The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Meanwhile in Finland Options
almo 1
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2017 7:50:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/16/2016
Posts: 1,253
Neurons: 5,715
Location: Fussa, Tokyo, Japan
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2017 10:16:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Good one, Almo.

Explain it to me, Progpen. Looks like a British thing?

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
progpen
Posted: Saturday, July 22, 2017 10:44:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Hope123 wrote:
Good one, Almo.

Explain it to me, Progpen. Looks like a British thing?


Sorry Hope. That's the geek in me. This is from Doctor Who. It's a Tardis, which is a time traveling machine.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 7:41:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
progpen wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
Good one, Almo.

Explain it to me, Progpen. Looks like a British thing?


Sorry Hope. That's the geek in me. This is from Doctor Who. It's a Tardis, which is a time traveling machine.


Ok. I figured in the context it had to be something about time travel. The only thing I know about Dr. Who is that they are all upset because a woman is now Dr. Who. lol

My education has been broadened. 😀

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
will
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 7:52:30 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
Hope123 wrote:
Ok. I figured in the context it had to be something about time travel. The only thing I know about Dr. Who is that they are all upset because a woman is now Dr. Who. lol

It seems some people are quite content to go along with the idea that the Queen is a werewolf, time travelling dinosaurs and similar stupid Dr Who story lines, but a woman lead character is a step too far. To be fair, many geeks have no empirical evidence for the existence of women.

Great pic, almo 1 Applause


.
will
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 7:56:06 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
FouDit wrote:
And pretending you don’t know we are all talking about climate change is dishonest also.

Calm down, you’re making even less sense than before. Where am I, or anyone other than you, pretending (dishonestly or otherwise) not to know we are all talking about climate change?

FouDit wrote:
And it is also as equally dishonest to pretend you can predict the climate in ten years or fifty years than you can the weather six months from now.

This is a dictionary site, at least make sure you understand the definition of the terms you are using to misrepresent the basis of the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Climate – The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

Weather – The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.

Predictions about the future climate – warmer global temperatures and more extreme weather events – have been made since at least the 1970’s. At that time politicians, businesses and the general public effectively choose to act exactly as you claim we should now – we carried on as normal in the hope that those predictions were wrong. It is now clear, based on current observations, that those predictions were accurate. The accuracy of these predictions is one small part of the overwhelming evidence that has forced politicians, businesses and the general public (reluctantly, often kicking and screaming or downright lying in the case of ExxonMobil et al) to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus.

This is how science, economics and societies works. Predictions of most likely future outcomes based on current data is at the core of every process that make your daily life possible.

We can’t predict for certain that energy demand will rise in the future; do we just assume it won’t and cease building power plants, be they coal, nuclear or solar?

We can’t predict for certain that a future epidemic might occur; do we cease vaccination programs in the hope that we are able to deal with an outbreak at the time?

We can’t predict for certain that future crop yields will fall or fail, or that demand will outstrip production; do we sit back and stuff our faces on this year’s glut and hope that market forces will ensure it’s other people that go hungry instead… actually we do do that, but that’s another subject.

We can’t predict for certain that a grizzly bear will rip our faces off; do we poke it with a stick anyway?

You are, it seems, quite content to accept the data and reliability of scientific sources that show the climate is naturally cyclical and has been for thousands of years, and you are quite content to predict the future when you claim that nature will rebalance itself regardless of human activity.

The current overwhelming consensus disagrees with your policy of wait and see. That consensus includes every Nation on the planet (except USA, Syria and Nicaragua), every single scientific body of national or international scientists (including since 2007 the last stalwarts of denial, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) and just about every international business (including ExxonMobil and every other petrochemical company).

EDIT: I’ve just re-read my post a would like to clarify: neither Nicaragua nor Syria reject the science of anthropic climate change. The former did not sign the Paris agreement (chose not to endorse the consensus) because the penalties for polluting countries that did not act were not punitive enough, and the latter has other ‘issues’ to deal with right now. It’s not even clear whether the USA government rejects the science or not. There was certainly some rhetoric during the election that suggested climate change was a ‘hoax’, but the actual position seems to agree with the science but rejects the consensus solution. END OF EDIT

We’ll only know for certain if you or the consensus were correct in the future. And at that point, like now, policy will continue to be made on predictions of most likely future outcomes based on current data.

FounDit wrote:
We skeptics didn’t set the goal posts, your group established them with the dire predictions of a future you cannot know. I simply say the goal posts you describe with you scenarios don’t exist and you have no evidence that they do, or will, exist in the future.

That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to your habit of changing your argument from, for example, claiming we should not act because we can’t predict the future – which I’ve addressed above – to arguing that the consensus doesn’t exist or is a conspiracy of lefties – which I predict you will now do in response to what I’ve addressed above.

FounDit wrote:
That’s equally true of listening to you all repeat the tenets of your faith repeatedly. It’s like discussing religion with a Jehovah’s Witness.

Your self refuting argument has already unfolded; your ad hominem insults and tin-foil hat paranoia is frankly embarrassing to watch.


.
progpen
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:03:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Meanwhile, back in the UK.

Jodie Whittaker has been chosen to be the 13th Doctor. I've been on several of the fan forums and the response has been largely positive. Whovians tend to be very averse to change and each of the new Doctors has had their share of haters. I don't see Jodie being any different, but the positive feedback so far has been interesting.


Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:08:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
will wrote:
It seems some people are quite content to go along with the idea that the Queen is a werewolf, time travelling dinosaurs and similar stupid Dr Who story lines, but a woman lead character is a step too far. To be fair, many geeks have no empirical evidence for the existence of women.


Stupid Dr Who story lines!? Them's fightin' words Whistle Whistle Whistle

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
will
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:15:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
Actually I don't mind a bit of fantasy, it's the wheeling out of the sonic screwdriver as a solve all device when the plot line inevitably breaks down that has me turning off. Not talking


.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 10:54:17 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,036
Neurons: 48,436
will wrote:
FouDit wrote:
And pretending you don’t know we are all talking about climate change is dishonest also.

Calm down, you’re making even less sense than before. Where am I, or anyone other than you, pretending (dishonestly or otherwise) not to know we are all talking about climate change?
I'm calm. Why would you think I'm not?

FouDit wrote:
And it is also as equally dishonest to pretend you can predict the climate in ten years or fifty years than you can the weather six months from now.

This is a dictionary site, at least make sure you understand the definition of the terms you are using to misrepresent the basis of the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Climate – The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

Weather – The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.
It was Hope who used flooding in Canada as examples of climate change. And it was you who just mentioned weather when we were talking climate change.
Quote will
"You’ve heard of germ theory and medicine, and engineering, and gravity, and the irascibility of grizzly bears, right?

... and weather forecasts.
[Emphasis mine]

I merely said no one could predict the future either in weather or anything else. That "anything else" was the climate change we were talking about. So I'm well aware of the difference. So claiming it was I who shifted the topic is disingenuous. A cute attempt, but it won't wash.

Predictions about the future climate – warmer global temperatures and more extreme weather events – have been made since at least the 1970’s. At that time politicians, businesses and the general public effectively choose to act exactly as you claim we should now – we carried on as normal in the hope that those predictions were wrong. It is now clear, based on current observations, that those predictions were accurate. The accuracy of these predictions is one small part of the overwhelming evidence that has forced politicians, businesses and the general public (reluctantly, often kicking and screaming or downright lying in the case of ExxonMobil et al) to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus.
This paragraph is so filled with fantasy and falsity it would take the rest of the page to refute it all. Suffice it to say nothing in it is true and any tiny effort to seek out the truth would reveal that. The very fact the EPA was created and has morphed into the behemoth it is today is proof of the lie that we carried on as normal. You can lie all you want, but it doesn't change the truth. Simply saying things doesn't make them true, but if that's the way you want to discuss the topic, I can do that too.

This is how science, economics and societies works. Predictions of most likely future outcomes based on current data is at the core of every process that make your daily life possible.

We can’t predict for certain that energy demand will rise in the future; do we just assume it won’t and cease building power plants, be they coal, nuclear or solar?

We can’t predict for certain that a future epidemic might occur; do we cease vaccination programs in the hope that we are able to deal with an outbreak at the time?

