Remember me
▼ Content

What do you do when you can't engage people to discuss climate change?



Page 3 of 3<123
03-08-2019 02:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
John wrote:
Usually I give some references with arguments. Articles, discussions... all the resourses with important information. For example, there are different essays to pay attention to: https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/climate-change/


John,

Welcome to the board!

Let me know your thoughts on this:
I would divide the population into 4 groups, a math/science literate and illiterate grouping on either side of the global warming debate.

Now I would argue that almost everyone, regardless of scientific literacy WANTS their side to be the truth.

Like if you had conclusive proof that Global Warming was completely false the side pushing it would be sad and vice versa.
03-08-2019 03:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
John wrote:
Usually I give some references with arguments. Articles, discussions... all the resourses with important information. For example, there are different essays to pay attention to: https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/climate-change/


John,

Welcome to the board!

Let me know your thoughts on this:
I would divide the population into 4 groups, a math/science literate and illiterate grouping on either side of the global warming debate.

That's one way of putting it!
tmiddles wrote:
Now I would argue that almost everyone, regardless of scientific literacy WANTS their side to be the truth.

Science is not religion. Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Like if you had conclusive proof that Global Warming was completely false the side pushing it would be sad and vice versa.

Proof: Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. You must DEFINE 'global warming', otherwise it is False by proof of fallacy. Identity is not available. ?void->A is invalid.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 03:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
Proof: Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.


OK ITN try this:

Those who WANT to believe in BigFoot and those who do not.

If we produced a real bigfoot tomorrow, actually found one, the pro big foot group would jump up and down and the anti bigfooter would be crushed.

My point should you care to address it is that you should be suspicious when you see a group WANTS to believe their conflicting FACTS.
03-08-2019 03:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Proof: Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.


OK ITN try this:

Those who WANT to believe in BigFoot and those who do not.

If we produced a real bigfoot tomorrow, actually found one, the pro big foot group would jump up and down and the anti bigfooter would be crushed.

My point should you care to address it is that you should be suspicious when you see a group WANTS to believe their conflicting FACTS.



He's got you on this one. The temperature change in the southern hemisphere whether it's warming or cooling is only 1/2 that of the northern hemisphere.
That by itself suggests that there isn't really a global warming or ice age.
Please keep on topic. Global warming is to say that the globe warms at the same rate and is not dependent on which hemisphere.
03-08-2019 03:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote: He's got you on this one.


The topic is "What do you do when you can't engage people to discuss climate change?"

I was trying to discuss human psychology.
03-08-2019 04:07
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote: He's got you on this one.


The topic is "What do you do when you can't engage people to discuss climate change?"

I was trying to discuss human psychology.



Don't like it that he got you? Global warming really isn't happening. Yet you want to discuss the psychology of something that simply isn't happening. Would you consider that ironic?
Such a definition would allow for psychology. Science really does not care how you feel. In it's simplest form it is a calculation that allows us to understand something within a given frame of reference. Emotions and feelings do not matter.
ie., it doesn't care what anyone thinks. You either get it right or you don't.
You. might learn some about Avgrado's number and the ideal gas law. The rms of a molecule will change Avgrado's number. It's basic enough that I'd like to think that scientists are aware of it.

I get it now. You're learning from ib. And when I pointed out a mistake he made, I was disrupting him teaching you. I am in the wrong place. I find that disgusting.
Edited on 03-08-2019 04:15
03-08-2019 04:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote:Yet you want to discuss the psychology of something that simply isn't happening.


Trying to shut down discussion isn't helpful James

What do you think about the bias of a human being corrupting their "study" of an issue?

In the law there is a principle that when testimony if given and the one testifying really does not want to say, or is harmed by, what they are saying, it is considered the most credible testimony. The flip side being true as well.

Here is a humorous example:
the onion
03-08-2019 05:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Proof: Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.


OK ITN try this:

Those who WANT to believe in BigFoot and those who do not.

Okay.
tmiddles wrote:
If we produced a real bigfoot tomorrow, actually found one, the pro big foot group would jump up and down and the anti bigfooter would be crushed.

Oddly enough, not necessarily. Here's why: I'll use Jesus Christ as an example here to better illustrate my point:

It is said that Jesus Christ exists, that He was resurrected, and that He lives today (somewhere).

There are those that believe this, and there are those that don't.

