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

Profile: will
About
User Name: will
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, June 29, 2009
Last Visit: Monday, November 19, 2018 12:16:27 PM
Number of Posts: 1,148
[0.13% of all post / 0.33 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Oops...heh,heh,heh
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2018 12:11:23 PM
Hope123. The Onion did a good parody recently, making a point about how absurdly unlikely it is that so many people where conspiring to lie about climate change. Then several (Koch funded) sites picked up on the piece and pointed out that the parody was ironic because it suggested there was a conspiracy to lie about climate change… which is what they have been claiming all along – completely missing the point that that was the claim The Onion was parodying. Brick wall


.


Topic: Oops...heh,heh,heh
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2018 12:09:53 PM
It’s worth noting that FounDit’s “skeptic” (in bold, no less) in fact agrees with the science relating to greenhouse gases, he also agrees with the consensus view that global temperatures have risen in recent times and that human activities are responsible for that rise.

As in this thread, in relation to the opinions of Patrick Michaels, FounDit is conflating Nic Lewis’ position with his own personal ideology. FounDit’s position is that there is absolutely no evidence that humans are responsible for any temperature rise and (absurdly) that no policy should be made until the future can be predicted with absolute proof and certainty… this is a million miles away from even the most vocal climate contrarians such as Michaels and Lewis. I confess I hadn’t fully appreciated how far off the scale FounDit’s position was until it was compared to that of Patrick Michaels (and now Lewis).

The main point where Lewis disagrees with the consensus is in his assessment and predictions regarding the future impact of climate change and what form mitigation policy should take. To find out if his assessment is correct, his calculations will have to survive the same rigorous standards that Keeling and Resplandy – and everyone involved in scientific research – subject themselves to. The fact that Lewis blogged, just two days after the authors were made aware, that “Unfortunately, they have every incentive to conclude that they don't need to take any action! So do Nature; journals don't like being made to look foolish” indicates to me that he has neither the professionalism nor the integrity.


.
Topic: Is the Earth Flat?
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2018 11:50:43 AM
Isn’t it fairly well acknowledged that a sizeable number of flat Earth arguments are actually making an ironic point about the value of critical thinking. There are some very sophisticated arguments made that apparently support the clearly flawed conclusion that the Earth is flat; it’s not always easy to uncover exactly where the line of reasoning fails. And it wouldn’t surprise me if the majority of the (already very small) Flat Earth Society membership were not also purely ironic. You can get a lovely membership certificate for the price of a postage stamp; what better gift could a science nerd wish for?

No doubt there will be some who are simply ignorant of the facts (probably very few) and there will be some religious nuts who feel obliged by their faith to deny reality – if one can deny the age of the Earth (there are plenty who do, particularly in the US) then it’s not a huge leap to also deny it’s true shape.

What early_apex says about disappearing down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories makes sense, but interestingly the current head of the flat Earth society is apparently not a subscriber to the usual conspiracy favourites; he accepts evolution and the age of the Earth, he agrees with the consensus on climate change, he thinks homeopathy is bunkum and supports vaccinations... but is still convinced the Earth is flat Eh?


.
Topic: An attack on science
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2018 11:39:17 AM
I believe this trend started with the (well meaning) liberal attitude that everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs. This attitude became a 'protected' right and this became a luxury of believing what ever one wished without the burden of reason. We now have a situation where many people believe they have the right to use this vague notion, that all opinions are equally valid, to force their (unreasoned) beliefs onto the wider society. It’s particularly pronounced in places like the US where it’s coupled with a high level of scientific ignorance.

Ironically this liberal attitude of tolerance and equality of belief – coupled with scientific ignorance – seems to have led, at least in part, to the election of Trump, on a wave of anti-science and anti-expert rhetoric. d'oh!


.
Topic: Consciousness; An Explanatory Gap does not Require Extraordinary Claims
Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2018 8:20:13 AM
Epiphileon wrote:
Personally, I am not entirely certain how to classify this article…


A broad examination of the null hypothesis?

.
Topic: It's Later Than We Think
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2018 5:25:10 AM
Hope123. I really don’t think you have anything to apologise for; I'm staggered by your ability to remain calm and on track. And I think it’s clear to most that the majority of FounDit’s posts were inexcusable, even if I made things worse by calling him out on it.

MIT economist John Reilly wrote:
Mea culpa two times, Hope123
Firstly, for attributing Will's citation to you.

