|
| Thread: I gave up on believing in Climate Change. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted October 30, 2009 02:58 PM |
|
|
How did you now?
Also, do you have ketchup, I think I lack ketchup.
Can you also guess what I'm drinking? 
PS: Sorry if this is too off topic.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 04:00 PM |
|
|
Correlation does not imply causality.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 05:57 PM |
|
|
Prove me wrong.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 06:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Correlation does not imply causality.
causation
causality is something different...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 06:00 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:01, 30 Oct 2009.
|
Burden of proof is on you mate
@Dagoth: yeah sorry about that 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 06:22 PM |
|
|
So you can't refute it?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 06:27 PM |
|
|
Haha funny OmegaDestroyer.
As you know though (I'm pretty certain ) you're the one who made the statement, without proper validation he'll not believe it no matter what.
That's why the burden of proof is on your shoulders, and why he'll refute it automatically, unless you manage to convince him.
Your attempt did not convince and therefore it's been refuted.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 06:38 PM |
|
|
It has not been refuted. He has provided no evidence or argument to invalidate my point. In short, he hasn't proven me wrong. Just because the Death doesn't believe isn't enough.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 07:26 PM |
|
|
There is nothin to refute. Stop being childish. Although I do understand it can be fun ;P
Either into what are you making a parallel to you are trying to make and into what, and we can see what to think of it. All I can think of is that you are comparing climatescience into.. that.. and well I hope you are happy in your fortress of ignorance ;P
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 07:29 PM |
|
|
Omega the point is that you didn't shown convincing arguments that it is the cause of it (obviously the one who made it actually did it for lulz). I can't "refute" a negative.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 30, 2009 07:31 PM |
|
|
Those 3 pirates that President Windbag ordered dead... 3 more degrees. 
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 06:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't "refute" a negative.
Don't they usually say rather something like "You can't disprove a negative" (or is it prove?)
Anyhow, it's incorrect, with both prove and disprove.
Quote:
Just because the Death doesn't believe isn't enough.
The purpose of making a statement, is to add it for the debate (or otherwise it would be off topic, since the topic is about the debate).
Anyway that's of course assuming it's a debate that's ordered and controlled.
Can you not manage to convince any of your statement, then your statement will not be accepted (which kind of gives), that's why the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
That's the process of learning goes like this:
Information -> Justify -> Knowledge.
You want your knowledge to be the knowledge of others, or at least put it to the test that others can present.
Doing this, you can only present it as information, then justify it through argumentation and if justified accordingly, it'll become knowledge for others.
Depending on the level of debate, you might meet resistance (not negative), which means you'll meet good arguments that counters the justification of your current knowledge, and gives you even more perspective.
However, as you can see from what I wrote, an information is not knowledge, until justified.
However what you apply goes like this:
Present knowledge -> expects others to disprove knowledge -> accepts knowledge.
This way, you won't put your knowledge to the test, because no one can possible know what made you justify your knowledge in the first place, which means it can be very hard to actually come with counter arguments, because your own arguments are unknown.
Secondly, expecting anyone to actually care for an unjusitified knowledge, i.e. take time to make a statement likely because the person behind the statement did not, is something that'd require both a high interest in the subject of the statement, and probably a good amount of knowledge of that subject.
Thirdly, following such a procedure (it's true until proven wrong) means that a lot of information which we don't know is true or not, will be given as true. But as we don't know, it's of course wrong to assume them to be either true or false. (Like God, it does not make any sense to assume God to be true (religion), nor false (atheist).
I can also make a variable, known as the unmeasurable Lexxan, this variable is unmeasureable, so you can't prove it wrong, you can't however test if it's true either.
I can give this variable powers to interact, but still not be measureable.
Now the unmesureable Lexxan will interact with your life, maybe, you won't know though, because it's unmeasureable and can't be proven to be neither true or false, making any assumption on this variable makes no sense, because it can't be measured anyway, it's a variable you'd always remove from any theory using Occams Razor.
Also finally, if you want to know why placing any graph, no matter how nicely it may fit, does not prove a connection, then it's because you can place 2 random variables on any graph, as one changes the other might, or might not change, but all in all, they may still be connected how chaotic it may look like, that's just how they're connected.
What's really required is that you can isolate both variables and then change only one and see how the other follows accordingly.
Also like mentioned before, your x-axis is ordered from, so your graph looks different (you can always make a simple relation in a graph, if you just orders it as you please, and chooses the results that fits well, that's pretty given for everything you can measure).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
titaniumalloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 03:28 AM |
|
|
Guys, please don't spam this thread.
Quote:
Your x-axis has been tamped with delibaretly to make the graph look nice.
Also, even if it hadn't, I don't see the proof, only an indication at most (though many would probably not even accept that).
Is this guy for real?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 05:50 PM |
|
|
Sometimes ohforfsake doesn't make much sense, I guess he doesn't know how to express himself. I had trouble understanding him in other threads as well.
I think he meant something like numerology: you can make any seemingly connection between anything if you look hard enough. The point is that DATA isn't taken for granted if there is no JUSTIFICATION for it. Omega offered us DATA, but what is the justification for it?
Something like cherry-picking.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 02, 2009 02:03 PM |
|
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 02, 2009 02:05 PM |
|
|
I already posted that stuff way too much, here, lith, but it's appreciated
And, lith, you're back!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 02, 2009 02:20 PM |
|
|
Nah, just dropping by to hit a few buttons CBA to linger here too long.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 03:18 AM |
|
|
|
titaniumalloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 03:42 AM |
|
|
I don't see anything particularly special about that article. It even has the token polar bear picture.
Extreme weather events and warm temperature anomaly quoted over a time scale of "a dozen years" in the article doesn't contribute anything to the discussion of whether or not climate change is anthropogenic.
12 years in a geological time scale of a highly variable planet is infinitesimally small. You also have to remember that Earth has had ice for <20% of its lifetime. Ice melting is not unusual, in fact, it is the norm. So is temperature rise and fall.
Also note that as Corribus has stated, these figures are not sourced or quoted with the degree of accuracy.
The next step is to argue that these figures (if reliable) show that regardless of whether or not climate change is caused by humans, it is happening and is important.
This does not, however, mean cutting off all our fossil fuel economy and our power investments; any change to this system large enough to make any reasonable impact on climate change would cripple the economy and leave us bankrupt to deal with the consequences we are already committed to.
Shouldn't we instead focus on using the power and capital rich economies we have built on fossil fuels and focus it on adaptation and helping those most vulnerable to the changes?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 03:46 AM |
|
|
You totally missed the point. The point is the CHANGE, not the absolute increase in temperature which is negligible if you look at the last century or so (I mean 10 years vs 100...), but that the CHANGE (i.e DERIVATIVE) accelerated even beyond the WORST predictions they made.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
|
|
