And we have tried endlessly to explain this to you, just as people have with them.


(25-05-2017 07:16 AM)Walter Wrote:  A science degree is not required for those of us who raise skeptic red flags when others attempt to frighten us. My cosmetics sales lady mother and offset pressman brother are proof. Two more anecdotes.

Yes, those are two more anecdotes. And I don't see what they have to do with anything, here. There is nothing wrong with raising skeptical "red flags" when there is legitimate cause for concern and/or poor proofs are being offered. But what you are doing is manufacturing straw men that TheBeardedDude has repeatedly had to explain to you are straw men, and showed you why... which you have ignored, every time. Do you honestly not understand the implications, every time he does this? You think you have something that is true, and he shows you why it's not the case, but you just move on to the next "gotcha!", because you're more in love with the gotchas than you are truly interested in skeptically examining ideas, including (especially) your own. It should stop you in your tracks to learn that you think something works one way in science, only to be told to your face, "No, I'm in the field of science and it doesn't work that way at all", as several of us have told you.

Which begs another question: if you really love anecdotes so much, why are you ignoring the direct testimony of those of us who work directly in the type of scientific fields you are denigrating?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-05-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 09:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The fact that you continue to come back to anecdotes to try and justify your disbelief in ACC, is as good a sign as any that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about with respect to the science.

That is just great. A 60 year nutrition study is an anecdote. When does it lose its anecdote status? 100 years?

I know you dislike the fact that I tie the two together. That is just the way it is. Both involve the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Neither has stood up to correct this little anecdote. The anecdote still gets a pass, regardless of the negative effects it has had on the overall health of the country’s population.

How am I supposed to trust those same two organizations when the fear mongering has simply changed from animal fat to human generated carbon dioxide?

Just put that little anecdote behind you. We have a bigger anecdote to deal with now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2017, 11:43 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 11:28 AM)Walter Wrote:  
(25-05-2017 09:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The fact that you continue to come back to anecdotes to try and justify your disbelief in ACC, is as good a sign as any that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about with respect to the science.

That is just great. A 60 year nutrition study is an anecdote. When does it lose its anecdote status? 100 years?

I know you dislike the fact that I tie the two together. That is just the way it is. Both involve the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Neither has stood up to correct this little anecdote. The anecdote still gets a pass, regardless of the negative effects it has had on the overall health of the country’s population.

How am I supposed to trust those same two organizations when the fear mongering has simply changed from animal fat to human generated carbon dioxide?

Just put that little anecdote behind you. We have a bigger anecdote to deal with now.

More obfuscation and bullshit. Deal with the science of climate change instead of some other bullshit

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2017, 12:53 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 10:00 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You got the wrong one to push this strawman upon, asshole. I used to be one of those "the government" scientists, working for a state environmental/regulatory agency.

We have some common ground. I was with the National Cancer Institute in the 1970s. You might remember the anecdote, where I was told “We are not going to rock the boat” when I expressed concern about the saccharine study.

I was actually doing research with another guy and supported by a brilliant organic chemist / mass spectrometry expert. His interpretations of spectra were simply elegant, far above my limited understanding of organic mechanisms. Why I mention him is that there were multiple occasions when he advised other researchers to visit me in my lab. They were bringing him junk, but he was too polite to come right out and say it to their faces. He was the nicest guy. I would walk down to his lab and hand him a Mass Spec tube with nothing in it. At that time, you hoped you could see a hint of evaporation residue. He would then obtain beautiful spectra on virtually no, but pure, material.

Oh. Not a single one of those Cancer researchers came to see me. They had guaranteed employment and could not have been interested in bettering their work. They would never have lasted at Dow or Lilly. Of course, that is just my opinion. Over the years, I did have others come into my lab and chat. That part was rewarding.

That Mass Spec guy did not deserve to be in the federal lab system. He was probably just as naïve as I was when he went in. I left in the late 70s. I am not sure he stayed. Lifetime employment at the Cancer Institute was something not easily ignored. But, I was single and could easily move out to the real world.

Stop the effing anecdotes!! Jesus Christ!

Well, it was liquid chromatography. High Pressure at the time, changed to High Performance a little later.

I used that LC background to get into some other analytical areas and, like that Mass Spec guy, have been supporting research and development scientists ever since.

Quit using your own effing experiences to form the basis of your views! Good God! Don't you know who you are talking to?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: