Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,256,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Is Global Warming a Hoax?

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 225 of 538
  1. #151
    Better for rich white men like himself, absolutely.
  2. #152
    Explain why you think that.
  3. #153
    You're supposed to be ignoring me.
  4. #154
    How could I ignore somebody so fantastically intelligent?
  5. #155
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,792
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    I kinda like my avatar
  6. #156
    I kinda like it too.
  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Explain why you think that.
    1. He's assembled the richest cabinet in history. Rich men do not get rich by looking after the needs of the poor or middle class. Expect changes that favor big business over labor (meaning the rich get richer, the middle class continues to shrink, and the poor get poorer). If you make a country wealthier, but all that extra wealth ends up in the hands of the people who are already absurdly rich, how is that good for anyone else?

    2. His economic plan involves cutting taxes on the rich, increasing military spending (which is already greater by far than any other country, doesn't produce anything [besides weapons], and history shows hurts an economy in general), and using corporate welfare to save jobs that are otherwise economically untenable. Who benefits? The rich who pay less taxes, the military industrial complex (i.e., the rich), and corporations (the rich). Some groups of workers also benefit by keeping their modestly-paying jobs, but the overall cost of keeping those jobs falls not on their employers, but on the taxpayers. So let's be clear about all this job creation through corporate welfare. It's not a net benefit to the working class in the US, it's a net loss to them because they are the ones paying for it. It's only a net benefit to corporations.

    Look at the stock market's reaction to this. It's been going up steadily since his election. This is a perfect indicator of how the Trump economy is expected to benefit corporations (i.e, the rich).

    2a. And let's talk about the military spending while we're at it. Why does America, which already spends 3x as much as the next closest country (China) on the military, need to spend more? It's not for 'defense', because there is no credible threat to the U.S. It can only be for power projection (to protect the interests of the rich abroad), to support the MIC (again, the rich), and/or for controlling civil unrest (keeping the poor in line).

    3. His immigration policy, if implemented, would be enormously expensive. Forget the pipe dream about building a wall, just trying to reduce illegal immigration is expensive. My guess is he won't do anything of substance on this front (he certainly has toned down all his 'zomfg immigrants' rhetoric) because cheap labor is good for business - low wages, no labor unions and so basically no rights. Business wants cheap Mexican labor and even cheap labor from Muslim countries. So that whole immigration crackdown thing is not going to happen imo. And who benefits from all the cheap labor? The rich.

    4. What about himself? Well, he's not telling us where his investments are. This would be fine if he sold his businesses to remove the possibility of conflicts of interest, but he's not doing that. He's not even going to put them in a blind trust. Instead he is going to let his kids run them. The same kids who come to his meetings with foreign leaders. This is a clear conflict of interest.

    And he doesn't care! And he doesn't care because he knows that his popularity is based not on what he does, but on what he tells the people. So, if he has a few rallies, and rails on about draining the swamp and locking her up and building the wall, most of his supporters will cheer and continue to support him regardless of what he actually does in reality, because they are desperate and sick of the system and want to believe he will change it. He will make them think he's looking out for their interests by his words while all his actions will be looking out for his own interests and those of the rich.

    And in four years, when all those supporters realise they're no better off with Trump than they were before (and many are worse off), they'll either wake up and realise he's a charlatan and they've been the victims of a giant con, or they'll be too far gone to cast off his spell, and they'll blame immigrants, and coloured people, and ISIS, and the media, and th establishment, and everyone. Except Trump. And they'll vote for him again, and if he wins again it'll be four more years of the same shit.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-05-2017 at 08:02 AM.
  8. #158
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,767
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/...nal-objections

    When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) updated its global temperature dataset to include revisions to the underlying databases, US House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) somehow knew that the scientists had done it wrong. In fact, he accused them of having “altered temperature data to get politically correct results.”

    How could he know that? Well, Rep. Smith rejects the conclusions of climate science—like the fact that the Earth’s climate is warming. Despite the slight up and down wiggles of the estimated annual temperatures, the warming of the last couple decades increased ever so slightly in NOAA's new analysis. To Smith, the result was a red flag. Suddenly he wanted to see the researchers’ e-mails and echoed the accusations of contrarian blogs about scientists’ supposedly nefarious adjustments to sea surface temperature measurements.
    It's the post-truth era. Accepting what's actually happening is less important than 'winning' the debate even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. These are people who view changing one's mind a sign of weakness, and an admission of defeat. No power on Earth can convince them, because they've literally staked their self-worth upon their unyielding conviction. Zealots, one might say.
    I couldn't have said it better
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    1. He's assembled the richest cabinet in history. Rich men do not get rich by looking after the needs of the poor or middle class. Expect changes that favor big business over labor (meaning the rich get richer, the middle class continues to shrink, and the poor get poorer). If you make a country wealthier, but all that extra wealth ends up in the hands of the people who are already absurdly rich, how is that good for anyone else?

    2. His economic plan involves cutting taxes on the rich, increasing military spending (which is already greater by far than any other country, doesn't produce anything [besides weapons], and history shows hurts an economy in general), and using corporate welfare to save jobs that are otherwise economically untenable. Who benefits? The rich who pay less taxes, the military industrial complex (i.e., the rich), and corporations (the rich). Some groups of workers also benefit by keeping their modestly-paying jobs, but the overall cost of keeping those jobs falls not on their employers, but on the taxpayers. So let's be clear about all this job creation through corporate welfare. It's not a net benefit to the working class in the US, it's a net loss to them because they are the ones paying for it. It's only a net benefit to corporations.

    Look at the stock market's reaction to this. It's been going up steadily since his election. This is a perfect indicator of how the Trump economy is expected to benefit corporations (i.e, the rich).

    2a. And let's talk about the military spending while we're at it. Why does America, which already spends 3x as much as the next closest country (China) on the military, need to spend more? It's not for 'defense', because there is no credible threat to the U.S. It can only be for power projection (to protect the interests of the rich abroad), to support the MIC (again, the rich), and/or for controlling civil unrest (keeping the poor in line).

    3. His immigration policy, if implemented, would be enormously expensive. Forget the pipe dream about building a wall, just trying to reduce illegal immigration is expensive. My guess is he won't do anything of substance on this front (he certainly has toned down all his 'zomfg immigrants' rhetoric) because cheap labor is good for business - low wages, no labor unions and so basically no rights. Business wants cheap Mexican labor and even cheap labor from Muslim countries. So that whole immigration crackdown thing is not going to happen imo. And who benefits from all the cheap labor? The rich.

    4. What about himself? Well, he's not telling us where his investments are. This would be fine if he sold his businesses to remove the possibility of conflicts of interest, but he's not doing that. He's not even going to put them in a blind trust. Instead he is going to let his kids run them. The same kids who come to his meetings with foreign leaders. This is a clear conflict of interest.

    And he doesn't care! And he doesn't care because he knows that his popularity is based not on what he does, but on what he tells the people. So, if he has a few rallies, and rails on about draining the swamp and locking her up and building the wall, most of his supporters will cheer and continue to support him regardless of what he actually does in reality, because they are desperate and sick of the system and want to believe he will change it. He will make them think he's looking out for their interests by his words while all his actions will be looking out for his own interests and those of the rich.

    And in four years, when all those supporters realise they're no better off with Trump than they were before (and many are worse off), they'll either wake up and realise he's a charlatan and they've been the victims of a giant con, or they'll be too far gone to cast off his spell, and they'll blame immigrants, and coloured people, and ISIS, and the media, and th establishment, and everyone. Except Trump. And they'll vote for him again, and if he wins again it'll be four more years of the same shit.
    Thanks for the response. If you find that you have questions regarding any of the elements mentioned here, feel free to ask.
  10. #160
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,767
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  11. #161
    That video reminds me of Damasio's theory of decision-making, proposed in the 1990s. The dogma at the time was that emotion and reasoning were separate processes, with emotion residing in the evolutionarily older parts of the brain (limbic system), and reasoning residing in the cortex.

    Damasio's insight was that emotions influenced reasoning as bodily reactions influencing the so-called rational decision-making centers in the brain. In essence our unconscious has quick reactions to stimuli that impact our body (such as an increase in heart rate for things that make us anxious or a feeling of relaxation for things that make us happy). These bodily responses in turn are interpreted by our cortex to make decisions. It was a beautiful insight.

    More about the theory here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis
  12. #162
    People have a way of letting their politics and other beliefs seep into their scientific rigor. Like how in the video he says "97% of publishing scientists who study it say climate change global warming is real, it's happening now, and we need to do something about it." If that is what 97% of climate scientists say, one of those three claims is not their scientific opinion.
  13. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    People have a way of letting their politics and other beliefs seep into their scientific rigor. Like how in the video he says "97% of publishing scientists who study it say climate change global warming is real, it's happening now, and we need to do something about it." If that is what 97% of climate scientists say, one of those three claims is not their scientific opinion.
    You're implying that the political opinion 'we need to do something about it' somehow influenced the science, when it fact it was the science that led to the political opinion.

    If scientists had begun with the hypothesis 'we need to do something' and then looked for evidence that something needed to be done, then found it, we'd be right to be suspicious. But that's a pretty weird idea.
  14. #164
    The hot cognition portion is very good.

    A point I would like to make is that the presenter does the very thing he attributes to others yet doesn't realize it. That thing is presenting the scientific opinion on something but then saying that means something else is true. The example is he says the science shows global warming is happening, but then he assumes the effects of global warming are bad and that we need to do something about it. Somebody on the opposite side can more readily see this, but it is unlikely he or those who agree with him will readily see it.

    I'm not saying this to point the finger at him; that would be me making the same mistake I say he's making. We all do this kind of thing. I probably do it many times a day and don't even recognize it. A reason I'm pointing it out is that from being on both sides of the political aisle, I see both sides argue in the same way. The left tends to like science that backs them up while calling the right anti-science, yet the right does the same thing and likes science on certain issues while claiming the left is anti-science. When I was on the left, I thought it was all one-sided because I had no idea what parts of the left are anti-science like I do today. Implicit in this video is that certain categories of people are better at being rational about science than others. I don't think that's the case. We're all very irrational, yet very great at pointing out the irrationality of others yet not of ourselves.
  15. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You're implying that the political opinion 'we need to do something about it' somehow influenced the science, when it fact it was the science that led to the political opinion.

    If scientists had begun with the hypothesis 'we need to do something' and then looked for evidence that something needed to be done, then found it, we'd be right to be suspicious. But that's a pretty weird idea.
    The idea that something needs to be done about it (so to speak) does exist before evidence of climate change, but not in a scientific sense. This is more about ideologies that have been around for a very long time, like the environmentalist anti-capitalist type that more or less assumes anything that alters the environment to benefit human consumption is bad. But that isn't what you're referring to, so I'll not mention it further, just wanted to point it out.

    I'm not sure I would say I'm implying the political opinion came before the scientific opinion, as you pointed out. It can be the case that the political opinion came after and also isn't a scientific opinion. The evidence for global warming is enough that scientists can give their scientific opinion on it, but where is the evidence for the results of global warming in the future? It's very slim. Does there exist a credible climate scientist who would claim that any models in use today that predict things like crop behavior 30 years from now are credible? I doubt it.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 01-05-2017 at 04:14 PM.
  16. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The hot cognition portion is very good.

    A point I would like to make is that the presenter does the very thing he attributes to others yet doesn't realize it. That thing is presenting the scientific opinion on something but then saying that means something else is true. The example is he says the science shows global warming is happening, but then he assumes the effects of global warming are bad and that we need to do something about it. Somebody on the opposite side can more readily see this, but it is unlikely he or those who agree with him will readily see it.
    Agreed. He's making an argument about how we need to be rational but presenting it in an emotional way. It seems pretty common among these internet stars and why I tend to wince when I see guys like him, The Young Turks, etc..


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The left tends to like science that backs them up while calling the right anti-science, yet the right does the same thing and likes science on certain issues while claiming the left is anti-science. When I was on the left, I thought it was all one-sided because I had no idea what parts of the left are anti-science like I do today. Implicit in this video is that certain categories of people are better at being rational about science than others. I don't think that's the case. We're all very irrational, yet very great at pointing out the irrationality of others yet not of ourselves.
    What parts of the right do you think are more pro-science than the left?



