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

Profile: will
User Name: will
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Joined: Monday, June 29, 2009
Last Visit: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 6:21:33 AM
Number of Posts: 1,125
[0.12% of all post / 0.33 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 6:08:28 AM
All the above said, lets have a look at two examples of your (FounDit's) own logic and reasoning:

FounDit wrote:
You mention rising sea levels, and your first link to the Union of Concerned Scientists has something about that on their page. It is a sidebar graphic titled:
"SEA LEVEL RISE AND GLOBAL WARMING". If you click on it, you are taken to a page with some graphics that imply that humans are responsible for global warming. The graphic is too large to post here, but anyone can follow the link.

The point of this is to show the not-so-subtle propaganda of it. If you look at the graph on sea rise, then read what it says at the bottom, you find:

"Global average sea level has increased 8 inches since 1880. The local rate varies depending on both global and local factors including currents (which humans can't control), ocean floor topography (which humans can't control), variation in ocean density (which humans can't control), and land uplift or subsidence due to geological processes (which humans can't control), or human activities (which they very carefully fail to describe in any detail what those might be, or to what extent they influence sea levels.)

You will notice, however, in the bottom graphic a small icon of a factory putting out smoke - subtle. The implication of the whole thing is that it is our fault, but conveniently omitting all other factors. I find this both intellectually lazy and lame, and offensive to logical thinking.

Firstly, you have simply misunderstood the section you’ve quoted. The ‘global and local factors’ are explanations of why local rates vary from the average increase; it’s not saying that ‘global and local factors’ (which humans can’t control) are natural reasons for the 8 inch average increase. For example: variation in ocean density in one location may read an increase of 18 inches, while human activities, such a flood prevention, might result in a reduction of 2 inches elsewhere. The point is that the average is 8 inches – and the scientific consensus is that this is due to human influence on global temperature.

However, the main issue here is not that you were unable to follow the gist of a basic explanation. The point is that you, blinded by your own emotional response to this issue, saw fit to dismiss the the whole scientific consensus as “not-so-subtle propaganda” that is “intellectually lazy and lame, and offensive to logical thinking”. You’re so desperate to find evidence that fits your prejudice that you even take issue with a web designers decision to use an icon of a factory.

Yet, conversely, in this example you dismiss the whole scientific consensus because one individual (quoted out of context) uses (what you consider damningly) moderate language.

FounDit wrote:
Following some links while reading the article on kidney stones in today's In The News, I came across this story on stalagmites and their relation to climate change.

The last paragraph states:
“You have to be impressed with the scope of what you are studying, and recognize that the state our climate is in today is incredibly different from Earth’s climate during the last Ice Age,” she said. “As we consider how humans may be affecting climate, dissecting what was going on tens of thousands of years ago in all regions of the globe can help scientists better predict how the Earth will respond to modern climate forcings.”

So as I read this, I see that humans MAY be affecting climate (it isn't definite nor settled), and that more information from all regions of the globe CAN HELP (data still being gathered) scientists BETTER PREDICT (predictions today are not locked in) how the Earth will respond to modern climate FORCINGS (to which natural causes are much greater than that of humans who contribute only a small part).
As time goes on, if the evidence becomes more clear and more precise that we are indeed responsible, then I will agree with taking steps to limit our use of fossil fuels. But I'm not convinced we are at that point yet.

You’ve completely failed to make a compelling challenge to the science, but you are of course entitled to your personal opinions and ideologies. You are not entitled, however, to besmirch other people because you are unable to support your opinions logically and with reasonable debate.


Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 6:05:10 AM
As it's been a while, I’m going to assume Epiphileon isn’t intending to respond to FounDit’s last post, that was addressed to him, but clearly directed at everyone else. I strongly suspect there is little difference between his logic and reasoning and that of any other ‘believer’ on this subject, it’s probably just a case of how far one is willing to push the issue... carrot or stick, an ass is still an ass Shhh

As people will know by now, I have a tediously high threshold. Whistle

FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
First of all FounDit you should know I am not "a believer" in anything. In any argument, I strive to evaluate the evidence and rational, then adopt the position that is best supported.
I appreciate your response. I've stopped reading this topic because I felt there was no logic and reason to be contended with. I read your post because we have in the past been able to discuss the topic without getting personal about it. I believe you do respond to logic and reason, rather than emotion.

This is both a sweeping generalisation and a sweeping ad hominem; reams of information and links to further resources have been provided. A clear, consistent and coherent argument has been (politely) presented by several members – most notably in the first instance by RuthP, which was dismissed with a platitude about appreciating the time it must have taken, before resorting to an unsupported assertion that the consensus is politically motivated and not based on evidence. Simply characterising others as illogical, unreasonable and emotional is dishonest.

FounDit wrote:
To your post: I try to evaluate evidence and be rational also, and for me, the evidence so far does not indicate that we are destroying the planet and ourselves,

That’s fine, but the overwhelming scientific consensus says you are wrong and you keep ignoring or misrepresenting this fact.

FounDit wrote:
and we should not be making laws based on such a fear until it can be convincingly proven to be true.

‘Based on fear’ is a strawman of your own design.

The overwhelming political consensus agrees that it is necessary and pragmatic to act on the scientific advice for the overall benefit of public welfare, as well as for sound economic reasons, not out of ‘fear’ (or because of a leftist conspiracy).

FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
Third you quoted me out of context, the first phrase of that sentence is critical to my point, "We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere..."

I have no disagreement with that, provided the damage claimed can be proven to be true, and so far, no such proof exists.

If you are going to continually assert that the scientific consensus is not based on evidence, then you need to present a compelling alternative argument to explain why such a consensus exists; arbitrarily dismissing expertise and adducing vague theories about (leftist) political agendas is neither logical nor reasonable.

FounDit wrote:
We are contributing to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it cannot be shown that we are destroying the planet.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the scientific and political consensus disagrees with you.

FounDit wrote:
Ergo, I believe that we shouldn't be making laws based on the fear that that there is even the "remotest chance". That is the position I disagree with, and was accusing believers of having adopted. Such actions are fear-based and do not form the basis of good laws IMO.

Again, your hyperbolic phrase ‘based on fear’ is a strawman of your own making. And “remotest chance” does not reflect the consensus position. The consensus is that it is “extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010”.

You already quoted Epiphileon out of context on this point, which he corrected you on, and now you’ve done it again; my logical and reasonable reading of the point he was making was that he believes it makes sense to apply a precautionary principle approach even if the scientific consensus were not so overwhelming, not that he thinks there’s only a remote chance that the scientific consensus is correct. Please correct me, Epiphileon, if I’m wrong.

FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
Forth there is the question, what are the benefits of seeking alternative energy sources? There are a number of them; however, the most attractive to me is that it forces development of new technologies. There is also the fact that if we ever get over our current stupidity and get serious about the space program to the point of colonizing space, we will need highly efficient, non-fossil fueled energy.

I have no argument against that, and agree that new energy sources need to be found. I've no doubt we will one day do so.

Such technologies already exist. The necessary move away from fossil fuels, supported by national and international agreements and laws, will promote the development of further technological advances… such technological progress is part of the the political consensus every Government on the planet has signed up to. If you agree this is a good thing, then what’s the purpose of your repeated fear-mongering about such (leftist) policies that aim to promote such goals. For example: "If we are going to implement government policies that affect all of our lives and those of our descendants, we'd better damn sure be right about what we doing."
Irrespective of the science, is this not an objection to policies designed to promote low carbon economies?

FounDit wrote:
Yes, scientists can conclusively identify that humans are contributing the an increase in CO2, but that in itself does not directly lead to the destruction of our planet and ourselves.

The overwhelming scientific (and political) consensus disagrees with you. The evidence indicates that is exactly what an increase in CO2 leads to.
If you are going to continually assert that the scientific consensus is not based on evidence, then you need to present a compelling alternative argument to explain why such a consensus exists.

FounDit wrote:
How do I know this? Because as you said yourself, natural sources are far greater than human-caused sources.

Again you’ve quoted poor old Epiphileon out of context; you’ve omitted the critical section of the point he was actually making: “… however, according to the evidence in support of anthropogenic effect our contribution is sufficiently significant to disrupt the normal balance and cause warming”

Are you even aware that you so frequently misrepresent people in this and similar ways? If you could find a way to respond to what other people actually write, rather than responding to your own emotionally distorted prejudice, then you would see other people are perfectly capable of being both logical and reasonable.

FounDit wrote:
So while we may be contributing some part to the increase in CO2, it is not, and should not be, cause for the fear-mongering we have been subjected to for over 50 years, all the predictions of which have not come true.

It should go without saying by now… the overwhelming scientific (and political) consensus disagrees with you.

Release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is only part of the problem. Apart from other detrimental human activities (such as deforestation) and the production of other greenhouse gases (such as methane from industrialised meat production) the evidentially supported increase in temperature from human activities is enough to trigger processes that might be considered ‘natural’, that in turn compound global warming potential. Hope123 has covered this, in a logical and reasonable manner, a couple of time in this thread.

FounDit wrote:
I have asked for the proof, the evidence if you like, of humans causing the increase in global temperatures that will lead to our extinction.

Hyperbolic strawman. If you can’t be grown up enough to argue honestly, you certainly shouldn’t be throwing around accusations about other people being illogical, unreasonable and driven by emotion.

FounDit wrote:
No evidence has been, nor can be presented. The science is on-going, and more research is needed, but I believe it is too soon to be jumping to such doomsday conclusions as the Climate Change believers would have us do.

Patently untrue. And again with the doomsday strawman and ‘believers’ ad hominem.
If you are going to continually assert that this is an issue at the bleeding edge of science – which is demonstrably not the case -- then you need to present a compelling alternative argument to explain why or how such an overwhelming consensus exists; a consensus approaching 100% correlating to expertise in the field, that includes every single scientific body of national and international standing, and every government on the planet (with the possible exception of USA).

I’m not calling you out here just because I disagree with your opinions, nor particularly trying to convince you of mine. I’m calling you out on your dishonesty and the disrespect you’ve shown others.

Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 7:32:13 AM
Kirill Vorobyov, your reasoning is like saying we didn’t need to bother with programmes to eradicate smallpox, rather we should have just stopped people sneezing on each other. d'oh!

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
We should take the ongoing climate change as nothing less but a God(s)' gift. This gives us a chance to put ourselves in order.
This kinda scares the crap out of me.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Well, we have biologists here who can clarify this point and/or correct me. Not being an expert my "working hypothesis" is that higher temperature would rather favor more of biodiversity than less.
Well, I am a biologist, and I can clarify and correct you; your "working hypothesis" is completely unfounded.

Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:55:16 AM
FounDit wrote:
I've stopped reading this topic because I felt there was no logic and reason to be contended with.

Is this another one of those jokes I’m not getting because I’m on the political left and have no sense of humour? Think

Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:52:55 PM
Hope123 wrote:
So complacency is fine with you, Kirill...

I assume he was joking... surely?

I mean "much warmer and nicer than what it is now" for whom? Think

Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:48:59 PM
FounDit wrote:

So you don't think a public forum should allow discussions, or opinions, on matters of science by non-scientists — even on a public topic specifically titled as Science and Technology?

How very tolerant and inclusive of you... Applause

So you’re back to asking rhetorical questions to reframe and misrepresent what other people have said, preferring to attack strawmen instead of participating in grown up debate?

How very dishonest and predictable of you... Applause

I’m confident my post was clear; actually pretty much the exact opposite of your strawman.

I strongly believe that the public should be more involved in science. I think science is the most valuable and powerful tool that humanity possesses. Open discussions on matters of science, by scientists and non-scientists alike, are vital if we are to have informed and scientifically astute societies.

Romany’s last post echos the point I was making in that other thread: in a country where a quarter of the voting population thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, and a greater percentage believe evolutionary theory is an atheist lie, or believe the Earth is 6 thousand years old (including the Vice President), and where presidential candidates are prepared to spout pseudo-science about vaccination programmes, it is possible to exploit ignorance, fear and partisanship for political gain… and we end up with a buffoon like Trump in charge of a nuclear arsenal.

And that’s the point here. You are entitled to your opinion, but this is the science sub-forum and you have offered nothing with any scientific merit in defence of your position. You’ve simply denied the consensus, asserted the science is not settled, claimed ‘many’ scientists disagree and insisted the science has been manipulated and is motivated by politics – without anything at all to back up these claims.

Your contribution is practically indistinguishable from the nonsense we used to get from Peterwhatshisface when anyone tried to discuss anything that touched on his particular ideology. It’s this type of thing that makes open discussion impossible on public forums; it’s pointless to to use scientific reasoning to disprove non-scientific ideology.

FounDit wrote:
And BTW, you should at the least get the topic correct: I don't deny the climate changes, I deny that it's been proven that we humans are capable of making that happen.

Well, the science says you are wrong… but you are of course welcome to your opinion.

FounDit wrote:
So now folks have both sides presented and can make up their own minds, perhaps even do a bit of investigation themselves if there is a question in their minds. That is, after all, what public discussion is all about, in spite of the efforts by some to prevent it.

When all else failed, Peterwhatshisface always used to whine about having his opinions suppressed. Think

Others have provided plenty of information for discussion, you’ve been repeatedly encouraged to contribute… what you do with that is entirely up to you, no one is going to force you to stop.

Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 1:38:09 PM
This thread reminds me of an equally well intentioned one from a while ago, during a particularly bilious bout of creationism, that attempted to outline the evidence for evolution. The outcome was pretty much the same, just as frustrating and ultimately pointless – pointless as far as reaching mutual agreement on the actual facts; it’s always worth offering up information for others to take or leave as they choose, and recognising and highlighting flawed arguments is good practice for those occasions when both parties are interested in productive debate.

The problem with attempting to use scientific reasoning to disprove non-scientific ideology is that the two are simply incompatible, plus it wrongly gives the latter the appearance of being on an equal scientific footing.

The science on this issue is settled; the Earth's climate is warming and human activities are the primary cause. There is still debate within the scientific community over details, as is always the case in science, but the current scientific consensus on anthropic climate change is overwhelming – approaching 100% correlating to specific expertise.

It’s pointless to cherry-pick and cite supposed ‘scientists’ who disagree (as if the facts rely on a show of hands) if that disagreement cannot be backed up by evidence that survives scientific scrutiny. If new evidence should ever point in a different direction, then scientists will have no choice but to follow the evidence and the current overwhelming consensus will diminish. This is how the scientific method and peer review works.

FounDit cites books that have been written, showing the science is ‘wrong, manipulated, incorrect, or politically motivated’… well, books have been written to prove the pyramids of Giza were built by an alien civilisation; there’s an entire industry based on the pseudo-science that rejects vaccines and medicine in general; the teaching of evolutionary theory has been forced to defend itself in the courthouse on several occasions. So what?

To believe that the current consensus, including every single scientific body of national and international standing, is in some way formed on science that is wrong, manipulated, incorrect, or politically motivated is frankly ludicrous. A conspiracy to misrepresent the evidence, or misuse scientific checks and balances, on this scale, would be impossible to orchestrate – even if the apparent ‘motives’ were not so unimaginable.

FounDit also claims many corporations and scientific bodies rely on government funding and go along with the beliefs of those in current political power to keep their funding.

Politicians, in general, have been dragged kicking and screaming to the point we have today, where every single Government on the planet (the USA’s actual position is still not clear) is finally in vocal agreement with the science. Yet still, most governments are failing to meet the targets they signed up to, choosing instead the expedience of sticking to the fossil fuel economies we current rely on. The idea that the scientific consensus – and every multi-national corporation, including ExxonMobil – has been manipulated by some cabal of hippies intent on forcing leftist politics on the world is laughable; it’s tin-foil-hat-wearing paranoia… and we’re the ones living in fear. Think

FounDit’s contributions have made clear, climate change denial has no place in a science sub-forum.


Topic: When will Jesus come back ?
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 3:15:29 AM
FounDit wrote:
It would really help if you applied just the tiniest bit ...

Since there are many climate scientists who DO NOT believe ...

And yes, I want absolute proof...

Jesus Christ!

Topic: Labor Day, Not Just a Three Day Weekend!
Posted: Monday, September 3, 2018 8:46:55 AM
The BBC recently aired a characteristically astute and witty documentary by Rich Hall on this subject: Working for the American Dream. Well worth a watch if you can.

Topic: When will Jesus come back ?
Posted: Monday, September 3, 2018 7:29:54 AM
leonAzul wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:

One line of this discussion that stemmed from assertions by some that there can be no place for god(s), because they know physical universe is all that exists, and if God created it than who created God, etc... has come to a stalemate anyway. At least for now.

Yet there will always be a place for telling stories, because that is what we do and who we are.

I’m slightly baffled by this post.

For a start, as Lotje1000 has already pointed out, that quoted section of Kirill Vorobyov’s post doesn’t accurately describe anything anyone has ‘asserted’. It stems from Kirill Vorobyov’s assertion that “there is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it.” Several people challenged this, you can check every one, no one asserted ‘ they know [the] physical universe is all that exists’ nor even that there ‘can be no place for god(s)’.

Basically, as Karl Popper put it: In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.

Secondly, the question of infinite regression has not ‘come to a stalemate’, the issue was simply not addressed by Kirill Vorobyov.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but it strikes me that if people go to the effort of entertaining such patently ludicrous arguments – for the benefit of wider discourse – it’s only right that those efforts are not dishonestly represented by others.

Finally, your response – that doesn’t appear to me to address the quoted section anyway – seems highly disingenuous, particularly in relation to the section quoted. The issue being discussed was the degree to which some people twist objective realities in order to justify supernatural beliefs. Of course, you and I might casually refer to such beliefs as ‘stories’, but to theists they are ‘truth’, with immovability as a positive virtue.

We all know people comfort themselves with stories; my point, at least, is that large numbers in a population choosing subjective ‘truths’ rather than more accurate explanations is a threat to humanity as a whole.

On which point...
hedy mmm wrote:
Oh, He's coming back all right..

You go, girl! It’s refreshing to see a theist with true courage of conviction. If there’s anything worse that personal Faith, it’s that wishy washy liberal multi-faith tolerance. There’s no two ways when it comes to death cults; if you’re going pick a side, it should be all or nothing. Applause


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