NationStates

Free Soviets wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-rela ... deficiency

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-15415218

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... er-energy/

none of those actually point to any sort of scientific consensus at all. the closest you've got is the early observation of something happening that was concentrated among homosexuals. but nobody thought it was a homosexual virus. mainly because the idea of such a thing is fucking stupid.

Maybe we should define consensus, FS. B/c when I read that scientists specializing in the field of research that AIDS was administered under considered it a gay virus, I think that there was, at that time, a consensus among those knowledgeable of the instance. I realize that it was a working theory, but so is GCC. My point is that consensus is a poor defense of GCC. If the data alone is compelling enough, let that stand and disregard the skeptics. But to argue for marginalization of non-experts for being skeptical on the basis of consensus? You introduce a form of autgoritarianism to the discussion that requires those that play with you to be brow beaten with your majority opinion and be lauhed at for it.

And here I was thinking you favored equality or some other shit.

That cartoon sums up my thoughts about climate change action.

Avenio wrote:

The Aryan Nations wrote:as i recall, life hadn't evolved very far at that point, and we know little about the period. i chose a better period on account of it having actual life in it.

Hence why it was a bad example. The Cretaceous period was a period of decline on many fronts; the climate was slowly changing, and was leading to the slow extinction of many different types of dinosaur. The asteroid dealt the killing blow, but the dinosaurs were already going extinct. The high CO2 during that period may have, in fact, been a partial cause of that; we have evidence of massive supervolcanic eruptions throughout the Cretaceous (Like the Deccan Traps deposits), which may kickstarted the climate change.

It's not really relevant to the thread but I'd like to correct this. While dinosaurs (as well as pterosaurs and several other groups) were once widely thought to be going extinct prior to the K-T impact, this doesn't have nearly as much support nowadays. There was an apparent decline in diversity in some areas (most notably the Hell Creek formation, which was, for a long time, one of the only well-studied formations dating to the late Maastrichtian) which may have been due to diseases spread as a result of falling sea levels, but this does not appear to have been universal.

Xsyne wrote:

Avenio wrote:
Hence why it was a bad example. The Cretaceous period was a period of decline on many fronts; the climate was slowly changing, and was leading to the slow extinction of many different types of dinosaur. The asteroid dealt the killing blow, but the dinosaurs were already going extinct. The high CO2 during that period may have, in fact, been a partial cause of that; we have evidence of massive supervolcanic eruptions throughout the Cretaceous (Like the Deccan Traps deposits), which may kickstarted the climate change.

It's not really relevant to the thread but I'd like to correct this. While dinosaurs (as well as pterosaurs and several other groups) were once widely thought to be going extinct prior to the K-T impact, this doesn't have nearly as much support nowadays. There was an apparent decline in diversity in some areas (most notably the Hell Creek formation, which was, for a long time, one of the only well-studied formations dating to the late Maastrichtian) which may have been due to diseases spread as a result of falling sea levels, but this does not appear to have been universal.

Ah. Serves me right for going on obsolete information then. Thanks.

Distruzio wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:none of those actually point to any sort of scientific consensus at all. the closest you've got is the early observation of something happening that was concentrated among homosexuals. but nobody thought it was a homosexual virus. mainly because the idea of such a thing is fucking stupid.

Maybe we should define consensus, FS. B/c when I read that scientists specializing in the field of research that AIDS was administered under considered it a gay virus, I think that there was, at that time, a consensus among those knowledgeable of the instance. I realize that it was a working theory, but so is GCC.

a scientific consensus is when you have a such overwhelming agreement in the literature about the nature of something that it simply is the accepted scientific fact. its when scientists say "we've looked into it, and yep, this is what's up." early hypothesizing it ain't.

AIDS was noticed indirectly in the summer of 1981 and nobody knew what the hell it was. there was no scientific consensus at that point. there was a lot of looking into it as the weird cases mounted, though. by early summer 1982, nobody knew what the hell it was but they knew it affected more than just homosexuals. by late summer, they had started to rule out environmental/lifestyle causes and all moved towards 'probably an infectious agent'. we didn't get the data for there to be a consensus on that issue for another few years.

Distruzio wrote:My point is that consensus is a poor defense of GCC. If the data alone is compelling enough, let that stand and disregard the skeptics. But to argue for marginalization of non-experts for being skeptical on the basis of consensus? You introduce a form of autgoritarianism to the discussion that requires those that play with you to be brow beaten with your majority opinion and be lauhed at for it.

