Staredit Network > Forums > Lite Discussion > Topic: Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience
Mar 28 2012, 2:04 am
By: Fire_Kame
Pages: < 1 2 3 4 5 >
 

Mar 31 2012, 3:23 am Lanthanide Post #41



Quote from Azrael
There are also environmental concerns a lot more definite and immediate than global warming. It's just pop science
Haha, calling climate change science "pop science".

Quote
the fact is that global warming is a massive cash machine and is going to be made to look as intimidating as possible.
People like to keep saying this but I've never seen any proof behind it. This sums it up quite well:




None.

Mar 31 2012, 4:00 am Azrael Post #42



Quote from Lanthanide
Haha, calling climate change science "pop science".

http://www.popsci.com/science

Most popular tag? Oh, right.

Global warming is the definition of "pop science".

And to add validity to my argument (because you apparently think attempting condescension makes you look intelligent): Haha :lol:

Quote
Quote
the fact is that global warming is a massive cash machine and is going to be made to look as intimidating as possible.
People like to keep saying this but I've never seen any proof behind it.

If you looked as hard for proof as you do for smart-looking picture diagrams that grossly simplify a complicated situation into a biased misrepresentation of facts, then you'd probably be better informed on the subject.

To get you started, the funds available to a field of science and the size and number of the research grants is directly proportional to the demand to have it researched. If global warming wasn't a household term being used as a scare tactic, the researchers involved wouldn't have a fraction of what they're getting. That's before taking into account the massive investment going into green technology, which some of the most vocal advocates of global warming have already made millions, and in some cases, billions of dollars from.

Also, since you apparently missed it while skimming around a whole page of text to select two sentences you could extract and make almost witty replies to, I'll quote myself to respond to the claim that oil is manipulating the scientific skeptics of global warming.

Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if an equal percentage of them have gains to be made by trying to advocate alternate reasoning.

I would continue quoting things from my post and the rest of the thread that you either missed or purposely ignored, but considering much of what is being said now is objective facts, I'm sure you would simply ignore it yet again.

The only assertion being made here is that global warming is being purposely sensationalized. Considering that the documents leaked from the CRU have them saying that much themselves, there's no room to argue it.

I would suggest spending some time understanding the topic and then informing yourself on the subject matter instead of copying images someone else made that don't even remotely give an accurate representation of the state of things.




Mar 31 2012, 4:08 am Sacrieur Post #43

Still Napping

Actually Az brings up some interesting points. I remember this one thing about some "trick" mentioned somewhere concerning tree ring data.



None.

Mar 31 2012, 4:10 am Lanthanide Post #44



Quote from Azrael
purposely ignored
This. There's no point trying to educate someone like yourself. We'll find out within 20-30 years who was right, one way or another.

Quote
The only assertion being made here is that global warming is being purposely sensationalized.
Or, actually, it really is the biggest threat to modern civilization that there has ever been. But hey, continue to treat it as if it's "just a theory" if that fits your worldview.

Quote
I would suggest spending some time understanding the topic and then informing yourself on the subject matter instead of copying images someone else made that don't even remotely give an accurate representation of the state of things.
I understand the topic quite well, which is why I'm not going to bother wasting my time arguing with someone like yourself.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 31 2012, 4:18 am by Lanthanide.



None.

Mar 31 2012, 4:14 am Azrael Post #45



Haha, clearly there's no point trying to educate someone like yourself. I think your reply speaks for itself.

Quote from Lanthanide
I understand the topic quite well

No.




Mar 31 2012, 7:58 am Tempz Post #46



Quote from Lanthanide
Quote from Azrael
There are also environmental concerns a lot more definite and immediate than global warming. It's just pop science
Haha, calling climate change science "pop science".

Quote
the fact is that global warming is a massive cash machine and is going to be made to look as intimidating as possible.
People like to keep saying this but I've never seen any proof behind it. This sums it up quite well:
The people who support the theory of global warming swindle aren't being payed by the big oil companies... Don't get me wrong i still think the environment is important and we should converse our resources. Its just that co2 via gas and oil is nothing compared to the co2 produced by animals, volcanoes, and dead organic matter from the sea.

I know it may be hard to accept all new science is... tesla one of the great inventive minds became a poor man after the people became fearful of his inventions, people once thought the solar system orbited around us, and we once thought the earth was flat.



None.

Mar 31 2012, 9:43 am Jack Post #47

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote
Its just that co2 via gas and oil is
nothing compared to the co2 produced by animals, volcanoes, and dead organic matter from the sea.
The way I've heard it explained is that human CO2 production produces a tipping factor of an otherwise balanced natural CO2 production. Even though human CO2 production is relatively minor, it is enough to tip the environment into warming, which is why the change is not instant but rather gradual.

Not that I agree with that theory, but that is the only way of saying the global warming theory without getting laughed at.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Apr 1 2012, 4:40 am Tempz Post #48



It would also be good to note that there is 800 year lag time.



None.

Apr 1 2012, 4:56 am Lanthanide Post #49



Tempz, making stuff up :ermm:



None.

Apr 1 2012, 5:24 am Sacrieur Post #50

Still Napping

As much fun as it is to watch Az manipulate you all, I'm afraid I can't allow myself to get distracted.


Quote from Jack
Quote
Its just that co2 via gas and oil is
nothing compared to the co2 produced by animals, volcanoes, and dead organic matter from the sea.
The way I've heard it explained is that human CO2 production produces a tipping factor of an otherwise balanced natural CO2 production. Even though human CO2 production is relatively minor, it is enough to tip the environment into warming, which is why the change is not instant but rather gradual.

Not that I agree with that theory, but that is the only way of saying the global warming theory without getting laughed at.

Getting laughed at? The only people laughed at are the people who actually give credibility that this is all a lie.

I like how it's implied CO2 is the only or even most worrisome greenhouse gas (hint: it's not). The current supported theory is a runaway effect created by a positive feedback loop.


Quote from Tempz
It would also be good to note that there is 800 year lag time.

Quote
Lol during the 70's or 80's (after baby boom era) this was something called the global cooling scare in which the co2 consumption rose heavily with post war production and this actually decreased temperatures...

Kay.



None.

Apr 1 2012, 8:38 am Jack Post #51

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote
The current supported theory is a runaway effect
created by a positive feedback loop.
Yes, that's the theory I explained in simpler terms. If anyone says any other theory other than that one they will get laughed at. Case in point, you saying those that theorize that global warming is a lie will get laughed at.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Apr 1 2012, 9:30 am Kaias Post #52



Quote from Sacrieur
That debate has been over for over a decade. There is no scientific debate. We're causing it, end of story. And if we don't stop it soon, we're really going to pay a heavy price.
This is a very dangerous attitude. There's a huge stigma against questioning global warming claims because skepticism has been associated with simple-minded denial, conservative ignorance and because "Duh global warming's happening".

I'll quote Richard Feynman on Cargo Cult Science (medium-long read):
Quote
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of
the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the
charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and
got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a
little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the
viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of
measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you
plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little
bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than
that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until
finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away?
It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because
it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a
number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something
must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why
something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to
Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated
the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that
kind of a disease.
When the answer is "duh, global warming" it becomes very difficult to think/show/publish otherwise which further perpetuates the stigma. For people who understand this susceptibility, it only makes the claims harder to believe because they, in fact, hold less value.

My point is not to harp on global warming, but to say that we should never make skepticism taboo. Global climate is an enormously complex system. If every climate scientist in the world agreed that in 50 years the world with freeze over, I would believe them, but I would not be the least bit surprised if they turned out to be wrong.

Quote
In a massive conspiracy with 90% of the world's scientists
This is so disingenuous. 99% of the world's scientists are not climate scientists and if 90% of scientists believe in climate change its because the general consensus of the 1% is that it does exist. That false dichotomous graphic only serves to make both sides more adamant in their beliefs, and frankly leaves me disappointed in you. If you want to sway someone, you don't do it with condescending, fallacious garbage.



None.

Apr 1 2012, 11:56 am JaFF Post #53



Quote
We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that
kind of a disease.
I disagree. I've worked in an advanced scientific environment for a year and I can tell you right now that it, like any other field of human activity, is filled with big egos, ignorance and agendas. It's definitely not what we've dreamed up science to be as a form of gaining knowledge without any bias. The closest thing to that is mathematics.



None.

Apr 1 2012, 3:02 pm Sacrieur Post #54

Still Napping

Quote from Kaias
This is a very dangerous attitude. There's a huge stigma against questioning global warming claims because skepticism has been associated with simple-minded denial, conservative ignorance and because "Duh global warming's happening".

It's not skepticism, it's gullibility.

