Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 62
  1. #26
    Satanic Watch Winder
    Reputation: oily666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    Most supporters of global warming I've known are easily classified as faith based thinkers
    Belief system protection noted.
    Last edited by oily666; 01-17-2016 at 10:01 PM.
    The crumbling of our wide freeways suggest a narrower vision

    Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.

    MAKE AMERICA SMART AGAIN

  2. #27
    Satanic Watch Winder
    Reputation: oily666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    believe in global warming

    believe in god



    very similar statements in form, and both appear to involve some crazy superstition.
    people cannot think when they're angry.
    The crumbling of our wide freeways suggest a narrower vision

    Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.

    MAKE AMERICA SMART AGAIN

  3. #28
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: pone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    believe in global warming

    believe in god



    very similar statements in form, and both appear to involve some crazy superstition.
    except for the part about the science.

  4. #29
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: crossracer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    believe in global warming

    believe in god



    very similar statements in form, and both appear to involve some crazy superstition.
    One is testable, one is not. One is scientifically based the other is strictly pure belief. They are not the same.

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    25,098
    Quote Originally Posted by crossracer01 View Post
    One is testable, one is not. One is scientifically based the other is strictly pure belief. They are not the same.
    Yeah. Who ya gonna believe? The scientists studying the problem or faith based deniers?

  6. #31
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    16,916
    Quote Originally Posted by crossracer01 View Post
    One is testable, one is not. One is scientifically based the other is strictly pure belief. They are not the same.
    And the one which is testable fails the test - the models do not match the data and predict far more global warming than has been observed.

    Both the belief in God and global warming have been transformed into religions however.

  7. #32
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    16,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    Yeah. Who ya gonna believe? The scientists studying the problem or faith based deniers?
    I believe the data which the models do not match. It is foolish to sacrifice economic growth and wealth creation and diminish improvements to the standard of living for no effect on the global average temperature 100 years from now.

  8. #33
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    25,098
    Quote Originally Posted by AM999 View Post
    I believe the data which the models do not match. It is foolish to sacrifice economic growth and wealth creation and diminish improvements to the standard of living for no effect on the global average temperature 100 years from now.
    The curves on the chart are all rising, if not at the same rates. So the planet is warming.

    Human economies may now be dependent on oil, but that will pass, as they find more efficient ways of creating and using energy. This is a change: man views himself as a steward of his environment and planet, not an exploiter, as he proudly viewed himself in the past. He is finally realizing the earth's resources are finite and he must learn not just to consume, but renew, sustain, for his very survival. This should be obvious to any thinking person. We can do it in 50 years, as we went to oil and natural gas from wood, coal and steam a century ago. Tech guys are working on it, all over the world. 100 years from now the world will be a much cleaner place.

    We fail this mission at our peril. The two principle groups that want to fail are Islam and Christian fundamentalists fighting each other in an epic war, ironically or appropriately sitting on top of this major oil fountain, the life blood of global economies. They both believe in armageddon, the end of the world! And they seem to be ushering in "the end times" as best they can. WTF? We're just figuring out everything, the global village has materialized, poised for a golden age of health and prosperity for all. Now is a terrible time to throw up your arms and say, "Fu@k it!"
    Last edited by Fredrico; 01-18-2016 at 12:39 AM.

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: crossracer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by AM999 View Post
    And the one which is testable fails the test - the models do not match the data and predict far more global warming than has been observed.

    Both the belief in God and global warming have been transformed into religions however.
    Oh, gotcha. Could you please point out the "universal church of climate change" please? Or maybe post its tax exempt status as a actual religion?

    Please post your "facts" that support that climate change is not occurring .

  10. #35
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    33,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    Most supporters of global warming I've known are easily classified as faith based thinkers

    Sounds like you need to get out more, then: Climate Change Review

  11. #36
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    33,846
    Quote Originally Posted by AM999 View Post
    And the one which is testable fails the test - the models do not match the data and predict far more global warming than has been observed.

    ...
    No.

    "Satellites have been taking measurements since 1979. The various satellite data sets of the temperature in the troposphere (the lowest atmospheric layer) — including from NOAA, from a research company called Remote Sensing Systems and from a research group at the University of Alabama in Huntsville — disagree. But the UAH data set is the only one to show a lack of warming. Though there is some disagreement on the best ways to adjust and interpret satellite data, studies have indicated that correcting the UAH data in certain ways (specifically, removing a particular source of satellite error known as diurnal drift) would yield similar results to other data sets, indicating more warming."

