It doesn't. Not my fault some of you veered off on some tangent about the logical fallacy of consensus when this thread was originally about consensus vs public opinion. You really think the half of the public that thinks climate change is a conspiracy think that because consensus doesn't equal fact? They don't even believe there is a consensus, because politicans and the media pound it into their heads that there is a big controversy, and in turn that affects public policy in a way that is completely outside the realm of even discussing logical fallacies and the scientific method.
It doesn't. Not my fault some of you veered off on some tangent about the logical fallacy of consensus when this thread was originally about consensus vs public opinion. You really think the half of the public that thinks climate change is a conspiracy think that because consensus doesn't equal fact? They don't even believe there is a consensus, because politicans and the media pound it into their heads that there is a big controversy, and in turn that affects public policy in a way that is completely outside the realm of even discussing logical fallacies and the scientific method.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,391
- 19,709
- 146
No, early in the thread I gave a list of reasons why (not all, I'm sure there are more). Illogical consensus arguments were only one of many reasons.
The thread turned into an argument over consensus because so many could not grasp why arguing to a consensus was a logical fallacy. Which is what this very thread's title does.
Beats me, but I vote that all threads pertaining to global warming be moved to P&N. Likewise, all second-hand smoking threads should also be moved to P&N, along with any other thread topic that keeps reappearing and re-hashing the same arguments over and over and over again.
I didn't read the rest of the thread, but I agree with Amused (did I really just say that? 
) in that arguing from concensus is fallacious. Of course, I also tend to think that most public opinions are formed for fallacious reasons. This brings me to my next point, a point that may or may not have already been made.
Public opinion rarely seems to follow scientific opinion anyway, imo. The average person has little patience for scientific details, so explaining the idea of global warming in a scientific context does little to persuade the masses. If you put the same cause, obfuscate it with heavy hyperbole and put it in a movie with some iconoclast that people can identify with, then you have a foundation for a cause. So many people seem to be inherently reactive that they'll only respond to something after it has already happened, so asking for any foresight from the majority with respect to ecological concerns is hopeless. A platform is needed to usher change, and for the majority I believe that to be one of media and not of science.
You'll always have your fringe groups, your activists, your minority of people that try to anticipate change and prepare for it, but even in my career I've given up on the idea of providing evidence for a probable future in place of evidence that something has already happened.
IMO.
) in that arguing from concensus is fallacious. Of course, I also tend to think that most public opinions are formed for fallacious reasons. This brings me to my next point, a point that may or may not have already been made. Public opinion rarely seems to follow scientific opinion anyway, imo. The average person has little patience for scientific details, so explaining the idea of global warming in a scientific context does little to persuade the masses. If you put the same cause, obfuscate it with heavy hyperbole and put it in a movie with some iconoclast that people can identify with, then you have a foundation for a cause. So many people seem to be inherently reactive that they'll only respond to something after it has already happened, so asking for any foresight from the majority with respect to ecological concerns is hopeless. A platform is needed to usher change, and for the majority I believe that to be one of media and not of science.
You'll always have your fringe groups, your activists, your minority of people that try to anticipate change and prepare for it, but even in my career I've given up on the idea of providing evidence for a probable future in place of evidence that something has already happened.
IMO.
people are unwilling to go to the library and check out the scientific journals - especially if they can sit back, drink a beer, and get spoonfed the lies.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Why? Because you have blowhards like Gore out there.
Gore claims in his movie that the sea level is going to rise 20 feet! IPCC report says 23 inches at most.
Gore says polar bears are dieing! The polar bear population has exploded since the 80s. He based his assertion on a study that found four polar bears that drowned after being caught in a storm.
Gore says hurricanes are getting worse! Why hardly any hurricanes in 2006 and none that hit the US coast then? Why are there so many other scientists that dispute that global warming causes an increase in hurricanes?
Gore says you have to live a carbon neutral lifestyle! Meanwhile, Gore lives it up with his multiple houses, heated swimming pools, private jet travel, and SUV motorcades. It's all good though...Gore pays it back with "Carbon Offsets". Well, not exactly....An investment company that Gore helped found actually buys the "Carbon Offsets" for him...and we aren't exactly sure what these "Carbon Offsets" do to offset all of Gore's cabon emissions.
"Carbon Offsets" are like an obese person saying it's OK that they eat all the chocolate cake, ho-hos, and ding dongs they want because they pay another person to eat a side salad.
+++++++++++
Why am I skeptical? Because the Romans were growing grapes in England at one time. Vikings were farming Greenland as well. We're just around 150 years or so out of the Little Ice Age. In the history of the Earth, that is a tiny amount of time. It makes sense that the Earth has continued to warm since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Do I think we need to reduce pollution and find alternative energy sources? Absolutely. Less pollution is good for everybody. But I don't believe in anti-growth, tax heavy solutions to get us there like has been suggested through the Kyoto Treaty and the UN.
