Reply With Quote
My health care is free.
Go military!
You should study some chemistry and the basic geosciences, and look at the facts. Only studying climatology isn't enough. That's just a glorified weatherman.
My health care is free.
Go military!
Hmmm, I think I have heard of this before, but never really read it.
I assume you are talking about:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/
Other than a few financial advice columns in Yahoo finance, I don't really read other people's blogs at all. My reading habits tend to be more along the lines of the Economist, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and anything on Yahoo business section, that includes a propensity for the Christian Science Monitor.
Oddly enough, I have been thinking about starting my own blog, but probably don't have time to make it worth a .
You should learn how to think critically and devote yourself to being more intellectually honest.
Being smart involves being able to understand the relationships between events, finding and questioning hidden assumptions, and so on.
By that metric, you are not smart. I envision your ability to analyse information a bit like a high-performance sports car engine poorly installed in a rusty worn-out 1972 Dodge Rambler.
You have an ability to learn facts, but virtually no ability to use those facts in objective, meaningful analysis, or to synthesize that information and draw appropriate conclusions from the given data. Your high-performance engine is completely hobbled by an inadequate transmission and rusted suspension.
Your intellect is hobbled by confirmation bias and the inability to think critically.
I say this with no sense of hostility. You are what you are. Perhaps someday you will learn how to evaluate hidden assumptions, but I will not hold my breath.
Wow...
I'm sure that means allot coming from you...
LOL... LOL...
You haven't a clue of my analytic abilities when I put them to use. You throw around phrases like confirmation bias when you don't know squat about the geosciences to make your point. You believe in peer review on subjects like this when the process is thoroughly corrupted in this field. You believe the propaganda of others for that reason. I have shown very good scientific facts related to solar radiation, CO2 solubility vs. temperature, the ability of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and more. Until you understand the things I do, you are a utter fool to make the above statements.
How much is my share?
I'm not sure what you mean, but at least I respect your opinion. I have lost respect of Random's, and just blow him off most the time anymore.
This is the perfect sentence to encapsulate the way WC thinks.
If you think the way I do, ie. you agree with my view of the facts, you are correct and to be lauded.
If you differ on what the facts say, or their interpretation, then you are wrong and an utter fool to even comment.
OK, I stated that wrong. In the case of Global Warming, real scientific facts are necessary to understand before being able to make an assessment. That is what I meant.
Random relys on peer reviewed works, which by the hostile political nature in the global warming subject, is absolutely corrupted.
Your interpretation that I meant one needs to think like me is an incorrect assumption. People like him are an absolute waste of time to deal with because they don't have the scientific understanding to debate the subject. My words and concepts are gibberish to him, then he comes back by quoting other peoples work.
Be empathetic for a moment WC.
Obviously, not everyone can be an expert in everything, can they?
So, if he reads peer-reviewed articles from 90% of the scientific community, but they disagree with you, who is he to believe? If he doesn't have the training to determine what those facts are saying, why should he inherently trust you over what the majority of the scientific community believes?
(Btw, that is my opinion of things. I'm ambivalent towards global warming, and am willing to trust the majority of scientists because I don't care to do the research needed to prove them wrong.)
Think what you will to feel better about yourself. It is not my concern.
I do not have to have a degree in physics to see the way your acquit yourself here on a variety of topics I *do* know about.
Sloppy leaps of conclusion, an inability to honestly admit when you may have made a mistake, a lack of reading comprehension, constant logical fallacies, and simple intellectual dishonesty, all paints a pretty comprehensive picture of the way you approach things.
Given the above, I have very good reason to believe that you approach topics that you are educated on with the same poor analysis skills, and that allows me to assign your opinion on such matters little weight, without having to spend years learning chemistry. You could very well be right, but along the same lines, I could very well win the lottery tomorrow.
Again, I say this rather dispassionately. You are what you are.
Perhaps you will be motivated one day to actively acquire the critical thinking skills you so obviously lack. I would guess you are not there yet emotionally.
Honestly, it was a stupid comment from me. I wasnt trying to critique for something as frivolous as a spelling/grammar error.
Allot = a portion or share of something The company shall allot Mr.CEO with such-n-such compensation of the total Board revenue pool.
a lot = more than is needed (you dont need a sentence).
Like I said, stupid comment.
It is a sign of scientific maturity to make the argument for the other side and then to refute it. Neither RG nor WC does this, ergo, neither one makes the strongest case for his own side, but instead asserts his own argument more or less dogmatically, and disparages the other for differing.
Not quite.
I don't make the case or assert the Global Warming Theory.
I acknowledge it as a distinct possibility, as there seems to be some fair scientific evidence to support the assertion that CO2 emissions are harmfully altering the overall global climate.
I also fully admit that this is far from a certainty, and could quite possibly turn out to be wrong.
That is not the kind of statement that fits the definition of "dogmatic".
What I *do* assert is that it is fairly reasonable to mitigate the known risks of global warming, as the worst case scenario is Very Bad. Not only that I think the long-term economic benefits of lowering carbon emissions outweigh the costs.
What WC will assert is that, without the slightest doubt, there is no such thing as man-made global warming and we are affecting the overall global climate to only a miniscule degree, with no possible harm done from all of mans emissions of CO2 and other green-house gasses. He has admitted, that I have seen, a vanishingly small chance that he is wrong about this.
He also believes, with no evidence or reasoned argument that I have EVER seen, that lowering carbon emissions will cause an economic catastrophe. The only support that has EVER been provided to support this is ONE obsolete, flawed, decade old economic study, and WC didn't actually give me that, so presumedly he hasn't even read it.
I don't fault WC for holding a differing opinion. I fault him for ty logic, proven intellectual dishonsty, and a lack of any critical thinking skills.
This assessment is independent of any disagreement of opinion.
I asserted this argumentatively. I grant you're correct about this.This assessment is independent of any disagreement of opinion.
But there is a personal thing too. Eh?
I've had moments where I deleted my comment to WC and went private with it. Sometimes a post is really too cutting and personally directed to post it for everybody to see.
IMHO.
WC emphasizes it well enough in his own posts IMO, but I substantially agree .I don't fault WC for holding a differing opinion. I fault him for ty logic, proven intellectual dishonsty, and a lack of any critical thinking skills.
For me all this is in the category of gnomic poetry. Sumer is I en In.
The sky is blue;
the grass is green.
A big buck stands
in the clearing
and farts.
Well, if you understood the sciences I have explained, and followed my logic, you would see I am being honest. Not intellectually dishonest.
You know the basics of how a greenhouse works? Light enters the inside. Heat is produced and infrared is now scattered. Glass is reflective to infrared radiation, so it traps it inside. Although not exactly the same, that is why CO2, Methane, Water Vapor, etc. is called a greenhouse gas. They trap heat.
Now if you take the greenhouse, and use thicker glass, it doesn't help any. The thinner glass is just as effective of a mirror to IR as the thicker glass. Compare that to having a mirror that is made of 1/8" glass. You decide to replace it with a mirror made of 3/16" glass. Do you notice any difference in the quality of the reflection? Is your reflection 50% better? It is similar to greenhouse gasses. Once you have so much, adding more, even substantially more, makes no remarkable increase in the ability to trap heat. The first 100 ppm or so effectively trapped most the heat that can be trapped. Now it does make some difference, but very minimal.
I'll cede to your own limited mastery of science for the purpose of *demonstrations* in the thread. It surely exceeds my own, maestro.
I do reserve the right to disagree with your conclusions, according to the ineluctable elaborations of my own ignorant mind.
Please forgive me in advance should I do so too frequently at times.
In this case I am too ignorant to be persuadable by *either side*. I'm a popcorn eater on AGW.
Pretty much where I stand. I don't know enough to know, so I just side with the majority.I'll cede to your own limited mastery of science for the purpose of *demonstrations* in the thread. It surely exceeds my own, maestro.
I do reserve the right to disagree with your conclusions, according to the ineluctable elaborations of my own ignorant mind.
Please forgive me in advance should I do so too frequently at times.
In this case I am too ignorant to be persuadable by *either side*. I'm a popcorn eater on AGW.
You cede to the *reputable* consensus of science, as it were?
Yup.
I figure, if every scientist is reputable, then we should trust the majority's word.
If every scientist is irreputable, then they're all just as likely to be believed or disbelieved, so might as well side with the majority.
And if it's a mixed bag, how am I to tell the difference without formal education in those fields anyways?
Hence my decision.
I would be glib
and say that tomorrow
will either be better
or worse
or the same
but I cannot
because whether it is better
or worse
or the same
depends on what you define as good
or bad
and I don't think we can even agree anymore that there is a definition.
Only pomo airheads come to a full stop here. There is still puny internetz contention....phony forensics...talking to people while you're drunk...or wasting time at work...but I cannot
because whether it is better
or worse
or the same
depends on what you define as good
or bad
and I don't think we can even agree anymore that there is a definition.
Or Both!
I'll drink to that...Or Both!
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
