Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 647 | TRs | Pics
CC
cascade curmudgeon
PostMon May 08, 2017 9:30 pm 
OK boys and girls, pay attention. You know why you are here, to learn words that will make you seem smart. Remember, you don't have to really understand what the word means, you just have to use it a lot. Our previous word was “falsification,” which was a pretty good word, but our new word is much better because it comes from Greek, and using words from Greek and Latin makes you seem bigly smart. The word is "epistemology." Isn't that a good word? Now go and use it a lot, but make sure you don't confuse it with Epistrophy.

First your legs go, then you lose your reflexes, then you lose your friends. Willy Pep
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue May 09, 2017 12:48 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
I don't care who funded what when it comes to the details of a case. It is 100% irrelevant.
Such a statement indicates either an ignorance of or willful blindness to history.
Nope, it indicates the reality of the basis of actual science, which is specifically and intentionally designed to weed out bias. Does it do so perfectly? Nope. People are people...and wether it's profit, power, or any other motive, it will remain so. And all that will overcome this is studious attention to proper method, and facts, not who or who paid. After all, if you're actually thinking you're making some kind of strong point about looking at who pays...let's take a look at the entity with the most ability to pay and greatest incentive towards more power. A hint, lest you're 'ignorant' or 'willfully blind' to history ( you played the cards first), it is not private parties.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue May 09, 2017 12:55 pm 
CC wrote:
OK boys and girls, pay attention. You know why you are here, to learn words that will make you seem smart. Remember, you don't have to really understand what the word means, you just have to use it a lot. Our previous word was “falsification,” which was a pretty good word, but our new word is much better because it comes from Greek, and using words from Greek and Latin makes you seem bigly smart. The word is "epistemology." Isn't that a good word? Now go and use it a lot, but make sure you don't confuse it with Epistrophy.
Is that why you're here? To learn words that will make you seem smart? Ok, it takes all kinds. Me, I'm here to communicate, and yes, debate, by using *clarity* and words which apply properly...like epistemology. Now, that may seem like a big word if you think of language as a weapon, yes, sure. But I think of language as a tool for communication, not evasion, not snark, not for sneaking past logic using clever attacks. And that word applies to science better than most, because science is about precisely how you know what you think you know. So you can play cynical games as if the use of appropriate words when discussing detail is some kind of game, showing that's where your mind and perception is, if you like. Snark is, for some, a grand adventure and self validation of their mindset for sure.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue May 09, 2017 1:44 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
I don't care who funded what when it comes to the details of a case. It is 100% irrelevant.
Such a statement indicates either an ignorance of or willful blindness to history.
Nope, it indicates the reality of the basis of actual science, which is specifically and intentionally designed to weed out bias. Does it do so perfectly? Nope. People are people...and wether it's profit, power, or any other motive, it will remain so. And all that will overcome this is studious attention to proper method, and facts, not who or who paid. After all, if you're actually thinking you're making some kind of strong point about looking at who pays...let's take a look at the entity with the most ability to pay and greatest incentive towards more power. A hint, lest you're 'ignorant' or 'willfully blind' to history ( you played the cards first), it is not private parties.
So what do you have to say about Robert Kehoe ? It seems you are 1) Very willing to apply the "The Kehoe Paradigm" and expect there be 100% conclusive proof that any form a pollution is harmful before any regulation can be considered. 2) Willing to ignore that Kehoe and his ilk deliberately falsified research and data to further their commercial ends. 3) When research involves decades of study before results can be confirmed -- it takes at least that long for those falsifying data for ill purposes to have their work discredited. 4) You don't seem to accept Upton Sinclair's ""It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 647 | TRs | Pics
CC
cascade curmudgeon
PostWed May 10, 2017 9:39 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Snark is, for some, a grand adventure and self validation of their mindset for sure.
Actually, it was mockery.

