LandBeluga posted:fape posted:
finally, climate change is not, as far as humanity can tell, a calculable fact. it's not even something left up to chance. it's just a hypothesis that has yet to be proven in any large scale. this is evidenced by the many occasions on which scientists without even a hesitation declared that the world would inevitably end due to climate change in 1190, 1993 1995, 1999, 2000, etc. and then they were horribly wrong. but they'll be right this time, right? they have to be right this time. there's no way they can't be right this time.Citations required.
and yet, you take his absurd statistic of having a 70% chance of dying tomorrow without batting an eye.
fape posted:LandBeluga posted:fape posted:
finally, climate change is not, as far as humanity can tell, a calculable fact. it's not even something left up to chance. it's just a hypothesis that has yet to be proven in any large scale. this is evidenced by the many occasions on which scientists without even a hesitation declared that the world would inevitably end due to climate change in 1190, 1993 1995, 1999, 2000, etc. and then they were horribly wrong. but they'll be right this time, right? they have to be right this time. there's no way they can't be right this time.Citations required.
and yet, you take his absurd statistic of having a 70% chance of dying tomorrow without batting an eye.
i revised it to 93% due to his nation of origin. please try to keep up, god damn
fape posted:
and it doesn't help that your smaller-scale examples are all things that are left up to chance. here's a better example of small-scale prediction: a ball is rolling at a constant velocity over a flat surface towards a large brick wall. i can predict without a shadow of a doubt that that ball will, eventually, at some point, hit that wall.
yes but you cant know for sure that a global warming-altered jet stream wont come along and blow that ball off course, thus saving the wall and allowing over a million East Berliners to freely remain within the loving bosom of glorious Communism. these are all known unknowns
Superabound posted:fape posted:
and it doesn't help that your smaller-scale examples are all things that are left up to chance. here's a better example of small-scale prediction: a ball is rolling at a constant velocity over a flat surface towards a large brick wall. i can predict without a shadow of a doubt that that ball will, eventually, at some point, hit that wall.yes but you cant know for sure that a global warming-altered jet stream wont come along and blow that ball off course, thus saving the wall and allowing over a million East Berliners to freely remain within the loving bosom of glorious Communism. these are all known unknowns
dont troll me Superabound.
mistersix posted:
what kind of weird magic ball do you know of that just rolls forever at a constant velocity
*raises paw*
mistersix posted:
what kind of weird magic ball do you know of that just rolls forever at a constant velocity
Answer unclear, ask again later
May 1955
I'm not sure what you mean when you say climate change is not a calculable fact fape. Climate predictions are drawn from models predicated on our understanding of physics and chemistry. They model the current and past observed climate with enough accuracy that it is reasonable to assume human induced changes in climate "inputs" will produce different climate outcomes.
It seems like you are pretty seriously misunderstanding the scientific method. If you wanna be like IWC and reject science as a bourgeoisie or whatever then that's fine, but when you say something like
the sun is going to die someday? really? are ya sure about that? i think we need to hypothesize about this, pronto.
I THINK you're being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong, and if so the assumptions expressed here make an anti science position sort of untenable. Of course we need to hypothesize about the death of the sun, in fact the idea that the sun will die is a hypothesis grounded in much of the same science as climate change, and is far from self evident.
To expand the scope of this thread a little, it's got me thinking about when it is or isn't appropriate to accept mainstream scientific consensus. I think everyone here pretty much rejects the conclusions of mainstream economics which at least parades itself as a science. I think I remember some bitching about poly sci at some point? But no one ever bothers to denounce optometry as hopelessly compromised by liberal ideological hegemony. I imagine to a mainstream economist us lefties look as nutty as homeopaths, why shouldn't I deffer to their expert opinion, not being personally qualified to judge every complexity behind as complex a system as our economy?
Squalid posted:
From: D.C.
COINTELPRO agent spotted
Squalid posted:
I really wish people would stop comparing the canned publicity statements made by scientists regarding the current pet issue of the day with peer reviewed scientific studies. It's almost as if some of you are being disingenuous...
I'm not sure what you mean when you say climate change is not a calculable fact fape. Climate predictions are drawn from models predicated on our understanding of physics and chemistry.
Why should I believe "models".
Again it comes down to this for me: No-one has ever predicted the future with real accuracy and climate charlatans are no different
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
they were right
Squalid posted:
I THINK you're being sarcastic here, correct me if I'm wrong, and if so the assumptions expressed here make an anti science position sort of untenable. Of course we need to hypothesize about the death of the sun, in fact the idea that the sun will die is a hypothesis grounded in much of the same science as climate change, and is far from self evident.
actually its rooted in the same science as knowing that if you dont put gas in your tank eventually your car will run out of gas
To expand the scope of this thread a little, it's got me thinking about when it is or isn't appropriate to accept mainstream scientific consensus. I think everyone here pretty much rejects the conclusions of mainstream economics which at least parades itself as a science. I think I remember some bitching about poly sci at some point? But no one ever bothers to denounce optometry as hopelessly compromised by liberal ideological hegemony. I imagine to a mainstream economist us lefties look as nutty as homeopaths, why shouldn't I deffer to their expert opinion, not being personally qualified to judge every complexity behind as complex a system as our economy?
the problem is people treat economics like its a branch of mathematics when its actually a branch of psychology, or vice versa. either way, economics is not science, its religion
Superabound posted:
actually its rooted in the same science as knowing that if you dont put gas in your tank eventually your car will run out of gas
Well as a 16th century proponent of spontaneous generation I'm afraid I don't grasp your reasoning...
Squalid posted:
models are useful. They combine many individually simple principles, laws of nature and whatnot, into an organized whole through which we can make predictions about complex systems. Is it predicting the future if you use models to calculate the most efficient airfoil? Are NASA engineers predicting the future when they tell you their little probes will reach mars in so many years? What on earth is even the point of all this anti science trolling
yeah well predicting that the probes reach mars came true unlike the predictions of 50 million climate refugees by 2010, or that cyclonic activity will increase or other such sci-doom shoved down our throats by nerds living beyond their means and caught up to their necks in lies and fear
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
yeah well predicting that the probes reach mars came true unlike the predictions of 50 million climate refugees by 2010, or that cyclonic activity will increase or other such sci-doom shoved down our throats by nerds living beyond their means and caught up to their necks in lies and fear
so what youre saying is that off-the-mark future predictions erroneously made from established and verifiable data somehow retroactively nullifies that data?
Superabound posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
yeah well predicting that the probes reach mars came true unlike the predictions of 50 million climate refugees by 2010, or that cyclonic activity will increase or other such sci-doom shoved down our throats by nerds living beyond their means and caught up to their necks in lies and fearso what youre saying is that off-the-mark future predictions erroneously made from established and verifiable data somehow retroactively nullifies that data?
the falsity of the repercussions from the data and inseparable from the data itself
i mean, operation iraqi freedom worked fine in theory but i think it's fair to include an assessment of the shitty repercussions in our overall evaluation of it, don't you?
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
operation iraqi freedom worked fine in theory
yeah well predicting that the probes reach mars came true unlike the predictions of 50 million climate refugees by 2010, or that cyclonic activity will increase or other such sci-doom shoved down our throats by nerds living beyond their means and caught up to their necks in lies and fear
lol mars probes have a spectacular failure rate they're constantly exploding or plunging into the martian surface at 10,000 mph, but almost nobody ever accuses NASA engineers of of ill intentions or incompetence.
Edited by Squalid ()
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/un_50million_11kap9climat.png
published by Le Monde Diplomatique, a French newspaper. It has no scientific basis at all. It made the news when it got put up on and then taken down from a UN website, as if the UN is any authority on science. Even more ridiculous is that the 50 million refugee figure comes from this speech:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.osce.org%2Feea%2F14851&ei=PbOOT7rAGqbX0QG6xpmtDw&usg=AFQjCNGmiPNl8GvBw_d6X6loaGEsOj81nA&sig2=LV0NBkFcG_h4cuPADNajHA
It isn't saying climate change will produce 50 million refugees in 10 years. In fact the speech claims that in 1995 there were already 25 million of the more generally defined environmental refugee, and that it could increase by another 25 million in the next 10 years. Environmental refugees include shit like Chinese people displaced by dams, regular old non-climate related drought in the Sahel, and the yearly crop of cyclone battered Bangladeshis. In fact there isn't much data at all about future climate refugees, and what is around is usually disputed. Do you have anything of substance with which to criticize climate science or are you just going to trot out more rightwing talking points?
shennong posted:
remember that one where they used imperial instead of metric units or w/e lmao
yeah lol only in america
Squalid posted:
I went ahead and looked up that prediction of 50 million climate refugees by 2010. Surprise surprise it isn't derived from scientific data and it wasn't published by any scientific institution. The source seems to be this map:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/un_50million_11kap9climat.png
published by Le Monde Diplomatique, a French newspaper. It has no scientific basis at all. It made the news when it got put up on and then taken down from a UN website, as if the UN is any authority on science. Even more ridiculous is that the 50 million refugee figure comes from this speech:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.osce.org%2Feea%2F14851&ei=PbOOT7rAGqbX0QG6xpmtDw&usg=AFQjCNGmiPNl8GvBw_d6X6loaGEsOj81nA&sig2=LV0NBkFcG_h4cuPADNajHA
It isn't saying climate change will produce 50 million refugees in 10 years. In fact the speech claims that in 1995 there were already 25 million of the more generally defined environmental refugee, and that it could increase by another 25 million in the next 10 years. Environmental refugees include shit like Chinese people displaced by dams, regular old non-climate related drought in the Sahel, and the yearly crop of cyclone battered Bangladeshis. In fact there isn't much data at all about future climate refugees, and what is around is usually disputed. Do you have anything of substance with which to criticize climate science or are you just going to trot out more rightwing talking points?
yeah but like, why should we believe YOU? anyone who wants to could just come in here and prove using facts exactly why our preconceptions about things are wrong, thats not impressive, youre not the authority
please provide an answer which conforms 100% to my worldview
Superabound posted:
why should i ever believe anyone who disagrees with my worldview?
please provide an answer which conforms 100% to my worldview
ya'll forget who IWC was? lol
AmericanNazbro posted:
ya'll forget who IWC was? lol
half the people on this forum are IWC. not me tho im Goatsten
AmericanNazbro posted:
ya'll forget who IWC was? lol
I wouldn't have replied if fape hadn't seemed genuinely skeptical of climate change...
Besides I'm too boring to join chat threads and climate science is the only topic discussed here i'm confident I can contribute to
shermanstick posted:
is IWC the real rapist
there is no "real" rapist. rape is an illusion, generated by the ego
shennong posted:
remember that one where they used imperial instead of metric units or w/e lmao
lockheed... :negativeman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Communications_loss
Squalid posted:
lol mars probes have a spectacular failure rate they're constantly exploding or plunging into the martian surface at 10,000 mph, but almost nobody ever accuses NASA engineers of of ill intentions or incompetence.
<bias> fwiw, we've gotten it down pretty well by now as far as JPL is concerned. </bias>
guidoanselmi posted:
lockheed... :negativeman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Communications_loss
lol its so good. man i hope whoever was responsible for that shit has some thick skin because if i ever fucked up that badly i'd be obsessing about it every night and prob get really depressed and shit
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12500
i like to think it was a global south/right-wing plot to foil developing a detailed global carbon map