starting strength gym
Page 33 of 48 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 474

Thread: Commentary #6: Global Warming

  1. #321
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,397

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan DCNT View Post
    Perhaps climatology isn't a farce due to some global conspiracy, but simply due to incompetence?
    It is quite literally a pseudoscience made up in the 1970s as a means of finding ways to scare the public into accepting various taxation schemes. People have this notion that maybe the whole thing is not a scam, just parts of it - no, it is one hundred percent a scam. A hoax. There is nothing real about it, so there canít be any incompetence involved. It is the best refutation of whig history there is.

  2. #322
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Yeah, I couldn't come up with a response that was both honest and respectful so I went and did other stuff for a while.

  3. #323
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,420

    Default

    I don't need your respect. I'm asking for a logical refutation that explains the phenomenology.

  4. #324
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anticausal View Post
    Another factor to at least consider: which powers lose the most, in real tangible terms, when the global economy is interrupted? Whose defense systems are most dependent on its adversaries and a smoothly running global economy?

    "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

    If I were China or Russia, I'd play along too.
    This is a critically important point to not be overlooked. People have been trying to solve it, but our government keeps govermenting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post
    If you are convinced something is true because an _____ologist said it instead of arguments stemming from fundamental physics, you have some serious thinking to do, and your credibility is in serious doubt.



    Anyone who can formulate a valid, sound argument is qualified to discuss a topic. And this is a topic that more than just "climatologists" should be discussing, as it has tremendously far-reaching implications if the proposed legislative solutions are aimed at reducing or eliminating fossil fuels, which they all are. More of that fundamental physics stuff.

    And on the other end of the spectrum, you have trivial legislation aimed at control and power with no actual impact on the issue and an impact on the bottom line. Pointless inflation ensues.



    Which is why something as simple as "CO2 Up = Bad" is a stupid fucking assertion.
    Yes. Even if one believes wholeheartedly that the AGW hypothesis is proven beyond a doubt, then where does energy come from moving forward? All you need is a calculator to very quickly see that with current technology if nuclear isn't in the discussion, you are not having a real discussion. Ask yourself why that is?

    youarethecarbontheywanttoreduce.meme

  5. #325
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    80

    Default

    But it's important to me that I remain respectful.

  6. #326
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Alright, there's a lot to cover here so I'm going to take it in parts.

    First, I should probably emphasize that I agree that "climatology" (in general, if not every individual actor) is, on average, fucked up. That seems to have been lost in the shuffle. I don't agree with the specifics about why or how it's fucked up, but as far as the hippies being idiots and/or lying bastards, we're on the same page.

    Quote Originally Posted by golftdibrad View Post
    After reading "the Hockey stick Illusion" my largest, rage inducing takeaway about all this was that the data was not made publicly available. For a second forget the scientific method - this asshole was funded by our money, works for a university funded by our money, and therefore his 'research' should be public domain. Every American should have full access to it, the raw dataset, and the code - full stop.
    Couldn't agree more. And it's not just climatology -- the majority of publicly funded research is locked away behind paywalls. A subscription to the New England Journal of Medicine (which I picked at random) is $170 a year, but everything in there was paid for with our taxes. This is a huge issue, and luckily it's one that is (slowly) being taken more seriously: The Quest to Topple Science-Stymying Academic Paywalls | WIRED

    I hate to just go "yeah that's a problem" without providing some specific action you or I might take to oppose it, but in this case I've got nothing. At least there are some big academic institutions on our side.

    Quote Originally Posted by golftdibrad View Post
    Here's the thing: no one should be making policy off these predictions. The historical record of the last 20 years shows that even the climate scientists most conservative (to them) predictions largely miss the mark and do not reflect what is happening on the planet. They are at best tools to learn and improve said models so one day they converge with reality. In no way should we be basing policy off of FAILED predictive models.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post
    on the other end of the spectrum, you have trivial legislation aimed at control and power with no actual impact on the issue and an impact on the bottom line.
    Yeah, I said basically the same thing a few pages back. Science exists to describe reality, not to prescribe policy. If they can't even accurately describe reality, why should we give them access to the levers of public policy? Their answer, of course, is that if we don't make serious changes now then the world will end. Well, if we don't build giant honkin' space guns then aliens will invade, and then what? Do you want to be enslaved by the Great Green Arkleseizure? Me neither, SO FUND MY SPACE GUNS GODDAMNIT!

    Quote Originally Posted by golftdibrad View Post
    Even if one believes wholeheartedly that the AGW hypothesis is proven beyond a doubt, then where does energy come from moving forward? All you need is a calculator to very quickly see that with current technology if nuclear isn't in the discussion, you are not having a real discussion.
    Also a serious issue, and again, the hippies are being idiots. Most of the proposed solutions aren't a solution to anything, but they're getting funded anyway. But the question of "where does the energy come from?" is another topic.

    Anyway, I largely agree with y'all. Hopefully making that clear will reduce some of the hostility.