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Implicit in this video is that certain categories of people are better at being rational about science than others. I don't think that's the case. We're all very irrational, yet very great at pointing out the irrationality of others yet not of ourselves.
    There's some truth in that, but I don't think it's the whole story. Some people just aren't good at logic, and logical arguments they're unable to grasp have no influence on them. And those people tend to reveal themselves by resorting to ad hominen or other types of fail.
  17. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The idea that something needs to be done about it (so to speak) does exist before evidence of climate change, but not in a scientific sense. This is more about ideologies that have been around for a very long time, like the environmentalist anti-capitalist type that more or less assumes anything that alters the environment to benefit human consumption is bad. But that isn't what you're referring to, so I'll not mention it further, just wanted to point it out.
    You're implying that if the typical climate scientist were anti-government involvement, pro-capitalist, he would say 'AGW is real but we should let it continue for reasons x, y and z'. But the issue isn't how the scientists feel about the government's response to AGW, the issue is whether or not AGW is real. We can formulate our own opinions on what should be done about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The evidence for global warming is enough that scientists can give their scientific opinion on it, but where is the evidence for the results of global warming in the future? It's very slim. Does there exist a credible climate scientist who would claim that any models in use today that predict things like crop behavior 30 years from now are credible? I doubt it.
    They don't, because it's impossible to predict such things apart from in a very broad sense. If you want someone to build a model that predicts crop yields will be down 31.7% in 2046 or w/e, it's not going to happen. The predictions I have heard have been about rising sea levels, more extreme weather, more earthquakes, etc..
  18. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What parts of the right do you think are more pro-science than the left?
    Economics is a big one, but it's also a tough one to convince skeptics on. Regardless, economists fall markedly more towards the right than their academic colleagues for reasons of their economics. Economics covers a very wide range of different things, so we don't even have to talk about it in general terms. For example, economics tells us that if the government throws more money at academic educations, we should expect things like an increase in the prices of degrees. But the left doesn't wanna hear that and just charges full speed ahead in thinking that the price of an education has nothing to do with the supply and demand of the industry.

    Another is gender. The populist left is obsessed with the idea that there are a bunch of different genders and even gender fluidity, yet the scientific evidence for those are pretty slim. An added level of absurdity is in that when the left discusses the sexes, they say there is no female or male brain, but when they discuss transgenders, they say the person was born with that gender's brain. These two can't both be true at the same time.

    As discussed earlier, the left tends to think that needing to combat global warming is a scientific view. It's not.

    Currently the left has its eyes shut on the issue of illegal voting. Some studies have shown it likely happens; the left disregards.

    Perhaps the most egregious is an area in which the left misuses a simple definition of something and then builds mountains around it. They did this with Trump. They called him racist after he said stuff about Mexico (not a race). They're not even getting their definitions right, much less behaving scientifically.

    I'll stop there.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 01-05-2017 at 05:01 PM.
  19. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You're implying that if the typical climate scientist were anti-government involvement, pro-capitalist, he would say 'AGW is real but we should let it continue for reasons x, y and z'. But the issue isn't how the scientists feel about the government's response to AGW, the issue is whether or not AGW is real. We can formulate our own opinions on what should be done about it.
    I don't mean to imply that. I mean only to say that only an opinion garnered from the scientific process is a scientific opinion. The data on global warming doesn't tell us what *should* be done about it.

    They don't, because it's impossible to predict such things apart from in a very broad sense. If you want someone to build a model that predicts crop yields will be down 31.7% in 2046 or w/e, it's not going to happen. The predictions I have heard have been about rising sea levels, more extreme weather, more earthquakes, etc..
    They're pretty general, and in general they're probably correct. But the effects and what it would take to counter the effects, the science on global warming doesn't much tell us (yet).
  20. #170
    BTW please don't get the impression that I'm saying the left is anti-science while the right is not. The right has its own golden calves it can't do without. It isn't that either side is anti-science, but that they're each pro or anti science in their own ways. Even the reasons that the right likes creationism isn't as steeped in anti-science as one might think.
  21. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Economics is a big one, but it's also a tough one to convince skeptics on. Regardless, economists fall markedly more towards the right than their academic colleagues for reasons of their economics. Economics covers a very wide range of different things, so we don't even have to talk about it in general terms. For example, economics tells us that if the government throws more money at academic educations, we should expect things like an increase in the prices of degrees. But the left doesn't wanna hear that and just charges full speed ahead in thinking that the price of an education has nothing to do with the supply and demand of the industry.
    Don't know.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Another is gender. The populist left is obsessed with the idea that there are a bunch of different genders and even gender fluidity, yet the scientific evidence for those are pretty slim. An added level of absurdity is in that when the left discusses the sexes, they say there is no female or male brain, but when they discuss transgenders, they say the person was born with that gender's brain. These two can't both be true at the same time.
    Yup, that all sounds pretty silly.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    As discussed earlier, the left tends to think that needing to combat global warming is a scientific view. It's not.
    You're right, there's a distinction between the science and a viewpoint on its political implications. But the argument of many on the right seems to be that the science is wrong (or a hoax) in the first place. That isn't exactly being pro-science.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Currently the left has its eyes shut on the issue of illegal voting. Some studies have shown it likely happens; the left disregards.
    Don't know.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Perhaps the most egregious is an area in which the left misuses a simple definition of something and then builds mountains around it. They did this with Trump. They called him racist after he said stuff about Mexico (not a race). They're not even getting their definitions right, much less behaving scientifically.
    That argument seems to revolve around semantics, not science. Calling someone's comments racist when they're really anti-Mexican doesn't change the fact that they're in the same ballpark of intolerance.
  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You're right, there's a distinction between the science and a viewpoint on its political implications. But the argument of many on the right seems to be that the science is wrong (or a hoax) in the first place. That isn't exactly being pro-science.
    Yeah I'm not saying the right is pro-science on this issue. I think they're more pro-science in certain ways on the issue though.

    That argument seems to revolve around semantics, not science. Calling someone's comments racist when they're really anti-Mexican doesn't change the fact that they're in the same ballpark of intolerance.
    True. I added it because science depends on semantics. I think it's fair to say that if you're doing an experiment with hydrogen yet you're not defining hydrogen correctly, you're being really bad at science. Science was used to determine what hydrogen is and what helium is and how they are different, and if you're interpreting helium as hydrogen, I think it's fair to say you're doing something wrong somewhere along the science chain. I am, however, open to your critique of what I said, as I was using a more expansive view of science.
  23. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    They're pretty general, and in general they're probably correct. But the effects and what it would take to counter the effects, the science on global warming doesn't much tell us (yet).
    I get what you mean - the predictions of climate scientists are necessarily vague and so it's hard to make concrete policy decisions based on them.
  24. #174
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I get what you mean - the predictions of climate philosophists are necessarily vague and so it's hard to make concrete policy decisions based on them.
    fyp
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #175
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    philosophy - to theorise using logic and reason
    science - to confirm theory by means of experiment and observation
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    science - to confirm theory by means of experiment and observation
    Theories are never confirmed; they can only be disconfirmed. That's the first problem with your definition.

    Second, experiments aren't necessary for a theory to be supported. Almost the entirety of Astronomy is based on observation alone (and a healthy dose of maths). Very few experiments have been done.* Yet everyone accepts that Astronomy is a science, not a branch of philosophy.

    The third problem with your definition is that theories can be supported by past evidence, not just present or future evidence. For example, the Theory of Evolution was based mainly on evidence from the fossil record, which strongly and consistently supported its tenets. Despite its reliance on 'old' data, is it clearly a scientific theory and not a philosophical speculation.


    *Just so we're clear on the difference is between an experiment and an observation: An experiment is a carefully controlled situation wherein one or more variables are manipulated by the experimenter to see their effects on another variable. An example would be studying two groups of rats. One group is given an injection of some drug, the other is injected with saline. The experimenter then measures their performance on some task, say running a maze, to see if the drug affects performance.

    An observation is when variables are observed but not interfered with. Studying the relationship between diet and longevity in a population would be an example. Neither diet nor longevity is being manipulated by the experimenter, they are simply measuring both and seeing if there's a correlation. Studying the trajectory of a celestial body would be another observation. Neither of these qualifies as an experiment because neither involves manipulating any variables. Yet both contribute to science.
  27. #177
    Oh, and the third problem i mentioned about past evidence wasn't actually implied by your definition. I just mentioned it because you've previously argued that since global warming hasn't reached a critical point yet, we don't have sufficient evidence to think it will in the future.
  28. #178
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    (and a healthy dose of maths)
    Maths isn't theory though. I don't theorise that 5*2=10, I can state it as fact. If we can't rely on our understanding of maths, then science will collapse entirely. Astronomy is a poor example. We can make predictions, and observe them coming true. For example, solar eclipses.

    You say "your definition" as though I pulled it out of my arse... I didn't, I googled "science".

    Quote Originally Posted by google
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
    "observation" is an interesting word. I can "observe" the sky and say it is blue. When we talk about "blue", is this science or philosophy? How can we know that we both see the same colour when we see "blue"? Science can't tell us if we perceive blue the same, but it can tell us if we're looking at the same wavelength of light.

    Science can't yet do this with climate change. We're taking a bunch of assumptions based on probability, mashing them together, and calling this "consensus". I don't like it. That's not science, it's philosophy. I'd like it more if they were honest about what it is.

    There was a time where "consensus" would argue in favour of a flat Earth. Newton's gravity was "consensus" until Einstein came along. Atom means "indivisible". When scientists all nod their heads in agreement, it doesn't mean they are right.

    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Theories are never confirmed; they can only be disconfirmed.
    This from wikipedia...

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.
    Climate change does not meet the criteria of "repeatedly tested and confirmed". There are a lot of "theories" that do stand up to the ultimate test of science. At this point, they cease to be "theory" and become "fact". Climate change isn't there yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Maths isn't theory though.
    It's literally nothing but theory.
  30. #180
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Climate change is incontrovertible fact.

    The climate has changed dramatically over the past 3.5 billion years, due to all sorts of reasons.
    No one who has any claim to calling them self a scientist could refute that.

    Climate change is not global warming is not AGW.
  31. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Maths isn't theory though. I don't theorise that 5*2=10, I can state it as fact. If we can't rely on our understanding of maths, then science will collapse entirely. Astronomy is a poor example. We can make predictions, and observe them coming true. For example, solar eclipses.

    You say "your definition" as though I pulled it out of my arse... I didn't, I googled "science".



    "observation" is an interesting word. I can "observe" the sky and say it is blue. When we talk about "blue", is this science or philosophy? How can we know that we both see the same colour when we see "blue"? Science can't tell us if we perceive blue the same, but it can tell us if we're looking at the same wavelength of light.

    Science can't yet do this with climate change. We're taking a bunch of assumptions based on probability, mashing them together, and calling this "consensus". I don't like it. That's not science, it's philosophy. I'd like it more if they were honest about what it is.

    There was a time where "consensus" would argue in favour of a flat Earth. Newton's gravity was "consensus" until Einstein came along. Atom means "indivisible". When scientists all nod their heads in agreement, it doesn't mean they are right.



    This from wikipedia...



    Climate change does not meet the criteria of "repeatedly tested and confirmed". There are a lot of "theories" that do stand up to the ultimate test of science. At this point, they cease to be "theory" and become "fact". Climate change isn't there yet.

    1. I dare say I have a better knowledge of what science is than google or wikipedia. I've studied philosophy of science. And I'm a scientist. So sorry, but quoting these sources as authorities doesn't impress me. And you (they) are still wrong in how you (they) define science.

    1a. I'll say it again: you can never confirm a theory, you can only disconfirm it. This is well known as the problem of induction and goes back to Thomas Hume. If 2+2=4 today and has been so every time it's been tested, that is convincing evidence, but it is not proof. Tomorrow for all we know 2+2 could equal 5, and if it does the theory would be disconfirmed.

    2. You don't understand climate science yet you claim to understand what it can and can't predict with accuracy. Arguments based on ignorance aren't worth much.

    2a. If you hold climate scientists up to your standards of scientific rigour of testing and 'confirmation', then there is no way to prove AGW except by waiting until it's shown to be too late to do anything about it. That is a stupid stance to take, and thankfully not one shared by many people.
  32. #182
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    It's literally nothing but theory.
    Alright well then we're defining "theory" differently. I don't even care who's technically right, there's a distinct difference between the "theory" of mathematics, and the "theory" of string theory, to throw an example out there. Mathematics is incontrovertible fact, to steal mojo's phrase.

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Climate change is incontrovertible fact.
    Again, we're just being technical about language here. I'm obviously not talking about ice ages and stuff, and neither is anyone else.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 01-07-2017 at 10:40 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #183
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    1. I dare say I have a better knowledge of what science is than google or wikipedia.
    So you get to define words based on your expertise?

    Tomorrow for all we know 2+2 could equal 5
    This is a ridiculous thing to say. The only way 2+2=5 is if we change the symbol for 4 into 5, or if we're listening to too much Radiohead. I learned what 2+2 was by counting pictures of apples at school. There are two apples. Now there are two more. How many are there? Not fucking five, and there never will be five, unless someone put three more there instead of two.

    2. You don't understand climate science yet you claim to understand what it can and can't predict with accuracy. Arguments based on ignorance aren't worth much.
    Very few people understand climate sceince. I'm not pretending to be one of them. Are you? I don't claim to undertsand what it can and cannot predict with accuracy, I'm saying that until it can make some sort of predictions that we can observe to come true, and until we can eliminate other potential sources for the results, then there is a clear distinction between maths and climate change.

    2a. If you hold climate scientists up to your standards of scientific rigour of testing and 'confirmation', then there is no way to prove AGW except by waiting until it's shown to be too late to do anything about it. That is a stupid stance to take, and thankfully not one shared by many people.
    Right, this is a bit more like it. I realise there are issues with "my" standards in this regard. However, all I'm saying is that we should not be presenting climate change as factual. I'm not saying we shouldn't act. I'm saying we should be honest about it, because when we're not, for some of us at least it compromises the trust we have in the integrity of science.

    If they say "it's probably happening and we'd be stupid not to act", I'd be in agreement. When they say "it is happening and we're going to act", then I question how they know it's happening, and question why they're using language such as "know" rather than "think" or "probably".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #184
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    If 2+2=4 today and has been so every time it's been tested, that is convincing evidence, but it is not proof.
    The proof is in our ability to count. I could count apples for the rest of my life, and my famous last words will be "yes, 2+2=4". Even if I live to be seventy billion years old.

    Things can be proven, some things cannot be disproven. Maths is probably the best example of something that cannot be disproven. The proof is all around us, all the time. It's not going to take you longer than an hour to travel 60 miles at an average of 60 mph. Water boils at 100 degrees celcius*, by definition. That isn't going to change unless you start meddling with the variables, such as salinity, pressure etc. I can also prove chickens lay eggs, and cats do not. I can't prove that humans are (or are not) warming the planet up though, and neither can anyone else.

    (* pure water at sea level blah blah)
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #185
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Again, we're just being technical about language here. I'm obviously not talking about ice ages and stuff, and neither is anyone else.
    This whole thread has been an excellent example that once we nail the technical language, the actual state of affairs on these topics is much easier to parse.

    Further:
    In science, semantics makes all the difference in the world. The findings (statements of prediction) shown by scientific process are, by design, specific statements.

    E.g. If you say, "the wheel spins because a force pulled on its edge," then I probably know what you mean, but that statement is false.
    Forces do not cause motions, forces cause accelerations. Additionally, forces cause linear accelerations; torques cause angular accelerations. The sentence clearly means angular motion in using the word "spins." So it's false on 2 accounts.
    Again, I probably know what you meant, but I'm guessing. If we're facing misunderstanding between us, then you can't rightly claim to have clearly stated your thoughts.
  36. #186
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The proof is in our ability to count. I could count apples for the rest of my life, and my famous last words will be "yes, 2+2=4". Even if I live to be seventy billion years old.
    Math is a uniquely separate thing from our usual science. I don't think it's serving the conversation to be comparing mathematical truths to the findings of observational science. We've had great discussions on the philosophical ambiguity over whether math is an inherent property of the universe or if math is an emergent property of mind. It's too blurry a line and the arguments on both sides are sound.

    Math is a beautiful and interesting thing we are aware of, but it does not have the burden of describing anything aside from itself.
    Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems say that it can never even fully describe itself, so it has its own limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's not going to take you longer than an hour to travel 60 miles at an average of 60 mph.
    That's just a definition. I.e. that's what average means.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Water boils at 100 degrees celcius*, by definition. That isn't going to change unless you start meddling with the variables, such as salinity, pressure etc. I can also prove chickens lay eggs, and cats do not. I can't prove that humans are (or are not) warming the planet up though, and neither can anyone else.

    (* pure water at sea level blah blah)
    Your asterisk says it all. Imprecise language is fine for casual conversations, but specific understanding requires more rigorous thought and word choice.
  37. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So you get to define words based on your expertise?
    I didn't define it myself, I learned the proper definition through study. That gives me more credibility as an authority on the topic than someone who hasn't done that. Do you disagree?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is a ridiculous thing to say. The only way 2+2=5 is if we change the symbol for 4 into 5, or if we're listening to too much Radiohead. I learned what 2+2 was by counting pictures of apples at school. There are two apples. Now there are two more. How many are there? Not fucking five, and there never will be five, unless someone put three more there instead of two.
    Who's to say tomorrow you won't have two apples, add two more, and end up with five? How you can prove that won't happen tomorrow if you haven't observed it? You have zero direct evidence that 2+2=4 will be true tomorrow. Thus you can't confirm your idea that 2+2=4 and always will be. That's the problem of induction.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Very few people understand climate sceince. I'm not pretending to be one of them. Are you?
    Not at all. But my argument isn't that you should believe me. My argument is that we have specialists who've already done the hard work on it, and they overwhelmingly agree AGW is real.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't claim to undertsand what it can and cannot predict with accuracy, I'm saying that until it can make some sort of predictions that we can observe to come true, and until we can eliminate other potential sources for the results, then there is a clear distinction between maths and climate change.

    I realise there are issues with "my" standards in this regard. However, all I'm saying is that we should not be presenting climate change as factual. I'm not saying we shouldn't act. I'm saying we should be honest about it, because when we're not, for some of us at least it compromises the trust we have in the integrity of science.
    You're asking science for 'proof' but you're not qualified to judge what qualifies as evidence. They say they have sufficient evidence already. But you want to argue you're better positioned to judge what counts as sufficient evidence than they are. And it ain't so.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If they say "it's probably happening and we'd be stupid not to act", I'd be in agreement. When they say "it is happening and we're going to act", then I question how they know it's happening, and question why they're using language such as "know" rather than "think" or "probably".
    Again, you're not qualified to judge if it's a fact or not. If they let laypeople set the standards for accepting what is and isn't true in a specialised area, we'd never get anywhere. Meanwhile you're making feeble arguments based on how they phrase things, as if that has any bearing on the evidence.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-07-2017 at 11:23 AM.
  38. #188
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The coincidence of the famous "hockey stick graph" with the rise of industrialization cannot be proven to be anything but a coincidence. We don't have a control Earth with no industrial revolution to compare it to. We don't know what it would be like if there were no industrialization. Which means it's possible industrialization has had no effect. Also meaning it's possible we should be balls deep in the next ice age already, and the warming is much worse than we've realized. We don't know means we don't know.

    The evidence is in from sources all over the world that warming is the current trend, nonetheless.

    Whether or not we should take action, and to what extent, depends largely on the unknown ultimate scale of the event we're observing.

    We can make some projections as to the unavoidable future course in the short-term, though. Think of predicting where a hurricane will hit shore. There's a cone in front of it of high liklihood. Same for the global average temps. They're rising and will continue to rise because the slope of the rise is a continuous function, which has always been observed to be within certain values. I.e. we've never seen it curve more than x, so predictions are within the amount of curvature that is consistent with what we've seen. Those predictions say it's probably going to keep getting warmer for a while and if the slope keeps increasing, that both increases the approaching maximum and extents the overall event.
  39. #189
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Who's to say tomorrow you won't have two apples, add two more, and end up with five? How you can prove that won't happen tomorrow if you haven't observed it? You have zero direct evidence that 2+2=4 will be true tomorrow. Thus you can't confirm your idea that 2+2=4 and always will be. That's the problem of induction.
    I don't necessarily agree with this.

    2 + 2 = 4

    This is true because "sequence" is a thing and plus means plus and equals means equals.

    Nothing can change this. Whatever title you put on the elements of the sequence, this is true by the acceptance that the elements can be counted and the definitions of addition and identity.

    Math is not burdened with describing apples. It just happens to do so. Or does it?
  40. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    Math is not burdened with describing apples. It just happens to do so. Or does it?
    It's not describing apples or any other objects, its describing quantitative relations. So, if tomorrow you had two items, added two more, and ended up with five, the statement 2+2=4 would be proven to be demonstrably false, as would all of mathematics.

    Not saying its' going to happen, just saying we can't prove it won't.
  41. #191
    In fact, I'm surprised an empiricist and deep skeptic line Ong is so willing to accept mathematics as a proven theory, given the paucity of the evidence.
  42. #192
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    if tomorrow you had two items, added two more, and ended up with five, the statement 2+2=4 would be proven to be demonstrably false, as would all of mathematics.
    These are 2 different things.

    The premise is based on you observing items.
    The conclusion is that counting is flawed.
    The conclusion does not follow.

    Review the fundamental assertions of math:
    1) That identity is a meaningful thing. I.e. that an idea is separate from another idea, and it is meaningful to say 1 idea.
    It's absurdly impossible to define the number one without being self-referential, which is generally bad form in defining. Nonetheless, the fundamental conceit of mathematics is that we can do this and it's all gravy.

    2) There is an Increment Function, such that we assign an order of words/symbols/etc. to sets of 1's. E.g. 1, 2, 3...
    Note that this is defining N + 1 = (N+1), for all N (whole numbers). I.e. this implicitly defines addition and equality.

    These 2 ideas and the logic of algebra is all that is needed to derive subtraction, multiplication and division, exponents, logarithms, etc.


    In summary:
    I'm not sure your thought experiment "What if tomorrow 2+2=5?" is meaningful.
  43. #193
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    paucity
  44. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    These are 2 different things.

    The premise is based on you observing items.
    The conclusion is that counting is flawed.
    The conclusion does not follow.
    I'm not saying I'm sitting in my basement doing an experiment and making a measurement error, or whatever it is you meant by that.

    I'm saying this is what happens - starting tomorrow any time two things are added to two things, five things result. It's crazy, no-one believes it at first, but it turns out it's replicable and reliable (but only on the first Sunday of each month starting tomorrow - for the sake of fun). Now we've disproven maths because it says quantitative relations are constant.
  45. #195
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    In fact, I'm surprised an empiricist and deep skeptic line Ong is so willing to accept mathematics as a proven theory, given the paucity of the evidence.
    I was excellent at Maths at school, way ahead of my peers. Maths is beautifully simple and complex at the same time. Mojo nails the issues at stake here... 2+2=4 will always be the case, because 2 is well defined, so is plus, and so is equals. For 2+2 to = 5, we must redefine either the numbers or the functions.

    To say that maybe tomorrow 2+2=5, therefore maths is unproven, is absurd, more so than anything I've typed in this thread.

    I didn't define it myself, I learned the proper definition through study. That gives me more credibility as an authority on the topic than someone who hasn't done that. Do you disagree?
    No, I don't disagree with this. If you insist that googling something to define it is insufficient, and mojo doesn't argue with you, I'll have to accept that you're not just typing words to argue with me.

    Not at all. But my argument isn't that you should believe me. My argument is that we have specialists who've already done the hard work on it, and they overwhelmingly agree AGW is real.
    And experts once overhwlemingly agreed that the atom was the building block of all matter.

    Overwhelming consensus is NOT FACT, this is the entire basis of my argument.

    You're asking science for 'proof' but you're not qualified to judge what qualifies as evidence. They say they have sufficient evidence already. But you want to argue you're better positioned to judge what counts as sufficient evidence than they are. And it ain't so.
    Very few people are qualified to judge, by this measure. And so, skeptics like me become concerned that the masses are being duped by those who are "qualified", and then beaten down for being too stupid to understand the intricate details at hand.

    Meanwhile you're making feeble arguments...
    Hey, I'm just saying climate change theory might be wrong. You're arguing there's no way we can be certain maths isn't wrong. I'd say your argument is more feeble than mine, because at least I'm arguing about a complex theory that is contentious, rather than an established and well defined system. You're trying to muddy the waters when it comes to "proof". By your measure, nothing is provable. And in this realm, we might as well question our very existence. If I can't be certain that 2+2 will = 5 tomorrow, how can I be certain that that I even exist? How can I be certain that drinking water will stop me from dehydrating? How can I be certain that breathing will provide the oxygen I need to survive? How can I be certain of anything at all?