    Climate Change Review

    Looks like the UAH found a Type I error.

    Also, your use of "far more" to describe a variation of a degree among models, all of which maintain directionality in accordance with reality (as long as one doesn't cherry-pick intervals to use, as you were doing):

    "Those who reject mainstream climate science often claim that there has been no warming for 17 years — a claim that relies on cherry-picked data, as we have written about before. By starting with 1998, a particularly warm year, the amount of warming over that time period appears smaller than starting with 1997 or 1999. The far more relevant long-term trend, however, is unequivocal: Fourteen of the 15 hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century, and 2014 was likely the warmest year on record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says 2015 is “extremely likely” to supplant it."

    [op. cit.]

  12. #37
    Welcome to the jungle
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,081
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    No.

    "Satellites have been taking measurements since 1979. The various satellite data sets of the temperature in the troposphere (the lowest atmospheric layer) — including from NOAA, from a research company called Remote Sensing Systems and from a research group at the University of Alabama in Huntsville — disagree. But the UAH data set is the only one to show a lack of warming. Though there is some disagreement on the best ways to adjust and interpret satellite data, studies have indicated that correcting the UAH data in certain ways (specifically, removing a particular source of satellite error known as diurnal drift) would yield similar results to other data sets, indicating more warming."

    Climate Change Review

    Looks like the UAH found a Type I error.

    Also, your use of "far more" to describe a variation of a degree among models, all of which maintain directionality in accordance with reality (as long as one doesn't cherry-pick intervals to use, as you were doing):

    "Those who reject mainstream climate science often claim that there has been no warming for 17 years — a claim that relies on cherry-picked data, as we have written about before. By starting with 1998, a particularly warm year, the amount of warming over that time period appears smaller than starting with 1997 or 1999. The far more relevant long-term trend, however, is unequivocal: Fourteen of the 15 hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century, and 2014 was likely the warmest year on record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says 2015 is “extremely likely” to supplant it."

    [op. cit.]

    Great post.

    It does seem as if AM is hell-bent on either willfully misleading folks who read his posts, and/or is guilty of willful ignorance in that he keeps believing in his flawed sources even when said flaws are pointed out to him, i.e. he refuses to hear valid criticism if it contradicts his ideology.

    This certainly isn't the way good science is done (i.e. ideology uber alles), and would seem to make the value of AM's views on scientific matters (which climate change is) roughly zero.

    But, I think most of us figured that out awhile back.
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  13. #38
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    25,779
    Quote Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post
    It does seem as if AM is hell-bent on either willfully misleading folks who read his posts, and/or is guilty of willful ignorance in that he keeps believing in his flawed sources even when said flaws are pointed out to him, i.e. he refuses to hear valid criticism if it contradicts his ideology.

    I am shocked, shocked that gambling is going on at Rick's!
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  14. #39
    Welcome to the jungle
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,081
    Quote Originally Posted by QuiQuaeQuod View Post
    I am shocked, shocked that gambling is going on at Rick's!
    "And here's your winnings, sir."
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  15. #40
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,917
    Quote Originally Posted by crossracer01 View Post
    One is testable, one is not. One is scientifically based the other is strictly pure belief. They are not the same.
    Whether anything is testable is irrelevant. How many believers in global warming actually test anything? Most just parrot back what they hear on MSLSD or ☭NN, making it primarily a belief system, complete with easily debunked slogans and myths.

    I've had conversations over the years with both types, and they were eerily similar in nature.
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  16. #41
    Welcome to the jungle
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    Most just parrot back what they hear on MSLSD or ☭NN, making it primarily a belief system, complete with easily debunked slogans and myths.
    Speaking of belief systems...

    Anyone else's irony meter break?
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  17. #42
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,917
    Quote Originally Posted by pone View Post
    except for the part about the science.
    You mean the same system that had everyone believing dietary fat was killing everyone?

    40 years of people harming their bodies was the result of bad science, yet to question it during that time period was heresy. What's to say we haven't gone down the same path with global warming? That's the thing about science - it's not the truth, its a search for the truth, a search which often results in a dead end. And that's the thing - you don't KNOW it's a dead end until you get there.

    There is nothing wrong with trying to make changes based on science, as long a heavy dose of reality - that taking a snapshot of the science at any given time is NOT the complete picture, is NOT the truth, and may very well be completely false - is employed while doing so.

    This speaks very well to science as a belief system. Most people, scientists included (actually ESPECIALLY scientists), apply a heavy dose of faith to their findings.
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  18. #43
    Satanic Watch Winder
    Reputation: oily666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    You mean the same system that had everyone believing dietary fat was killing everyone?