And here I was thinking you favored equality or some other shit.

the data is compelling, and both has been linked to repeatedly and is easily discoverable by anyone wanting to learn. but not everybody has time or inclination to learn. that's fine. but, just like in every other sphere of established knowledge, that means you have no standing and should accept what experts tell you. to do otherwise is plainly idiotic. you need to have reasons to disagree, and somebody who hasn't done the work doesn't have the reasons.

for the non-expert, the consensus of experts is the best available indicator of truth. they literally have no other way of making claim to knowledge outside of their expertise.

as for brow beating and laughing at, yeah, that is the only thing to do to committed denialists (and cdesignproponentsists and holocaust deniers and flat-earthers and republicans, etc). to those that honestly don't understand the theory or the data but are willing to learn, we of course can - and do! - offer explanations. but if the lessons don't stick and they simply move on to other denialist bullshit, we know we aren't dealing with the curious but with the agenda-driven. and such deserve nothing more than scorn, mockery, and marginalization.

Somebody explain Distruzio's logic to me.

Science makes mistakes so that makes the "deniers' right?

The Black Forrest wrote:Somebody explain Distruzio's logic to me.

Science makes mistakes so that makes the "deniers' right?

Pretty much. Truths are eternal. If anthropogenic GCC were true, we would have known about it for millennia.

The Black Forrest wrote:Somebody explain Distruzio's logic to me.

Science makes mistakes so that makes the "deniers' right?

Scientists make mistakes and therefore a true consensus is not achieved. It would be like saying "all big cats roar" when it is well known that there is one species that is incapable of doing so. But the fact remains is that we haven't reached a point where the science is mature enough for there to be a forgone conclusion. At least that's what my uneducated, agenda-driven Republican, flat Earthed creationist denier minds thinks anyway.

Scientists who deny man-made global warming are in the minority because they're quacks who cherry-pick data and stay within their sheltered agenda groups, rather than working from peer-review.

Individual Impersonators wrote:(Image)

That cartoon sums up my thoughts about climate change action.

Very good point.

Costa Fiero wrote:But the fact remains is that we haven't reached a point where the science is mature enough for there to be a forgone conclusion.

since the relevant experts say you are completely and utterly wrong, how the fuck could you possibly think you have grounds to believe that?

Free Soviets wrote:since the relevant experts say you are completely and utterly wrong, how the fuck could you possibly think you have grounds to believe that?

Because it is my mind and I can believe whatever I wish, regardless of whatever you and Comrade Stalin thinks. And the "relevant experts"? Do you speak for all climatologists?

Costa Fiero wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:since the relevant experts say you are completely and utterly wrong, how the fuck could you possibly think you have grounds to believe that?

Because it is my mind and I can believe whatever I wish, regardless of whatever you and Comrade Stalin thinks. And the "relevant experts"? Do you speak for all climatologists?

Believe whatever you want. Just please don't make my biosphere unlivable. Even if you disregard global warming for whatever reason, all the proposed solutions still make sense for other reasons (like having a cleaner environment)

It's like if your kitchen was a disaster with broken dishes and disgusting stuff everywhere and 99 out of 100 experts told you that your kitchen should really be cleaned up because if you don't then you're going to get sick from the pathogens growing in your kitchen. But 1 of the experts was high at the time and never noticed your kitchen. He is not so sure a pathogen would be so deadly.

But really, even if the pathogen would not be so deadly it's about time you clean your kitchen!

Natapoc wrote:Believe whatever you want. Just please don't make my biosphere unlivable. Even if you disregard global warming for whatever reason, all the proposed solutions still make sense for other reasons (like having a cleaner environment)

I haven't disregarded global warming. I have made it blatantly and painfully clear that I know global warming is happening but I remain unconvinced that it is man made. Apparently, however, this hasn't cottoned on to some people.

And how am I ruining your life by turning off most electrical gadgets off at the wall when finished (except the fridge for obvious reasons), use a computer powered by electricitiy generated by various hydro-electric schemes and drive a small economical supermini as well as making moves to recycle whenever possible? I can be "eco" if I want to. Hell, I'eve even gone against the wishes of most other New Zealanders and become a proponent of nuclear power.

Anything else I need to show that I am not some knuckle dragging, agenda driven, creationist Republican hellbent on extracting every last drop of oil?

Natapoc wrote:

Costa Fiero wrote:
Because it is my mind and I can believe whatever I wish, regardless of whatever you and Comrade Stalin thinks. And the "relevant experts"? Do you speak for all climatologists?

