Global Warming Revisited - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-09-2014, 10:04 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
iron horse,

For years posters have pointed out the flaws in your sources. You always failed to address these posts. It's been a very well documented pattern. I've even tried in PMs. You are incapable of actually addressing the flaws in your sources.

Posters have continually asked you to explain your stance on climate change and you ignore them. You have declared your disdain for science. All you do is post anti-science personal beliefs to support your stance.

If you want a real discussion, you have to start answering questions. The day you answer a question about climate change is the day you gain an ounce of respect again regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

BVS

Ask me a question...one question and I will answer in my own words.
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2014, 11:25 AM   #77
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:44 AM
facts don't seem to have much weight in a thread like this. perhaps here is why:

Quote:
The varieties of denialism
on OCTOBER 28, 2014
by Massimo Pigliucci

I have just come back from a stimulating conference at Clark University about “Manufacturing Denial,” which brought together scholars from wildly divergent disciplines — from genocide studies to political science to philosophy — to explore the idea that “denialism” may be a sufficiently coherent phenomenon underlying the willful disregard of factual evidence by ideologically motivated groups or individuals.

Let me clarify at the outset that we are not talking just about cognitive biases here. This isn’t a question of the human tendency to pay more attention to evidence supporting one’s view while attempting to ignore contrary evidence. Nor are we talking about our ability as intelligent beings to rationalize the discrepancy between what we want to believe and what the world is like. All of those and more affect pretty much all human beings, and can be accounted for and at the least partially dealt with in the course of normal discussions about whatever it is we disagree about.

Rather, the Oxford defines a denialist as “a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence,” which represents a whole different level of cognitive bias or rationalization. Think of it as bias on steroids.

The conference began exploring the topic of denialism with a delightful keynote by Brendan Nyhan [1] who set the tone with a talk on “The Challenge of Denial: Why People Refuse to Accept Unwelcome Facts.” This was followed by three sessions of three talks each, on Modern Strategies and Rhetoric of Denial, Political Uses of Denial, and Countering Denial: How and When? Hopefully the video of the conference will be available soon, and since contributors were asked to submit a paper to go along with their contribution, hopefully we will soon see an collection in print. I was asked to be on the final panel of the conference, attempting to bring together the several threads I noticed during the main proceedings and offer some general reflections. So the rest of this essay will refer only in passing to my colleagues’ fascinating contributions, and expand instead on the general commentary I offered.

The first two things that became clear during our discussions of denialism are particularly disturbing to me as a scientist and philosopher. First, as a scientist: it’s just not about the facts, indeed — as Brendan showed data in hand during his presentation — insisting on facts may have counterproductive effects, leading the denialist to double down on his belief.

This, of course, should not be taken to mean that the facts don’t matter. If I want to push the idea that climate change is real, or that evolution is a valid scientific theory, or that the Armenian genocide was indeed a genocide, I better get my facts as straight as possible. It’s a pure and simple question of intellectual integrity. But if I think that simply explaining the facts to the other side is going to change their mind, then I’m in for a rude awakening.

That was a lesson I learned many years ago while debating creationists. A debate is a fun event, during which your testosterone is pumped into your veins, which can rally your troops (helping, say, with a fund raising), and which may even grab the attention of fence sitters and others who knew little about the subject matter. What it certainly won’t do is to convince your opponent or any of his committed supporters. Indeed, my best moments as a debater (against Institute for Creation Research’s Duane Gish, or Discovery Institute’s Jonathan Wells) came when I was able to show the audience that these people were consciously lying to them. Nobody likes to be treated as a fool, not even a creationist.

As a philosopher, I found to be somewhat more disturbing the idea that denialism isn’t even about critical thinking. Teaching about logical fallacies isn’t going to do any better than teaching about scientific facts. Indeed, the evidence from the literature is overwhelming that denialists have learned to use the vocabulary of critical thinking against their opponents. To begin with, of course, they think of themselves as “skeptics,” thus attempting to appropriate a word with a venerable philosophical pedigree and which is supposed to indicate a cautiously rational approach to a given problem. As David Hume put it, a wise person (i.e., a proper skeptic) will proportion her beliefs to the evidence. But there is nothing of the Humean attitude in people who are “skeptical” of evolution, climate change, vaccines, and so forth.

Denialists have even begun to appropriate the technical language of informal logic: when told that a majority of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming up, they are all too happy to yell “argument from authority!” When they are told that they should distrust statements coming from the oil industry and from “think tanks” in their pockets they retort “genetic fallacy!” And so on. Never mind that informal fallacies are such only against certain background information, and that it is eminently sensible and rational to trust certain authorities (at the least provisionally), as well as to be suspicious of large organizations with deep pockets and an obvious degree of self-interest.

What then? What commonalities can we uncover across instances of denialism that may allow us to tackle the problem beyond facts and elementary logic? Participants at the conference agreed that what the large variety of denialisms have in common is a very strong, overwhelming, ideological commitment that helps define the denialist identity in a core manner. This commitment can be religious, ethnical or political in nature, but in all cases it fundamentally shapes the personal identity of the people involved, thus generating a strong emotional attachment, as well as an equally strong emotional backlash against critics. Think of Jenny McCarthy’s “I don’t care about science, my son is my science” refrain, or of people who are convinced that leftist environmentalists are out to undermine the American style of life, or of the Turkish government who equates acknowledgement of the Ottoman atrocities against the Armenians as a permanent moral stain on the very idea of a Turkish state, or again of the religious fundamentalist who equates accepting Darwin’s theory with the rejection of the divine, the end of morality and the destruction of any meaning in life. That’s why facts and reason can only do so much (or little) to turn the denialist.

there's more, but i thought the above was helpful.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2014, 12:23 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Ask me a question...one question and I will answer in my own words.
You get asked questions all the time and don't answer them, and then when it is pointed out to you that you don't answer questions, you indignantly demand we present you with questions. Your cycle is well known to people now, my friend.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2014, 09:59 PM   #79
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Ask me a question...one question and I will answer in my own words.
BVS isn't your student, and this is not your classroom, where you can dictate when and how someone may ask you a question.