Quote
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away?
It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because
it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a
number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something
must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why
something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to
Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated
the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that
kind of a disease.

WRONG!

In science it is acceptable to be wrong. There is no direct stigma attached to overruling a previous theory (like the models of the atom! Also luminiferous aether!). The stigma is attached to not carefully and meticulously evaluating evidence to be sure it was correct. Milikan ran the experiment with enough methodology to get pretty good results when there were no results before. To undermine his accomplishment because he wasn't right enough is like undermining the work of Eratosthenes because the Earth is oblong and not a perfect sphere.


Quote
When the answer is "duh, global warming" it becomes very difficult to think/show/publish otherwise which further perpetuates the stigma. For people who understand this susceptibility, it only makes the claims harder to believe because they, in fact, hold less value.

No actually, there are genuine scientific skeptics of the theory that humans are causing global warming. The theory proposed is called cosmic ray forcing.


It is a weak theory because it has very little real evidence, but you don't see it shot down when people suggest it because it implies they actually know a thing or two about climate science. Mostly because they don't suggest dumb shit like the sun or equivalent garbage (we just connect the dots on a graph when we do mathematical models, right?).

It's shunned to use your, "common sense" in science because it's wrong, a lot. It often comes down to people outright not knowing basic science but then declaring a very complex and evidenced theory to be false.

The equivalent here is declaring with fervor that Einstein was wrong because he didn't account for gravity. Yes, you would get laughed at for that.


Quote
My point is not to harp on global warming, but to say that we should never make skepticism taboo. Global climate is an enormously complex system. If every climate scientist in the world agreed that in 50 years the world with freeze over, I would believe them, but I would not be the least bit surprised if they turned out to be wrong.

There are real skeptics, but it's being used as a buzzword to manipulate people into thinking their often rather uneducated position is reasonable, and that without knowing anything much about basic science, they know with certainty that they are in the right.

We don't call that skepticism, we call that gullibility.

How about some skepticism for your current position please? As Tempz stated, there there is a lag time between CO2 and subsequent rise in global warming. Yet earlier in the thread he stated that a drop in CO2 production after WWII led to a cooling of the Earth in the 70's and 80's. So what is that little dip in the graph and what does it mean? Why do scientists and experts still advocate that the Earth is warming even with a lag time? And what about that correlation doesn't mean causality thing?

Clearly all good questions brought about by skepticism.

For those that think you are quite well educated in the ways of climate science, and that your position in the face of a large majority of experts is definitely right, ever hear of the 11 year solar cycle or the El Niņo-Southern Oscillation? How about that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?



None.

Apr 1 2012, 3:31 pm Azrael Post #55



Quote from Sacrieur
It's not skepticism, it's gullibility.

No, it isn't, not any more than what you're demonstrating here.

Your post is a good example of the ignorant attitude he's talking about.




Apr 1 2012, 3:50 pm Sacrieur Post #56

Still Napping

Quote from Azrael
Quote from Sacrieur
It's not skepticism, it's gullibility.

No, it isn't, not any more than what you're demonstrating here.

Your post is a good example of the ignorant attitude he's talking about.

If I'm ignorant I'm going to have to pick a stronger word to describe you :awesome:



None.

Apr 1 2012, 5:50 pm Kaias Post #57



Quote from JaFF
Quote
We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that
kind of a disease.
I disagree. I've worked in an advanced scientific environment for a year and I can tell you right now that it, like any other field of human activity, is filled with big egos, ignorance and agendas. It's definitely not what we've dreamed up science to be as a form of gaining knowledge without any bias. The closest thing to that is mathematics.
Oh I know. I'm very aware of the intrapolitical games that can go on. Here's what Feynman says next:
Quote from name:Richard Feynman
But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of
having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something
that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that
I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.
He was referring to his generation of physicists having learned better.

Quote from Sacrieur
Quote from Kaias
This is a very dangerous attitude. There's a huge stigma against questioning global warming claims because skepticism has been associated with simple-minded denial, conservative ignorance and because "Duh global warming's happening".
It's not skepticism, it's gullibility.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Skepticism has become stigmatized when it never should be. I'm not talking about people who deny climate change because some radio talk-show host said what they wanted to hear. That's the sort of image that you've conjured up.