    40 years of people harming their bodies was the result of bad science, yet to question it during that time period was heresy. What's to say we haven't gone down the same path with global warming? That's the thing about science - it's not the truth, its a search for the truth, a search which often results in a dead end. And that's the thing - you don't KNOW it's a dead end until you get there.

    There is nothing wrong with trying to make changes based on science, as long a heavy dose of reality - that taking a snapshot of the science at any given time is NOT the complete picture, is NOT the truth, and may very well be completely false - is employed while doing so.

    This speaks very well to science as a belief system. Most people, scientists included (actually ESPECIALLY scientists), apply a heavy dose of faith to their findings.
    This from someone who gets scripture from the oil and coal lobby.
    The crumbling of our wide freeways suggest a narrower vision

    Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.

    MAKE AMERICA SMART AGAIN

  19. #44
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    33,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    ...That's the thing about science - it's not the truth, its a search for the truth....
    Faith, on the other hand, is most definitely not a search for the truth.

    I'm as relativist as anyone, but the fact that researchers sometimes makes mistakes doesn't mean science is separated from reality; in fact, the core of scientific method is to include heavy doses of said reality, to test one's theories and such.

    Consider, too, that the "reality" one is supposedly dosing up on is itself a construction of perceptual processes, extant mental paradigms, etc., and that scientific developments are often met with resistance specifically because they upend those "realities."

    Science is a belief system of sorts, in that one of its cornerstones is that inquiry shouldn't start with a priori conclusions, while faiths cannot say the same.

  20. #45
    Satanic Watch Winder
    Reputation: oily666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by AM999 View Post
    I believe the data which the models do not match. It is foolish to sacrifice economic growth and wealth creation and diminish improvements to the standard of living for no effect on the global average temperature 100 years from now.
    Because, as we all should know by now, economic growth and wealth creation is the "end all / be all" of human existence.

    Maybe you should run that through your Jeremiah-begat-Jedediah Decoder Ring again. I don't think that's what your Big Guy had in mind.

    Or maybe you should just keep getting scripture from the oil and coal lobby too.
    The crumbling of our wide freeways suggest a narrower vision

    Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.

    MAKE AMERICA SMART AGAIN

  21. #46
    Satanic Watch Winder
    Reputation: oily666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    Faith, on the other hand, is most definitely not a search for the truth.

    I'm as relativist as anyone, but the fact that researchers sometimes makes mistakes doesn't mean science is separated from reality; in fact, the core of scientific method is to include heavy doses of said reality, to test one's theories and such.

    Consider, too, that the "reality" one is supposedly dosing up on is itself a construction of perceptual processes, extant mental paradigms, etc., and that scientific developments are often met with resistance specifically because they upend those "realities."

    Science is a belief system of sorts, in that one of its cornerstones is that inquiry shouldn't start with a priori conclusions, while faiths cannot say the same.
    Well said.

    The same Evangelical I referred to used the term "theory" to attack evolution. In his mind theory isn't absolute so why put faith in it?
    Belief system folks use that approach a lot, but they're using the definition of "hypothesis" to discount all that can be known in a theory. Then I pointed out that a "theory" was splitting atoms and generating electricity 20 miles away.
    The crumbling of our wide freeways suggest a narrower vision

    Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.

    MAKE AMERICA SMART AGAIN

  22. #47
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: pone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    You mean the same system that had everyone believing dietary fat was killing everyone?

    40 years of people harming their bodies was the result of bad science, yet to question it during that time period was heresy. What's to say we haven't gone down the same path with global warming? That's the thing about science - it's not the truth, its a search for the truth, a search which often results in a dead end. And that's the thing - you don't KNOW it's a dead end until you get there.

    There is nothing wrong with trying to make changes based on science, as long a heavy dose of reality - that taking a snapshot of the science at any given time is NOT the complete picture, is NOT the truth, and may very well be completely false - is employed while doing so.

    This speaks very well to science as a belief system. Most people, scientists included (actually ESPECIALLY scientists), apply a heavy dose of faith to their findings.
    i understand your inclination to equate behavior or beliefs that people routinely attribute to scientific findings to a more common religious type of belief system. but the mere fact of the misinterpretation or misuse of factual information isn't sufficient to reduce the conclusions regarding anthropogenic warming to the level of Jehovah having created the universe in 6 days.

    the fact that you so pointedly misconstrue a number of terms in your statement above, and the manner in which you do so, leads me to believe that you're entirely capable of understanding this point.