We can’t predict for certain that future crop yields will fall or fail, or that demand will outstrip production; do we sit back and stuff our faces on this year’s glut and hope that market forces will ensure it’s other people that go hungry instead… actually we do do that, but that’s another subject.

We can’t predict for certain that a grizzly bear will rip our faces off; do we poke it with a stick anyway?
I'm embarrassed for you Will. Are you really so logically challenged that you see these statements as the equivalent of predicting a future for which there is no evidence?

You are, it seems, quite content to accept the data and reliability of scientific sources that show the climate is naturally cyclical and has been for thousands of years, and you are quite content to predict the future when you claim that nature will rebalance itself regardless of human activity.
Yes, quite simply because this is the data and reliability of scientific evidence of natural cycles.

The current overwhelming consensus disagrees with your policy of wait and see. That consensus includes every Nation on the planet (except USA, Syria and Nicaragua), every single scientific body of national or international scientists (including since 2007 the last stalwarts of denial, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) and just about every international business (including ExxonMobil and every other petrochemical company).
Another paragraph of lies and half-truths. See? I can simply say things too, and because I say them, they are true.

EDIT: I’ve just re-read my post a would like to clarify: neither Nicaragua nor Syria reject the science of anthropic climate change. The former did not sign the Paris agreement (chose not to endorse the consensus) because the penalties for polluting countries that did not act were not punitive enough, and the latter has other ‘issues’ to deal with right now. It’s not even clear whether the USA government rejects the science or not. There was certainly some rhetoric during the election that suggested climate change was a ‘hoax’, but the actual position seems to agree with the science but rejects the consensus solution. END OF EDIT

We’ll only know for certain if you or the consensus were correct in the future. And at that point, like now, policy will continue to be made on predictions of most likely future outcomes based on current data.
That part is correct. We'll only know in the future. And it's really convenient that all of the climate change predictions are based so far into the future, no one today can know if they will be true. That's another reason all of the predictions are based on "IF, COULD, MAYBE, PERHAPS".

FounDit wrote:
We skeptics didn’t set the goal posts, your group established them with the dire predictions of a future you cannot know. I simply say the goal posts you describe with you scenarios don’t exist and you have no evidence that they do, or will, exist in the future.

That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to your habit of changing your argument from, for example, claiming we should not act because we can’t predict the future – which I’ve addressed above – (Poorly and ineffectively by simply claiming you know the future based on today, when we have evidence the data today has been manipulated and is not definitive)to arguing that the consensus doesn’t exist or is a conspiracy of lefties – which I predict you will now do in response to what I’ve addressed above.
Well, I've never called it a "conspiracy of lefties", but if you like that label, okay. I'd more likely call it a "conspiracy of the timid and fearful".

FounDit wrote:
That’s equally true of listening to you all repeat the tenets of your faith repeatedly. It’s like discussing religion with a Jehovah’s Witness.

Your self refuting argument has already unfolded; your ad hominem insults and tin-foil hat paranoia is frankly embarrassing to watch.
That makes us brothers, because I find reading you tin-foil hat paranoia embarrassing to read, too.


.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 11:00:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I debated about starting a new thread in science for this post but figured it might as well go here.

"For those who want to honestly weigh their skepticism in context of the evidence, there is a way.” I don’t know who on the Forum is in science except Thar, but I expect especially anyone involved in Science studies will know about Hill’s Criteria. We don’t need scientists to vote. We can see for ourselves.

https://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32

In the 1950s Professor Bradford Hill helped Science to develop a system to prove not just correlation but causation when it was proving the link between cancer and cigarette smoking to skeptics. It was the beginning of Epidemiology. Instead of just tracking two things that correlate, Hill identified nine separate strands of ‘proof’,  called Hill’s Criteria that make an independent case for causation and taken as a whole tie up the proof in a neat little bundle. And no single graph or chart can make or break the whole.

This is true for any investigation but is applied here to proving climate change is human driven.

This is the outline - it is expanded with context and charts on the link.