Gore claims in his movie that the sea level is going to rise 20 feet! IPCC report says 23 inches at most.
Gore says polar bears are dieing! The polar bear population has exploded since the 80s. He based his assertion on a study that found four polar bears that drowned after being caught in a storm.
Gore says hurricanes are getting worse! Why hardly any hurricanes in 2006 and none that hit the US coast then? Why are there so many other scientists that dispute that global warming causes an increase in hurricanes?
Gore says you have to live a carbon neutral lifestyle! Meanwhile, Gore lives it up with his multiple houses, heated swimming pools, private jet travel, and SUV motorcades. It's all good though...Gore pays it back with "Carbon Offsets". Well, not exactly....An investment company that Gore helped found actually buys the "Carbon Offsets" for him...and we aren't exactly sure what these "Carbon Offsets" do to offset all of Gore's cabon emissions.
"Carbon Offsets" are like an obese person saying it's OK that they eat all the chocolate cake, ho-hos, and ding dongs they want because they pay another person to eat a side salad.
+++++++++++
Why am I skeptical? Because the Romans were growing grapes in England at one time. Vikings were farming Greenland as well. We're just around 150 years or so out of the Little Ice Age. In the history of the Earth, that is a tiny amount of time. It makes sense that the Earth has continued to warm since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Do I think we need to reduce pollution and find alternative energy sources? Absolutely. Less pollution is good for everybody. But I don't believe in anti-growth, tax heavy solutions to get us there like has been suggested through the Kyoto Treaty and the UN.
First: no, I didn't assume anything, since you provided the answer in your first post. And no, it isn't rational - its based on a lie and on hilariously over-the-top personal biases.
Second, if you want to play the victim ("oh, why oh why do you insult me. You're not nice!~@!"), then perhaps you need to stop calling me 'smug' and 'elitist'. The truth of the matter is that when it comes to science, people are remarkably stupid. About 45% of Americans think humans were created as they are in the last 10000 years (link) and if that wasn't enough 70% of people (and this stat isn't just about Americans) can't even understand pop-science like NYT columns (link).
So sorry, I don't go for your little PC PoMo "oh, everybody is nice, everybody is smart. Reality is really just your subjective experience and everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's". Its not my "elitist superiority" saying saying people are stupid is simply fact. You can whine all you want, it's not going to change it.
I still dont see how TV personality "scientists" and hollywood can drive peoples feelings on this stuff.
Furthermore you cant really talk about it until youre well read on the subject.
Several of you need to pick up a damn science book because youre talking like retards.
1. Changes to jet stream: wind driven, not temperature driven. To stop or dramatically change the jet stream, youd have to dramatically change the temperature of the poles to match other areas of the earth. Simply changing the temperature of the earth on average does not change the jet stream.
2. Sea level: Most climatology research suggests inches in sea level rise, not feet.
3. Solar activity: This needs a LOT more research to be understood, even the IPCC report admits that they dont know much of anything about the sun or its heat output.
4. Carbon Dioxide: This is a greenhouse gas, but its not as potent as others. Furthermore whats the carbon dioxide amount in our atmosphere? 0.0360%. Studies have shown that the temperature change in the troposphere, which should be of greater magnitude than at the surface of the earth if carbon dioxide really does increase global temperature, has not increased by any measurable amount. Just an odd aside, if carbon dioxide is so effecient at trapping solar radiation, why is the average temperature of Mars -50C, its atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide.
Those things being said: I think global warming needs more INDEPENDANT STUDY WITH OTHER THEORIES. People need to stop acting like the research is over when we understand about 1/10th of the factors can that warm the earth. I also agree that cutting down pollution is a very big deal, id be ready to support a major new nuclear program now if it replaced coal/oil/ng plants.
Furthermore you cant really talk about it until youre well read on the subject.
Several of you need to pick up a damn science book because youre talking like retards.
1. Changes to jet stream: wind driven, not temperature driven. To stop or dramatically change the jet stream, youd have to dramatically change the temperature of the poles to match other areas of the earth. Simply changing the temperature of the earth on average does not change the jet stream.
2. Sea level: Most climatology research suggests inches in sea level rise, not feet.
3. Solar activity: This needs a LOT more research to be understood, even the IPCC report admits that they dont know much of anything about the sun or its heat output.
4. Carbon Dioxide: This is a greenhouse gas, but its not as potent as others. Furthermore whats the carbon dioxide amount in our atmosphere? 0.0360%. Studies have shown that the temperature change in the troposphere, which should be of greater magnitude than at the surface of the earth if carbon dioxide really does increase global temperature, has not increased by any measurable amount. Just an odd aside, if carbon dioxide is so effecient at trapping solar radiation, why is the average temperature of Mars -50C, its atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide.
Those things being said: I think global warming needs more INDEPENDANT STUDY WITH OTHER THEORIES. People need to stop acting like the research is over when we understand about 1/10th of the factors can that warm the earth. I also agree that cutting down pollution is a very big deal, id be ready to support a major new nuclear program now if it replaced coal/oil/ng plants.
SparkyJJO
Lifer
- May 16, 2002
- 13,357
- 7
- 81
It is mostly political so the government can get its greasy fingers into more stuff, make us pay out the nose for more regulations, and tax us to death. Worried about CO2? Plant more trees.
Maybe it is just because the sun could be going through a warm phase again?
My electronics teacher said that he finds this global warming thing kind of stupid because back in the 70's they were all screaming "global cooling" and said that the earth was going to freeze over.
Maybe it is just because the sun could be going through a warm phase again?
My electronics teacher said that he finds this global warming thing kind of stupid because back in the 70's they were all screaming "global cooling" and said that the earth was going to freeze over.
You know he's right about 45% of Americans believing that humans were created <10,000 years ago right?
A prime example of this repugnant marriage of political correctness and religiosity. "Beliefs" are sacred, cannot be called into question, judged, falsified and are just as valid everything else.
So thinking humans suddenly came to be 10k years ago is not stupid, but just as valid as saying humans evolved. Thinking GW is a vast global conspiracy by the socialist countries to keep America down (courtesy of GenX87 in P&N a few weeks ago) is just as valid as a climatologists study.
Yes, how elitist and smug of me to think that this could be "bad", when there isn't even such a thing!
Where in the Bible does it say humans were created 10k years ago? Just because some religious people believe such nonsense that's not even in the Bible does not make the faith "wrong."
Nice atheist propaganda you are running.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,391
- 19,709
- 146
90+% of this country (the US) is religious. Parroting "they're stupid" wont get you a damn thing but massive backlash.
Step back and look at your words. Please, just for a minute.
You call other people extremists but your words are the most extreme in this thread.
BTW, the global warming debate has just as much PC sacredness as religion... as evidenced by your very attitude.
What's atheist propaganda? That postulating something doesn't make it the truth? Yes, truly evil. Us atheofascists are really out the destroy society :roll:
Because journalists are not scientists. Most of them dont seem to understand or care about the most basic things, such as correlation not being causation, etc. A journalist must make the story entertaining, or else people will not read it. The scientist just has to be as accurate and honest as possible, to the best of their knowledge. Because if theyre not, they WILL be called out on it.
And since most of the people are going to get their info about this sh*t from the news, theyre therefore going to have a skewed perspective based on blatant misinterpretation, alongside a magnification of whatever controversy there may be.
And since most of the people are going to get their info about this sh*t from the news, theyre therefore going to have a skewed perspective based on blatant misinterpretation, alongside a magnification of whatever controversy there may be.
Great post. Though none of the fresh into college elitest fools will bother to read this post and digest what it's trying to say, mabey I should bold it, naw it won't make a difference.Originally posted by: Acanthus
I still dont see how TV personality "scientists" and hollywood can drive peoples feelings on this stuff.
Furthermore you cant really talk about it until youre well read on the subject.
Several of you need to pick up a damn science book because youre talking like retards.
1. Changes to jet stream: wind driven, not temperature driven. To stop or dramatically change the jet stream, youd have to dramatically change the temperature of the poles to match other areas of the earth. Simply changing the temperature of the earth on average does not change the jet stream.
2. Sea level: Most climatology research suggests inches in sea level rise, not feet.
3. Solar activity: This needs a LOT more research to be understood, even the IPCC report admits that they dont know much of anything about the sun or its heat output.
4. Carbon Dioxide: This is a greenhouse gas, but its not as potent as others. Furthermore whats the carbon dioxide amount in our atmosphere? 0.0360%. Studies have shown that the temperature change in the troposphere, which should be of greater magnitude than at the surface of the earth if carbon dioxide really does increase global temperature, has not increased by any measurable amount. Just an odd aside, if carbon dioxide is so effecient at trapping solar radiation, why is the average temperature of Mars -50C, its atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide.
Those things being said: I think global warming needs more INDEPENDANT STUDY WITH OTHER THEORIES. People need to stop acting like the research is over when we understand about 1/10th of the factors can that warm the earth. I also agree that cutting down pollution is a very big deal, id be ready to support a major new nuclear program now if it replaced coal/oil/ng plants.
To sum this up: Humans are too arrogant to realize they know so very little about their own planet.
Oh, I'm well aware of my simple words: that any adult with access to information that thinks humans winked into existence 10k years ago is mentally deficient. There is no nice way to say it because its not nice.
Nice try with the PCness, but no that's just your feeble childish "I know you are, but what am I?". And you have to remember that there's two debates: the actual one where discussion centres around what the impact will be and what we should be doing and the other one (like this and other ATOT ones) where the central issue is "Is it a vast conspiracy or not".
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