Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 8, 2015 19:30:39 GMT
You posted 4 memes and a YouTube video in response To be purposely provocative, but still the topic being the US involvement or lack thereof, in 9/11. It goes so far beyond that, and there are so many conspiracy theories. Essentially, the US strives to be an Empire. There's no question about this. At one time, in the last century, we had genuine humanitarian efforts in the world. But that's completely opposite now. I am not proud to be an American because of the horrific things our country is doing in the world. We have managed to go from having countries look up to us, to some of the same countries now hating us. When I've traveled in Europe, I've been hesitant to admit I'm American. We have such a terrible reputation, it's shameful.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Sept 22, 2015 21:14:54 GMT
Morde and fellow Insanos
Look at Australia false flag operation.
Check out port Arthur and associated conspiracy.
It's freaky
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 24, 2015 3:10:37 GMT
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Sept 24, 2015 3:31:50 GMT
What bout Marty Bryant and port Arthur morde?
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 24, 2015 4:32:55 GMT
What about them Dodgeworth?
|
|
|
Post by Sicherdraht on Sept 24, 2015 6:00:45 GMT
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Sept 24, 2015 6:56:44 GMT
What about them Dodgeworth? Your thoughts
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 24, 2015 14:40:26 GMT
My thoughts are that we, mankind, have not yet risen above justifying our most insidious means with grossly misappropriated ends. Of this I am thoroughly convinced by the staggering volumes of evidence on numerous cases, "conspiracy theory" or otherwise, that detail the intentional slaughter of innocent civilians for political or otherwise unjust gain. These accounts are both older than Columbus' recreational slaughter of the new world's populace, and newer than the disturbingly questionable and unexplained tragedy of 911. I'm wrapped around my toilet after trying to stomach the article Sicherdraht linked, but I must go on. What are your thoughts on aliens causing global warming? Mine are that Sich is a troll. " This serious looking equation gave SETI an serious footing" Why Sicherdraht, why? " In science consensus is irrelevant." Madn- "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus." Wh- "Period." *breathes heavily* Ok, I made it through the vague anecdotal connections to nuclear winter, smoking, and aliens, and now it sounds like he's going to talk about global climate change (pg 9). Critchon doesn't know the difference between weather and climate, and his solution to the problem of the myth of global climate change, a myth he has yet to discuss, is to make a private scientific institute funded privately in such a way that investigators cannot determine who is funding the research. He proposes this because of perceived similarities to the validity of double-blind"ed" studies in pharmacological research. Double-blind research is effective because it imposes neutrality on the researcher and test person. Making the public blind to who is funding a private science facility does anything but bring neutrality to the researchers. Alright, I read through his first speech, "Aliens cause global warming". I'm certain you posted that as a troll now, but Dodgy wanted something to talk about, so- He refutes the idea of projections, which is reasonable enough, but global climate change doesn't rely on projections, hence the consensus in the scientific community (consensus isn't irrelevant- it suggests credible evidence). In that sense, global climate change is like the distance between the earth/sun or the laws of dynamics, though Critchon makes the claim that, because private corporations who stand to lose incredible profits fund laughably misguided researchers to disagree without any refutation for modern scientific proof, then it must be wrong and dissimilar to proven science. In less critical words, all one needs to do to disprove something is pay a scientist to disagree with it. The most compelling claim he makes is an anecdote about a "skeptic" (and I put skeptic in quotations not because they're evil, but rather because this individual was not truly a skeptic, but a science salesman funded by private interests and given a shockingly long leash to write nothing of substantive value and still pass peer-review who is berated by the scientific community. What "science" was fighting against in this case was the entry of corporate pseudo-science into the realm of actual science, an attempt to shoehorn in the idea that the earth is flat, or that humans were created by G-d a few millennia ago, for private religious, political, or economic purposes. I challenge anyone here to read through all three of those speeches. I made it through one.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 24, 2015 16:50:12 GMT
I don't think Sicherdraht posted those articles to be a troll. He expressed genuine admiration for Critchon. Maybe your definition of troll is inaccurate, because raising one's own beliefs and opinions is not trolling, especially in an off-topic thread. I wasn't able to read any of the articles word for word. As soon as he came to a conclusion, I skipped ahead to the next paragraph. It is an error he makes repeatedly. The problem with a conclusion is that all further arguments are based on that foundation. If the foundation is faulty, the whole argument falls flat before you even need to read further. So I applaud you Mordi, for your ability to read one completely. None of his arguments are scientific. He tries to use logic and reason, based on his own experiences. That also doesn't work with science. No scientist can reasonably predict the future. Climatologists and scientists are not necessarily the same - predicting weather based on known patterns can only work a few days in advance. No reputable scientist can predict the outcome of climate change. They can only observe what is happening, and has happened. Some may predict an outcome based on a trend, but nothing is certain and they are the first to admit it. The real debate is usually not if there is climate change, but if humans have caused it. Based on the fact that the poles have not been melted for millennia and it happens during the last 150 years of human habitation, it points to it. Critchon's arguments appear to me to have no consistency. Many things I would agree with on a personal level- such as taking personal responsibility for the conditions in which we live. Short term profits and exhausting resources harm us all in some way, and future generations.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Sept 24, 2015 18:06:30 GMT
My definition of troll is accurate enough, but I may have misinterpreted him. I believed his link to be a genuine attempt at humor. Sich, if such is not the case, my apologies.
Interesting points Caliya. "Predicting the future" is a tough phrase, but to some degree we can infer what events will take place over the next 50-100 years. For example, ice sheets and glaciers will continue to melt, sea levels will continue to rise, atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase, and natural disasters will increase in frequency. Sure, we don't know what the consequences of these things will be (though we can infer), but we know that they are happening at an increasingly fast rate and show no signs of stopping.
While I agree that "predicting weather" can only happen a few days (or more accurately, 24 hours) in advance, the same is not true for climate, which can be defined as observable long-term weather conditions. Long-term climate patterns are accountable and the Earth has established cycles that we understand to some degree. For example, glaciation and (often mistaken for an ice age) occurs roughly every 20,000 years.
One such element of science that is understood and accepted by the scientific community is the Seuss effect, which directly links excess atmospheric carbon to fossil fuel combustion. In other words, there is considerable evidence for our causing of the current more-rapid-than-usual climate change. The Seuss effect is demonstrated through analyzing atmospheric carbon isotope levels. In the earth's naturally occurring carbon, isotope levels are low because the carbon has had millions of years to break down its less-stable isotopes. In CO2 created recently from the combustion of fossil fuels, the isotopes have not had long to break down into carbon-12, and so carbon released from fossil fuel combustion will have a demonstrably higher level of isotopes. Scientists have thoroughly tested atmospheric carbon levels, and the conclusion was that atmospheric carbon isotopes are extremely high.
Critchon hitches a lot of his arguments on the idea that science is either absolute or not, but in reality, a lot of scientific "facts," taken as such, are actually unproven theories, like the theory of relativity, the big-bang theory, the theory of human-instigated climate change, and the theory of evolution. It is true that nothing is certain, but that doesn't mean that we can't be very confident that gravity is real, or that the Earth is billions of years old, or that our actions can have an impact on our planet.
I agree with your finding that Critchon lacks consistency. He brings up irrelevant values (good values, but irrelevant nonetheless) to distract his audience from the fact that he has no genuine refutation for global climate change. His closest things to such a refutation are an anecdote about long-term business investments, and an assertion that projections are all that climate change stands on and that they are unreliable.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Sept 24, 2015 20:16:49 GMT
Agreed on all counts of what you say, Mordi.
I didn't read in enough detail, but something mentioned earlier - about public vs. private funding of science. The real problems come with privately funded research, for reasons you mentioned.
In my husband's work, as a scientist, no one has ever told him what he could or should be researching. It's entirely up to him. Of course, he has to find research groups that want him to work with them. But none of it is driven by government expecting any outcome. Publicly funded research is the most independent there is. It's the private, corporate funded "research" that has always cause problems - and likely much of the refuted evidence of climate change is coming from corporate interest groups.
Quite awhile ago, I read an article in Science News about a new finding that mothers who both bottle and breastfed their infants had infants that got sick easier. So mothers should either exclusively bottle feed or breastfeed, but not both. I was incensed and researched who funded the research. Sure enough, it was the largest infant formula manufacturer, private research.
The same thing happens with the FDA passing prescription drugs. Researchers that work for the drug manufacturers submit their research. It's all a scam.
You probably know all this, but I still thought it worth saying for those that read this and might not know.
|
|