Remember me
▼ Content

I've been having some doubts


I've been having some doubts23-09-2016 22:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
First, I would like to apologize for my words. But I know I've apologized before once... no, wait, twice... make that at least three times. And there's been no long-term change. So my actual words, not these ones but the other ones, will demonstrate more than my words ever could.

Err, or something.

Now onto the main part of this post: I decided to give you guys a chance, and opened up my mind again. And this time I didn't get depressed, I got doubt-y. I'm having doubts about climate science. And I'm realizing that you've given me many reasons to doubt climate science - but I've ignored them. I'm sorry, I should have listened. But I still can't quite give up my belief in GW.

So with the knowledge that I am now having doubts, and that I now have an open mind, could you please present your arguments against GW? I know that you've done it before, but reading your posts and then my close-minded responses would just lead to my mind closing again. One more chance, please?

(And also, do you really think that I am scientifically illiterate? It was just something you said to get me upset, right? I'm not actually illiterate? please?)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
23-09-2016 22:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
First, I would like to apologize for my words. But I know I've apologized before once... no, wait, twice... make that at least three times. And there's been no long-term change. So my actual words, not these ones but the other ones, will demonstrate more than my words ever could.

Err, or something.

Now onto the main part of this post: I decided to give you guys a chance, and opened up my mind again. And this time I didn't get depressed, I got doubt-y. I'm having doubts about climate science. And I'm realizing that you've given me many reasons to doubt climate science - but I've ignored them. I'm sorry, I should have listened. But I still can't quite give up my belief in GW.

So with the knowledge that I am now having doubts, and that I now have an open mind, could you please present your arguments against GW? I know that you've done it before, but reading your posts and then my close-minded responses would just lead to my mind closing again. One more chance, please?

(And also, do you really think that I am scientifically illiterate? It was just something you said to get me upset, right? I'm not actually illiterate? please?)


No, it was not just something I said to get you upset. You are illiterate in science (and a variety of other subjects as well).

Your high score on the ACT and the advanced placement you enjoy as a result does not show you know anything beyond the ability to pass a test. The math portion of the test, for example, doesn't go beyond algebra and geometry.

Remember the test itself is government funded, and government run and that governments have agendas of their own that has little to do with helping the public.

My comments of your illiteracy are designed to get you to recognize the incredible amount of stuff your ACT results do not address. You have still a lot of learning to do.

If you try to get that information from religion, you will be sadly disappointed and enslaved to that religion. That's why I counsel you to leave the teachings of the Church of Global Warming. It has led you astray to the point where you have difficulty understanding definitions of words anymore.

If you turn to tit-for-tat, you will not learn anything. You will become frustrated and angry (in fact you have). What you need to learn will be coming from people that will insult you anyway. Yes, I am asking you to conform to a double standard. It is the only way to demonstrate your apologies have any serious meaning, and is the only way to learn what you need to learn to get any further than K-12.

It's time to grow up. Life IS double standards. Get used to it.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 22:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, so literacy isn't a measure of inherent intelligence, right? I just don't actually know that much, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
23-09-2016 22:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote: But I still can't quite give up my belief in GW.

I'm not asking you to relinquish your faith. I am suggesting you admit it. Christians have no problem admitting their religion is a matter of faith. They all believe that their religion is true. You can believe your religion is true. I don't see what the problem is.

jwoodward48 wrote: So with the knowledge that I am now having doubts, and that I now have an open mind, could you please present your arguments against GW?

Do you know why I don't try to prove Christianity is FALSE? Because I cannot. It's entirely unfalsifiable. It is a religion.

Do you know why I don't try to prove Global Warming FALSE? Because I cannot. It is completely unfalsifiable. It is a religion.

What do you believe is the strongest argument FOR Global Warming that you personally observed? (there aren't any good arguments then, are there?)


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 22:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...I can't really speak for the scientists, but I can't think of a good one off the top of my head.

Some people are fine with holding unverifiable beliefs. I'm not. I was raised Catholic, I used to be Catholic, but I'm an atheist now, because I couldn't believe something with no evidence.

So if GW isn't really happening, I want to know.
23-09-2016 23:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, so literacy isn't a measure of inherent intelligence, right? I just don't actually know that much, but it doesn't have to stay that way.


No, it doesn't. That's the good news.

What you need to learn comes from contentions, opinions, outright flamewars, insults or even once in a while a nice discussion.

These come from the real world of engineers, scientists, mathematicians, politicians, financiers, blue collar workers...people.

People are often an angry, insulting lot to each other. That doesn't make them wrong. It makes them people. Even the blue collar worker has something to teach that can be of value to you. The idea of 'professionalism' is really a sham. Like the white lab coat, it's just window dressing to what they may know or not know.

There are many arguments. There are many ways to reason (or not!). How we determine which ones are worth listening to is what philosophy is all about.

Philosophy has addressed science and what it means. The result is the current definition of science we use today. It is the definition that IBDaMann and I use. The ramifications of that definition are what bring about the requirements of the scientific method we use today. The same method that I and IBDaMann uses. A big part of that reasoning comes from noting that each of us experiences the world in a way unique to ourselves. It is why observations (and data with it!) can't be trusted at face value and cannot be part of science.

It is why we can separate observation and data from science. It is why we can separate mathematics and logic from science and from each other. It is why we can separate the circular argument (just a theory) from a theory of science.

Obviously not everyone agrees with this line of reasoning stemming from philosophy. Mostly because they never recognized that reasoning ever took place, or they are using an older reasoning that resulted in now obsolete views of science.

The old Aristotelian view of science, for example, depended heavily on merging observation, and supporting evidence. It created incorrect ideas about why things float, why they fall, how the eye sees. We don't use that method anymore because of the problems phenomenology created.

When philosophy re-examines science again, our current definition and the resulting method may change. The one that I and IBDaMann describe is the current one. In a couple of hundred years, we may have a different view. It will come from the reasoning that philosophy affords.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-09-2016 23:48
23-09-2016 23:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What was Aristotelian science, what was wrong with it, and how did it lead to incorrect models? (Internet research on the matter hasn't helped.)

If all observation is subjective, then how can you disprove a theory? Maybe a theory is valid in my subjective world but invalid in yours.

Also, would you say that GW has One Big Flaw that invalidates it, or is it more "death by a thousand flaws"? If the first, could you give that Big Flaw? If the latter, could you give a brief summary of the main flaws? (You probably already did this before, but this time I'm listening.)
24-09-2016 00:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There's something I can't get over, though.

Does CO2 reduce the outflow rate of energy?
24-09-2016 01:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote:
There's something I can't get over, though.
Does CO2 reduce the outflow rate of energy?

Stefan-Boltzmann answers that question. Any guess what the answer is?

Do you know what I can't get over? Your continued references to "the scientists." This makes me doubt your sincerity. You are perfectly aware that at no time that you invoke "the scientists" are any ever present to be cross examined. You ask questions but refer to a mythical group of unnamed individuals as if they constitute a bona fide authority.

jwoodward48 wrote:
...I can't really speak for the scientists, but I can't think of a good one off the top of my head.

Well these uncounted fictional guys in lab coats don't have any reasons for you either.

jwoodward48 wrote: Some people are fine with holding unverifiable beliefs. I'm not. I was raised Catholic, I used to be Catholic, but I'm an atheist now, because I couldn't believe something with no evidence.

I have the identical story. All the sacraments in the Catholic Church and resenting the involuntary indoctrination imposed on me while I was young and impressionable. I was very angry.

The result is that I recognize a religion a mile away and it can kiss my assss.

One needs to be either completely blind or extremely gullible to not immediately recognize scientifically illiterate morons preaching that their WACKY dogma is somehow settled science for the insult to one's intelligence that it is.

jwoodward48 wrote:So if GW isn't really happening, I want to know.

You have been so notified.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2016 01:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
There's something I can't get over, though.
Does CO2 reduce the outflow rate of energy?

Stefan-Boltzmann answers that question. Any guess what the answer is?

Do you know what I can't get over? Your continued references to "the scientists." This makes me doubt your sincerity. You are perfectly aware that at no time that you invoke "the scientists" are any ever present to be cross examined. You ask questions but refer to a mythical group of unnamed individuals as if they constitute a bona fide authority.


But... but, this graph, it shows...

[img]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~j2n/2_22_absorptivity_sub.bmp[/img]

It shows the solar radiation being altered by the atmosphere.

jwoodward48 wrote:
...I can't really speak for the scientists, but I can't think of a good one off the top of my head.

Well these uncounted fictional guys in lab coats don't have any reasons for you either.


What I meant was, "I can't speak for climate scientists, but I personally can't give a good argument for global warming." I tend to trust scientists. That's all I meant.

jwoodward48 wrote: Some people are fine with holding unverifiable beliefs. I'm not. I was raised Catholic, I used to be Catholic, but I'm an atheist now, because I couldn't believe something with no evidence.

I have the identical story. All the sacraments in the Catholic Church and resenting the involuntary indoctrination imposed on me while I was young and impressionable. I was very angry.

The result is that I recognize a religion a mile away and it can kiss my assss.

One needs to be either completely blind or extremely gullible to not immediately recognize scientifically illiterate morons preaching that their WACKY dogma is somehow settled science for the insult to one's intelligence that it is.


But the thing about indoctrination is that it's hard to notice if it starts when you're born! I am trying to clear the indoctrination. Please be patient. I can't rush a revelation. (that was intentional; it was an attempt at humour)

jwoodward48 wrote:So if GW isn't really happening, I want to know.

You have been so notified.


But as a rational human being, I want to see why. I'm not going to agree with you "just because". You know how you want to see the raw data, or you don't trust the graphs? I want to see the reasons, or I don't trust the statements.

And as I said, you've probably already given the answer to my question somewhere in these forums. But a., I can't exactly go trawling through the entire forums searching for an argument whose qualifications cannot be put down as search terms, b. I can't remember any of your arguments that you gave when I was being an indoctrinated idiot, and c. reading the warmist responses to everything you write can't be good for me.

So just please, take the effort that would go into suspecting me of insincerity and put it into helping me get past the indoctrination as a rational being. If I'm going to free myself from belief, I need to go to something that I can support, that I can understand, that I really think is the truth. If what you say is true, this is more than right vs wrong. This is a matter of rational vs dogmatic. I need to make a rational decision. And for that I need explanations. (And you've got to admit, there are quite a few idiots on your side - not that it makes you wrong, see: the fallacy fallacy being a fallacious argument, but an Internet search for either position will more likely than not turn up some nonsense and scientifically illiterate drivel - which only reinforces the belief that you are right!)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 24-09-2016 01:29




Join the debate I've been having some doubts:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact