chasteh

>Why? Why should the person whose science is published make any difference to the science that is published? You slid off the issue a little bit here. Much of the post you are responding to said that it shouldn't. However, the person's qualifications in the matter are always relevent. In your case, Gilligan, you weren't as qualified as the professor, but we had at least some way of consindering your information as factual - you were actually on the island. Are you and mnealtx on that island? If you are, you definitely don't have the same perch that kallend does. Kallend can see the entire thing and you guys are stuck looking at one piece. The chance that the piece you could be standing on was not already seen by kallend is next to non existent. This is an important analogy because it demonstrates how experience makes a difference. Notice I have said nothing here that parallels how well known any of you are. Are you actually fighting my statements? >A person who isn't "qualified" by whatever person or group appoints itself as the arbiter of same may have valid things to say. Sure. I am saying it is far far less likely, but that doesn't mean I am ruling out that possibility. For a lawyer, it sure doesn't seem like you are understanding my case very well. > Dontcha think that any studies or other actions brought about by Generation Investment Management, LLC, should be looked upon with some degree of skepticism? I remember saying: "That is right, a study funded by Greenpeace would be equally suspect." Which, by remaining in the context of the point I was making earlier, would also leave us room to be suspicious of their motives if they had the potential to make enormous profits based on the biases they "influence" in specific scientists. Have you said that they fall under that category? No, you said that the GIM does. That is a little bit different. Please show how Greenpeace will gain in the same volumes as Exxon/Mobil through lobbying, and don't falter by stating some other business is guilty of doing it. >I believe that all of these organizations are in the business of making money. Well, I just looked at the site for GIM, LLP, and you are right. That still fits in quite well with what I said before, with the exception of the one line that you decided to shred to pieces (which wasn't my main point, but whatever) "Unfortunately, Greenpeace doesn't have nearly as much to gain as Exxon/Mobil does" >Sure it does. Perhaps not monetarily, but Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc., are lobbies. They are special interest groups. Do Greenpeace and the Sierra club really have as much to gain? It looks here as though you said they do have something to gain, but then you decided to leave them aside and then say another conglomerate, GIM LLP, is involved in the global warming "scandal" to make a profit. (edit): Was Greenpeace's income potential too small for you to attack? Also, every political party is involved in lobbying. Does that mean that each lobbyist or the special interest group that they are affiliated with is guilty of having the same profit motives as some other special interest group? Of course not. And in actuality, it becomes increasingly difficult to make that comparison when what is being compared makes billions of dollars to begin with or has the potential to earn billions of dollars based on that policy decision. Show me how Greenpeace and its members do this for Greenpeace, please. >>And I will agree with you here, it is far more likely that a well-tenured professor or researcher will be heard than some random Joe (Mnealtx) even if he were correct on the issue. >If "hype" was not a factor this would not be the case. (From Top) "Notice I have said nothing here that parallels how well known any of you are." Did I make a claim saying that we should trust you because you are well known? Or, did I say that a person who has reputable qualifications (Like, A degree in a relevant field of interest) is in a better position to address the issue we are discussing? >The problem is that reduction of greenhouse gases at all costs seems to be the rule now Really? Thats quite a generalized statement. Hell, if you get one then I get one: People think "the reduction of greenhouse gases at all costs is the rule now." >Because they are people with vested interests. Fantastic, so we agree that someone who will greatly profit from the policy change that would result from accepting either position on the issue deserves our suspicion.

>I ask, however, who benefits from having their viewpoints discredited by evidence? "He's a helluva nice guy. A good Joe. A brilliant mind. And a fantastic theoretician. Working for the good of mankind and the earth. But he's been proven incorrect. I think we should provide more research." Like the kind of reseach that kallend is qualified to perform? >They may only do so with scientists, right? "This study paid for by Exxon/Mobil" is equally as suspect as "This study funded by Greenpeace." Well, it sure makes a difference of those scientists are actually in the field we are discussing. Someone with a physics, meteorology, or other relevant research background would do. (Not typically a communications specialist... but what the hell) That is right, a study funded by Greenpeace would be equally suspect. Unfortunately, Greenpeace doesn't have nearly as much to gain as Exxon/Mobil does. Of course, you might say that Greenpeace is out to gain control of the US presidency or Congress, in which case I would laugh. The green party doesn't even come close to having control of the U.S. government. However, if it were interested in influencing U.S. policy for the purposes of protecting the planet from Industrial emissions, they could do so by lobbying a congressman or senator, right? I'm still much more suspicious of the guys working for Exxon/Mobil. >Hmmm. I didn't think science was about whom is speaking It isn't supposed to be. However, after reading so many of Mnealtx's posts I can't help but take what he (sorry- It) says less and less seriously. >I thought science was about the methodology and results and analysis of same. It is supposed to be that way. And I will agree with you here, it is far more likely that a well-tenured professor or researcher will be heard than some random Joe (Mnealtx) even if he were correct on the issue. (Of course, "if you were correct" here is not the same as "You are correct on the issue" Mnealtx) >No debate. It will be ignored because Joe Schmo is the researcher. No, don't even peer review it." The trouble is that whenever Joe Schmo actually has something useful to say, he ends up getting large amounts of attention or even business. Sort of like Thomas Edison: "Thomas Edison began his career as an inventor in Newark, New Jersey, with the automatic repeater and his other improved telegraphic devices, but the invention which first gained him fame was the phonograph in 1877. This accomplishment was so unexpected by the public at large as to appear almost magical. Edison became known as "The Wizard of Menlo Park," New Jersey, where he lived" Joe Schmoe won't be ignored forever. The trouble for you is that everyone here has been reading what mnealtx posts, and it turns out that most here aren't interested in listening anymore. If there really is more information to be added on his side, society will eventually be forced to accept the "truth" of his words. This will occur if Co2 is dumped for the next couple of decades without a significant climate change. On the other hand, if there is a major change, Mnealtx's sources will be discounted.

