Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

rj40 wrote:Schneibster, have you ever visited this site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com

What do you think of it?
Pretty good. Realclimate is my usual source of debunking, but I've seen other climate realists use links from skepticalscience and I didn't see any mistakes.
I haven't looked since he let the deniers take over BAUT, and one of them kicked me off. He'd need to have a pretty good explanation of that. And I'd need to see him fix it. I doubt he cares enough about my opinion to bother. So I don't bother with him. For a while I called him the Bad Astronomer and Worse Climatologist.
rj40 wrote:Would you/can you explain to me how more or less believing what the majority of scientists who specialize in the field say, cannot simply be dismissed as an argument from authority? I think I know why, but would like to read what you think.
The actual title of the logical flaw/rhetorical trick should be "appeal to false authority." It's not a fallacy if the authority is in fact an established authority in the field, and even less a fallacy if they're a scientist who's made a career of it. Nobody wastes their career on lies except a politician.

Here are two sites that have extensive information on logical fallacies/rhetorical ploys for analysis. I find Nizhkor more concise, but Stephen's Guide more informative. There is also a popular psychology book called The Art of Clear Thinking by Rudolph Fleisch (think I got the spelling right) that examines these logical flaws as attempts to describe politics and advertising fallacies/ploys; it actually goes more in depth than either site, but is not nearly as comprehensive. The book may be out of print; it's worth your time to get a copy if so. You should also read Doug Rushkoff's Coercion.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/welcome.htm "Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ "The Nizhkor Project's Index of Fallacies"

rj40 wrote:What websites do you frequent where the majority of commenters agree with you, for the most part?
Political ones. The Libertardians have taken over the management of most science sites, and all the atheism sites. They defend Darwin on one forum and deny global warming on another. It's schizophrenic, like believing in relativity and denying the law of gravity.
rj40 wrote:And then, vice versa.
Above.
rj40 wrote:I wouldn't worry too much, the person you probably didn't want to be President lost, and the folks you probably (on the whole) wanted to gain seats in the legislature, did. New laws are being suggested which seek to address AGW. Not as many as you might want, but more than zero. All in all, I would think you would be mildly happy.
It's ten years late and a billion dollars short. They've managed to delay it long enough that it's going to be a slow disaster. Fools.

I am currently predicting between 2.5 and 3.5 human deaths as a result of climate change, divided among heat death in the tropics, starvation due to growing climate moving to infertile land, flooding, and mega-typhoons and -hurricanes, by the end of the century.

We have one hope; luckily it's going great guns. We need to produce fuel from the atmosphere using sunlight and stop mining it out of the ground and burning it. We've got a bacterium that craps gasoline, an algae that stores diesel instead of fat, a rare earth catalyst that makes kerosene, and a carbon nanotube catalyst that makes gasoline; all use sunlight, water, and CO2 from the air, and either grow more-or-less naturally or are more-or-less infinitely reusable.

I hope one of them works; fortunately for me I'm unlikely to be alive at the end of this decade, much less the 2020s.

Good luck.
rj40 wrote:Visiting here can be, in some ways, like that part of C.S. Lewis's book where the character visits Hell. Was it "The Pilgrim's Regess?" I can't remember. Anyway, I don't think you are going to change many minds here, and gloating won't solve much. But what would help me is some good AGW sites.
realclimate, desmogblog, and NASA/GISS are mine. Of course I'm a programmer so I can actually read the GISS AOGCM code directly and check if they've left anything out; they haven't. What amuses me is most of the deniers actually know enough science to know whether the model is correct or not; obviously they're ignoring reality. I've watched a lot of software projects get wrecked by idiots just like these.

My ability to change minds depends on two factors:
1. Peoples' lack of understanding of science.
2. Peoples' ability to learn new things.

The deniers are the ones who are bad at this and I have neither the motivation nor the interest in trying any more. Deniers, enjoy hell. You'll be there to see it; looks like a self-punishing foolishness to me. They all seem to think only brown people are going to die of it.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by rj40 »

Thanks for the reply. I will check that stuff out.

Good luck.

Pax.

:-)

P.S. You could invite others with similar opinions to this board. You know, just to add some variety here. Sadly, I may have to vacate soon as well.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

rj40 wrote:Thanks for the reply. I will check that stuff out.

Good luck.

Pax.

:-)

P.S. You could invite others with similar opinions to this board. You know, just to add some variety here. Sadly, I may have to vacate soon as well.
I don't know many who will bother talking about low-probability fusion projects, who think climate change is in any way questionable. Most of them won't bother with a site that doesn't kick climate deniers off. Mostly they're tired of dealing with climate cranks.