    Maths is the most basic of certainties that we have. I am more certain that tomorrow 2+2 will = 4 than anything else I can think of. Mathematics sets the bar, from my point of view at least it's how we can even begin to define "certain".
    Last edited by OngBonga; 01-07-2017 at 01:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #196
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Math is a beautiful and interesting thing we are aware of, but it does not have the burden of describing anything aside from itself.
    Maths describes everything in the universe. If something cannot be described in terms of mathemtaics, then it is either false, or we need to better understand the maths involved.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #197
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    The coincidence of the famous "hockey stick graph"...
    If the hockey stick graph is reliable, then it's reasonable to make the assumptions we're making. But how reliable is it? Really? It uses data from before we could even measure temperature. So when such a graph is presented as factual, the skeptic in me says "wtf".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #198
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Climate change for me is rather like the big bang. I could be seen as a big bang denier, because I don't accept what is considered to be the overwhelming consensus that the big bang was the birth of the universe. I find other theories to be more palatable, such as torus theory. In such a model, the big bang is a continuous event at the centre of the universe.

    Am I qualified to make this judgement? Of course not. Does that mean I shouldn't think about it? Of course not. Does it mean I shouldn't discuss it? Of course not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    To say that maybe tomorrow 2+2=5, therefore maths is unproven, is absurd, more so than anything I've typed in this thread.
    You only say this because of your blind trust in mathematicians and their so-called facts. You have no way of knowing what might happen tomorrow.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And experts once overhwlemingly agreed that the atom was the building block of all matter.
    If your point is that 'experts are sometimes wrong, therefore the experts can be wrong on AGW', then there's no argument here.

    However, if your point is that experts being fallible is a good reason to think they are probably wrong about AGW, then I disagree.

    If you add up all the points of science on which there's a 98% consensus among the experts, I'd bet that the overwhelmingly number of them have never been disproved.





    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Overwhelming consensus is NOT FACT, this is the entire basis of my argument.
    No-one is saying it is.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Very few people are qualified to judge, by this measure. And so, skeptics like me become concerned that the masses are being duped by those who are "qualified", and then beaten down for being too stupid to understand the intricate details at hand.
    This is another way you lose ground, by suggesting that there's some 'duping' going on, and that you're somehow being insulted by being called a non-expert in the field. It's as if you think that you're somehow able to discern the truth on your own just by dint of having a better-than-average IQ, notwithstanding that you haven't looked carefully at the evidence, haven't been trained to understand the evidence, and don't seem interested in changing either one of these things. Otherwise, you wouldn't be offended when someone calls you a non-expert.

    If you had just stuck with 'they could be wrong', I'd go along. When you start adding in these paranoid theories about the scientists having ulterior motives about tricking you into a false conclusion about AGW, and calling you a dummy, it sounds like you think they're being paid off by the people who build windmills or just screwing with your head 'cause they have nothing better to do. You have no evidence for these kinds motives, yet words like the bolded imply that these are your real reasons for doubting AGW.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Hey, I'm just saying climate change theory might be wrong. You're arguing there's no way we can be certain maths isn't wrong. I'd say your argument is more feeble than mine, because at least I'm arguing about a complex theory that is contentious, rather than an established and well defined system. You're trying to muddy the waters when it comes to "proof". By your measure, nothing is provable. And in this realm, we might as well question our very existence. If I can't be certain that 2+2 will = 5 tomorrow, how can I be certain that that I even exist? How can I be certain that drinking water will stop me from dehydrating? How can I be certain that breathing will provide the oxygen I need to survive? How can I be certain of anything at all?

    Maths is the most basic of certainties that we have. I am more certain that tomorrow 2+2 will = 4 than anything else I can think of. Mathematics sets the bar, from my point of view at least it's how we can even begin to define "certain".
    This part of the argument was about yours and/or google's definition of science. It had nothing to do with AGW, except inasmuch as you applied your arguments to say that climate science was really climate philosophy.
  50. #200
    I'm interested by this topic but not sure how much value I can add.

    Ways in which 2+2 could =5???:

    Maybe it equals five right now, we just don't have the tools to observe that. Maybe to a super-dimensional creature, it could equal every quantity at once. Maybe if on Sunday morning you have four apples in front you, maybe if you cock your head slightly there are five apples.

    Or maybe 2 and 2 can never =5 without changing the definitions/elements of the variables.


    Maybe what's going on here is that Mademoiselle Poopy is talking about a change in scientific observation (like if you take two apples and put them in a basket with two apples and you end up with five apples), while Senorita MMM is talking about a definition (like when two is defined a certain way, adding another two can only yield one exact result). Maybe in the situation of observing two and two apples placed in a bucket yielding five apples, something else happened while 2+2 still =4.
  51. #201
    Hey Dame Bonga, what are some alternative theories to the big bang? Torus sounds neat.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 01-07-2017 at 02:48 PM.
  52. #202
    I do think it is very reasonable to say that in some significant ways, the big bang as thought of today is not correct. I think most (all) physicists would agree with that too.
  53. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    Ways in which 2+2 could =5???:
    That's the beauty of it; it's so outside our realm of experience that we find it inconceivable and absurd. But because it's never happened in the past does not prove that it can't ever happen in the future. There may be an as-yet-undiscovered law of the universe that once every 5 billion years turns maths on its head.
  54. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    That's the beauty of it; it's so outside our realm of experience that we find it inconceivable and absurd. But because it's never happened in the past does not prove that it can't ever happen in the future. There may be an as-yet-undiscovered law of the universe that once every 5 billion years turns maths on its head.
    Really though it was just a really shit example for the point you were trying to make. Which is a shame as the point you were making was interesting and had the potential to create good discussion whereas what we got instead was vitamin c.
  55. #205
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    You only say this because of your blind trust in mathematicians and their so-called facts. You have no way of knowing what might happen tomorrow.
    Yup. However, my blind trust in mathematics is more well founded than any other blind trust.

    However, if your point is that experts being fallible is a good reason to think they are probably wrong about AGW, then I disagree.
    What makes you think I think they're probably wrong?

    No-one is saying it is.
    Maybe not here, but in terms of the way it is presented through media, it's as good as fact. Anyone who argues otherwise is deemed a crank, or a conspiracy nut.

    This is another way you lose ground, by suggesting that there's some 'duping' going on, and that you're somehow being insulted by being called a non-expert in the field.
    What makes you think I feel insulted?

    You have no evidence for these kinds motives, yet words like the bolded imply that these are your real reasons for doubting AGW.
    You're actually right here. I mean, most of the stuff I say is me playing devil's advocate because I quite enjoy arguing about shit. But the reason I can sit here and take this position is because I lost faith in the integrity of the system with 9/11. Do I believe every conspiracy theory as a result? Of course not, but I certainly lend them more weight than the average person does.