Believe whatever you want. Just please don't make my biosphere unlivable. Even if you disregard global warming for whatever reason, all the proposed solutions still make sense for other reasons (like having a cleaner environment)

It's like if your kitchen was a disaster with broken dishes and disgusting stuff everywhere and 99 out of 100 experts told you that your kitchen should really be cleaned up because if you don't then you're going to get sick from the pathogens growing in your kitchen. But 1 of the experts was high at the time and never noticed your kitchen. He is not so sure a pathogen would be so deadly.

But really, even if the pathogen would not be so deadly it's about time you clean your kitchen!

Agreed! That's why we need to reseed and tend to the earth in a more efficient manner. Use the entirety of the surface for things that explicitly need it. Plants in places they can grow, solar-panels in places they can't. Building deep underground, and occasionally coming forth to chop huge sections of the forest down or harvest massive sections of food.

Until we outgrow food.... then we just burn it all down.

The Emerald Legion wrote:Agreed! That's why we need to reseed and tend to the earth in a more efficient manner. Use the entirety of the surface for things that explicitly need it. Plants in places they can grow, solar-panels in places they can't. Building deep underground, and occasionally coming forth to chop huge sections of the forest down or harvest massive sections of food.

Until we outgrow food.... then we just burn it all down.

Why not simply use GM crop plants which can be modified to grow anywhere in any climate?

Costa Fiero wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:Agreed! That's why we need to reseed and tend to the earth in a more efficient manner. Use the entirety of the surface for things that explicitly need it. Plants in places they can grow, solar-panels in places they can't. Building deep underground, and occasionally coming forth to chop huge sections of the forest down or harvest massive sections of food.

Until we outgrow food.... then we just burn it all down.

Why not simply use GM crop plants which can be modified to grow anywhere in any climate?

Genetics is not like legos.

There are people in the world who make a lot of money and have a lot of power as long as progress in adapting humanity to the effects of man made global warming stalls. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to change much.

Fairly recently I've seen a quote from a scientist (Can't recall the name for the life of me, someone google it) who suggested that we are now past the point where we can actually stop man made global warming/climate change, and we are now at a stage where it is best for us to prepare for the effects of it instead. Adaption rather than prevention.

I think this person has hit the nail on the head. Even if the west does undergo such massive change, we will never persuade China, India and Brazil to stop.

Trotskylvania wrote:Genetics is not like legos.

I'm not saying they are.

Costa Fiero wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:Agreed! That's why we need to reseed and tend to the earth in a more efficient manner. Use the entirety of the surface for things that explicitly need it. Plants in places they can grow, solar-panels in places they can't. Building deep underground, and occasionally coming forth to chop huge sections of the forest down or harvest massive sections of food.

Until we outgrow food.... then we just burn it all down.

Why not simply use GM crop plants which can be modified to grow anywhere in any climate?

Costa Fiero wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:Genetics is not like legos.

I'm not saying they are.

Unfortunately, GM intensive farming methods are not that effective nor do we have the scientific capability to produce plants like that. And of course, GM crops come with their own problems. It's not like GM technology can produce magical, all in one seeds. Yet.

Socialist States Owen wrote:Unfortunately, GM intensive farming methods are not that effective nor do we have the scientific capability to produce plants like that. And of course, GM crops come with their own problems. It's not like GM technology can produce magical, all in one seeds. Yet.

But the idea that mankind can have a finally stable and reliable source of food anywhere in the world isn't necessarily a bad thing now is it?

It's not that they're being paid off, but they do have a vested interest in global warming being real (most of them are government funded). A clear cut majority of astronomers and mathematicians once thought that the earth was the center of the universe. They had mathematical equations that described how the sun went around the Earth. They were really really really complex, but they worked. The main argument for a heliocentric model was that the equations involved were so much simpler.

Costa Fiero wrote:Why not simply use GM crop plants which can be modified to grow anywhere in any climate?

Genetic modifications aren't quite like that, but better crop-for-drop technologies, combined with better breeding and GM, should be able to reduce the space required for crops. Unless, of course, we run out of nitrogen. Which will probably happen. Anyway, I think they're working on it.

Costa Fiero wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:since the relevant experts say you are completely and utterly wrong, how the fuck could you possibly think you have grounds to believe that?

Because it is my mind and I can believe whatever I wish, regardless of whatever you and Comrade Stalin thinks.

yes, you are indeed able to believe you are napoleon. that was not the question. the question was, how do you think that you have the knowledge to say whether climate science is 'mature enough'?

Costa Fiero wrote:And the "relevant experts"? Do you speak for all climatologists?

yes. see: every single climatological organization, national academy of science, and non-discredited paper that's gone through peer review, etc.

over 30,000 well educated scientists don't believe in global warming. you cant just say they are all owned by the oil industry