First your legs go, then you lose your reflexes, then you lose your friends. Willy Pep
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostThu May 11, 2017 11:30 am 
My validation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change It closes with this:
Quote:
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[14] no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[13][15]
I'll leave it to others to debate (or make mockery of) science epistemology as it relates to this issue.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 9:42 am 

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 9:52 am 
RandyHiker wrote:
So what do you have to say about Robert Kehoe ? It seems you are 1) Very willing to apply the "The Kehoe Paradigm" and expect there be 100% conclusive proof that any form a pollution is harmful before any regulation can be considered. 2) Willing to ignore that Kehoe and his ilk deliberately falsified research and data to further their commercial ends. 3) When research involves decades of study before results can be confirmed -- it takes at least that long for those falsifying data for ill purposes to have their work discredited. 4) You don't seem to accept Upton Sinclair's ""It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
1) Yes, willing to apply that standard. The magnitude of the costs and actions demanded requires no less. And so does accurately applying the stature of 'fact', for human caused global warming. If you want it called fact...the 100% standard must be applied. 2) Your tactic here is to attempt to claim my arguments on warming indicate I must be 'willing to ignore' things I never commented upon or included in my arguments. Not willing to 'ignore' that, no. There is no logical basis upon which to assert I must be willing to ignore what you note. 3) Yes, that's science. I know it's inconvenient. Since I'm not the one arguing the claims, the inconvenience is not my problem....it's that of those choosing to make the claims. 4) Sure, Sinclair makes an interesting point. It's also interesting that you seem to be implying it only works one way, however.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 10:01 am 
CC wrote:
Actually, it was mockery.
Well then, that makes it so much less juvenile than simple snark.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 10:02 am 
Ohhhhh boy this weekends Dilbert is definitely going to ruffle a few feathers.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 10:31 am 
thunderhead wrote:
Ohhhhh boy this weekends Dilbert is definitely going to ruffle a few feathers.
That is what cartoons are supposed to do, sometimes smartly, sometimes not. My hometown newspaper has two political cartoons every day. One is pro-Trump and one is anti-Trump. The complex computer models are not needed to prove that global warming is happening and that human activity is causing it. Models only become important in forecasting more detailed impacts.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 10:36 am 
They're not needed to 'prove' it? Where can we find the fully defined and detailed comprehensive theory published? Newton did. Einstein did. Everyone else does. Where is the source for the non model, comprehensive single global warming theory used to 'prove' warming is human caused?

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 10:50 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
4) Sure, Sinclair makes an interesting point. It's also interesting that you seem to be implying it only works one way, however.
Not at all. We both understand how oil companies stand to benefit from preventing any regulation on fossil fuel usage. Explain how the scientists similarly benefit from what exactly?

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 11:15 am 
RandyHiker wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
4) Sure, Sinclair makes an interesting point. It's also interesting that you seem to be implying it only works one way, however.
Not at all. We both understand how oil companies stand to benefit from preventing any regulation on fossil fuel usage. Explain how the scientists similarly benefit from what exactly?
Explain how they benefit from getting paychecks? How they benefit from professional acclaim, or tenure? Should I explain how politicians benefit from bandwagons to hop on, too? I thought this was self evident. Self interest is a human constant.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 11:59 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
Explain how they benefit from getting paychecks? How they benefit from professional acclaim, or tenure?
Most of the scientists I've known directly get the bulk of their earnings from teaching. So the outcome of the research would have little impact on earnings. Scientific reputation is important -- so publishing papers that withstand peer review and whose results can be replicated by other scientists is key to building a good reputation. When someone publishes bogus research -- other scientists are more than willing to call them out on it. For example in a non-climate issue -- a scientist published a paper backed up by "cherry picked" data with the aim creating a market for uneeded medical tests.
Quote:
After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis
His work has now been discredited and his original paper retracted. Sadly millions of "the general public" still believe in his discredited paper, are not vaccinating their kids as a result. So science has a self-correcting mechinsim for seeking truth and weeding out ideas that don't hold up to close examination -- something that "popular opinion" lacks.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

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