Alfa Romeo Forums banner

801 - 820 of 1356 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,596 Posts
The public used to go along with some scientists on a lot of subjects. Experience has shown that scientists are not always to be believed.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Show me a better way to be objective than focusing on the data and science, because those are clear....
When analyzing and interpreting data one has to be objective and exercise critical thinking. If its your belief that simply looking at data yields conclusions, you are sadly mistaken. The raw data is only one piece of the puzzle.

Red herring - the article did not do that. Please do not resort to deception in trying to make your point.
Then what was your take on the meaning of "the vast majority (87 percent) of scientists" and "which are reflected in their level of education"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,596 Posts
" Please do not resort to deception in trying to make your point."
That is the job of climate alarmists !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
...If its your belief that simply looking at data yields conclusions, you are sadly mistaken...
That is another red herring statement - which seems to be an unfortunate trend in your responses because it is inherently deceptive and dishonest as a logical fallacy.

I never said that.


...what was your take on the meaning of "the vast majority (87 percent) of scientists"
That is a vast, and the lowest I've seen btw across multiple sources, majority. Pretty self-explanatory it would seem.



"...which are reflected in their level of education"
Here is the Pew data - interestingly they found that the less educated you are and older you are the more likely to not accept the science/evidence. The article reflected that.

How Scientists Engage the Public | Pew Research Center


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Here is the Pew data
Cherry picking

Keep in mind I ask about what YOU thought of it. Simply regurgitating Google searches is not contributing to the conversation.

That is another red herring statement - which seems to be an unfortunate trend in your responses because it is inherently deceptive and dishonest as a logical fallacy.

I never said that.
I showed you how to get from A to B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Cherry picking
No, that is incorrect as it is an incorrect use of the term. Please make sure to understand what you are asserting before making the assertion. Thanks.

If you have been keeping current you would already know I will not be drawn into things like "...your take...". That said the Pew findings that show that the less educated and older you are the less likely you are to understand and accept the science would seem noteworthy. There is also a significant gender difference as well.
 

·
Push hard and live
Joined
·
8,922 Posts
Perspective is not only important, it can be one-way.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,596 Posts
"That said the Pew findings that show that the less educated and older you are the less likely you are to understand and accept the science would seem noteworthy. There is also a significant gender difference as well."

Probably true....

If you are a 20 year old with a fresh degree, you will probably believe anything. Some of the dumbest people have graduate degrees and no common sense or experiense.

Older folks have seen these scams before and dismiss them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
...Older folks have seen these scams before and dismiss them...
No, that is an excuse, not a reason. Basic chemistry is not a "scam". What you wrote sure seems to fit "...do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology"

Actually, if memory serves you have only material that fit that. Not very scientific on a thread about science....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Remember: No attacking the writer, ad homin.....whatever.....places the evils of "cherry picking" in perpsective.

El Niño begins to curtail the Pause | Watts Up With That?
There are like 15+ things wrong with that but let's start with:

1) That is cherry picked data - no ocean heat

2) That is cherry picked data - only one source of surface heat


3) From YOUR source:

...does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate...
 

·
Push hard and live
Joined
·
8,922 Posts
I lost interest in this thread a while back, but every now and then check in to see if Skippy has had an awakening. I know better.

He seems to miss the overwhelming irony that his arguments about non-math-based comments are simply his opinions, and that there is no evidence that he has any credibility. He makes such statements as "...do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology" and believes these are, in some way, self-evident truths. They are not, of course.

The current state of discussions in physics is more about perspective and conceptualization than it is math. To the extent that a new particle is predicted, math comes into play, but at this point there are competing theories all of which are trying to work toward what we often hear described as the "unified field theory", or the "theory of everything".

If there are competing, and contradicting theories, then we are talking concepts, not math.

Skippy seems to believe that all that can be known, is known. As he likes to do, I challenge him to state his position on that point.

Option 1. All that is to be known about climate science is known.

Option 2. We do not yet know all that can be known about climate science.

Until option 1 is a certainty, I will remain a sceptic. As option 1 can never be stated by a wise and observant person, I will always remain a sceptic.

Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,646 Posts
If we humans are responsible for global warming (now called climate change because scientists have lost confidence) it is surely due to the massive amount of internet server cooling required by the squillions of threads on this topic :surprise:

One thing we all surely have to agree on is that when humans are involved their aim or goal in what they are doing cannot always be assumed at face value. This includes scientists who are always struggling to fund their research and for a while now this has been eased by relating their research to climate change.

Yes even scientists are not moral gods, just humans.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
.... to see if Skippy has had an awakening. I know better.
con·de·scen·sion
ˌkändəˈsen(t)SH(ə)n/
noun
an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.
"a tone of condescension"



dpeterson3 said:
He makes such statements as "...do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology"
You are apparently unable to differentiate between what I have said and what others have said. One way to tell is if what is written is in "" then others have said it. Your apparent inability to understand what a quote is may help explain your apparent inability to understand the science.


dpeterson3 said:
The current state of discussions in physics is more about perspective and conceptualization than it is math.
Red herring - this is about basic chemistry and physics not particle physics or subatomic behavior.

Remember - under that logic you are unable to get in a airplane that you know will fly making you either exceptionally reckless of engaging in a contradiction:


con·tra·dic·tion
ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
synonyms: denial, refutation, rebuttal, countering
"a contradiction of his statement"


dpeterson3 said:
...Skippy seems to believe that all that can be known, is known.
Another red herring - I have never said that

dpeterson3 said:
Option 1. All that is to be known

Until option 1 is a certainty, I will remain a sceptic.
See the definition above - you are not behaving to that with your airplanes but you are demanding that here. That is irrational and illogical, and the use of "certainty" indicates you don't understand the science you are dismissing.
 

·
Push hard and live
Joined
·
8,922 Posts
Boy. I was expecting a nonsensical answer, but this one sets a new low for unintelligibility and nonsense. That's OK. I'm back to doing productive things. Y'all have fun.


con·de·scen·sion
ˌkändəˈsen(t)SH(ə)n/
noun
an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.
"a tone of condescension"





You are apparently unable to differentiate between what I have said and what others have said. One way to tell is if what is written is in "" then others have said it. Your apparent inability to understand what a quote is may help explain your apparent inability to understand the science.




Red herring - this is about basic chemistry and physics not particle physics or subatomic behavior.

Remember - under that logic you are unable to get in a airplane that you know will fly making you either exceptionally reckless of engaging in a contradiction:


con·tra·dic·tion
ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
synonyms: denial, refutation, rebuttal, countering
"a contradiction of his statement"




Another red herring - I have never said that



See the definition above - you are not behaving to that with your airplanes but you are demanding that here. That is irrational and illogical, and the use of "certainty" indicates you don't understand the science you are dismissing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
?.. I was expecting a nonsensical answer...
Uh, ok then.

Bye, but please don't fly or drive or go to the Doctor or eat prepared foods or drink tap water since none of those things are possible to do with any predictability or safety since by your logic since we don't fully understand sub-atomic physics. Kinda limits your options...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
There are like 15+ things wrong with that but let's start with:

1) That is cherry picked data - no ocean heat

2) That is cherry picked data - only one source of surface heat


.[/b]
The point of posting this essay and charts was to put the Left's concept of "cherry picking" in perspective.

Also, you missed an interesting point.

The difference between ocean heat and ocean temp.

Thought for sure you would appreciate the difference.

Mind you, many liberal arts grads and no end of economics grads have had a problem with science. For example, beyond the difference between specific heat and temp there has been the old problem about the difference between mass and weight.

Pity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
You missed an interesting point.
Irrelevant to showing that your citation is full of crap, and given no response to the obvious issues with your source we'll just accept that whole nonsense as debunked.

subtle said:
The difference between ocean heat and ocean temp.

Thought for sure you would appreciate the difference
Uh, no, you are apparently not understanding the concepts involved here again in trying to apply them to climate science.

Mass is mass, effected by gravity. Gravity results in something having weight.

Heat is total energy of a piece of matter, temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy of a substance.

In any case the extra energy the oceans are absorbing are raising the water temperature. Please see prior citations about how this plays a role in ice formation in the Antartic.
 
801 - 820 of 1356 Posts
Top