Strength - of relationship between CO2 and temperature ✅
Consistency - should hold in multiple measurements ✅
Specificity - specific to this point in history ✅
Temporality - which came first CO2 or warming. Slight warming came first at the beginning
from natural causes, but once emissions skyrocketed so did the warming. ✅
Dose Response - does temperature increase with CO2 increase? ✅
Plausibility - does it make physical sense? In fact Tindall started ruminating this way back in 1859 ✅
Coherence - does the data fit with current theory and knowledge ✅
Experiment - can we alter, prevent or improve with intervention? A natural volcanic example
was cited. ✅
Analogy - “Is there an analogous, better-understood system that makes the CO2 climate hypothesis plausible? The idea behind this criterion is that an explanation is more likely to be valid if there is another system that behaves similarly. The most accessible example is a greenhouse. Another example might be that Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun. Pick your favorite.” ✅

To this the author adds an explanation of climate models. ✅

“Politically-driven skeptics (of climate change) leave the term (known) undefined to sandbag the discussion for their own purposes — it’s easier to claim “not enough is known” when you never define “known”…All scientific work is incomplete, and at risk of being toppled by tomorrow’s discoveries. That does not give us leave from acting today.”



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
will
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 11:26:02 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
FouDit wrote:
And it was you who just mentioned weather when we were talking climate change.

I mentioned weather only in direct response to your comment of:
FounDit wrote:
And no one can predict the future, in weather or anything else.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you think that people can’t read or follow what has actually been said?

And I wrote:
That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to your habit of changing your argument from, for example, claiming we should not act because we can’t predict the future – which I’ve addressed above – to arguing that the consensus doesn’t exist or is a conspiracy of lefties – which I predict you will now do in response to what I’ve addressed above.

Then, predictively, in response to my point about the scientific, political and economic consensus... FounDit wrote:
This paragraph is so filled with fantasy…

Suffice it to say nothing in it is true…

You can lie all you want…

Are you really so logically challenged that you see these statements as the equivalent of predicting a future for which there is no evidence?

I also wrote:
The current overwhelming consensus disagrees with your policy of wait and see. That consensus includes every Nation on the planet (except USA, Syria and Nicaragua), every single scientific body of national or international scientists (including since 2007 the last stalwarts of denial, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) and just about every international business (including ExxonMobil and every other petrochemical company).

to which FounDit wrote:
Another paragraph of lies and half-truths. See? I can simply say things too, and because I say them, they are true.

Okay then, which other countries are not part of the political consensus that makes up the Paris agreement. Name one scientific body of national or international scientists that reject the scientific consensus on anthropic climate change.

FounDit wrote:
And it's really convenient that all of the climate change predictions are based so far into the future

Decadal climate predictions, that have correctly predicted short term increases in global tempretures, are routinely rejected by climate denialist as being weather trends… again, moving the goalposts.


.
progpen
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 5:12:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Hope, the politically driven "skeptics" of climate change should never be debated as they are not even talking about the same subject that we are. Politically driven "skeptics" are not trying to talk about the data or the science, but instead are attaching their political bias and trying to camouflage that bias in pseudo science.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 7:46:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Don't worry, Progpen, I know it is politics. It ALWAYS boils down to the money. Koch Brothers and oil, and wealthy admin, in this case.

It really doesn't matter what anybody's opinion is anyhow - and I don't mean just on TFD. The facts will out, the leaders will lead, and the markets will direct the course, in capitalistic systems at least.

I just liked how the above article set out how science works - how it is logical. It is how I usually attack questions. One has to be able to logically add the evidence step by step to build the case for the argument as this article has done. I guess I should have put it into the Science sub Forum as was my original intent.

It shows there are many factors to be taken into consideration as a case is built and skeptics usually try to make hay with only one factor. And if a "soft" skeptic sees the logic from my post, so much the better.


Conspiracy theories, however, do not fit into science but they are used quite readily to control the masses, especially for political reasons.
- Climate change is a Chinese hoax.

- The media is "fake news" - the media is trying to keep the administration accountable as it always has. Sure they are human and have slants but they do not feed us lie after lie (like someone I hear about everyday.) But when criticism cannot be handled, then the next best thing is to blame the media as dispensing "fake news" - a another conspiracy theory. I challenged a T supporter at one time on the forum to give me one example where the media lied and didn't apologize later or made a mistake and didn't apologize. Journalists have lost their jobs for that. I got no anwer to that.

