hrothgar Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 For the last 5 years, everything I have seen and understood leads me to the conclusion that a lot of well-meaning people (scientists and others) have been taken in by their tendency to want to save the world. Others are just on the gravy train or even into self-aggrandizement through the propagation of their pronouncements. As I recall, this was about the same time that you moved on from explaining the "truth" behind 9-11... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 As I recall, this was about the same time that you moved on from explaining the "truth" behind 9-11...I searched this site and found Al still arguing in 2009 for his conviction that the US government was behind the 9-11 collapse of the world trade center buildings... So that's part of what's included in: I have seen it all in a career of 35 years in [an unspecified] industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Sadly, all that the warmists are left with are ad-hominems and consensus mantras...what a shame and what a poor replacement for critical thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Sadly, all that the warmists are left with are ad-hominems and consensus mantras...what a shame and what a poor replacement for critical thinking. Why is that stupid people are always the ones complaining about ad-hominem attacks? For what its worth, argumentum ad hominem is perfectly valid if you are drawing attention to character flaws that are directly relevant to the discussion at hand. In this case, we're simply pointing out that you have a well established history of advocating crank conspiracy theories... The fact that you spent several years arguing that the US government blew up the world trade center seems salient on a number of fronts. I can't firmly establish whether this means that: 1. Al-U-Card is a troll, desperately hoping that being mocked on the internet somehow validates his existence2. Al-U-Card is a crank, who get's drawn in to inane conspiracy theories Either way, the fact that you advocate one stupid theory would seem to be a valid critique of your capacity for critical thinking. As to why I bring this up... It's the same reason that we gives D's and F's on report cards. It's useful short hand for "This individual really shouldn't be trusted with anything important" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 I searched this site and found Al still arguing in 2009 for his conviction that the US government was behind the 9-11 collapse of the world trade center buildings...i coulda sworn that was winston... Why is that stupid people are always the ones complaining about ad-hominem attacks?usually it's the stupid people using the argument For what its worth, argumentum ad hominem is perfectly valid if you are drawing attention to character flaws that are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.within certain narrow guidelines, it is sometimes permissible, but usually when showing some sort of hypocrisy, some sort of inconsistency... even then it doesn't necessarily show a *logical* inconsistency Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 i coulda sworn that was winston... No doubt about it. Winston stated that this seemed plausible on multiple occasions, over a long course of time. Here's the difference... Winston eventually changed his mind (which is a very hard thing to do) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 usually it's the stupid people using the argument Not so sure about that... I see lots and lots of people complained about ad-hominem attacks these days, when what is really happening is that folks are pointing out that someone's track record for prognostication is pretty damn weak. As a practical example, the fact that the Heartland Institute was a paid shill for the tobacco lobby compromises any claim to objectivity regarding global warming... FWIW, these days, I spend a lot of my time working with ensemble learning algorithms. (Boosted and bagged decision trees, that sort of thing) Many of these algorithms are based on "ad-hominem" attacks... You identity learners that don't generate accurate predictions.You remove them from the mix...And the system as a whole runs better You know, like the good old days when Buckley helped drive the Birchers out of the Republican party and out of political discourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Perhaps I can only speak for myself but I judge the plausibility of many claims based on the source. If we really had to withhold judgment until we had read all the papers and done all the experiments ourselves we would be unable to come to many conclusions. I think that the Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is correct not because I have read it (I expect I could if I set aside a year or two for intense study to learn the background material) but because I trust the vetting process that it has gone through. In the other direction some years back I was told of some personal growth and investing program. I shun these on general principles but when I learned that it was run by Eberhard of Eberhard Sensitivity Training I certainly needed to hear no more. I doubt astrology has merit although I have been told that if I would just read all the research I would see that it does. I would not invest money with Bernie Madoff no matter what he, or anyone, said. We make such judgments all the time, or at least I do. I suspect others do too, and for that matter I imagine Al does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 We make such judgments all the time, or at least I do. I suspect others do too, and for that matter I imagine Al does. You might also take a look at all of the posts in this thread. If you look at the contents, the data, the factual information and the nature and tenor of the presentations, the judgement becomes an easy decision, based on the science, as it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 You might also take a look at all of the posts in this thread. If you look at the contents, the data, the factual information and the nature and tenor of the presentations, the judgement becomes an easy decision, based on the science, as it should be. What you are conveniently neglecting is that people spent years refuting the crap you spew. You post one badly flawed argument...A couple days later, someone would post a list of the mistakes. This went on for a really long time. Your arguments never got any better.Folks just got sick and tired of responding to you. Hell, a significant portion of the crap that you post clashes with earlier *****. You've even admitted that you aren't focusing on a scientific hypothesis.Rather, your raison d'etre is trying to prove the existence of conspiracy (Probably the same one the blew up the twin towers) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 No doubt about it. Winston stated