Attempting to compare scientific consensus today with the type of consensus that Galileo and Copernicus were fighting is like comparing an oxcart to a Prius. They were only similar in that they both rolled.
Insofar as your views on cosmic rays and such, I can only think that you read too much of Mike Asher's blog on Dailytech. I'm not sure if he's going to be posting too much to it anymore after that catastrophe with his most recent post.
As I've said before the correlations between human activity and global warming aren't proven, but the piles and piles of evidence for it make it highly probable. For some reason this is good enough for other public policy, but again MMGW along with evolution get held to higher standards for some inexplicable reason. If you want to ignore the views of the vast majority of the scientific community, enjoy yourself. I will side with the experts on subjects I am not an expert on... it's what rational people do.
That's about it.
I have no strong belief in MMGW or GW of any kind. I consider the science to be unsettled and open to debate. I do however recognize there is a majority and minority opinions. Until the numbers change with real scientific evidence I'm accepting the majority opinion. I think I would require some sort of bias to do otherwise, some bizarre notion, for example that majority science is always wrong, or some need to feel special or self important or because I have a wild hair growing in my ass. And you already suggested you take comfort in being a freak.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
What if you suspected the so-called majority opinion might driven by an agenda and not purely objective?
Otherwise, I'm not big on "majority opinion". Too many examples where it was wrong, whether it be "flat earth" stuff of old, or slavery is fine a few hundred years ago. All examples of majority opinions at one time.
Isn't majority opinion a nicer way of saying "lemming or sheeple"?
Fern
A study of myself has taught me that when I suspect others of having an agenda it is generally a projection of the presence of my own agenda. And of course the majority opinion you seem to mistrust is a majority of the brightest and most scientifically educated people on the planet. Can they be wrong. Most certainly. Are they likely to be as wrong as some minority of their own kind. That is not as likely. What is more likely is that they are right within the parameters of the known. It is why we gather and compare opinions to cull out and apply those which are most in favor. I see no lemming or sheeple concept to be involved because I go with what's favored even against my own bias. I do not like, for example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It offends my sense of reason and fair play.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,785
- 6,345
- 126
What if Carbon Capture has a high fail rate after a certain time period or even Carbon Volume? Then what will we do after going ahead with increased Coal useage on the assumption that CC would solve that problem?
Those are questions left unanswered because we simply don't know enough about that process yet. I continue to be amused by those who go to great lengths to deny the overwhelming evidence supporting GW and Humanity's contribution to it, yet become champions of all sorts of flimsy opinions and verbose arguments that completely lack any kind of scientific study. It's almost as if desperation has set in and that admitting one is wrong is the unforgivable Sin.
Those are questions left unanswered because we simply don't know enough about that process yet. I continue to be amused by those who go to great lengths to deny the overwhelming evidence supporting GW and Humanity's contribution to it, yet become champions of all sorts of flimsy opinions and verbose arguments that completely lack any kind of scientific study. It's almost as if desperation has set in and that admitting one is wrong is the unforgivable Sin.
Your psychological analysis is right on in my opinion but I can't foresee any disasters happening turning CO2 into calcium carbonate rocks.
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
Something we can agree on. At worst CCW does nothing and creates some harmless rock. At best, it dramatically reduces the carbon load leading to much cleaner air water and soil. To me, it's worth tryng. No harm to do so at all and everything to gain in benefits tothe environment.
You're right. But it would keep us from producing more, which is one step forward. Not doing this is two steps backwards in front of the bus. If I have a cholesterol count of 500, should I do nothing, or would not eating red meat be a good start?
I completely agree. Just saying that if we want to do this and the CO2 is valuable as a byproduct we will need to build additional scrubbers if we want to actually reduce the CO2. I think Craig Venter is working right now on genetically engineering microbes to make gasoline from CO2 and plans to get the oil companies on board or put them out of business.