    It's interesting, because you point at my blind faith in maths, while you put your faith in the integrity of the system that educates our scientists. I refer you back to my point about my blind faith being more well founded than others.



    Quote Originally Posted by wuf
    Hey Dame Bonga, what are some alternative theories to the big bang? Torus sounds neat.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-...f_the_universe

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #206
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    I mean that link doesn't say much, I'm playing poker and was lazy, just hit wikipedia. Dig around if you actually find it interesting, I like this model because it's eternal, both in future and past. I really don't think you can go one way but not the other when it comes to the infinity of time. I've always hated big bang theory because a beginning implies an end.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #207
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    And it's worth noting that big bang theory still works, it's just we no longer see it as the beginning of the universe. Now it's the central region of the universe, around which the rest of the universe rotates. Expansion and contraction, in equilibrium.

    I guess one other problem I've always had with big bang is that I went to a CoE school as a kid, so it was presented as God lighting the fuse.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #208
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,792
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
  59. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    ...you put your faith in the integrity of the system that educates our scientists.
    I've been through that education myself, and am part of that system myself.

    If your argument is along the lines of 'all of these climate scientists may have been corrupted', I can't prove they haven't. But there is a great deal of emphasis placed on academic integrity in science and a lot of internal checks as well. For example, if you try to make a name for yourself by making data up you may become a star in your field for six months, but the truth will come out when no-one can replicate your made up data. When that happens, you'll be discredited. After that, no-one will take you seriously ever again. Goodbye reputation, goodbye funding, goodbye promotions.

    This is why science tends to attract honest people.

    If your argument is 'how do we know the experts are actually qualified to evaluate the evidence?', then I guess we don't. One reason to believe this is that the overall record of science has been pretty good. There have been errors made to be sure, but the matters in which there has been such a large consensus have usually ended up showing the consensus to be right.

    All of that said, the climate is a very complex system and a difficult one to model, because 1) the number of variables and their interactions are huge and can probably never be fully understood; and 2) small changes in input parameters can lead to large changes in outputs (i.e., the butterfly effect). So I think we have to temper our expectations regarding how precise the predictions can be.
  60. #210
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No, I don't disagree with this. If you insist that googling something to define it is insufficient, and mojo doesn't argue with you, I'll have to accept that you're not just typing words to argue with me.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And in this realm, we might as well question our very existence. If I can't be certain that 2+2 will = 5 tomorrow, how can I be certain that that I even exist? How can I be certain that drinking water will stop me from dehydrating? How can I be certain that breathing will provide the oxygen I need to survive? How can I be certain of anything at all?


  61. #211
    Perhaps two and two can never equal five because then they would not be two and two anymore. It's like if you wake up tomorrow and all frogs are squirrels. But how can that be? A frog that is a squirrel is not a frog; it's a squirrel. So we're left with a situation in which squirrels are squirrels and there are no frogs.
  62. #212
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,356
    Location
    Finding my game
    ^That's not a good comparison. Species are human labels on organisms that fit certain less than exhaustive criteria on their evolutionary paths. Wake up after enough tomorrows and the frogs won't be recognizable as frogs anymore. Otherwise I agree completely, 2 is just a label for an arithmetical value, just quite a bit more constant than a frog, as far as we know.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  63. #213
    The idea I'm getting at is that for two and two to be five, it might necessarily mean that they aren't two. Perhaps my analogy is no good.
  64. #214
    Let's try a different tack:

    How do you know there's such a thing as gravity? Because when you jump up you come down again (and any other number of reasons). And it's been consistently that way for as long as anyone knows.

    Now, how do you know there will still be gravity tomorrow?
  65. #215
    You don't, but that could be a different idea. What about if you said that tomorrow you wake up and gravity pushes you away from mass instead of pulls towards. Would it still be gravity then?
  66. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You don't...
    That's right.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ...but that could be a different idea.
    But you don't know that if tomorrow you put two and two together, you'll get four either.

    Imagine the laws of the universe changed so that every time two things were put with two like things, an extra thing was created to make five things. Would 2+2=4 still be correct?
  67. #217
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    But you don't know that if tomorrow you put two and two together, you'll get four either.
    I do.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #218
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Imagine the laws of the universe changed so that every time two things were put with two like things, an extra thing was created to make five things. Would 2+2=4 still be correct?
    There's a key word here.

    "Imagine".

    Imagination is the only way 2+2=5.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #219
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,792
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
    This literally happens all the time, especially in science.

    2+2=6 is much less likely to occur.
  70. #220
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    I have no idea what you're talking about but it doesn't sound like maths to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Imagination is the only way 2+2=5.
    How do you know?

    Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't prove it won't happen in the future.
  72. #222
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,792
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I have no idea what you're talking about but it doesn't sound like maths to me.
    Would you think differently If it was 1,000,002.+1,000,002. = 1,000,005.?
  73. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There's a key word here.

    "Imagine".
    This is the only word we can use to describe the future. Unless you've been there and haven't told us.
  74. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
    I think I see what you're getting at, but there's no larger or smaller values of 2. When we write '2' we mean '2.0000000000...ad infinitum' So it's not that 2.49999 rounds down to 2 and therefore if 2.49999+2.49999 = 4.999998 and we round that to 5 we show that 2+2=5.

    In other words, it's not a mathematical problem given the laws of mathematics today. Obviously 2+2=4 today. The question is what grounds do we have for assuming that 2+2=4 is a constant state of the universe that will go on forever? Past observations. But what we can predict from past observations with 100% certainty? The past.


    The famous example is the turkey and the farmer. Every day for his entire life the turkey gets fed by the farmer. Based on these observations, the turkey builds a model of the world in which the farmer is the guy who shows up once a day to feed him. So when the sun comes up on Thanksgiving Day the turkey sees the farmer coming and thinks the farmer is going to feed him again. Instead, chop! How could the turkey have predicted that the farmer was going to do that? There was nothing in the past to suggest it.

    IOW, we can't generalise from things we have observed to things we haven't observed. It may be that what is true today is not going to be true tomorrow, and we have no way of knowing it one way or the other.
  75. #225
    I thought you were making an interesting point but it turns out you're just missing the point. It's never not going to be 2+2=4 because the fact it is isn't reliant on anything but maths itself. It might turn out that the whole subject is a crock of shit but it's still consistent with itself.

Posting Permissions

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