- I have no idea how much more is being leaked about Trump than it was about Obama. But if the numbers are up, I wouldn't be surprised as staff see problems not being addressed. They may not necessarily be trying to bring him down, but to be allowed to do their jobs correctly. T and staff are their own worst enemies. (Just today NEW media guy said the opposite to WH re accepting Russian sanctions.)

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 10:46:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,036
Neurons: 48,436
ROTFLMAO…I really shouldn’t be surprised, and yet I am. I’m also surprised at the weak hold all of you have on your belief system, viz., climate change. What do we have now — 5 pages of rebuttal and defense of climate change caused by one single dissenter? Five pages! Wow.

I guess it really is true, as Hope says, that you all must not allow a single opinion to exist you don’t agree with; the threat is seen as that severe. You MUST drag everyone kicking and screaming (or even simply questioning) into The Holy Western Church of Climate Change. No one is to be allowed to escape proselytizing.

To be that frightened by one lone voice is absolutely amazing. Does a single voice of dissent so threaten the strength of your convictions? Apparently it is so. But then, as I said before, what we have here is a conspiracy of the timid and fearful, so signs of the apocalypse will be seen everywhere (They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere!). But I think I will continue to avoid membership in that particular church, thanks anyway.






A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 10:57:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Well, FD, since you are universally incapable of accepting verifiable truth, and also fantasize that this thread was about you, I wish you all the best in your ongoing battle with reality.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 11:26:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada

Whistle Whistle Whistle



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:18:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 935
Neurons: 446,658
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
ROTFLMAO…I really shouldn’t be surprised, and yet I am. I’m also surprised at the weak hold all of you have on your belief system, viz., climate change. What do we have now — 5 pages of rebuttal and defense of climate change caused by one single dissenter? Five pages! Wow.
[...]


You're absolutely right, FounDit, there are natural cycles. This one in particular is very predictable:

1. People (who may or may not be 'lefties') state something.
2. FounDit generally disagrees but doesn't actually address issues raised.
3. FounDit's words are refuted by people.
4. FounDit pigeon holes them and doesn't actually address issues raised.
5. People continue to refute FounDit's words.
6. FounDit doesn't actually address issues raised and makes one sweeping mocking statement to avoid having to answer questions.
7. Rinse and repeat.

The most beautiful recent example (or evidence, if you like, FD) of that avoidance strategy was this one:

FounDit wrote:
will wrote:
Calm down, you’re making even less sense than before. Where am I, or anyone other than you, pretending (dishonestly or otherwise) not to know we are all talking about climate change?

I'm calm. Why would you think I'm not?


Because sure, you think the issue to address was your state of mind. Not the actual question addressed to you (hint: they're the sentences that end in a question mark).
As for why anyone would think you're not calm, I think the post starting with "ROTFLMAO" would be a clear indication. Your consistent ignoring of questions addressed to you and habit of misinterpreting posts does also hint at a frantic state of mind.

As for evidence of you avoiding issues:

FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
The whole point is that a temperature rise of 1° C isn't necessarily a bad thing. Cold is worse than heat in so far as it relates to human death.
<Here you try to refute the impact of climate change by claiming that a 1°C temperature rise means that fewer people will die of cold.>

You seem to be missing the point that climate change causes unpredictable and harsher weather, which includes cold winters, as a result of the disruption of currents and other weather patterns.
<Here I point out that 1°C increase can actually cause harsher cold weather, refuting your point.>

No, the point is whether or not we can, and do, change the weather. I say we can't, and therefore there is no anthropogenic climate change. And no one can predict the future, in weather or anything else.
<Here you claim the point wasn't the 1°C increase or the cold weather, but whether it's all caused by people or not. Also, as will pointed out, you're confusing weather and climate.>


I may be wrong, but I think this is what will refers to as 'moving the goal posts'. Feel free to correct me on that, will .

progpen
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:18:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Lotje1000 wrote:
You're absolutely right, FounDit, there are natural cycles. This one in particular is very predictable:

1. People (who may or may not be 'lefties') state something.
2. FounDit generally disagrees but doesn't actually address issues raised.
3. FounDit's words are refuted by people.
4. FounDit pigeon holes them and doesn't actually address issues raised.
5. People continue to refute FounDit's words.
6. FounDit doesn't actually address issues raised and makes one sweeping mocking statement to avoid having to answer questions.
7. Rinse and repeat.


Thank you Lotje. Beautifully put.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:23:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
FounDit wrote:
What do we have now — 5 pages of rebuttal and defense of climate change caused by one single dissenter? Five pages! Wow.


Exactly FD. And here I agree with you entirely. As I've said many times before. This is just time and effort wasted.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
FounDit
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 10:32:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,036
Neurons: 48,436
Well, what put it over the top for me was an article I read about an interview on NPR (National Public Radio) of an idio—, no, I’ll be nice—, a female “researcher” from the Lund University in Sweden.

A recent study from Lund University “shows that the biggest way to reduce climate change is to have fewer children”, according to NPR. I suppose that could be true, because, gosh-darn-it, children have the annoying habit of continuing to breathe out CO2. Having one child fewer reduces your carbon footprint.

The study’s co-author Kimberly Nicholas told NPR’s Morning Edition. “I know this is a sensitive topic to bring up. Certainly it’s not my place as a scientist to dictate choices for other people. But I do think it is my place to do the analysis and report it fairly.” (It’s not her place to dictate choices for other people, but she does it anyway.)

Not only should you avoid having children, but the study says you should also not have a car, not fly in airplanes, and eat only plants.

And a guy named Bill Nye says that for Climate Change to advance, all the old people need to “age out” (translation: die). That would be people like me, because too many old people tend to still think logically and have critical thinking skills. What you need are fresh young minds that are mush and easily propagandized.

So the only conclusion to be drawn from this is: planet good, children bad; planet good, old people bad. That’s the kind of thinking I would expect to hear from a patient in a mental institution. But then, we have to consider the source…*shrug*

Well, shoot, why not get rid of ALL the people. That’ll solve the problem permanently, and it would be easy to do, especially with a nut-job like Kim in N. Korea in charge. So why is everyone so concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation? Kill all the humans and the planet can return to the paradise it was before we evolved! Bwaa-ha-ha-ha, yes! I have seen the light! Praise the Climate Change Remedy!


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 10:34:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
progpen wrote:
FounDit wrote:
What do we have now — 5 pages of rebuttal and defense of climate change caused by one single dissenter? Five pages! Wow.


Exactly FD. And here I agree with you entirely. As I've said many times before. This is just time and effort wasted.


If your goal is to change a dissenter's mind, then yeah, a big waste of time and effort. There is no sense doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result as we know from experience that some people do not WANT their minds to be opened - and I respect that. That is their choice.

However, if your goal is to research and learn and spread this education to readers of TFD, then the time is not wasted at all. In fact dissension is always what decides whether a thread lives or dies and it gives the very opportunity to spread knowledge.

A lot of people, perhaps readers of TFD, do not know the protocols of how scientific studies work, or how scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is mostly man made and not just natural cycles.

So yeah, dissension is good.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
progpen
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 10:55:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Hope123 wrote:
progpen wrote:
FounDit wrote:
What do we have now — 5 pages of rebuttal and defense of climate change caused by one single dissenter? Five pages! Wow.


Exactly FD. And here I agree with you entirely. As I've said many times before. This is just time and effort wasted.


If your goal is to change a dissenter's mind, then yeah, a big waste of time and effort. There is no sense doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result as we know from experience that some people do not WANT their minds to be opened - and I respect that. That is their choice.

However, if your goal is to research and learn and spread this education to readers of TFD, then the time is not wasted at all. In fact dissension is always what decides whether a thread lives or dies and it gives the very opportunity to spread knowledge.

A lot of people, perhaps readers of TFD, do not know the protocols of how scientific studies work, or how scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is mostly man made and not just natural cycles.

So yeah, dissension is good.


I agree that discussion and debate is good. I back any forum or medium where debates, discussions and conversations can progress and where different points of view can be presented. That is one of the reasons I think TFD is not only so popular, but so valuable. I am drawing the line between debate and trolling, and there is most certainly a line. Now we can even debate where that line exists and if it is a well delineated line or a very fuzzy line, but there is a line. All anyone has to do is look at discussions on this and other forums where heated debates and arguments are waged and they can see the difference between participants who move the discussion forward (or even by their own omission, allow the discussion to move forward) and those whose purpose and actions are to slow down or halt the discussion.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
will
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:01:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 4,357
FounDit wrote:
...5 pages of rebuttal and defense of climate change caused by one single dissenter? Five pages! Wow.