Bill said "if you think that...." not "You think that......."

Wow. I'll click the link after my shower here at 11 in the morning. Hey, wait, aren't these all instances where capitalism ends up working against itself? Isn't there some clause stated in self-interested motives that requires us to remain rational? It really, really looks like these businesses are paying people to do otherwise. Uh oh.

>The issue is that a global warming "orthodoxy" has taken hold and stifles scientific inquiry for political reasons In that case you need to read my latest posts. I understand where the thread started, however, I am not the person who began the discussion about the scientific causes, am I? >I don't really have a view about the science of global warming yet. And if real science continues to be stifled by the AGW orthodoxy, I'm unfortunately going to have a great deal of trouble actually seeing various expert opinions, to help me form my own thoughts Yep. It is very hard to see through the nasty political ties that have been strengthened by the debate. It would be nice to have more information that everyone could accept, and then have everyone debate the issue from there. The trouble is, we just aren't getting to that point. Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like all the other political/sociological issues being discussed in this forum. No one is even willing to agree on what the truth is, let alone what we should do or feel about it.

A virgin's encounter with his first pull-up cord Verse 1 MY first pull-up cord, through the loop we go, my very first pull-up cord How I will miss you so. I used you dude, the ride to altitude, and out my pocket you go. Back and forth, as if raised on a porch, I treated yo like a ho. I know, you know, there are a hundred more, Some jerk can't help but speak out: "hey idiot, grab one from the floor!" My first pull-up cord, I could never replace you, 35 pack jobs, riggers just don't have a clue. But the time we had together was special, my very first pull-up cord, Because when I first met you, I was nervous, stiff as a board. "35 pack-jobs is a lot" "You need a new pull-up cord, you fool!" Them Packers were confused, always calling you a "tool." But in my memories you will last forever, You and I had a special time together That time was short, after a big endeveur You've seen better days, you do smell like purple haze, Yes, somehow even pull-up cords are able to blaze. Weekend after weekend, my very first pull up cord, Good bye dear friend you never left me bored.

>Indeed - lawyers are not paid to reveal the truth, they are paid to make sure their side wins regardless. As are oil company (and tobacco) executives Yep. Why do we have reason to suspect that they would do such a thing? Because there is clearly a benefit they would receive from having their view accepted. If the tobacco or oil executives can convince others that cigarettes or petroleum products are not harmful to your health or the planet, then they will have more business (thus, wealth). We have reason to suspect their position is jaded in that case.

>Second - Galileo also had the balls to go against the established dogma. Mmm Hmm. And where in my posts did I suggest that we stick with established dogma? You are fighting against something I did not say. >Does anybody who has risen to the top on the basis of their theories want their theories to be proven wrong? That would depend on their loyalty to the scientific method. Are they religious? Are they conservative? Are they liberal, for that matter? How much money are they making, now? Are they lawyers? (Each of those persons is highly likely to do whatever they can to protect the position they have-at any cost. If anyone knows that, its you.) A University professor, on the other hand, (especially if he is responsible for conducting research) is actively looking for those types of anomolies. Are you or mnealtx really one of those persons, or are you just sticking to dogma? (It would be important to note here that it is quite dogmatic to say that something such as global warming does not exist or that it is not caused by co2 emissions-typically the latest move of those who used to simply deny global warming altogether [Mnealtx - feel free to totally misunderstand this one too. I made no claim about what I think about global warming here]) >In the world of ideas and thought, there are those who control it. Hence, people are summarily identified by self-appointed arbiters as qualified or unqualified. That falls in line with what other hard core anarchists say about groups like the illuminati. There is more to be said here to justify such a claim....

>>Hint: It has everything to do with dogmatism. >Funny. That's Mike's frequent point. Yea, if only he didn't have such a dogmatic approach hisself (sorry- it's-self) on so many issues on this forum, we might actually have reason left to accept what he has to say this time. >Yes. At least he should be. In college and law school I challenged my professors. I was fortunate to have a few that WANTED t be challenged. Great. Kallend seems to be one of those people. >I don't think there is anyone better at this than billvon. Well, maybe me. Billvon has actually changed my opinion on some things. Again, because afyer reflection I conclude he is actually right. >I note that historically, innovation and enlightenment come from those who are not in the established elite Being from the southwest, i.e. New Mexico, I have never met a professor that is amongst the "elite." Each of my professors has made less than 40,000 a year. I note that at times innovation and enlightenment come from those who are in the established elite. Like Professor Isaac Newton, Or Professor Galileo Galilei. Therefore, your notion that innovation historically comes from those who are not in the established elite isn't absolute. Actually, it means that socioeconomic status or stature don't always play a role. However, it often does play a role, like when a guy named Copernicus discovered that the Earth was indeed NOT the center of the Universe. He was also part of the social elite, born to a wealthy family. Schwiiiing!!!

>You claim that "he has more genuine information on his side", based solely on his academic credentials. As a professional with an extremely strong background in Physics and Engineering, he gives us a solid scientific background with which to evaluate. You gives us a communications background. Although it is possible that you could have worked out this problem better than he has, it is far, far less likely that you have it correct and he doesn't. Your posts give us no reason expect you to understand the comparison of arguments of varying inductive strength... so I don't expect you to understand this. Mmmboat engine make noise motha fuckaaa!

Being impressed with "authoritay" doesn't mean I have committed the fallacy. You would have to point out where I said he was right because of his authoritative position to correctly accuse me of it. I am impressed with the authority. Guilty. Unfortunately, being impressed with the authority isn't adequate for your accusation. Take a good hard look at the motha fuckin boat!

Also, I didn't say that he was right. Appeal to authority: Person is an expert Person says X about what he is an expert in Therefore, Person is correct about X. I said no such thing. I said he is in a much better position than you.

Appeal to Qualified authority.

Well, Gilligan, does the fact that you were correct make your position more valuable, and if so, why? Hint: It has everything to do with dogmatism. The professor in this case is bound to the scientific method, meaning that if alternating evidence comes about, he (professor-unit) must take it into account, and if necessary, change the hypothesis. edit: Our real-life professor has access to the same methods and information that mnealtx does (And probably more-much more) and is in quite a position to debate the issue...

Oh wow I just looked at his profile. Cool. Well, I look forward to any inappropriate uses of "professor" in the future. However, I am fascinated that you are battling with a physics professor on the issue. I'd hate to say it... but he just might have more genuine information on his side.... Edit: Professor-unit Kallend might have more genuine information on the side of which it perceives from.

I'm touched. You called someone "Professor" just like I did before I was banned. Speechless.... >I'm not denying anything Wha... Bu.....

>The argument of "climate change" or "global warming" has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with economies, and control. Time will tell. Or has it already? Would you admit to yourself you were incorrect, should the opportunity arise?

>Dropping an apple and watching it hit the ground is provable, and has been for several hundred years. No shit, there is "something" that is causing the apple to hit the ground. How are we to be certain that it is in fact because of mass itself? There still remains room for it to be caused by something else we cannot explain. However, we still have a pretty strong argument, because that possibility, although present, isn't so large. >Let me know when adding 20ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will ALWAYS cause a temperature increase of xC, ok? Sure, it would be great to be able to provide that information. The examples that the other smarties have provided in this thread have shown that such a conclusion isn't something that we are in a position to do, at least in the near future. Does that mean that the examples you have provided are inductively stronger than say, billvon's? No. Has anyone achieved a sound argument here? Not quite. "What we can see, touch, hear, taste, and smell is less than one millionth of reality." - Incubus

I stand corrected.

>Newton proved the law of gravity how many hundreds of years ago? Actually, he hasn't "proven" anything. We still assume that it is the masses of two objects that are directly attracted toward each other, but we still cannot answer that it is the mass that does it. There are still other explanations for why "gravity" works. We do "know," however, that "gravity" does work. >just that it's possible. HIGHLY possible. Isn't that the same thing as highly likely? His analogies are actually pretty solid. I'm sorry, Bill. I didn't mean to say "He." I mean, it is only highly likely that someone with the name "Bill" is a guy. There is a slight possibility that "Bill" could be in reference to a female, and Bill could be a female. If that were true, I would want to refer to "Bill" in the proper form as "human-unit." Bill, the "human-unit's" analogies are actually pretty solid.

Post as wanted in the classifieds section in the menu bar on the top of this site.

It's just still horribly, horribly likely

>SHOW. ME. THE. LINK. Otherwise, all you have are theories God damned theories, being the core of all empirical knowledge and all.

In that case we shouldn't be having this discussion electronically. Send help if any of the posters in this thread suddenly disappear.

What is it that the president finds out when he gets in office? Does he get indoctrinated into the skull and bones society and promised a lifetime of wealth for each of his family members for obedience? Or does he find out that the nation is actually controlled by a mega-gang who, figuratively speaking, "hold a gun to his head" while he is in office? Something causes the souls of presidents to disappear as soon as they enter office. (That is, of course assuming that the president in question had a soul to begin with.)