It is not possible to prove at this point whether He exists or not. Either position MUST be taken on faith, and faith alone. Faith is another name for the circular argument.

Now let's say someone claiming to be Jesus Christ appears, walks up to you and shakes your hand.

Is he really Jesus Christ, or is he just an imposter?
Again, you MUST take it on faith. It is not possible to prove he is really Jesus Christ, and it is not possible to prove he is an imposter. You are still left with faith for either position.

It's the same with Bigfoot. Is this really Bigfoot, or is it just something that somebody says is Bigfoot?

tmiddles wrote:
My point should you care to address it is that you should be suspicious when you see a group WANTS to believe their conflicting FACTS.


I am suspicious for just the reasons I described.

Now a side note:

You should be careful with the use of the word 'fact'. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth. Capitalizing it is incorrect since it tends to attempt to make it a Universal Truth.

So, what is a 'fact'? This too, is defined by logic.

A 'fact' is simply an assumed predicate. It kind of does what a pronoun does for nouns. It makes our language easier. Instead of having to specifically state all the predicates to every conclusion, we can simply assume some of them as a fact. All parties in the conversation must agree to that fact or it ceases to be a fact. It becomes an argument.

No fact becomes a fact simply by stating its a fact.

For example: for those familiar with the Lord of the Rings books, it is a fact that Hobbits have hairy feet. The book describes them this way and everyone simply accepts that Hobbits have hairy feet.

In an argument, one could say that a Hobbit hole would like have a special comb for their feet.
Why? For those that get the joke, they have accepted a fact, though left unstated. For those that don't get the joke, the predicate can be stated to explain it, and again, they would accept that predicate as a fact, though it kind of ruins the punchline (the conclusion).

Is it a fact that the Earth is warming? No. Though often left unstated as well, not all agree to that as a valid predicate. The predicate itself not becomes an argument and is no longer a fact, except to those that simply accept as True on faith. For them, it is a fact.

So you see a 'fact' can be applied to fiction, religions, science, anything. It's just a shorthand for making an argument. It is not a proof of any kind.

To state a 'fact' as a proof is a circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 05:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
To state a 'fact' as a proof is a circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.


Yes indeed that's fair to say. In fact (ha ha) you don't know you're not dreaming right now or that you're in the Matrix.

I'm not being silly as I would imagine you know well this is the sand grain all of western philosophy is built on.

"I think therefor I am" was Descartes leap into truth for all of us.

The question for ANYTHING is how we can usefully make gains using knowledge.

We are surrounded by the fruits of humans doing just that.

So for example, courts just don't let everyone go who is accused of a crime. They realize you can never 100% prove anything. So they have the concept of "Reasonable doubt".
03-08-2019 05:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:So for example, courts just don't let everyone go who is accused of a crime. They realize you can never 100% prove anything. So they have the concept of "Reasonable doubt".

A court of law is not science.

In a court of law people vote on what they believe concerning the DA's speculation of the past. They cannot apply the scientific method unless the DA's theory is, in fact, an observation, i.e. there is photographic, video or audio recording of the event.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
03-08-2019 05:41
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Yet you want to discuss the psychology of something that simply isn't happening.


Trying to shut down discussion isn't helpful James

What do you think about the bias of a human being corrupting their "study" of an issue?

In the law there is a principle that when testimony if given and the one testifying really does not want to say, or is harmed by, what they are saying, it is considered the most credible testimony. The flip side being true as well.

Here is a humorous example:
the onion


And if you had a penis, would you be able to **** yourself? I don't waste my time with hypothetical situations. You don't have a penis.
Nothing to consider.
03-08-2019 05:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote:
Nothing to consider.


Agreed, stop talking to me.
03-08-2019 05:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
A court of law is not science.


Yes that's what I'm driving at. Fine! You won't call it science.

Would you call it useless?

What would you call it?

Fact finding?

Best guessing?

The application of human knowledge to the best of our ability?
(I vote for the last one)
03-08-2019 06:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A court of law is not science.


Yes that's what I'm driving at. Fine! You won't call it science.

Would you call it useless?

For developing technology or for engineering a solution, yes, it is worthless.

tmiddles wrote:What would you call it?

Fact finding?

Best guessing?

Maintaining order in society is like running a business, i.e. you make your honest best guess and you go with it. You try to make it as informed as possible but if you wait until you have 100% certainty then you will be paralyzed with inaction forever ... and you will fail in your objectives.

Best guess. Absolutely.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
03-08-2019 06:53
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Nothing to consider.


Agreed, stop talking to me.



So you agree that you don't have a penis? Talk to someone. You thinking that was clever is just wrong.
03-08-2019 13:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
you make your honest best guess and you go with it. You try to make it as informed as possible but if you wait until you have 100% certainty then you will be paralyzed with inaction forever


I agree completely! When it comes to public policy, laws, and what we choose to "ASSUME" about things we have to go with something. I agree with you and ITN that you shouldn't call it science if it's not. To lie and call it science when it's not is a bit like giving false eye witness testimony "I totally saw the guy do it" and you're lying and it was really "I'm pretty sure that's the guy so I'll help you convict him by lying in court". It degrades our ability to use science and trust what is present in making out "best guess".

BUT we can still make a "best guess" and we really have to for most things.
03-08-2019 16:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:BUT we can still make a "best guess" and we really have to for most things.

Nail hit on head.

Which brings me to Wikipedia. It is a Marxist-run source of international misinformation. You can only be misled by relying on it.

Global warming is the current long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, an aspect of climate change shown by temperature measurements and by multiple effects of the warming.[1][2] The term commonly refers to the mainly human-caused observed increase in global surface temperatures and its projected continuation,


I used to be a Wikipedia contributor until they started "undoing" my corrections to science and math that did not support their political party lines.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
03-08-2019 19:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
To state a 'fact' as a proof is a circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.


Yes indeed that's fair to say. In fact (ha ha) you don't know you're not dreaming right now or that you're in the Matrix.

A movie that demonstrates the point of phenomenology rather well.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm not being silly as I would imagine you know well this is the sand grain all of western philosophy is built on.

No, it isn't. Phenomenology is but a branch of philosophy. It is not all of philosophy itself.
tmiddles wrote:
"I think therefor I am" was Descartes leap into truth for all of us.

A proof in logic, not philosophy. Philosophy has no proofs. Basically Descartes realized that ?A->A is valid. This is also known as the Proof of Identity.
tmiddles wrote:
The question for ANYTHING is how we can usefully make gains using knowledge.

Gains in what?
tmiddles wrote:
We are surrounded by the fruits of humans doing just that.

We are? Gains in what?
tmiddles wrote:
So for example, courts just don't let everyone go who is accused of a crime. They realize you can never 100% prove anything. So they have the concept of "Reasonable doubt".

You can 100% prove things. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems, like mathematics or logic. They do not exist in open functional systems, like science, or philosophy.

Courts are not a branch of knowledge. They are not a functional system in their own right. They are simply a formalized method to present evidence to resolve disputes between people.

War is an informal method that does the same thing.

A court may make use of mathematics, logic, science, philosophy, history, or any of a number of branches of knowledge.

Some courts are illogical. They attempt to force the use of a negative proof, which is a fallacy. Courts in the UK often are set up that way. Here in the United States, that fallacy is avoided by the presumption of innocence.

Forcing a negative proof is a fallacy because the result is inevitably an Argument of Ignorance fallacy.

To illustrate:
A child believes there are monsters living under his bed. His parents try to reason with him that there are no monsters under the bed. The even both look under the bed and find no monster there. The child doesn't believe them. Who is logically correct?

The child.

The parent is actually making an Argument of Ignorance fallacy. There are no monsters under the bed NOW, but that does NOT prove there were never monsters under the bed or that they don't live there.

The child knows his parents are full of shit, but can't quite put his finger on why.

This is why.

Whether there are monsters actually living under the bed or not is immaterial at this point. The reasoning by the parents is flawed. The reasoning by the child is not.

This is a case where the innocence of youth can teach an adult.

The child is making the argument: ?A->A. He is actually using the Proof of Identity in his argument. If the monster exists, then the monster exists. Yes, this is a circular argument. It is also known as the argument of faith or simply 'faith'. It is what all religions are also based upon. By itself, this isn't a fallacy. It's actually a legitimate argument. BUT one MUST always remember the argument is circular in nature. By itself, it cannot be used as a proof of A, and it cannot be used as a proof of !A.

It CAN be used as a proof that A exists as a condition of A. "I think, therefore I am.".

The parents trying to prove there no monster under the bed are actually trying to make the argument (m) =: (M) -> !A, which is a fallacy. Not all cases of monsters under the bed can be checked. Therefore the subset (m) (when they both looked under the bed) is being improperly equated to set (M), which is all cases of monsters being under that bed.

(m) is NOT necessarily equivalent to (M) but only a subset of it. Therefore, A cannot be determined. In other words,

(m) : (M) is not (m) = (M), so (m) =: (M) is invalid as a predicate to a binary conclusion.

The parents are trying to make an Argument of Ignorance fallacy. They are ignorant of other possibilities of (M), hence the name of the fallacy.

Attempting to force someone to make such a fallacy is itself a fallacy, known as the Attempt to Force a Negative Proof fallacy.

No one needs to prove a negative. In one form, this becomes, "innocence is presumed".


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-08-2019 20:11
03-08-2019 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:BUT we can still make a "best guess" and we really have to for most things.

Nail hit on head.

Which brings me to Wikipedia. It is a Marxist-run source of international misinformation. You can only be misled by relying on it.

Global warming is the current long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, an aspect of climate change shown by temperature measurements and by multiple effects of the warming.[1][2] The term commonly refers to the mainly human-caused observed increase in global surface temperatures and its projected continuation,


I used to be a Wikipedia contributor until they started "undoing" my corrections to science and math that did not support their political party lines.


Yup. The bias out there is getting really bad. It now affects Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter (remember when they tried to ban Trump's account?
), newspapers and news networks like Associated Press, BBC, and Reuters, and quite a few forums that will ban people strictly for their political views.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 23:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Into the Night wrote:No one needs to prove a negative. In one form, this becomes, "innocence is presumed".


... and why those who claim Global Warming or Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect bear the full burden of defining their terms and of supporting their claims.

No one is required to justify not sharing said beliefs, especially when the beliefs are claimed to be "settled science" without said science being presented.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
04-08-2019 04:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:It is a Marxist-run


What's with the whole marxist thing?

Are you just saying the information is biased?

I view Wikipedia as being simply an aggregation. It's open to dissenting opinions too so I don't see a big problem.

It's a tool to be used. Since you know it's user supplied content it's easier to remember to have the skepticism you should always have.
04-08-2019 06:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:What's with the whole marxist thing?

Are you saying you need to be educated?

tmiddles wrote: Are you just saying the information is biased?

How much clearer can I be. Wikipedia is deliberate misinformation. It is awash in errors that always support leftist positions. It is full of heavily biased opinions despite the stated "strict neutrality" policy.

tmiddles wrote: I view Wikipedia as being simply an aggregation.

Then you are naive. I can't be any clearer.

tmiddles wrote: It's open to dissenting opinions too so I don't see a big problem.

Wikipedia is not open whatsoever to dissenting opinions. You are naive.

Actually, you are a leftist who appreciates the heavily biased opinions in Wikipedia so you "don't have a problem" with them. Perhaps you get comfort from reading Wikipedia in the same way Christians get comfort from reading the Bible.

You shouldn't be surprised if your Wikipedia-supported positions are summarily dismissed, just as you might expect a Christian's quoting of biblical passages to be summarily dismissed by some.

tmiddles wrote: It's a tool to be used.

Only to possibly point you to authoritative sources for information, not to directly reference the Wikipedia misinformation.

tmiddles wrote: Since you know it's user supplied content it's easier to remember to have the skepticism you should always have.

Unfortunately the people that rush to Wikipedia for their information cannot know what parts they are citing are erroneous yet cite it as though it is correct, like a biblical literalist citing biblical passages.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
04-08-2019 09:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: It's a tool to be used.

Only to possibly point you to authoritative sources for information, not to directly reference the Wikipedia misinformation.


Yeah fair enough. Directly quoting Wikipedia when it's not pulled from some other source is about as authoritative as you and I quoting each other.

However it's handy, just like google which has a lot of biases based on popularity.

Bias should always be assumed.
04-08-2019 17:13
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1398)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: It's a tool to be used.

Only to possibly point you to authoritative sources for information, not to directly reference the Wikipedia misinformation.


Yeah fair enough. Directly quoting Wikipedia when it's not pulled from some other source is about as authoritative as you and I quoting each other.

However it's handy, just like google which has a lot of biases based on popularity.

Bias should always be assumed.


Google is just biased by popularity, but by politics, and money. Google is free to use, but obviously makes a huge amount of money. Where does all that money come from? Only a small part comes from advertising. The main income is in marketing and research data they collect from the users. It's a business, and they are only interested in generating profits. The freebies they pass out, are to attract and keep people using their products, generating data they can sell. If you are looking for something that isn't popular, doesn't fit their political leaning, or what one or their customers is trying to see you, then they make you dig. You have to work hard, and very clearly define your search, even then it might take a few word changes, just to get a few links, that might get you the information your looking for. The top results aren't always the most relevant or useful, as you would expect. Anything global warming/climate change will return several pages of websites dedicated to selling that product, discounting/ridiculing deniers. Most an search about Trump, will return the anti-, or democrat leaning results first. Takes a while to get to what Trump actually said or did, without the bias, and he's the President.

I recently had to by a new washing machine. I had to work hard to find one that wasn't 'High Efficiency', since they don't seem to do the job very well, by using less water. The model I settled on, turned out to be sort of High Efficiency anyway. Going to try putting the cloths through an extra rinse cycle, or even re-washing them without the detergent the second time, see if it turns out better. Guessing that there is a certain 'standard', for a H.E. rating, mine falls short, but still is basically the same deal. Should have trusted some of the negative reviews. Seems to work fine, just doesn't seem to get all the soap out at the end. Basically, saving water is the most important feature anymore, but somethings, it's not practical. How many people are thrilled with low-flow toilets and showers? Both are pretty much standard fixtures, you have to work at it, to find one that isn't low-flow anymore. How much water gets saved, if you need to double up, to get good results?

Basically, you can't entirely trust anything you find on the internet, and the truth is often a lot of work to sort out. There is a lot of bias, to sway your opinion, and purchase choices. Most people are too busy, or lazy, and will click the first link and the list, that seems to fit what they are looking for. Even if the website doesn't work for you, you had to read through some of it, to figure that out.
04-08-2019 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:No one needs to prove a negative. In one form, this becomes, "innocence is presumed".


... and why those who claim Global Warming or Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect bear the full burden of defining their terms and of supporting their claims.

No one is required to justify not sharing said beliefs, especially when the beliefs are claimed to be "settled science" without said science being presented.

.


Exactly.


The Parrot Killer
04-08-2019 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: It's a tool to be used.

Only to possibly point you to authoritative sources for information, not to directly reference the Wikipedia misinformation.


Yeah fair enough. Directly quoting Wikipedia when it's not pulled from some other source is about as authoritative as you and I quoting each other.

However it's handy, just like google which has a lot of biases based on popularity.

Bias should always be assumed.


What I write here is completely authoritative of what I write. The same is true for what you write, or what IBdaMann writes.

Wikipedia is the authoritative source for what Wikipedia writes.

They are NOT the authoritative source of what someone else writes!

For example, they are NOT the authoritative source of any theory of science written by those that wrote them and not by Wikipedia.

It is important to understand line of authority here.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-08-2019 19:48
05-08-2019 00:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:

Wikipedia is the authoritative source for what Wikipedia writes.


Quoting "Wikipedia" though is quoting an aggregation. It would be like attributing a quote to Google.

It's reviewed and footnotes but still a collection.

So I could quote You elsewhere and attribute it to climate-debate.com or to your username.

I can quote Wkipedia or dig in the footnotes to find the source material.
05-08-2019 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Wikipedia is the authoritative source for what Wikipedia writes.


Quoting "Wikipedia" though is quoting an aggregation.

No. It is quoting Wikipedia and nothing more. You have already been informed that you cannot use this source with either me nor IBdaMann.
tmiddles wrote:
It would be like attributing a quote to Google.

No. It is quoting Wikipedia and nothing more. When you quote Google, you are quoting Google and nothing more. False equivalence fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
It's reviewed and footnotes but still a collection.

Irrelevant. The footnotes are filtered just like the content.
tmiddles wrote:
So I could quote You elsewhere and attribute it to climate-debate.com or to your username.

You cannot attribute it to climate-debate.com. When you are quoting climate-debate.com, you are quoting Branner, the owner of this forum. If you quote one of my posts, you are quoting from the authoritative source that made that post: me.
tmiddles wrote:
I can quote Wkipedia or dig in the footnotes to find the source material.

Irrelevant. The footnotes are filtered and biased just like the text in the article.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference source with either me nor IBdaMann. I believe gfm and possibly a few others has taken this stance as well. You don't get to choose this. We do.

Wikipedia is not a science book. It is not a philosophy book. It is not a math book. It is not a logic book. It is not a history book. It is not authoritative on ANY of these subjects. Don't use it that way. It WILL be rejected by IBdaMann and myself.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-08-2019 19:30
05-08-2019 22:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
Wikipedia is not a science book.


Wikipedia is as valid as my posts or yours, Anonymously supplied content that may or may not have supporting references citing each point. You're free to judge everything as you see fit. I've already indicated I take it for what it is.
05-08-2019 22:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:Wikipedia is as valid as my posts or yours,

Not by a long shot. Wikipedia is awash in intentional misinformation. My posts are not.

Wikipedia should be avoided. Feel free to take notes on my posts.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
05-08-2019 23:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:Wikipedia is awash in intentional misinformation.


Warning noted. I would be a fool to doubt intentional bias.
05-08-2019 23:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:Warning noted. I would be a fool to doubt intentional bias.

Is this a misprint or did you misunderstand what I wrote?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
05-08-2019 23:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wikipedia is not a science book.

Wikipedia is as valid as my posts or yours,

Nope. Wikipedia does not speak for me. Neither do you.
tmiddles wrote:
Anonymously supplied content that may or may not have supporting references citing each point.

What I post are known theories of science, equations in logic and mathematics, and philosophical arguments, which support themselves by their own reasoning (the one requirement of any philosophical argument).
tmiddles wrote:
You're free to judge everything as you see fit.

Fine. I judge Wikipedia to be filled with articles that are badly written, biased, and often just plain wrong.
tmiddles wrote:
I've already indicated I take it for what it is.

No, you take it as gospel. It isn't.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 00:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Warning noted. I would be a fool to doubt intentional bias.

Is this a misprint or did you misunderstand what I wrote?


I'm saying I, "I", no "You", assume there is bias always.
06-08-2019 01:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Warning noted. I would be a fool to doubt intentional bias.

Is this a misprint or did you misunderstand what I wrote?


I'm saying I, "I", no "You", assume there is bias always.


... so are you saying that you believe you would be wise to believe intentional bias?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
06-08-2019 01:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Warning noted. I would be a fool to doubt intentional bias.

Is this a misprint or did you misunderstand what I wrote?


I'm saying I, "I", no "You", assume there is bias always.


... so are you saying that you believe you would be wise to believe intentional bias?

.


Yes I'm saying I assume intentional bias in almost everything.

It is useful to have a handle on what the bias is likely to be as it can be a good indication something is reliable when the bias of the messenger would cause them to want to not share the information.

Like a star of the left, Kucinich, backing the claim of deep state interference with Trump
Kucinich previously said during a segment on Fox News that the deep state - the idea of government and intelligence officials working clandestinely to influence policy - was trying to undermine President Donald Trump by throwing his nascent administration into upheaval.

Not going to get play on NPR only of FOX news. The bias of everyone involved makes something like that very compelling.
06-08-2019 01:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote: Yes I'm saying I assume intentional bias in almost everything.

OK, then your post was a misprint. You wrote that you would be wise to believe the intentional bias, that you would be foolish to doubt the intentional bias.

I'm guessing that you meant to write that it would be foolish to doubt that there is intentional bias.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
06-08-2019 01:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
I sort of like the insane concept of being "Pro bias" just across the board

Yes misspoke

I like Michael Moore's style since he is physically on screen being biased. Another documentary is just as biased but pretending it's not.
06-08-2019 01:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote: I sort of like the insane concept of being "Pro bias" just across the board

It gave me a bit of a laugh too.

"Yeah, I'm not going to subscribe to it until it's totally biased!"


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
06-08-2019 02:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I sort of like the insane concept of being "Pro bias" just across the board

It gave me a bit of a laugh too.

"Yeah, I'm not going to subscribe to it until it's totally biased!"


Maybe a belief that truth only comes from real passion!
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate What do you do when you can't engage people to discuss climate change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
are there still people that believe humans are casuing global warming?219-10-2019 21:16
Why don't people take individual action to help stop climate change?6314-09-2019 19:30
So what if CO2 goes up to 1000 ppm and gives people head ache?009-07-2019 03:27
Does mass media convince people?1818-06-2019 05:53
Chinese people are practical, not ideological.729-04-2019 21:08
▲ 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