You can't blame them considering it is, after all, technically, geophysics, or climate physics. It's not like it's freshwater economics or philosophy or political science or some such horseshit. We're looking at two million year ice cores. There isn't anywhere to hide. There's no point in arguing with the relativity deniers either.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

I'd bet you've got four or five 9/11 demolitionists here to top off all this pseudoscience.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

And I will repeat (and you can count on me reminding you on each page of this thread): you may be added to my foes list and start being ignored (unless I can see how to ridicule you). Or you can lie which has the same results. Thanks for not wasting my time.

On the other hand, just because you and I believe something different doesn't mean I'll ignore you. Eventually I'll ignore all the plain liars; but if you got the goods, bring it, 'cause I'll listen. I take pride in my willingness to listen; but I've been around long enough to know who to ignore.

If you like real physics, and have read at least two of the 21st century popular physics books by Greene, Thorne, Hawking, or Susskind, and can state their beliefs without lying, we might chat. If you understand that the geometry of the universe is a Poincare hyperboloid in terms of the time dimension and a Euclidean three-sphere in terms of the space dimensions we might have an extended and fruitful conversation.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

paperburn1
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by paperburn1 »

Welcome to Talk-Polywell!

In order to make this forum most useful for all involved, please observe the following guidelines when you post:

1. Be polite. No flames, insults, personal attacks, or other unprofessional behavior.

2. No posts consisting only of a link. If you have something to say, say it; if it's just a link, it belongs on a links page (like this one).

3. Use full sentences, and standard English spelling, punctuation, and grammar as much as possible.

4. You are encouraged (though not required) to use your real name rather than some silly handle. This is a forum for grown-ups.

That's it — please enjoy the forum and contribute what you can!

Thanks,
— Joe
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Stubby »

paperburn1 wrote:Welcome to Talk-Polywell!

In order to make this forum most useful for all involved, please observe the following guidelines when you post:

1. Be polite. No flames, insults, personal attacks, or other unprofessional behavior.

2. No posts consisting only of a link. If you have something to say, say it; if it's just a link, it belongs on a links page (like this one).

3. Use full sentences, and standard English spelling, punctuation, and grammar as much as possible.

4. You are encouraged (though not required) to use your real name rather than some silly handle. This is a forum for grown-ups.

That's it — please enjoy the forum and contribute what you can!

Thanks,
— Joe
LOL
If only those first 2 rules were enforced especially the first one.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

choff
Posts: 2439
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by choff »

Shneibster, could you clarify this a bit.

I am currently predicting between 2.5 and 3.5 human deaths as a result of climate change, divided among heat death in the tropics, starvation due to growing climate moving to infertile land, flooding, and mega-typhoons and -hurricanes, by the end of the century.

Is that number the actual total kill from climate change, I assume you meant something a little higher. Otherwise we should all take our chances and not put ourselves out hundreds of billions over something we can adapt to over a century.
CHoff

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

The climate cranks always think it's "insulting" to call them climate cranks. Same with the religionists lying about Darwin for jebus.

Of course it's perfectly OK if they insult professional scientists and lie about their work.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

paperburn1
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by paperburn1 »

LINKS?
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

paperburn1 wrote:LINKS?
For what? You're the one making insane claims, like that 14 thousand climate papers are wrong and 25 are right. I already provided a link to prove that. Did you forget?

Here it is again for your convenience: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-cl ... -pie-chart

Also here is the Nizhkor Project article on the Appeal to False Authority logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html

Let me quote:
Nizhkor wrote:This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
Period. Full stop.

You'll notice it particularly refers to whether the cited authority is actually a legitimate authority on the subject. I would say climate geophysicists are pretty much real authorities on climate geophysics. I would say you are a random person on the Internets and are NOT.

Maybe it's just me.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

paperburn1
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by paperburn1 »

LINKS?
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

paperburn1 wrote:LINKS?
You're the one who needs them. I provided all I need above. You're just lying now.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

paperburn1
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by paperburn1 »

And I know better than to ask, but where did you get the info that I did not believe in climate changes? Please provide links :D
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

paperburn1 wrote:And I know better than to ask, but where did you get the info that I did not believe in climate changes? Please provide links :D
You wanted to fight.

I'm game, sport. Bring it.

Or back down and pretend you never did. No skin off my sweet patootie.

I don't intimidate much. Maybe you made a bad mistake.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Post Reply