Relativism is self-refuting. At least it is, all by itself.Luis Dias wrote:Context is overrated really... who needs it anyway?Surendra Darathy wrote:So, you don't really need me, as long as you don't also need a context.

Relativism is self-refuting. At least it is, all by itself.Luis Dias wrote:Context is overrated really... who needs it anyway?Surendra Darathy wrote:So, you don't really need me, as long as you don't also need a context.
Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread, it's somewhat tricky to decide whetrher you're being serious here or just joining in the kidding, or whatever it is.JimC wrote: The problem for the lay observer is that all parties in the debate use techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise which the lay observer cannot understand or check directly...
I was being serious in this case... As I have already stated, I think that the current concensus that human-induced climate change is occurring is highly likely to be correct, although I sometimes have issues with people's views on the extent of the consequences, and what action we should take...Fact-Man wrote:Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread, it's somewhat tricky to decide whetrher you're being serious here or just joining in the kidding, or whatever it is.JimC wrote: The problem for the lay observer is that all parties in the debate use techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise which the lay observer cannot understand or check directly...
I rather doubt that all parties to the debate use "techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise." While It's true that some climate scientists do this they're not typically part of the debate in any direct sense and certainly it'd be doubtful that any leading denier/hard-core skeptic would be using such techniques, all they do is blather on and moan about "hiding data," which was never hidden in the fitst place.
Lay persons can conveniently download AR4 and UNEP's 2009 Compendium (which updates AR4) from the web and read the summaries of the science for themselves, which are written so that any reasonably well educated lay person can apprehend where things stand and where they're likely to go in future.
I know High School kids who have and are doing this ... after realizing that the media cannot be relied upon to report the science in any cogent or even accurate manner.
Try it, you might like it!
that would entail honest labor, and besides, there's papers and magazines and controversy to sell to a public that is happy to settle for whatever excuse doesn't require them to alter their business models in light of new informationReverend Blair wrote:Ah, but this thread is entitled "Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics." The conflation is a very real part of the doubt, denial and politics of the issue. This is something that always seems counter-intuitive to me. Anybody who has been following the weather for the last few decades surely realizes that something is going on. We've seen pretty large changes in the thirty years or so that I've really been paying attention, especially to the weather during spring and fall. It matches the changes predicted by scientists who started predicting warming in the 1980s and earlier to a large extent. In other words, an examination of the weather show global warming predictions made in the past to be accurate.
So why do the denialists point to the weather and say that it's not warming? I don't get it. I also don't understand why the media doesn't go back into their own archives and dig out the predictions that are now proving true. That would be journalism.
Nah, as a writer I can pretty much guarantee that Googling past reports isn't really labour, honest or not. It would, in fact, be easier than coming up with the denialist crap they do come up with.piscator wrote:that would entail honest labor,
Yeah. I think you nailed that. As a non-fiction writer with a bad habit of telling the truth I can tell you that no editor wants to risk pissing off his publisher with the truth. Even a how-to about installing a toilet can get controversial if you include something that pisses off an advertiser. Oh yeah, one little sentence about wax rings and suddenly you're doing re-writes and having your expense claims scrutinized.piscator wrote:there's papers and magazines and controversy to sell to a public that is happy to settle for whatever excuse doesn't require them to alter their business models in light of new information
Music and falderol are important though. So are champagne and reefer.Factman wrote:Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread
The modeling is actually pretty accurate. Where it errs, it errs by being too conservative. That's an artifact of good, careful science.Factman wrote:I rather doubt that all parties to the debate use "techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise." While It's true that some climate scientists do this they're not typically part of the debate in any direct sense and certainly it'd be doubtful that any leading denier/hard-core skeptic would be using such techniques, all they do is blather on and moan about "hiding data," which was never hidden in the fitst place.