that this seemed plausible on multiple occasions, over a long course of time. Here's the difference... Winston eventually changed his mind (which is a very hard thing to do) I can clarify this. I had a lot of questions and doubts and thought that a conspiracy was within the realm of the possible. I was shown to be wrong in that thinking, and I changed my mind about the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 You know, like the good old days when Buckley helped drive the Birchers out of the Republican party and out of political discourse.yep, good old bill... there hasn't been one as honest as him since he died We make such judgments all the time, or at least I do. I suspect others do too, and for that matter I imagine Al does.everybody appeals to authority of one sort or another... it is, strictly speaking, a fallacy to do so, but what choice do we have? Michelangelo isn't coming back I can clarify this. I had a lot of questions and doubts and thought that a conspiracy was within the realm of the possible. I was shown to be wrong in that thinking, and I changed my mind about the matter.okay, i must have missed your post about changing your mind... mea culpa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I some are still referring to the Doran survey, which only says that 97% agree that the planet has warmed, and that humans have contributed. For a more thorough survey, check the following: http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I some are still referring to the Doran survey, which only says that 97% agree that the planet has warmed, and that humans have contributed. For a more thorough survey, check the following: http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf My personal view on this George Mason survey is that it is pretty worthless - asking an association of meteorologists what they think about global warming and climate change is only slightly better than taking a poll of random college students. I'm really not sure what this particular poll was trying to accomplish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I'm really not sure what this particular poll was trying to accomplish.just trying to get a consensus i imagine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 just trying to get a consensus i imagine A concensus of the 25% of the association members who bothered to respond? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 A concensus of the 25% of the association members who bothered to respond?hey, you build yours your way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonottawa Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Deal with overpopulation and you solve this problem. Don't deal with overpopulation and even if you manage to solve this problem another one will crop up that is just as bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 My personal view on this George Mason survey is that it is pretty worthless - asking an association of meteorologists what they think about global warming and climate change is only slightly better than taking a poll of random college students. I'm really not sure what this particular poll was trying to accomplish. A reasonably well-designed survey of reasonably informed people does not sound crazy to me. By itself, I wouldn't think of it as conclusive of much of anything, but I would expect that the people who were asked, and who bothered to respond, probably know a fair amount more about the subject than I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 A reasonably well-designed survey of reasonably informed people does not sound crazy to me. By itself, I wouldn't think of it as conclusive of much of anything, but I would expect that the people who were asked, and who bothered to respond, probably know a fair amount more about the subject than I do. It seems rather pointless is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 hey, you build yours your way Can you cherry-pick a survey? With 97% confidence, apparently... :P As noted by Lawrence Soloman of the National Post: This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout. The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma. To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming. Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today. As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t. In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists. Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings [2]. Are you? LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 As climate changes, Louisiana seeks to lift a highway On a broader level, the Transportation Department is already analyzing how global warming will affect the gulf. Its preliminary assessment, issued in 2008, estimates that relative sea-level rise “will make much of the existing infrastructure” in the region “prone to frequent or permanent inundation.” It will complete a study this year examining climate impact on transportation infrastructure in Mobile, Ala. Tim Osborn, NOAA navigation manager for the central Gulf Coast, describes the Highway 1 predicament as “a way we can look at climate change as having near-term impacts that are national in scope and impact.” A group of area residents and businesses, dubbed the LA 1 Coalition, have spent the past 15 years lobbying for funding to build the highway well above any possible storm surge or sea-level creep. Replacing the 10 miles closest to the port cost $371 million, paid for with local, state and federal funds plus a new bridge toll. Folks fuss about the cost of reducing the billions of tons of CO2 that mankind dumps into the air each year. But continuing to spew so much CO2 has costs as well -- immense costs. Seems that the fussers calculate that those immense costs will be borne by others, but that fantasy might turn back around on them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Deal with overpopulation and you solve this problem. Don't deal with overpopulation and even if you manage to solve this problem another one will crop up that is just as bad. Interestingly, the only sensible correlation with falling birth rates (and therefore an eventual reduction in population) comes from rising standards of living which, in turn, are related to energy availability as well as energy density/GNP. This implies that cheap and available energy is the key. Coal, gas and oil while we wait for fusion, perhaps? Unless you are willing to sacrifice your first-born? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 A concensus of the 25% of the association members who bothered to respond? OMG! I may just have to change my mind about consensus... 97% agreement must surely mean they are right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cthulhu D Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Al_U_Card: Was the US Government behind 9/11? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.