Hey, no problem. We have already established that falsely attributing things to people when they actually believe the complete opposite is irrelevant… as long as you can fudge your way through the next few post by blaming everyone else. Whistle

.
Topic: Global Warming: A Refreshing Perspective
Posted: Friday, October 26, 2018 4:53:22 AM
palapaguy wrote:
Can you tell me in what way(s) are they different? Or can you refer me to a link on the subject?

Current warming is occurring at an unprecedented rate, about ten times faster than any previous period of interglacial warming. Previous warming periods, of the scale currently observed, occurred over several thousand year timescales; they were not multidecadal.

No natural cycle fits the current observed warming event, apart from the effect of greenhouse gases.

As for links, any national or international scientific body will likely have information on their site. The NASA site has overviews as well as further in-depth explanations.

On a lighter note, although still scientifically accurate, here's my favourite climate graph that puts natural cycles into perspective.

.
Topic: Global Warming: A Refreshing Perspective
Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2018 3:34:45 PM
palapaguy wrote:
My question is simple and direct with no agenda. May I have an answer please?

Several multi-decade periods of global warming are understood to have occurred during the pre-industrial era. Are those same types of events occurring in the current era?

Fair enough.

In short, no, those are not the same type of events occurring in the current era.

.
Topic: It's Later Than We Think
Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:42:13 PM
I just read back the last few posts, I hadn’t fully registered Romany’s explanation and hadn’t understood the masturbation reference either. I must be far too innocent, I thought he meant like a circle of jerks. Still the irony, of such a puerile and inflammatory comment immediately after complaining about the lack of reasonable discussion, still applies.

Hope123 wrote:
Why do threads that start off with good intentions go all to pot as this one did and become personal instead of focusing on the science? I remember complaining about something similar when I first joined years ago and started a "feel-good" thread that some turned quickly negative. What can be done if it is human nature for some to always be negative? And all it takes is one in any group to get the ball rolling.

I wouldn’t be too harsh on humanity as a whole, these situations aren’t the norm. Even in politics, which the public tends to have a very dim view of, the majority of business is calm, reasonable and rational.

Discussion forums, including the comments sections of media in general, are particularly susceptible, especially when they don’t have a effective Moderator. I don’t even visit the Politics sub forum here because certain members (who I suspect share many of my political views) insist on using inflammatory titles. Decent moderation simply would not allow this. It doesn’t mean people can’t express their opinions, it just forces them to moderate the presentation of their opinions. That can only be a good thing. Some might say we should be able to moderate ourselves, but for that to work everyone has to be on board.

I apologise for my part in derailing your thread and take full responsibly for my part.


.
Topic: Global Warming: A Refreshing Perspective
Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:39:35 AM
FounDit. I am aware of Patrick Michaels history and credentials, as outlined on Wikipedia. I didn’t and don’t question his credentials. I’m not sure what your point is, or what you are claiming is ‘wrong’.

My point about the Cato institute not automatically validating (or invalidating) his scientific credibility was an attempt to reinforce palapaguy’s request that we focus on the science – regardless of it’s source.

I believe you are conflating Michaels ‘self described scepticism’ with you own and overlooking the nuances. I am aware you are both sceptics.

However, for example, you have repeatedly claimed there is “absolutely no evidence that humans are responsible for any temperature rise”, while Michaels agrees with the consensus that global temperature has risen as a result of human activity; he states this in numerous places, including as far back as the 2002 article that you yourself cited, via Wikipedia, in your post above. Your conclusions may be similar, but your arguments – at least on the science – bear no resemblance.

will wrote:
The main point Michaels disagrees with is about the future impact of climate change and mitigation policy. You have stated many times that no one can make predictions about the future and that no policy should be made until we know for sure. Your argument should apply to Michaels just as much as it does to the consensus.

FounDit wrote:
And my argument does apply. No policy should be made until we know for certain what the truth is about this. That would include Michaels as well as any other person/scientist who claims they can know the future climate of the planet.

That was exactly the point I was making; I’m not clear whether you are agreeing with my point or not, because you apparently don’t reject Michaels statements that are based on his use of climate models (rather one model, as opposed to the aggregate of models favoured by the consensus), and neither do you apparently reject his call for policy to be made based on the predictions of those models (or that model).

To avoid this thread descending in the same way as every other on this subject, can I politely request that you choose your word carefully, so that there is no chance of them being oversimplified or mischaracterised.

.

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