It’s not really 5 pages of rebuttal – for that you would have had to present a valid argument to rebut – and it’s not really 5 pages of defence; the issue is settled, there is nothing we, not being experts, can add here that will effect the political, scientific and economic consensus.

It didn’t go unnoticed that you chose, once again, to resort to ad hominem rather than answer my question and say which countries other than USA, Syria and Nicaragua are not part of the political consensus that makes up the Paris agreement, or to name just one scientific body of national or international scientists that reject the scientific consensus on anthropic climate change.

The problem with your overuse of hubris and name calling is that it quickly gets boring and loses its effectiveness at disguising what you are trying to avoid.



Lotje1000 wrote:
I may be wrong, but I think this is what will refers to as 'moving the goal posts'. Feel free to correct me on that, will .

Yes, you are correct. I assumed ‘moving the goal posts’ was internationally understood, my apologies for the assumption

So for example:

Someone sees a picture with snow in it and claims it refutes the myth that global temperatures are rising and melting all the ice caps and snow on the planet

It’s pointed out that weather is not the same as climate, and that the climate is warming due to increased greenhouse gases and this is leading to weather extremes

They change their argument from rising temperatures being a myth – they move the goalposts – to claim rising temperatures are short term natural cycles and all you can prove is cycles because there has never been any evidence of a cycle that hasn't reversed itself.

It’s pointed out that that same evidence for natural cycles is not just short term evidence, it goes back thousands of years and the current increase in temperature, that coincides with increased CO2 emissions, is unprecedented.

They move the goalposts to claim that no one can predict the future, in weather or anything else.

It’s pointed out that predictions of most likely future outcomes, based on current data, is actually exactly how science, economics and societies work.

They move the goalposts from the initial claim of ‘or anything else’ to separating everything else we predict from climate change which is predicting a future for which there is no evidence

It’s pointed out there is overwhelming evidence.

They move the goalposts to claim the evidence has been manipulated and is not definitive.

It’s pointed out that the evidence is definitive, according to the overwhelming scientific consensus, and it would require an unimaginable global conspiracy for that consensus to have manipulated the evidence without peer review picking it up.

They move the goalposts to claim that it is lies and half-truths to say there is an overwhelming consensus.

It’s pointed out that that every Government (bar three) have signed the Paris Agreement and that every single scientific body of national or international scientists supports the consensus. And it’s asked that the lies and half-truths accusation be backed up by some counter examples


They move the goalposts to a post of pure ad hominem attacks and a smugness that barely conceals their damaged pride.

It’s pointed out that their lack of credibility is largely their own fault.

They move the goalposts almost full circle and begin again the process of misrepresenting and stereotyping the global consensus on climate change as a liberal conspiracy of human hating eco-nutjobs.

And whine in another thread about how unfair everyone is. Boo hoo!


.

Lotje1000
Posted: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 2:44:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 935
Neurons: 446,658
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Thanks, will. It was understood but it's always good to have a clear example. As Hope pointed out, it's nice to research, learn and spread knowledge.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:44:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Lotje1000 wrote:
Thanks, will. It was understood but it's always good to have a clear example. As Hope pointed out, it's nice to research, learn and spread knowledge.


Agree, Lotje.

I should have also added that Progpen is also correct. Whether the goal is to change an opinion or not, still debating is irrelevant - it IS happening.

The processes that have greatly accelerated since the Industrial Revolution in comparison to the natural cycles in the past are the facts we have. Sometimes you have to go with what you know without having every single i dotted and t crossed and just make a decision to do whatever is possible.


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Monday, July 31, 2017 11:12:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
David Suzuki - “The ultimate goal of the 80-year-old scientist is to have environmental rights for all Canadians enshrined in the Constitution.”

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/david-suzuki-on-the-last-great-fight-of-his-life-i-know-god-damn-well-im-in-a-limited-period-of-time-now/wcm/88914ab3-2028-4d8e-999e-8f313e6e3e3b


I so agree - “I’m 80 years old, I know God damn well I’m in a limited period of time now. I’m not running after more fame or money or power or even sex. Life has changed for me. I am free to speak out and my highest priority is the world I’m leaving for my grandchildren.”
But what we’ve learned is we need clean air, clean water and clean food to survive. Kids know that, but a lot of adults have forgotten that.”

:::::


http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postsm982765_The-Drive-to-Save-St--Lawrence-R--Beluga-Whales-Gives-a-Lesson-for-Human-Health.aspx#982765



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Friday, August 25, 2017 7:13:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 41,588
Neurons: 385,852
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Just to return back to the original post... Whistle




In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
progpen
Posted: Friday, August 25, 2017 8:01:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Applause Applause Absolutely beautiful.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:55:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
progpen wrote:
Applause Applause Absolutely beautiful.


Ditto. Woud love to visit but will do as requested. Whistle You are lucky to live there, JJ.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Romany
Posted: Friday, August 25, 2017 1:54:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,082
Neurons: 43,440
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

When you think of all the different countries represented here - Indonesia, Malaysia, the UK, the Netherlands, Poland, Africa, Mauritius,Japan etc. etc. I think we *all* are lucky to live on this wonderful planet. It doesn't just belong to one political party.

But, you know what would be good? Some crowd-funding! So climate-change deniers could get out more! Could spend time not only in their own country, but in all the other wonderful and magnificent countries of the world seeing what is actually going on independent of news reporting.

What I shall never understand is: what the hell does it matter what one person, or even one tiny (in global terms) group of people, thinks about the Science of the thing? Whether you know exactly how an aeroplane works, or you believe it's held together with canvas and glue - you're sitting in it.

Go and see where houses are falling into the sea; where fish are dying by the millions; where whole rows of houses subside; see how many sinkholes are appearing; talk to people whose livelihood are threatened - just in America. Then go live like one sixth of the planet - with nothing above one but a yellow fog. No stars, no moon, no familiar yellow globe of sun. Millions of people living their short lives having only seen them in cartoons. (Sit and think about that one for a while).

Go and help townspeople re-locate because everything familiar about Home sits permanently under a foot of water. Go to places where, until recently, flocks of birds in numbers that once darkened the sky have (literally) disappeared into thin air. Get to know a mum and her baby and then stand by telling her the climate hasn't changed when her baby dies - because the place they and their ancestors have lived for millennia is now a barren desert which no longer supports life.

Who cares what any particular individual "believes"? The fact is that it's happening now - not in the future. And in America - not inside a tv set where the rest of the world appears or disappears at the touch of a button. Geez - it's a total no-brainer: cities, towns, countries, are in trouble.Kids are dying or contracting diseases...not in the future. NOW. At this moment. As we speak.

So what kind of twisted, withered soul will do nothing to help their own country - let alone the world - just because they don't "believe" in the cause of the damage. Sheesh! That's one of the most selfish and reprehensible world views I've heard.
almo 1
Posted: Saturday, September 2, 2017 3:33:38 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/16/2016
Posts: 1,253
Neurons: 5,715
Location: Fussa, Tokyo, Japan
almo 1 wrote:




Today in Tokyo




Crazy Hail Storm












Cool!



It's cool today too!





Hope123
Posted: Saturday, September 2, 2017 4:56:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Almo, I looked at a chart of your temperatures and it looks as if Tokyo has a near perfect year-round weather picture as far as temp goes. Correct?

That looks like huge hail pieces. There are special conditions that prevail for hail to occur.

::::

Although Houston was warned at least over a year ago they were in danger in the low lying lands and did nothing, Philip's Daughter mentioned that this storm was different, as it picked up abnormal amounts of water because the water temperature was several degrees higher than normal. It then dropped it as deluges of rain.

If FounDit were still here, I wonder if he would think a "joke" about water levels in Texas and flooding was about as funny as I thought it was in Ontario and other countries.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:30:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 41,588
Neurons: 385,852
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland



In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:03:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 41,588
Neurons: 385,852
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
A short introduction to Finnish language ;-)




In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.