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
PostThu Sep 07, 2017 11:20 am 
Based on MG's voluminous postings over the years on multiple subjects on multiple threads, one thing is abundantly clear: his positions depend on one thing and one thing only, his ideology. No amount of evidence or logic has ever, or will ever, cause him to change any of his opinions. The only thing that would do that is if Ayn were to appear to him in a blaze of light and say: Oh come on, do you really think I was serious about that objectivism nonsense. I was just trying to sell some books. Get a life.

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
PostThu Sep 07, 2017 1:40 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
Yes, however there is a wide gulf between "not incorrect" and "useful" or "persuasive".
That's right. The former indicates correct ideas regardless of how someone feels about them, or their usefulness, where the latter descriptions apply to political or ideological utility. Are we to understand that facts about the empirical, physical universe can only be correct if they are useful or persuasive? My concern is objectively correct ideas, facts and arguments. The gulf you perceive outside those things is the gulf between valid science and social pseudoscience where useful and persuasive are primary concerns, instead of truth

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
PostThu Sep 07, 2017 1:44 pm 
gb wrote:
Exactly, you've hit the nail on the head for once. Your pseudoscience - it's a stretch to call it that - it's all BS - it's not worth engaging with your track of erroneous statements.
Oh you mean real science. No surprise you don't recognize standard practices corrupted by climate advocacy. Let's examine what you mean by pseudoscience. Be specific...which argument of mine is pseudoscience? My arguments are so wrong you can't be bothered. Just like I could win the Tour De France ..... If I felt like it. I just don't. wink.gif

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
PostThu Sep 07, 2017 1:52 pm 
CC wrote:
Based on MG's voluminous postings over the years on multiple subjects on multiple threads, one thing is abundantly clear: his positions depend on one thing and one thing only, his ideology. No amount of evidence or logic has ever, or will ever, cause him to change any of his opinions. The only thing that would do that is if Ayn were to appear to him in a blaze of light and say: Oh come on, do you really think I was serious about that objectivism nonsense. I was just trying to sell some books. Get a life.
All ideas rely on a persons ideology. It's what shapes and defines everything from values to judgements. Your real gripe is your dislike of an ideology you don't agree with, which you're not even self aware enough to admit, as you prove with your open ended attack on 'ideology'. Other people manage to come up with logic or evidence to get me to change my mind. It's just that in this topic, the evidence a) is not actual empirical evidence (models for example) or b) abused as correlation proving causation, or c) consensus Repeatedly throwing 'evidence which isn't' around is not effective with me. Expecting compliance from that method isn't a sign I dont accept evidence or logic. It's evidence of the failure to present anything valid. Models are not evidence. Im sorry if this fact isn't convenient. And we have one more instance (three instances, really) of a warming enthusiast attacking a person rather than their arguments about the salient issue, AGW. Why? Because its all you have once we spike the specious ....models as evidence, correlation, consensus

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
PostThu Sep 07, 2017 2:41 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Models are not evidence. Im sorry if this fact isn't convenient.
That's one of your favorite refrains. But it means nothing. If a model or theory makes predictions that agree with observational data it is useful. What course of action should be taken with regard to greenhouse gas emissions is a political matter, not a criminal trial proceeding where rules of evidence might have some bearing. You like to dismiss the climate models, beacuse the predictions they make are inconvenient to your position.

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
PostThu Sep 07, 2017 2:45 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
That's one of your favorite refrains. But it means nothing. If a model or theory makes predictions that agree with observational data it is useful. What course of action should be taken with regard to greenhouse gas emissions is a political matter, not a criminal trial proceeding where rules of evidence might have some bearing. You like to dismiss the climate models, beacuse the predictions they make are inconvenient to your position.
It means everything, since it is fact. Models are not empirical evidence. Ignoring the fact doesn't change the fact or make it go away. I dismiss climate models because they are not evidence. Nor do they imply or supply any course of action, even if they were testable in a controlled manner. That is a matter of ideology, not science, and value judgements, not empirical is = oughts.

