The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-21-2013, 10:28 AM   #26
Eldorado
Formerly orange&blue
 
Eldorado's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pot Roast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That's cute, but another one of your tired logical fallacies.

It's not only like the weather. It is the weather.

"Science" (as you like to monolith it) can't predict Denver, Colorado's temperature two weeks from now. Too many variables. Not even counting the global ones.

Now that doesn't mean someone can't try to make that prediction. And technically, an honest effort at that prediction would still be "science" But in all likelihood that "science" will be wrong.

And any meteorologist worth a damn would tell you not to make plans against his 10-day forecast. Because it's an educated guess. (Like climate models)

Anyway, anyone who conflates "science" with "certainty" has zero clue what they're talking about.
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Eldorado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 10:33 AM   #27
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That's cute, but another one of your tired logical fallacies.

It's not only like the weather. It is the weather.

"Science" (as you like to monolith it) can't predict Denver, Colorado's temperature two weeks from now. Too many variables. Not even counting the global ones.

Now that doesn't mean someone can't try to make that prediction. And technically, an honest effort at that prediction would still be "science" But in all likelihood that "science" will be wrong.
I'll bet that 100 years from now, on 1 July 2113, it will be colder at the South Pole than it will be in Denver.

Now you know the difference between weather and climate.

That you stumbled over something so trivial and basic tells me my "STFU" was correct.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 10:47 AM   #28
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I'll bet that 100 years from now, on 1 July 2113, it will be colder at the South Pole than it will be in Denver.

Now you know the difference between weather and climate.
The main difference is a 'scientist' knows he'll soon be held to account for the predictions he makes about next Friday. So he's motivated to be a little more honest about his level of certainty
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 10:50 AM   #29
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldorado View Post
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Herp. Derp.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 10:57 AM   #30
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The main difference is a 'scientist' knows he'll soon be held to account for the predictions he makes about next Friday. So he's motivated to be a little more honest about his level of certainty
Wait, what? That's the main difference between weather and climate? God, I hope you're joking.

Just to be sure, lets ask outright...do you know the difference?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 10:57 AM   #31
Eldorado
Formerly orange&blue
 
Eldorado's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pot Roast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The main difference is a 'scientist' knows he'll soon be held to account for the predictions he makes about next Friday. So he's motivated to be a little more honest about his level of certainty
Your attacks on peer reviewed scientific literature are incredibly obtuse and lacking in any substance whatsoever.
Eldorado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 11:15 AM   #32
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

I hope Beavis never has to help his kids with their 5th grade science homework.

"Dad, what's the difference between weather and climate?"

"Well son, it all goes back to the scientists..."
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 11:32 AM   #33
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
I hope Beavis never has to help his kids with their 5th grade science homework.

"Dad, what's the difference between weather and climate?"

"Well son, it all goes back to the scientists..."
I think what I was highlighting was the difference between real science and politics hiding under a thin sciency veneer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 12:21 PM   #34
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The main difference is a 'scientist' knows he'll soon be held to account for the predictions he makes about next Friday. So he's motivated to be a little more honest about his level of certainty
I'm very certain than on 1 July 2113, it will be colder at the South Pole than in Denver.

I'm willing to reconsider my extremely high certainty if you have evidence that could lead to Denver being colder than the South Pole on that date.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 12:30 PM   #35
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I think what I was highlighting was the difference between real science and politics hiding under a thin sciency veneer.
So, all of climate science is really politics?

What about Fourier? Tyndall? Arrhenius? Callendar? All of them are frauds?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 12:40 PM   #36
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
So, all of climate science is really politics?

What about Fourier? Tyndall? Arrhenius? Callendar? All of them are frauds?
The study is science (or can be). The constant idol worship of "Consensus" is not. Name any other scientific pursuit in history where the lash of "Consensus" has been so fervently whipped.

It's science's equivalent of "You're With us or You're against us." And it serves no purpose other than promoting group think, and protecting turf.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 12:42 PM   #37
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I'm very certain than on 1 July 2113, it will be colder at the South Pole than in Denver.

I'm willing to reconsider my extremely high certainty if you have evidence that could lead to Denver being colder than the South Pole on that date.
Tell me what the temperature will be for the Ravens opener in a couple weeks. Then I'll be impressed.

If you say it'll be crappy, I'll just go ahead and sell my tickets and stay home. Because Science.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 01:00 PM   #38
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Still completely clueless, I see.

There's a reason for consensus...the data pretty much speaks for itself. "Consensus" is the result of the research.

In other words, the scientific community doesn't come up with a result, then try to justify it. I can understand that you, in your desperate search for scandal after scandal, would think that it's common practice to come up with the answer to a question before doing the research to confirm it, but that's just not how the scientific community operates.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 01:09 PM   #39
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Still completely clueless, I see.

There's a reason for consensus...the data pretty much speaks for itself. "Consensus" is the result of the research.

In other words, the scientific community doesn't come up with a result, then try to justify it. I can understand that you, in your desperate search for scandal after scandal, would think that it's common practice to come up with the answer to a question before doing the research to confirm it, but that's just not how the scientific community operates.
Hate to break this to team Naive, but a guy who's entire livelihood rests on studying the 'threat' posed by AGW is going to start off with a preconception that there's a valid reason for the time and energy spent. "Nothing to see here" doesn't pay the bills.

Put another way, if you believe oil-funded research is automatically suspect because of motive, by definition, you have to assume the same of AGW-advocacy funded research.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 01:24 PM   #40
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Hate to break this to team Naive, but a guy who's entire livelihood rests on studying the 'threat' posed by AGW is going to start off with a preconception that there's a valid reason for the time and energy spent. "Nothing to see here" doesn't pay the bills.

