global warming

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

manas wrote: We will basically eat ourselves to extinction.
Are you familiar with the Buddha's teachings on nutriment?
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

manas wrote:...there is so much that is indisputably important...
Opinions are neither indisputable nor that important.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

manas wrote:It's not considered very 'PC' to say what I just said above.
:?: What you said is the epitome of PC.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

Kim O'Hara wrote:I am eternally (well, so far!) curious about why and how people manage to maintain irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You mean irrational beliefs like these?

Climate change "science" involves the commission of the informal fallacy of insufficient sample sizes which qualifies the predictions as commissions of the informal fallacy known as hasty generalization, a.k.a.:

-the fallacy of insufficient statistics/the fallacy of insufficient sample: basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent all the data

-generalization from the particular/leaping to a conclusion/hasty induction/secundum quid: inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence; essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables

Climate change "science" also involves the commission of the informal fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. a.k.a., correlation proves causation--a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. In this case, the fallacy is committed when the claim is made that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. It also involves the informal fallacies of the single cause (causal oversimplification)--it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes (which takes us back to hasty generalization); incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison; regression fallacy--ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy; argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)--where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so; and an appeal to emotion--where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning, in this instance it is a special appeal to fear where the argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice not only towards to the opposing side but aslo by appealing to an imminent yet somehow unknown future danger.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: global warming

Post by Dan74 »

Kim O'Hara wrote: And I am eternally (well, so far!) curious about why and how people manage to maintain irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

:coffee:
Kim
I guess often it's because they are emotionally compelled to do so.

Sometimes very intelligent people can hold extremely irrational beliefs. Look at Bobby Fisher, for example, or Grothendieck, or Goedel - my profession is full of brilliant weirdos....

As for Global Warming, it is quite astounding to me that Daniel, for example, thinks that the foremost scientists in the world are unaware of basic rule of reasoning, but there you go...
_/|\_
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Post by daverupa »

Dan74 wrote:the foremost scientists in the world
Well, foremost climate scientists; but yes, to lump their conclusions together as 'opinion' is a bewildering whitewash.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: global warming

Post by Dan74 »

Last edited by Dan74 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara »

daverupa wrote:
Dan74 wrote:the foremost scientists in the world
Well, foremost climate scientists; but yes, to lump their conclusions together as 'opinion' is a bewildering whitewash.
Let's be really clear how strong the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming really is. This chart is the result of a formal, published, review of what all professionally active climate scientists believe, as demonstrated by their professional publications:
pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg
pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg (33.13 KiB) Viewed 3213 times
See http://www.jamespowell.org/ for the analysis and methodology.

Anyone reading this who now refuses to accept the validity of AGW in general (you don't have to accept all the tiniest details) should turn off their computer right now because it was designed by scientists, a bunch of loonie lefties who probably made it so it will rot users' brains and infect them with everything from animism to zoroastrianism ...

Oh, you're still reading?
Great!
:group:
Then we can drop that stupid argument about whether AGW is real, and move on to how to deal with it.
There's a lot to do.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: global warming

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

Hi, Kim. Glad to read that you are doing well.

I won't add any more to the "unending debate" other than to say that the issue is not the fact of global warming, because we both know that it depends upon when you begin your survey of global temperatures as has already been mentioned earlier in this thread.

Image

Versus:

Image

My perspective has to do with "climatologists" not addressing all the causes and contributions, which point was brought to the fore by physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, vulcanologists, and etc.. Since I have long ago grown tired of addressing these repeatedly, I will decline to do it again. Suffice it to say, that we still have much to learn, and much to discover.

For those, who decry man's contribution to GW, my advice is to turn off your computer, turn off your cars, walk to the store, reduce, reuse, and recycle.

May all beings find peace, contentment, and take joy in the accomplishments of politicians. :hug: :anjali:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
chris98e
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:52 am

Re: global warming

Post by chris98e »

polarbuddha101 wrote:Also, we happen to be coming out of an ice age so warming is to be expected. :namaste:
Yeah we're coming out of an ice age and into the heat age and global warming is speeding the heat age up faster into the too hot to live in age. Also, I really don't know what ice age scientists are talking about. The real ice age was a long time ago. I wouldn't say that there's another ice age happening. The real ice age was when everything was covered in ice way back in the real ice age 20,000 years ago. The only reason why they still call this the ice age is because Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. In an ideal world that ice should probably exist no matter what. However because of global warming they have less time to stick around.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

daverupa wrote:
Dan74 wrote:the foremost scientists in the world
Well, foremost climate scientists; but yes, to lump their conclusions together as 'opinion' is a bewildering whitewash.
I borrowed the word "opinion" from the source you cited. All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic. Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.

Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.

But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.
Now tell me, have you ever heard or read of any statistical study by a real scientist suggesting that a data sample of this minuscule size ought be used as the basis for accurately predicting the probability of future results or events? NO. Of course not. It would be and is preposterous, laughable really. Yet the U.N. and countless countries around the world are budgeting trillions of dollars (US) and considering bankrupting themselves and their citizenry on the basis of such statistical lunacy.
Global Warm Up for Totalitarianism
Last edited by danieLion on Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

chris98e wrote:
polarbuddha101 wrote:Yeah we're coming out of an ice age and into the heat age
Look at the graphs, current temperature is almost near bottom.

See

Image


The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years,
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/ ... q-6.2.html

Check how high C02 levels have been in the past 500 million years. We are actually at the near bottom of CO2 and temperature levels.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

Dan74 wrote:As for Global Warming, it is quite astounding to me that Daniel, for example, thinks that the foremost scientists in the world are unaware of basic rule of reasoning, but there you go...
Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: global warming

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

danieLion wrote:Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.
I'm sorry, but these "fallacies" are not quite as "glaring" as you seem to believe.

If you would kindly post a short summation of what you think is "wrong" with climate science, I'd be grateful. I'm looking through your posts and while I see many points, many of them reasonable, I can't quite gather them into one coherent statement that warrants a response.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
danieLion wrote:Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.
I'm sorry, but these "fallacies" are not quite as "glaring" as you seem to believe.

If you would kindly post a short summation of what you think is "wrong" with climate science, I'd be grateful. I'm looking through your posts and while I see many points, many of them reasonable, I can't quite gather them into one coherent statement that warrants a response.
See above post. Maybe you can't make them coherent because they contradict your prejudice.
Locked