We're all adults here. A little common courtesy of being at least willing to offer as much as you request from others would be nice.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2014, 12:54 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
BVS isn't your student, and this is not your classroom, where you can dictate when and how someone may ask you a question.

We're all adults here. A little common courtesy of being at least willing to offer as much as you request from others would be nice.

I apologize if I offended.

My request was not meant to be condescending.
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2014, 08:35 AM   #81
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,460
Local Time: 09:44 AM
It's cold today.

Thus proving that global warming does not exist.

/case
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2014, 08:48 AM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 12:44 AM
It's hot down here (in hell).
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2014, 04:20 PM   #83
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 15
Local Time: 08:44 AM
The thing about the global warming debate is it distracts from bigger problems like soil degradation, deforestation and desertification. The desertification that's happening in the western U.S. has happened elsewhere in the world countless times, many long before fossil fuels were an issue. It's not just because it's hot. It's the result of destructive farming practices. Reducing fossil fuel emissions doesn't solve any of these problems.

Politicians like global warming, on both sides of the issue, because it keeps people pissed at each other and gets them a lot of money in the meantime.
__________________
cedarwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 11:05 AM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,385
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Well, I certainly think you're for the most part true there.

Look at Jim Imhofe. The man is a buffoon, but if he has one thing right, it's that people pull stuff way out of proportion. It's sensational crap.

Scientist: Sea level is definitely rising, 1-50 meters in 50-300 years.
Media: Sea level is rising 50 meters in 50 years.
Politicians: You are all going to die if you don't vote for me.
Imhofe: Guys relax, the bible says we're good to raep the Earth.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2014, 08:40 AM   #85
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 15
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Well, I certainly think you're for the most part true there.

Look at Jim Imhofe. The man is a buffoon, but if he has one thing right, it's that people pull stuff way out of proportion. It's sensational crap.

Scientist: Sea level is definitely rising, 1-50 meters in 50-300 years.
Media: Sea level is rising 50 meters in 50 years.
Politicians: You are all going to die if you don't vote for me.
Imhofe: Guys relax, the bible says we're good to raep the Earth.
Agreed. But both sides have equal guilt on this one. Trading carbon credits does almost nothing. It just gives politicians the appearance of doing something they can take credit for.

The actual impact is a mouse fart compared to the damage done by Agro chem products. (That's really raeping the planet btw. Significantly impacts the planet's ability to capture carbon , among other things.)

Both sides are in the pocket of agro chem. Republicans take more actual dollars , but there are pretty equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans that except contributions from Monsanto.

The Global warming debate is a distraction. It's the conversation created by politicians, so they don't actually have to do anything.

We need holistic, long term, sustainability in agricultural systems and societal systems as a whole . Unsustainable agricultural practices have the biggest impact on the planet and its ability to do things like capture carbon, or moderate climatic variation.
__________________
cedarwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2014, 07:34 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Carbon credits make companies think twice about polluting as much and it's a sneaky way to help make them pay more taxes. If global warming weren't even real, I'd support carbon credits.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2014, 11:45 PM   #87
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 15
Local Time: 08:44 AM
The mega corporations love these kinds of regulations because it stifles competition. They're the only ones who can actually afford it. Meanwhile accomplishes almost nothing.

Forests capture more carbon than we could ever dream of preventing being put in the atmosphere in the first place. The global warming debate distracts from deforestation, desertification, and soil degradation worldwide. There are real solutions to these kinds of problems,but we focus on what the politicians want us to focus on, namely global warming.

That's because agro chem owns them. If they can keep us focused on global warming, then maybe we completely ignore the most harmful human influence: destructive and unsustainable agricultural practices.

Meanwhile, there are real solutions to these problems on large and small scales. Like weekday they did in the loess plateau in China. Hope in a Changing Climate: http://youtu.be/kK8z0qDtE2g we are definitely getting there in the US west.
__________________
cedarwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2014, 08:58 PM   #88
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Global warming debate boiled down: 9 out of 10 auto mechanics tell you your car needs new brakes, but you do nothing because your plumber says your mechanics are full of shit.
__________________
LPU2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 06:39 AM   #89
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 15
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPU2 View Post
Global warming debate boiled down: 9 out of 10 auto mechanics tell you your car needs new brakes, but you do nothing because your plumber says your mechanics are full of shit.
Except, in this case, the mechanics have ignored the fact that the car doesn't have an engine anyway. Soil erosion and deforestation outpace carbon pollution, and they additionally hurt the planet's ability to capture carbon and regulate climate.

I hope our grandkids won't be saying "why did you talk about carbon emissions so much while annually exporting (almost irreplaceable) topsoil by the tonnage?"
__________________
cedarwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 06:20 PM   #90
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:44 AM
House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com