Put another way, if you believe oil-funded research is automatically suspect because of motive, by definition, you have to assume the same of AGW-advocacy funded research.
Please just stop.

Yes, let's just eliminate all scientific research, because the money always has to come from somewhere, and so therefore it's always going to be suspect.

Let's add the War on Science to the list of reasons why conservatives are in the process of fading into obscurity.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 02:21 PM   #41
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Please just stop.

Yes, let's just eliminate all scientific research, because the money always has to come from somewhere, and so therefore it's always going to be suspect.

Let's add the War on Science to the list of reasons why conservatives are in the process of fading into obscurity.
Nobody said stop research. The key is to let a hypothesis percolate for a reasonable amount of time. Measure projection against actual result. That takes time. And thus far, the longer the evaluation goes, the more questionable the alarmist projections have become. In a normal (non-advocacy) atmosphere, that sends scientists back to the drawing board. In this pseudoscientific public debate though, it just causes the faithful to become more shrill, even as temperatures flatten.

That's not the environment for effective dosomethingism. At least not if you want to credibly slap the name "science" on it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 02:29 PM   #42
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Nobody said stop research. The key is to let a hypothesis percolate for a reasonable amount of time. Measure projection against actual result. That takes time. And thus far, the longer the evaluation goes, the more questionable the alarmist projections have become. In a normal (non-advocacy) atmosphere, that sends scientists back to the drawing board. In this pseudoscientific public debate though, it just causes the faithful to become more shrill, even as temperatures flatten.

That's not the environment for effective dosomethingism. At least not if you want to credibly slap the name "science" on it.
So, do nothing at all until you have a completley concrete answer? Gotta love this coming from a rightie. Did you support the iraq war by any chance?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 02:48 PM   #43
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
So, do nothing at all until you have a completley concrete answer? Gotta love this coming from a rightie. Did you support the iraq war by any chance?
Of course I did at first. At least until I found out that the "Consensus" that led us down that path was all effed up.

Funny you didn't see the irony in that before you posted it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 04:05 PM   #44
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Nobody said stop research. The key is to let a hypothesis percolate for a reasonable amount of time. Measure projection against actual result. That takes time. And thus far, the longer the evaluation goes, the more questionable the alarmist projections have become. In a normal (non-advocacy) atmosphere, that sends scientists back to the drawing board. In this pseudoscientific public debate though, it just causes the faithful to become more shrill, even as temperatures flatten.

That's not the environment for effective dosomethingism. At least not if you want to credibly slap the name "science" on it.
That is simply and absolutely not true. In fact, the longer scholarship works on this problem, the more they are confirming this. That is why you are seeing such staggering numbers in the science community coming out saying these things. That is the reason for the consensus, not your feeble attempt at discrediting people who know more than you. "Pseudoscience" is a word that should not be in the vocabulary of someone who doesn't know something as simple as the difference between climate and weather.

In addition, lets just throw some **** at the wall and pretend humans aren't a major contributing cause of global warming. Doesn't change the fact that climate change is happening, and it doesn't change the fact that we are going to need to do something to adapt. Do you see any conservative plan for addressing this? Of course not, because it would mean more of their precious tax dollars being spent. Hell, we have stuff like our tens of thousands of bridges that are collapsing, things that are happening right now that you can go physically see.

No, they poo poo the studies and say things like "it's not so bad", just like you've been doing about the oil spills, despite evidence to the contrary.

If it costs money, unless it means they get to kill some brown people, conservatives just can't bring themselves to understand or support even the simplest of scientific issues. This goes from evolution to climate change, and from public polling to healthcare.

"Math is hard and science is dumb" is the credo of conservatives most everywhere nowadays.

Last edited by houghtam; 08-22-2013 at 09:05 AM..
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 08:18 AM   #45
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The study is science (or can be). The constant idol worship of "Consensus" is not. Name any other scientific pursuit in history where the lash of "Consensus" has been so fervently whipped.

It's science's equivalent of "You're With us or You're against us." And it serves no purpose other than promoting group think, and protecting turf.
The reason we know AGW is happening and it's because of us isn't because there's a consensus.

That's a strawman.

The consensus has arisen because the observations verify the theory.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 08:35 AM   #46
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
The reason we know AGW is happening and it's because of us isn't because there's a consensus.

That's a strawman.

The consensus has arisen because the observations verify the theory.
If consensus had grown so organically, there'd be no need for the politicos to brow beat with it so often. Logically, it looks more like a symptom of a bigger problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

All the signs of Type 3 are there:

Quote:
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
Mind guardsó self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 09:01 AM   #47
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
"Math is hard and science is dumb" is the credo of conservatives most everywhere nowadays.
Hey, at least I'm not the one who thinks mankind is "the" cause of global warming. BTW, the Woolly Mammoth would like a word with you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 09:04 AM   #48
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Hey, at least I'm not the one who thinks mankind is "the" cause of global warming. BTW, the Woolly Mammoth would like a word with you.


Here, let me change it.

I had to let it percolate a little bit before I could alter it.

What a rube.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 09:09 AM   #49
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

How's the climate outside in your neck of the woods today, Beavis?

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 09:10 AM   #50
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post


Here, let me change it.

I had to let it percolate a little bit before I could alter it.

What a rube.
Hey, you live around the Great Lakes. Do you know when many scientists (the normal non-celebrity seeking kind) think those formed?
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Denver Broncos