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
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1879 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostThu Sep 07, 2017 9:04 pm 
Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12797 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Sep 07, 2017 9:56 pm 
CC wrote:
Based on MG's voluminous postings over the years on multiple subjects on multiple threads, one thing is abundantly clear: his positions depend on one thing and one thing only, his ideology. No amount of evidence or logic has ever, or will ever, cause him to change any of his opinions. The only thing that would do that is if Ayn were to appear to him in a blaze of light and say: Oh come on, do you really think I was serious about that objectivism nonsense. I was just trying to sell some books. Get a life.
lol.gif Pyrites - your concern about the pika is just another "is ought" value judgement. lol.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostFri Sep 08, 2017 9:10 am 
Quote:
The Pikas of Tahoe.
Ya, we have probably raised ideal pika elevations(and temperature-levels everywhere) by ~300 feet, and continuing to slowly rise. In some places, thats going to rise above the available terrain, and in those places, the pika will not survive frown.gif

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


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1879 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostFri Sep 08, 2017 2:01 pm 
I was not responding to the last ten or fifteen posts. And please, never accuse me of being a follower of A. Rand. I can't imagine any one philosopher being the be all, do all. If I did, I wouldn't start with someone as shallow, callow, just plain two dimensional as Rand. Rand is to philosophy as Warhol is to art. Best.

Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
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 Sep 11, 2017 2:32 pm 
Gosh that analysis is like arguing against being accurate and true, because its not persuasive or useful. What kind of value system puts an accurate, true argument about reality lower on the totem pole than subjectives when we're discussing matters of physical, empirical science?

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 Sep 11, 2017 3:14 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Gosh that analysis is like arguing against being accurate and true, because its not persuasive or useful. What kind of value system puts an accurate, true argument about reality lower on the totem pole than subjectives when we're discussing matters of physical, empirical science?
The delusion you have is the belief that somehow wh at you believe is "the truth". Seems you have failed to learn Obe wan Kenobi's first lesson. As human beings we don't have access to absolute truth, we only have access to scientific truth, which is subject to change as new observations and ideas arise. Which ideas are held as "scientific truth" is very much dependent on a scientist's ability to present their ideas and observation and persuade other scientists of their value. A good example of that is the "mega floods" theory about the Columbia basin geology. When first proposed the ideas ran counter to prevailing scientific thinking and were scorned. Of the course of 30 years and with additional research and collaboration these ideas were finally accepted by the scientific community. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods So "scientific truth" is really best characterized as "The theory that best explains the observed data" The term "truth" is actually better left to religious discussions.

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 Sep 12, 2017 2:18 pm 
I love it when historical examples of consensus being wrong are used as examples of why to believe consensus. As for your estimation of my supposed delusion, observations that AGW claims fail the most basic standards of proper method, let alone warming enthusiast's repeated use of logical fallacies, is not a claim to know the absolute truth on the topic. That said, truth can and does exist, in mathematics for example, and in logic for another. It's merely the consistent observation that flawed arguments are a lousy way to claim the truth has been found. And after claiming it could change anyway, a case for the massive costs and harm to be implemented for what might change anyway.....

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 Sep 12, 2017 9:09 pm 
My point , which you seems to have ignored or missed, is that "truth" is merely the scientific consensus. There is no other "truth" available. There is religious belief that is based on faith. Your alternative is what? Take it on faith that the 97% of scientists are coluding to make up climate change? And that the 3% of scientists that counter that are not influenced by the oil industry?

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 Sep 12, 2017 9:31 pm 
No, truth has never been defined by consensus. If it was, Wegener, Bretz, and all the rest could never have been right. You've got the wrong end of the stick. Truth is not a result of consensus. Consensus is the result of proper method revealing truth. My alternative? To ignore consensus, particularly fake consensus in this case, and examine the basis of the arguments. It doesn't require a degree in modeling or rocket science to know models are not evidence. Yet they are the sole unique linchpin of the entire issue.

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
   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