Comments | rainwaker: Since we're all into talking about global warming, I guess.

rainwaker

Since we're all into talking about global warming, I guess.

Feb 07, 2007 00:35

I didn't want to post this in Adam's journal.

Here's the thing. As I can make sense of it.

EDIT: points which have been refuted (somewhat, mostly or completely) by Micah the know-it-all are in italics. PS Micah, that was sarcastic and I am more than happy to be refuted by you, it is one of the fastest ways I learn stuff.

1. There are people who ( Read more... )

Comments 18

girly123 February 7 2007, 07:46:37 UTC

Personally, I find the "It's above our heads so let's not think about it" mentality to be a little condecending. There isn't anything wrong with excersizing one's ability to use logic to prove one's point, regardless of wether or not one is specially trained in the field. There also isn't anything wrong in reading to become more informed. Sure, I'm not going to dedicate my life to science, but that certianly doesn't mean that I dont have the right to an opinion.

Also, I think you read a little too much into the whole 'getting angry' thing. I found it kind of exhilirating to debate, because both of us were being polite and using good arguments.

rainwaker February 7 2007, 19:22:11 UTC

Which is also really fucking pathetic considering that you saw the facts and figures and then just attacked a good half of the American population with no factual base to stand on. Unless you just didn't read it, in which case it's even more pathetic.That was probably the most animosity I saw, but I did see a certain amount of the sarcasm and righteousness rife in every internet debate. Though some of what I thought I had seen was me misreading. Also, I never EVER said don't read to become more informed. I specifically said you should do that. Also, I don't know if condescending is the word you're looking for, since to condescend I would have to claim to know MORE, where I am clearly claiming to know less. It's a stupid mentality, to be sure, which is why I had and have mixed feelings about expressing it. But I also think the mentality of "you can debate whatever you want to debate at any level of knowledge" to be a little stupid, since that often implies misinformation. I suppose debate, in this case, is good, as what it is doing is ( ... )

anamexis February 7 2007, 08:26:05 UTC

I would have to disagree with you on several points on this one.
Firstly with regards to points one and six, consider that there are hundreds of scientists who, respectably using the scientific method, have made scientific arguments towards e.g. creationism. These are intelligent people. I think that it is safe to say that we can disregard these scientists without conceding the claim to "know or even have a good idea" whether or now we should teach evolutionism or creationism to our children. I can safely say that evolution has proved itself without seriously extensively researching exactly how many people say that, who they are, how they back it up, their procedure, their bias, etc. etc. etc.
Am I educated about evolution? Absolutely not. Would I be upset if it was not taught to my children? Yes.
What is it makes this OK?
It isn't that I've done extensive research, nor that there is a scientific consensus.
So what is it? And is it hard to think that this situation could apply rather similarly to global warming?

anamexis February 7 2007, 08:37:41 UTC

By the way, this argument was thrown a bit out of whack by my willful effort not to include my opinions about global warming itself.
I wouldn't bring this up, but I have another direct challenge to your argument that needs to be addressed.
My use of the word consensus in the above comment was in error - there is a scientific consensus towards evolution, just not a scientific unanimity.
I bring this up because you say "Because the scientists don't even know [whether global warming will be catastrophic/cyclical/nonexistant]" I argue that this is wrong. I argue that there is a very strong scientific consensus that global warming does exist. See this editorial for an example.
For this reason I believe global warming has even more reason to be drawn parallel to the argument for evolution.
My point here is not to spark debate.

rainwaker February 7 2007, 19:32:39 UTC

If indeed there is a scientific consensus that Global Warming is an issue, I have little left to say. I just know I've heard alot from both sides.
I'm not sure about the parallels between evolution and global warming. But you make a good point.
Like I said to Lauren, 2 and 5 are what's important.
It's a good thing you are such a smart dude.

anamexis February 7 2007, 20:41:49 UTC

Well, with regards to point 2, every experiment ever has had some sort of expectation of the outcome. However, you have to respect the scientific method and that credible scientists can remove bias from experiment to the point that it is negligible. This is the whole world of peer-reviewed scientific journals. The vast majority of credible scientists do not look for what they find, they quantitatively test hypotheses through the scientific method which is subsequently reviewed and retested extensively by peers.
So ultimately, I think point 2 is not relevant, with regards to scientific integrity.
As for point 5, yes, of course people in general will look for things that back up what they already know. And to ask an honest, non-condescending question, what does this have to do with the overall argument?

Thread 13

schmidty3000 February 7 2007, 22:50:06 UTC

While I do plan to see An Inconvenient Truth, I can disregard the alarmism that the movie tries to set forth. In the speech that I originally posted, there's a section devoted to debunking the alarmism in that movie, which goes into detail as to what science was used, and how it is faulty or not the whole story ( ... )

rainwaker February 8 2007, 03:11:01 UTC

3. I don't know the exact math, but .6 degrees is more than 1 degree fahrenheit. Which some believe is enough to make a serious difference? I don't know.

schmidty3000 February 8 2007, 03:27:15 UTC

I just went back and checked that speech that sparked this whole debate, and looked at the projected graph based on the Kyoto Protocol. It seems I was typing out of my ass. The correct numbers are 0.06, as in 6 hundredths of a degree centigrade. That is in no way a significant amount. Please, if you don't believe me after changing what I said, go back and look at the graph in the speech. It's the first graph in the section called "Kyoto Protocol, economic pain for no environment gain." or something close to that.