    (I say, immediately before accusing every one of you of being conspiracy theorists.)

    So let's talk about theories. What is a theory? How do you make one? I know that most of you are familiar with this already, but bear with me.

    You start with an observation. In this case, we observe that climate scientists are telling us to do things that don't make any goddamn sense. You and I both agree on this observation.

    Next you form a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is, "they want to get rich and control us." We do not agree, but let's set that aside for a moment.

    After forming the hypothesis, you conduct experiments to test your hypothesis. This is the important bit because "testability" may not mean what you think it means. For a hypothesis to be testable, it must be falsifiable. Experiments are designed not to confirm hypotheses, but to disprove them.

    In this case it's not clear how we would design or conduct an experiment: we can't grow climate scientists in a lab and expose different groups to different data sets and see which groups try to steal and/or form tyrannical governments. But we can ask ourselves what sort of behavior we would expect from people who are lying vs. people who are incompetent. We can determine which indicators we might look for that would show evidence of malfeasance. The crucial thing, though, is that you have to look for evidence that would disprove your hypothesis. It's not sufficient to look for data to confirm what you already believe.

    If you cannot find evidence to disprove your hypothesis, then (for the moment) it becomes a theory. It remains a theory until new evidence arises, at which point you re-evaluate your theory, possibly rejecting it entirely, or changing aspects of the theory that don't fit reality.

    So let's talk about the theory you've adopted as an explanation for the observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Oberon, governments are composed of people. They are not entities unto themselves. And people like things like power and money. This isn't that complicated. Grow up.

    ...

    And in addition, the Government that brought you the flu from China, lockdowns, and vaccines that killed far more people than the flu, the Government in charge of "public education", the war(s) in Asia, the economy, and pronouns wants to also be in charge of the weather. Because the people in the government like power and money.
    Quote Originally Posted by golftdibrad View Post
    The governments of the world are playing the long game waiting for the current generation of tenured researchers that question the science to die out. The incoming crop will be fully indoctrinated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    Climatology is not a real science. It was created specifically to push propaganda.
    This is literally a conspiracy theory. Your chosen explanation is that there is a global conspiracy. Calling you a conspiracy theorist is not an ad hominem, it's an accurate description of your beliefs.

    There are plenty of explanations for the behavior of the climate change gang which do not require belief in a global conspiracy. Of course, those explanations are generally complicated and nuanced. They require viewing climate scientists as a diverse group of people with diverse motivations; you have to think that most of them believe (perhaps incorrectly, but honestly) that they are good people fighting an uphill battle for the benefit of humanity. You would have to discard your simplistic, morally righteous world view in which you are a good person fighting an uphill battle for the good of humanity. You would have to consider that maybe you aren't a member of an oppressed minority, one of the select few who know The Real Truth. Maybe the world is just a shitty place full of difficult, complicated problems that nobody is fully equipped to address, and that can't be solved just by finding the right asshole and punching them repeatedly.

    Oh wait, that's me. I'm the one who wants to solve everything with violence. Sorry, got carried away.

    In summary:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan DCNT View Post
    Perhaps climatology isn't a farce due to some global conspiracy, but simply due to incompetence?
    I think that is FAR more likely.

    Moving on: credentialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post
    If you are convinced something is true because an _____ologist said it instead of arguments stemming from fundamental physics, you have some serious thinking to do, and your credibility is in serious doubt.
    Well, let's talk about that. Do you believe that black holes exist? I do. Not because of an argument stemming from fundamental physics, but because an astronomer told me so. Well, not just one astronomer -- they basically all agree. The idea that a thing could be so heavy that light can't get away from it is counterintuitive, but what the hell do I know? I'm not an astronomer. I didn't even do that well in the one physics class I took. So I just accept that they know what they're talking about and go on with my business. So do you.

    And here's the thing: neither of us knows enough physics to effectively challenge their assertion. You need to study physics (and calculus, and other stuff too) full time for several years before you have the knowledge required to even recognize the difference between a well-formed argument stemming from fundamental physics, and nonsense. If you think that acknowledging this somehow detracts from my credibility, then I don't know what to tell you. I personally find someone who says "Sorry, I don't really know enough to discuss that in detail" far more credible than someone who confidently expounds on a topic that's not in their area of expertise.

    I want to say this again, for emphasis: nobody here knows enough about meteorology to distinguish between a well-founded climatology argument and nonsense. (If any meteorologists are present please correct me on this.)

    Y'all want to argue about things like "something as simple as 'CO2 Up = Bad' is a stupid fucking assertion" and okay, yeah, that's obviously a stupid fucking assertion. It's also a grade school-level simplification. It's also also not a refutation. A refutation looks like this:

    Mugoni, et. al., assert that integration of extracellular vesicle and circulating free-cell DNA analysis may improve detection of HER2 positivity in breast cancer patients. (Imagine I included a citation to the paper.) However, the author's in situ molecular analyses of matched tissue uses an outdated protocol for tissue sampling and processing. Their protocol has been demonstrated as inadequate in several ways (imagine a citation to a paper that shows why what I just said is true, followed by a list of problems with their protocol.)

    That's from my own field of expertise (genetics,) but the point is that dumbing down someone's position to the point that a child can understand it, and then pointing out how that extreme simplification is obviously wrong, is not a refutation of any scientific argument. The corollary is that you cannot adequately refute an argument without understanding it first.

    And nobody here understands the arguments they're trying to refute. So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't pick apart your "argument" point by point. It's not even an argument, except insomuch as straw men are arguments.

    And the science isn't even really the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    And in addition, the Government that brought you the flu from China, lockdowns, and vaccines that killed far more people than the flu, the Government in charge of "public education", the war(s) in Asia, the economy, and pronouns wants to also be in charge of the weather. Because the people in the government like power and money.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post
    this is a topic that more than just "climatologists" should be discussing, as it has tremendously far-reaching implications
    I started this by talking about black holes and how we accept that they exist without fully understanding the argument. There's a crucial difference between A: "black holes exist" and B: "you need to fund my windmill farm." Okay, there are two: A is a statement about reality, B is an instruction on what we must do; A doesn't affect my daily life or public policy, B does impact my life and public policy.

    So it doesn't matter if we believe that black holes exist. It does matter if we believe that AGW is real. We can't just ignore the climate hippies and hope they'll go away.

    (Complete and total aside: the reason I'm not too worried about the societal impact of the gender-isn't-real folks is that if you ignore them long enough, reality will hit them in the face. Give it time, give them rope; they'll hang themselves, women athletes will get sick of losing to men, there will be a crisis which requires real men to solve, and the fad will pass. In the meantime, try not to let any young men in your stewardship get too tangled up in it. Sorry for the tangent.)

    The reason I'm arguing so much is that I share your concern about the public policy implications of climate change bullshit, and I worry that the conspiracy theory angle plus bickering over poorly understood "science" is detracting from the credibility of any attempt to put the brakes on shitty policy decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    It is the result of the shitty science education we received in the government schools, and it probably cannot be stopped.
    Promoting conspiracy theories and absurdly simplified, easily disproven models of climate science certainly isn't going to stop anything.

    Maybe you want to just hang out here on a forum where everyone agrees with you. Maybe you don't actually want to contribute to the public good, or maybe you think you're powerless to alter the course of events and have given up trying. If that's the case, I feel bad for you, but could you at least stop making the rest of look bad? I am sick and tired of arguing against "green energy" initiatives and immediately being branded as a conspiracy theorist. I realize that some degree of dishonest argument is inevitable, but you don't have to give them ammunition.

  7. #327
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,397

    Default

    You sound like Knox Harrington, the video artist.

  8. #328
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Maybe you want to just hang out here on a forum where everyone agrees with you. Maybe you don't actually want to contribute to the public good, or maybe you think you're powerless to alter the course of events and have given up trying. If that's the case, I feel bad for you, but could you at least stop making the rest of look bad? I am sick and tired of arguing against "green energy" initiatives and immediately being branded as a conspiracy theorist. I realize that some degree of dishonest argument is inevitable, but you don't have to give them ammunition.
    You're here to disagree. Tell me what conspiracy theory I'm promoting. The one that says this green bullshit is all about power and money, i.e. Al Gore and the WEF?

  9. #329
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I don't need your respect. I'm asking for a logical refutation that explains the phenomenology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    But it's important to me that I remain respectful.
    I have to get to the bottom of this. It's just way too weird. The following sentence is downright fascinating:

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Yeah, I couldn't come up with a response that was both honest and respectful so I went and did other stuff for a while.
    First of all, he didn't ask you to respond, he asked you to refute. Even a dog could respond to it. He's not a woman asking you if she looks fat, he's asking you to tell him where he is wrong.

    Second of all, why is the word "honest" even in the sentence? It's just so bizarre. Quite clearly, you are saying you could respond if you could lie. What the hell do you get out of framing it this way?

    Third, why would you not be able to refute bad logic and incorrect premises without being respectful? Seriously, what the fuck?

    I can only conclude that a more honest rendering of your thoughts would be:

    "No, I can't refute it. But my inability to refute it tempts me to respond with lies and name calling. I will therefore keep my mouth shut."
    Now, this isn't a completely detestable response, as you do seem to be fighting some baser impulses. But wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to say something like the following?

    "My intuition tells me something about the argument is wrong, but no, I cannot effectively refute it at this time."
    There is nothing wrong with being wrong or not knowing something. But there is something very wrong with jumping through a bunch of psychological hoops to avoid being right.

  10. #330
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    80

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You're here to disagree. Tell me what conspiracy theory I'm promoting. The one that says this green bullshit is all about power and money, i.e. Al Gore and the WEF?
    Yes, that one.

Page 33 of 48 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •