Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Acting without understanding is not simply poor judgement, it is the height of stupidity. It is counter to every aspect of scientific process and it is a obvious sign of political motivation to a given bias. We are standing in the dark near a cliff, and rather than taking the time to analyze our situation and discover where we are, what our surroundings are like, you are advocating leading the charge off into the dark blindly.
It is simple, you want to impose restrictions on people, you want to interfere, meddle, etc... then establish your position based on scientific process, prove that your position is consistently true to its belief. Establish it properly to such and you won't have to emotionalize people to your position. It will become the logical course of action.
Until then, demanding such without such a proper process is nothing short of promoting dogma.
I call it common sense, which many people lack these days. And they don't want to be reminded of that lack, thus they react accordingly...
The problem with global warming is that it only works PART of the time... when the global warming believers want you to believe... the other majority of the time, its not even an issue...
Well, she has her personal views and seems much more intelligent than most people commenting on this subject.
How does that change anything? If I intelligently convey my message and yet that message is filled with various bias indicators to represent the information in a manner to which I think it should appear for the sake of my own position being bolstered, what benefit did I provide to the discussion? Basically, all I would be doing is preying on the ignorant and lazy to miss my subtle directors and mistake my opinion as having any factual standing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And when some people are denying climate change, why not call them deniers? She also speaks out against many green organizations, thus she seems pretty objective to me...
Point some out. Explain to us what they are denying specifically? I have seen a lot of people on this board and I can't think of any at the moment that "deny" climate changes. So what are they "denying"? Is it CAGW? Last time a checked, CAGW is still a hypothesis and disagreeing with a hypothesis isn't denial. If so, then every scientist in existence is a denier because their entire point of evaluation is to distrust their initial explanation of the observation and do everything they can to cause it to fail.
Go ahead though, clearly, and honestly defend the use of that word with proper explanation, example and context.
I read a headline today that kind of showed the giant absurdity our world has become. It went something like: The whole world is waiting for the new iPhone
I call it common sense, which many people lack these days. And they don't want to be reminded of that lack, thus they react accordingly...
Scientific process is not an evaluation of common sense. That is why we have the scientific method as there are many aspects of observation of the physical world to which defies common sense (look up the physics of optics). Not only that, but in logical argument, common sense is one of the fallacies as it fails to evaluate the information through proper process and subjectively reasons its legitimacy via worthless individual factors, more specifically, lack of sense in a group of idiots is rather common, that is to say... idiots share a common sense.
What part of common sense leads denialists to pretend blogs by cue-card readers have scientific merit? What part of common sense leads denialists to accuse scientists of fraud when their findings contradict the lies of Republican idiots? And what part of common sense leads denialists to keep making the same arguments even after they've had it explained to them they're wrong?
No part. Right-wing common sense leads to denialist arguments like "there was ice in the bucket and more snow then I remember on some mountain, so the precise measurements made over decades must be wrong!"
I read a headline today that kind of showed the giant absurdity our world has become. It went something like: The whole world is waiting for the new iPhone
What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?
How does that change anything? If I intelligently convey my message and yet that message is filled with various bias indicators to represent the information in a manner to which I think it should appear for the sake of my own position being bolstered, what benefit did I provide to the discussion? Basically, all I would be doing is preying on the ignorant and lazy to miss my subtle directors and mistake my opinion as having any factual standing.
Point some out. Explain to us what they are denying specifically? I have seen a lot of people on this board and I can't think of any at the moment that "deny" climate changes. So what are they "denying"? Is it CAGW? Last time a checked, CAGW is still a hypothesis and disagreeing with a hypothesis isn't denial. If so, then every scientist in existence is a denier because their entire point of evaluation is to distrust their initial explanation of the observation and do everything they can to cause it to fail.
Go ahead though, clearly, and honestly defend the use of that word with proper explanation, example and context.
Of course it is biased, it is her OPINION, she doesn't claim to be a climatologist, which actually is why her view is much more interesting. She is not lost in endless numbers everyone interprets the way they like.
Yes, denying that human activity causes or intensifies climate changes.
For instance I would be such a denier if I said the climate in Portugal is not getting hotter and generally speaking more extreme as a trend. I live here and observe it myself. Thus I would not be a skeptic, but a denier.
Scientific process is not an evaluation of common sense. That is why we have the scientific method as there are many aspects of observation of the physical world to which defies common sense (look up the physics of optics). Not only that, but in logical argument, common sense is one of the fallacies as it fails to evaluate the information through proper process and subjectively reasons its legitimacy via worthless individual factors, more specifically, lack of sense in a group of idiots is rather common, that is to say... idiots share a common sense.
I disagree. Common sense is based on the lessons people have learned from the past, coinciding experiences of many people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