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I completely agree. Just saying that if we want to do this and the CO2 is valuable as a byproduct we will need to build additional scrubbers if we want to actually reduce the CO2. I think Craig Venter is working right now on genetically engineering microbes to make gasoline from CO2 and plans to get the oil companies on board or put them out of business.
Yes, there is some very interesting bio-engineering going on in this area. Kind of exciting to see how fast alternate energy sources are being developed. Still may be years away from widescale use, but let's get moving forward on many fronts now. I don't believe in MMGW but there is absolutely no reason to dump CO2 or any other gas/particulate into the air needlessly. Let's clean up our planet now.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Remember when scientific consensus was that ulcers were caused by stress and were treated by prescribing bland diets?that was until Marshall and Warren discovered that ulcers were primarily caused by bacteria. I like to read science news and it's relatively common to read of discoveries that fly in the face of consensus. What was consensus before quantum mechanics, Big Bang theory, Darwin, etc.? If the history of science teaches us anything...it's humility.
Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly.
Moonbeam, if looking at various sides of an issue and thinking for myself is being a "freak"?then so be it. But dude?just in case you didn't know?you live in a glass house.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the majority opinion of thousands of scientists across every industrialized nation on earth are somehow all driven by some mysterious agenda that must prove MMGW. Zero evidence. And it's not a 'so-called' majority opinion. That's misleading and false. It simply is the majority opinion. (and not a narrow majority, a vast majority)
As far as not taking majority opinion, what alternative do you suggest? Obviously there's no way that someone can become an expert on everything, particularly something as complex as climate change. So, instead of taking the opinion of thousands upon thousands of people who have spent their entire lives studying it... you want to discount it because people have been wrong in the past? By that logic you can never really believe anything ever almost. How do I know the Revolutionary War or the Holocaust happened? It's just majority opinion. Are we being sheep for believing it happened, or are we just being normal, rational, non-insane people?
The MMGW debate has simply become another one where people are blinded by ideology. This is the only reason I can think of for so many people with so little information to fight so furiously against the recommendations of nearly all major scientific organizations. If this were any other topic, it wouldn't even be an issue and you know it.
There in is the flaw in your logic, we don't understand the world, yet you and other environmentalist believe they do and that what they say is the right course of action.
How about this, Want to make a bigger difference. Start making plastics out of CO2. It can be done, I was watching a show on History about garbage and talking about how plastic (which is made from oil) doesn't bio degrade and there for will be around in our dumps and in the ocean for a long, long long time. Now if they made the plastics from CO2, the plastic would bio-degrade and essentially turn back into CO2.
Now, you have dumps that fill up with trash and one of the by products of those dumps is Oxygen good for people, and CO2, not so good. It is in essence a cyclic way of maintaining plastics.
But most environmentalists would rather us all suffer and learn our lesson, than to actually do something about changing it. Or like some of the wackos would suggest that we need to cull the population in half to lessen the load on Mother Earth.
:disgust:
If you really think you can make a polymer from CO2,
1. Do it.
2. Patent it.
3. Profit!
You would make so much money off this technology that you would be able to retire in a week. Of course, you might want to take a course in polymer science and chemistry before you quit your day job.
DSF: Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly.
M: I think I made it perfectly clear that I temper my herd mentality, that going with the consensus does not imply herd mentality at all. The fact that you seem to think it does is where I think your bias and preference for alternative explanations may lie. You may have some unconscious need to be different from the consensus our of some hidden contempt for people. Many are different for the sake of being different. Some are just different because they are different. But in no case do I deny that new information alters old opinion and I'm not attached to consensus for any other reason than it's our best guess science today. I see no reason to defend that position and every reason why you have the job of proving your novelty.
DSF: Moonbeam, if looking at various sides of an issue and thinking for myself is being a "freak"?then so be it. But dude?just in case you didn't know?you live in a glass house.