Quote from Sacrieur
There are real skeptics, but it's being used as a buzzword to manipulate people into thinking their often rather uneducated position is reasonable, and that without knowing anything much about basic science, they know with certainty that they are in the right.
No, skepticism has been conflated with outright ignorant denial. People incredulous in any way are labelled "Climate Change Skeptics" within the scientific community. When there is a massive social bias toward one result, that result is self propagating.

Quote from Sacrieur
Quote
Feynman Quote

WRONG!

In science it is acceptable to be wrong. There is no direct stigma attached to overruling a previous theory (like the models of the atom! Also luminiferous aether!). The stigma is attached to not carefully and meticulously evaluating evidence to be sure it was correct. Milikan ran the experiment with enough methodology to get pretty good results when there were no results before. To undermine his accomplishment because he wasn't right enough is like undermining the work of Eratosthenes because the Earth is oblong and not a perfect sphere.
This is an idealization of what actually takes place. Confirmation bias is a problem on every level of human endeavor, the incident with Millikan is merely an example of that. It is pretty cool how you can just say "WRONG" to a bit of scientific history like it didn't happen. There's also a stark difference between proposing new models for the atom, and extrapolating hundreds of thousands of years of climate history from ice cores (one is falsifiable). Not all scientific "consensus" have equivalent levels of scientific evidence/confidence and it's important not forget that. That is what I was illustrating when I said, "If every climate scientist in the world agreed that in 50 years the world with freeze over, I would believe them, but I would not be the least bit surprised if they turned out to be wrong". Its clear from your romanticism that you've never worked in any sort of lab.

Quote from Sacrieur
How about some skepticism for your current position please?
And what position would that be? That the "its a done deal" attitude is unhealthy? That not all scientific understandings are equivalent? You've assumed my stance on global warming when I haven't given it. As I said before:
Quote from Kaias
My point is not to harp on global warming, but to say that we should never make skepticism taboo.

More on topic, what it is that makes pseudoscience so appealing to you Tempz? I find that most often people who cling to pseudoscience have underlying beliefs that cause them to deny anything incompatible with it (namely, reality).



None.

Apr 1 2012, 8:35 pm Jack Post #58

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote
For those that think you are quite well educated in the ways of climate science, and that your position in the face of a large majority of experts is definitely right, ever hear of the 11 year solar cycle or the El Niņo-Southern Oscillation? How about that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?
Yes, I'm quite aware of all that. Please don't assume that those who take a contrary position to yourself in something are ignorant or stupid.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Apr 1 2012, 8:55 pm Vrael Post #59



Quote from Sacrieur
WRONG!

In science it is acceptable to be wrong.

Earth to Sacrieur, Earth to Sacrieur, this is Earth calling Sacrieur! The scientific model permits people to be wrong, true. Unfortunately, we're not dealing with the scientific model when we do science, we're dealing with other people and real-world constraints. For example, how do you explain to your boss that a 2 million dollar project which took 5 years culminated in results which are useless? Welcome to the real world :)



None.

Apr 1 2012, 9:00 pm ClansAreForGays Post #60



I'd say the climate change deniers are definitely winning this argument on SEN.




Options
Pages: < 1 2 3 4 5 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[04:01 am]
RIVE -- The significance is lessened by the probability of future RE titles ignoring either conclusion in favor of a rewrite anyway.
[03:59 am]
RIVE -- Mia's on the Chopper vs Mia's not on the Chopper.
[07:33 pm]
KrayZee -- RIVE
RIVE shouted: Also, what was the point of choosing between Mia or Zoe when there's no pay-off?
There is payoff since there are different endings.
[04:10 pm]
RIVE -- CV is stupid hard. (Those red hunters..) If that was remade, Capcom would water it down too much.
[04:08 pm]
RIVE -- Also, what was the point of choosing between Mia or Zoe when there's no pay-off?
[04:08 pm]
RIVE -- RE5 felt like a chore. 7's alright except the Eveline fight is a blander rehashed of Carla from 6 which is sad bc 6 was terrible.
[04:00 pm]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Zycorax
Zycorax shouted: Their names makes absolutely no sense.
1, 360, 1, 10. what's not to follow?
[02:22 pm]
Dem0n -- RE7 was actually fun AF tho. Pretty spooky too.
[12:48 pm]
Zycorax -- Their names makes absolutely no sense.
[10:50 am]
KrayZee -- Xbox Series X. Microsoft is just weird at naming things. They’re good at code names until they reveal the real names.
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy, mielnik124853