  23. #48
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    16,916
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    No.

    "Satellites have been taking measurements since 1979. The various satellite data sets of the temperature in the troposphere (the lowest atmospheric layer) — including from NOAA, from a research company called Remote Sensing Systems and from a research group at the University of Alabama in Huntsville — disagree. But the UAH data set is the only one to show a lack of warming. Though there is some disagreement on the best ways to adjust and interpret satellite data, studies have indicated that correcting the UAH data in certain ways (specifically, removing a particular source of satellite error known as diurnal drift) would yield similar results to other data sets, indicating more warming."

    Climate Change Review

    Looks like the UAH found a Type I error.

    Also, your use of "far more" to describe a variation of a degree among models, all of which maintain directionality in accordance with reality (as long as one doesn't cherry-pick intervals to use, as you were doing):

    "Those who reject mainstream climate science often claim that there has been no warming for 17 years — a claim that relies on cherry-picked data, as we have written about before. By starting with 1998, a particularly warm year, the amount of warming over that time period appears smaller than starting with 1997 or 1999. The far more relevant long-term trend, however, is unequivocal: Fourteen of the 15 hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century, and 2014 was likely the warmest year on record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says 2015 is “extremely likely” to supplant it."

    [op. cit.]
    The NOAA "corrected" the data to bring it in line with the desired trends.

    To measure the true variation and change in the Earth’s temperature – not changes associated with differing instrumentation and observing techniques – it is necessary to make corrections to the historical temperature record to remove the nonclimatic shifts in temperature. The new version of the ERSST data set more completely accounts for the changes in observing methods and technologies than previous versions, making the data more consistent across time. This makes it possible to compare temperature data collected from locations around the world and over many decades, improving the accuracy of temperature trend estimates.
    Improved Data Set Shows No Global Warming ?Hiatus? | IFLScience

    And attempts to correct the satellite data to match this "trend" are also being made. Those attempts have been discredited as well in previous PO forum threads.

    But OK, ignoring the flat temperature global profile from 1998, how do the new data sets match the consensus (btw science does not operate on consensu) IPCC computer models ??
    Last edited by AM999; 01-18-2016 at 09:15 AM.

  24. #49
    Satanic Watch Winder
    Reputation: oily666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by AM999 View Post
    The NOAA "corrected" the data to bring it in line with the desired trends.

    But OK, ignoring the flat temperature global profile from 1998, how do the new data sets match the consensus (btw science does not operate on consensu) IPCC computer models ??
    From your link:

    Preliminary calculations of global temperature trends using estimates of temperatures in the Arctic indicate greater rates of warming than the 1998-2014 trend of 0.19F per decade reported in this study.
    The crumbling of our wide freeways suggest a narrower vision

    Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.

    MAKE AMERICA SMART AGAIN

  25. #50
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,917
    Quote Originally Posted by pone View Post
    i understand your inclination to equate behavior or beliefs that people routinely attribute to scientific findings to a more common religious type of belief system. but the mere fact of the misinterpretation or misuse of factual information isn't sufficient to reduce the conclusions regarding anthropogenic warming to the level of Jehovah having created the universe in 6 days.

    the fact that you so pointedly misconstrue a number of terms in your statement above, and the manner in which you do so, leads me to believe that you're entirely capable of understanding this point.
    Ah, but they ARE. Unquestioning belief in a scientific conclusion is exactly on the level of religion, ESPECIALLY if that conclusion is wrong.

    That's the part you don't get. Science is wrong WAY MORE OFTEN than it's right, and that includes consensus. Just because there is agreement doesn't make the conclusion more valid. How many people agreed with Clovis First? or saturated fat causes heart disease? or the earth is flat? hmm? Without an understanding that science is a search, and without acceptance and testing of new theories that are not part of a given paradigm, science fosters a religious like belief system. That is what happens when enough people agree that particular conclusions are valid. But again, just because lot of people agree, doesn't increase the validity.

    The world needs more scientific realists and fewer scientific prophets.
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The liberals are X while conservatives are Y theme, #729
    By QuiQuaeQuod in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-20-2014, 07:24 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-03-2012, 07:53 PM
  3. Who's More Stupid: Conservatives or Liberals?
    By cycmike in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 11-01-2011, 07:59 PM
  4. More gears, simple question, complex answer???
    By handsomerob in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-14-2006, 12:34 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-30-2004, 04:47 AM

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.