Hehe, we always emphasize the true part of our thinking when we defend wrong conclusions related to such truth. It is good to look at various sides of an issue and it is good to think for yourself. What becomes a problem is when thinking for yourself leads to conclusions that arise from hidden prejudices, such as conclusions that are different because of some personal need, or conclusions that deny responsibilities one may otherwise have.
And I don't just live in a glass house, I live in a house of mirrors.
M: I think I made it perfectly clear that I temper my herd mentality, that going with the consensus does not imply herd mentality at all. The fact that you seem to think it does is where I think your bias and preference for alternative explanations may lie. You may have some unconscious need to be different from the consensus our of some hidden contempt for people. Many are different for the sake of being different. Some are just different because they are different. But in no case do I deny that new information alters old opinion and I'm not attached to consensus for any other reason than it's our best guess science today. I see no reason to defend that position and every reason why you have the job of proving your novelty.
DSF: Moonbeam, if looking at various sides of an issue and thinking for myself is being a "freak"?then so be it. But dude?just in case you didn't know?you live in a glass house.
Hehe, we always emphasize the true part of our thinking when we defend wrong conclusions related to such truth. It is good to look at various sides of an issue and it is good to think for yourself. What becomes a problem is when thinking for yourself leads to conclusions that arise from hidden prejudices, such as conclusions that are different because of some personal need, or conclusions that deny responsibilities one may otherwise have.
And I don't just live in a glass house, I live in a house of mirrors.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
I'd appreciate it if you would spare me the armchair psychoanalysis?please answer specifically, what wrong conclusion am I defending?
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,975
- 141
- 106
..that's what they want. a tribal existence dragging women around by their hair. A return to a dog eat dog world. The eco-thiest also wants a return of large scale disease and epidemic culling. Many of them engage in the "imagine" game of what the world would be like with no humans. All symptomatic of the death cult behind the facade of "enviromentalism".
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
I believe it is called exagerating to make a point. I understand and agree with his point, not the specific words. Do you understand the point? Not calling you out, but do you really understand why environmentalism as you and others define it is pointless? It does nothing to protect the environment, only hold hostage ordinary people while environmentalists try to return Earth to what they consider a pristine, Utopian environment - preferably free of mankind.
I would love to hear how you think I define environmentalism. I can only assume you are exaggerating to make a point in your description of environmentalism, because that would be a ridiculous position to take.
That all being said, if IGBT was exaggerating to make a point, he exaggerates to make a point in every single one of his posts... because this is pretty normal stuff for him.
You go from:
"Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts
To:
"and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly."
You have created a true, but unnecessarily fervent, almost religious, appeal to the progressive aspect of the scientific method, and somehow erroneously heaped the intended purpose of that methodology, to arrive at understanding that are in the best judgment of the evidence, into some sort of piled up herd mentality. The fact that a herd mentality can form around any point of view does not mean that anybody who holds that view does so out of herd mentality. You show biased reasoning. You show some sort of predilection for what may only be novel as if you fear thinking like others. I see it as some sort of ego problem. But then again, you do not want the benefit of another kind of science applied to you, apparently. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that is that.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
If I understand you correctly...the wrong conclusion I'm defending is the fact that I used the phrase "herd mentality" to describe those who form their opinions based on the "consensus" of others? So...this is what has your panties in a bunch?
LOL, I present you with facts (which you obviously can't refute) and all you have is a trivial objection to my choice of words to describe those who've obviously haven't make the slightest effort to inform themselves on the subject, much less evaluate the potential validity of "nonconsensus" perspectives. Wow...that's all you got? Surely you have better things to get all worked up about.
BTW...you conclude your post saying "There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that is that." For the record, I agree with you and I never said there wasn't scientific consensus. I'm not sure why you would say this unless you're totally misunderstanding my comments.
And lastly...I see that you still can't restrain yourself from your desire to personally belittle me with your pathetic attempts to assess my motives and shortcomings. Perhaps you should consider reassessing your own personal motives and shortcomings before inflicting your sagely wisdom on others. Just a thought. Peace?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter