global warming

[rawlus]

i guess my point is.
someone cites a web page that states something they believe in.
someone else says that page is rubbish and cites something contradictory.
person one disagrees with person two.
p2 disagree with p1.
various others join sides with either p1, p2 or form their own conclusion.

all sides believe their view and the integrity of their position is unassailable.

consensus is never reached except among the alignments on those misaligned understandings.

hence there is no universal truth because too many independent thinkers refuse to accept any explanation other than their own (or opinions they’ve found in the internet which they agree with).

also usually people’s political affiliations get brought into the debate/argument mostly as a way to signal others reading which sides to align on (so now your politics are your identity and it is with that which i form my agreements and not critical thinking of objective facts)

the internet will always be a source of “evidence” from which to draw justification for the views which are held. and it’s rarely acknowledged the veracity of that evidence.

so ultimately minds are not changed and the debate is really just a way to announce your beliefs and have others recognize and say “me too” or recognize and say “you’re wrong, this is how it is”

global warming/climate change. any agreement here on the causes, remedies, etc? no. will there ever be? no. ppl that don’t believe in climate change will not be convinced otherwise. and vice versa. no evidence presented by the opposition will ever be accepted by the opposition.

same with vax/no vax or any other polarizing issue that can be thought of.

today’s culture is anti-compromise. when your idea is challenged immediate action is to entrench yourself further. demonize opposition and use all sorts of logical fallacies to subvert decision making in the interest of the whole.

 

[rawlus]

. Science is never settled I thought...So without discussion How do we get to the next step

is it really discussion you’re after? because the other words in your posts. that make fun of al gore or jimmy carter or whatever don’t seem pertinent to any scientific discussion.

it’s still really just “i found something in the internet i agree with” and you or most people won’t be convinced otherwise especially now that you have a “source” yiu “trust” because it’s different from the source others say they trust.

this is why 50% of the country thinks vax will save us and 50% think vax will destroy us. and if you ask for “proof” of their claims both sides will submit what they believe is in incontrovertible “evidence” that supports their belief.

but it’s not been true scientific discourse for decades. it’s more faith based like a culture or religion of thought that true evidence based, peer reviewed understanding.

if anything true evidence based, peer reviewed understanding today’s gets questioned on political, economic and other motives as a way of rejecting those ideas when they don’t fit a persons personal beliefs.

people aren’t swayed by evidence anymore. i don’t see anti vax era saying “okay. now you’ve convinced me, i was wrong”. what you see is instead sn even more earnest effort to stay firm in ones beliefs and demonize, challenge, destroy opposition snd their arguments.

yes it’s technically debate. but debate which leads to no conclusion.

 

[ActionJackson]

people aren’t swayed by evidence anymore. i don’t see anti vax era saying “okay. now you’ve convinced me, i was wrong”. what you see is instead sn even more earnest effort to stay firm in ones beliefs and demonize, challenge, destroy opposition snd their arguments.

But see - you’ve just biased your whole argument by implying it’s the “anti vax era” whose at fault and implying they “demonize, challenge, destroy opposition snd their arguments”. That’s a pretty subjective and biased way to present your view in itself. Perhaps that’s just inherent in public discourse - people are always invested in one view or another.

Will we ever see a pro vaxxer say ““okay. now you’ve convinced me, i was wrong” - I don’t think so

 

[Handlebars]

But see - you’ve just biased your whole argument by implying it’s the “anti vax era” whose at fault and implying they “demonize, challenge, destroy opposition snd their arguments”. That’s a pretty subjective and biased way to present your view in itself. Perhaps that’s just inherent in public discourse - people are always invested in one view or another.

Will we ever see a pro vaxxer say ““okay. now you’ve convinced me, i was wrong” - I don’t think so

Perfect sharp analysis of the sloppy and biased analysis.

 

[Handlebars]

(...)
hence there is no universal truth because too many independent thinkers refuse to accept any explanation other than their own (or opinions they’ve found in the internet which they agree with).

Too many independent thinkers, is it now?
Los campos!

 

[DavidRvR]

I still waiting for Hell to freeze over.. Ive been patient so far

Guess I could settle for pigs flying..

 

[rawlus]

But see - you’ve just biased your whole argument by implying it’s the “anti vax era” whose at fault and implying they “demonize, challenge, destroy opposition snd their arguments”. That’s a pretty subjective and biased way to present your view in itself. Perhaps that’s just inherent in public discourse - people are always invested in one view or another.

Will we ever see a pro vaxxer say ““okay. now you’ve convinced me, i was wrong” - I don’t think so

i’m not implying either side. it’s just an example. i’m not stating a side or taking a side. neither side is interested in gaining consensus and neither side is pursuing compromise.

 

[rawlus]

Too many independent thinkers, is it now?
Los campos!

let me rephrase it then. in a society where decisions are being sought on what’s best for society, for the planet, for the country… do you get a sense that common discourse is aimed at the common good or at each individual fighting for what they want whether it’s at the expense of society or not?

take global warming as an example. if a segment of society disagrees that climate change is even occurring, disagrees with its causes and disagrees with any suggested countermeasures. and it’s left to the political will that happens to be in control at the time to resolve then society never really comes together. and in the age of the internet it’s my contention that opposition will not only disagree but act in spite of the opposing side. in order to prove some point they truly believe in and feel supremely justified and empowered in doing.

the days of a community at large gathering for a barn raising to help each other out selflessly are likely gone.

both sides or any sides when there’s more than two are not seeking consensus and compromise right? all sides are seeking to be validated. to be “right” and will leverage the multitude of internet sources to substantiate their arguments. but the point is, hardly anyone is challenging themselves to see and examine and consider other views, evidence, causes, outcomes etc.

 

[rawlus]

the tricky part in the internet era is that prior to that, obtaining the “facts” to support your point of view was a time consuming task.

today you can literally take any position on any subject no matter how controversial or dare i say biased and easily find someone who agrees with you. and you can find enough that agree with you to also find “evidence” that you are content with the veracity of and which you can believe in.

but perhaps the quest for the “answer” is less a motivation now than the quest for people and citations that support your belief. that’s why “how things work” in life has taken a detour from what used to be peer reviewed science and more into a faith based kind of belief system where an individual will now conclude that if enough people share my opinion then that is enough to validate it as fact.

and the old methods of scientific validation are routinely challenged not by other scientists (although that does happen) but also by media, politics, religion, emotional arguments, etc.

the rules of the game have changed and everyone believes they can be an expert now. education is more about position you take than critical thinking. dissent is seen both as an admirable and negative trait in the same breath. lol. a thought leader now isn’t necessarily someone with deep experience on a subject. the measure today can just be how many can you get to buy into what you’re saying. it’s hilarious.

 

[DavidRvR]

is it really discussion you’re after? because the other words in your posts. that make fun of al gore or jimmy carter or whatever don’t seem pertinent to any scientific discussion.


yes it’s technically debate. but debate which leads to no conclusion.

I dont decide who is the face of Climate Change and the debate that goes with it.. Al Gore happens to be the fraudster that is the face at this time.. I am sure another will come..

2nd part of your quote. With that attitude no conclusion will ever be met..

Honestly.. if AOC is right.. only a few years left and at this stage in life.. I will leave it for the rest of you... Figured I will get some more cloths for summer and winter... Since Climate is always changing where I live... 107 degrees today.. windy.. next week though ... 90's...

Its so hard to keep up with (its heating up, Its cooling down, Its El nino, its Blah blah blah)

I jus think if you have a faith based belief (which I do) ... I really doubt you are going to wreck gods Plan and what he has set in motion. I dont think we have that ability... If I am wrong (which I could be)... it wont make a difference to me or my life but it might for my kids or great grand kids but again I wont be around.

Al Gore has ruined it for me.. Just on Principle.. He rides in his private jet, Drives in his limo, Lives in his mansions... Really? Carbon footprint we much? Hypocrites at the very least... When you actually cry at the mountain top the sky is falling and turn around and do the opposite of what is supposed to be good for mother earth? Well what do you expect?

Jimmy carter can give all the economic speeches he wants... Id never listen him.. Same with the other guy that has the fastest growing food prices and gas prices in our economic history.. Its running away...

Again Vaxx? Why not vaxx everyone? Illegals also? and refugees? how can they get a pass if its thats serious? You would think they would be the first to receive? Just makes sense I think..

Common sense goes a long way and when they talk out the sides of their mouths .. Well hard to take serious.. for me.. You cant trust Al Gore invented the internet if you wish... Doesnt matter to me he didnt.. Like the rest of his Blabber ..

Carry on.

Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?

Earth has warmed in the past due to changes in the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and naturally occurring increases in greenhouse gases. Our ability to understand and explain past changes is one reason we are confident that recent changes are due to humans.

www.climate.gov

Earth has experienced cold periods (or “ice ages”) and warm periods (“interglacials”) on roughly 100,000-year cycles for at least the last 1 million years. The last of these ices ended around 20,000 years agct 29, 202

 

[TrailSeeker]

Al Gore happens to be the fraudster that is the face at this time..

Sorry I'm out of the loop on this... wasn't he the one that predicted this stuff would happen? Like he predicted the ocean currents would change as fresh water dumped in from melting glaciers , etc

This thread is too big now to follow everything, sorry if I missed this from a previous post.

 

[Handlebars]

let me rephrase it then. in a society where decisions are being sought on what’s best for society, for the planet, for the country… do you get a sense that common discourse is aimed at the common good or at each individual fighting for what they want whether it’s at the expense of society or not?

take global warming as an example. if a segment of society disagrees that climate change is even occurring, disagrees with its causes and disagrees with any suggested countermeasures. and it’s left to the political will that happens to be in control at the time to resolve then society never really comes together. and in the age of the internet it’s my contention that opposition will not only disagree but act in spite of the opposing side. in order to prove some point they truly believe in and feel supremely justified and empowered in doing.

the days of a community at large gathering for a barn raising to help each other out selflessly are likely gone.

both sides or any sides when there’s more than two are not seeking consensus and compromise right? all sides are seeking to be validated. to be “right” and will leverage the multitude of internet sources to substantiate their arguments. but the point is, hardly anyone is challenging themselves to see and examine and consider other views, evidence, causes, outcomes etc.

Thanks. That is better said.

...do you get a sense that common discourse is aimed at the common good or at each individual fighting for what they want whether it’s at the expense of society or not?

"The common good", is a very elusive target to aim at. For example, we might argue about common good wrt 3rd and 4th jab vaxxers or even vaxx refuseniks. Is it really "common" good for you to have 4 when so many in other countries can't have any?
So in that sense, it's never made very clear in such discussions , what being "for the common good"entails for the participants - does it mean refusing to take any more jabs even though they want more jabs?
Who comprises the "common"? In your question you refer to "society", so I take it that is them. Which people where are included in society? If it's everyone in the world, that doesn't jibe. There are many societies and societies within societies.

 

[DavidRvR]

Good ole Al has promised so many things.. To get donations.. He acts like a politician .. Oh wait..

Anyone is able to look up the half trues he said only to say he was misunderstood..

Again, For a climate Spokesperson ... Wouldnt it be about a small carbon footprint? I think one would go out of their way to make sure they themselves didtnt hurt the Eco system with an over run of Carbon emissions and green house gases? Just seems fair.. Not the typical Do as I say Not as I do attitude.

I just want to see someone that actually speaks the speak and walks the walk... I like big SUV and private planes... IF I could afford it I would be using them.. But since I dont... Well I guess I can say I am a climate warrior because I dont... seems a bit unfair and untruthful.

Let your Yes be yes and your No be No.. and by the way...send me some donations.. haaaa

In the years 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore made statements about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013. While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists, they stemmed from a selective reading of aggressive estimates regarding future melting. The comments became a popular talking point for human-cause climate change deniers in 2014 and onward when the predictions, which in some cases were overstated, did not pan out:

50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called 'experts' Are 0-50

This week Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:” Modern doomsayers have...

www.aei.org

The first 27 failed alarmist predictions below are from the CEI post (many were previously collected and posted by Tony Heller on RealClimateScience, see Tony’s video below) and the additional 14 doomsday predictions the climate alarmists got wrong were added by John Nolte in a Breitbart post titled “Climate ‘Experts’ are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions“:


Side note on Vaccines

Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients - LifeSite

'Post-vaccine, what we are seeing is a drop in your killer T-cells, in your CD8 cells,” said Dr. Ryan Cole.

www.lifesitenews.com

 

[Handlebars]

and the old methods of scientific validation are routinely challenged not by other scientists (although that does happen) but also by media, politics, religion, emotional arguments, etc.

the rules of the game have changed and everyone believes they can be an expert now.

Yes, they have changed but you know the old saw "The more things change...".
Not very long ago a commoner could not present a finding to the Royal (insert subject) Society and would have to find a Gentleman of Society who could present it.
Now you argue "the rules of the game have changed and everyone believes they can be an expert now." They can be. Not on any subject they might wish, but on some subjects they are the top expert.
Usually that subject would have no practical interest or bearing on other people.

 

[Mulezen]

The Atlantic conveyer is indeed weakening with consequences far beyond fire and flood. Through the last 40 years or so scientific projections are routinely exceeded. This is not what’s coming, this is what’s here. In geologic time this two hundred years of the Industrial Age is but a flick of a lighter.

The Gulf Stream is slowing to a 'tipping point' and could disappear

The current could slow down to a point of no return, altering the climate on both sides of the Atlantic.

www.livescience.com

 

[Handlebars]

The Atlantic conveyer is indeed weakening with consequences far beyond fire and flood. Through the last 40 years or so scientific projections are routinely exceeded. This is not what’s coming, this is what’s here. In geologic time this two hundred years of the Industrial Age is but a flick of a lighter.

The Gulf Stream is slowing to a 'tipping point' and could disappear

The current could slow down to a point of no return, altering the climate on both sides of the Atlantic.

www.livescience.com

Ever thought that maybe they should stop cheating and getting caught, since the situation is so dire?

 

[Handlebars]

The Atlantic conveyer is indeed weakening with consequences far beyond fire and flood. Through the last 40 years or so scientific projections are routinely exceeded. This is not what’s coming, this is what’s here. In geologic time this two hundred years of the Industrial Age is but a flick of a lighter.

The Gulf Stream is slowing to a 'tipping point' and could disappear

The current could slow down to a point of no return, altering the climate on both sides of the Atlantic.

www.livescience.com

No, you misunderstood the article.
"To better contextualize this slowdown in their new study — published Feb. 25 in the journal Nature Geoscience — the researchers attempted to extend the history of the AMOC's flow by nearly 2,000 years. Because no direct measurements of the flow are available before the last two decades, the team turned to proxy data: information from environmental archives, such as tree rings and ice cores, that can help put the AMOC in a long-term perspective.'

look: "Since direct measurements began in 2004, however"

They then had to make it up.
They have nothing, and their data is garbage.

 

[ActionJackson]

take global warming as an example. if a segment of society disagrees that climate change is even occurring, disagrees with its causes and disagrees with any suggested countermeasures. and it’s left to the political will that happens to be in control at the time to resolve then society never really comes together.

See. There you go again. Demonizing the other side to support your point. Which makes your points invalid to 50% of the people. So effectively all you do is take sides, while claiming to be neutral. You are right about one thing though – the world isn’t about communities coming together to raise barns. It’s more a cultural war, just waiting to spill out into the streets. Probably a bicycle forum isn’t the right place to wage it though.

 

[rawlus]

See. There you go again. Demonizing the other side to support your point. Which makes your points invalid to 50% of the people. So effectively all you do is take sides, while claiming to be neutral. You are right about one thing though – the world isn’t about communities coming together to raise barns. It’s more a cultural war, just waiting to spill out into the streets. Probably a bicycle forum isn’t the right place to wage it though.

i’m deliberately seeking to not demonize either side in this discussion. but that’s a good non response to any of the questions i’ve asked.

 

[Handlebars]

No, you misunderstood the article.
"To better contextualize this slowdown in their new study — published Feb. 25 in the journal Nature Geoscience — the researchers attempted to extend the history of the AMOC's flow by nearly 2,000 years. Because no direct measurements of the flow are available before the last two decades, the team turned to proxy data: information from environmental archives, such as tree rings and ice cores, that can help put the AMOC in a long-term perspective.'

look: "Since direct measurements began in 2004, however"

They then had to make it up.
They have nothing, and their data is garbage.

To flesh out the wishful thinking nature of that paper, consider their aim and claim for a moment, "Since direct measurements began in 2004", they "extend the history of the AMOC's flow by nearly 2,000 years". Meanwhile these people have no qualms about turning the proxy upside down and right side up again later as a bonus for being in this very special science where they relish the boast of being in the only science where you cherry pick the data.