Yes they can, and yes they should. I've read both though, and they are pretty damned dull. Christ, they make Bored of the Rings look like an action-packed thriller.Lay persons can conveniently download AR4 and UNEP's 2009 Compendium (which updates AR4) from the web and read the summaries of the science for themselves, which are written so that any reasonably well educated lay person can apprehend where things stand and where they're likely to go in future.
No, your point, as always, is that you like your sheep on the edge of a cliff so they push back.Luis Dias wrote:The point was merely to comment over this small quote:
That's a given, dude.Reverend Blair wrote:Music and falderol are important though. So are champagne and reefer.Factman wrote:Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread
I've seen lots of "frowny and serious" guys pay for the round, it's real common among Bikers, Gangstas too.Reverend Blair wrote:
Music and falderol create an overall context for the discussion. Consider the difference between sitting in redneck roadhouse somewhere and sitting at a folk festival. Or compare and contrast Woodstock with Altamont. You can be right and all frowny and serious, or you can pay for the round.
Ahhh, and appreciate your pushing back. Ohhhhh ahhhhh... push back some more!Reverend Blair wrote:No, your point, as always, is that you like your sheep on the edge of a cliff so they push back.Luis Dias wrote:The point was merely to comment over this small quote:
Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.Factman wrote:But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.
It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.Reverend Blair wrote:Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.Factman wrote: But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.
It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.
Fact-Man wrote:It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.Reverend Blair wrote:Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.Factman wrote: But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.
It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.
But, whatever, it's not up to me to decide the character of the exchanges that go on here and as I noted your music is easily passed over, albeit in your new context of "most of those concerned the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun" I fail to see the relevance because "most of those" won't ever appear on this board or peruse this thread. Besides, I do think that many or most of the scientists who are engaged in this issue probably do enjoy their fun times. The cranks, well, they're too cranky for any of that I expect, so at least you're half right.
However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.
I don't think we've seen anything yet on this front. It's always hard to quell an attack machine that's driven by $trillions and the fear of its loss or decline. Eventually, they will go down, but it won't be without a fight and probably a very big one at that. They've stepped over the criminal line with their attack on CRU's e:mail servers, which could prove to be just a beginning of criminal conduct, because once the criminal line has been breached, there's usually no going back.
Hence, I think we can expect even more blood to be spilled before this thing ever settles into a more positive vein in which we're actually doing something about curbing emissions and going after the very heart of the problem in constructive ways.
My advice is ... hang onto your hat!
Nothing's not to like and in fact my comment included the thought that some of Reverand Blair's kinda music happened to be my kinda of music too. Whatta ya know!piscator wrote:heck, that's why i thought the Wagner piece was so metaphorically appropriateFact-Man wrote:It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.Reverend Blair wrote:Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.Factman wrote: But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.
It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.
But, whatever, it's not up to me to decide the character of the exchanges that go on here and as I noted your music is easily passed over, albeit in your new context of "most of those concerned the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun" I fail to see the relevance because "most of those" won't ever appear on this board or peruse this thread. Besides, I do think that many or most of the scientists who are engaged in this issue probably do enjoy their fun times. The cranks, well, they're too cranky for any of that I expect, so at least you're half right.
However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.
I don't think we've seen anything yet on this front. It's always hard to quell an attack machine that's driven by $trillions and the fear of its loss or decline. Eventually, they will go down, but it won't be without a fight and probably a very big one at that. They've stepped over the criminal line with their attack on CRU's e:mail servers, which could prove to be just a beginning of criminal conduct, because once the criminal line has been breached, there's usually no going back.
Hence, I think we can expect even more blood to be spilled before this thing ever settles into a more positive vein in which we're actually doing something about curbing emissions and going after the very heart of the problem in constructive ways.
My advice is ... hang onto your hat!
its got it all - Bukowski's rising sound, Wagner's racism, horses, a nice warm mountaintop, a heroic mortal combat with the fate of the world at stake overseen by Masters Of The Universe who occasionally plot on each other for supremacy, and a big horn section - what's not to like?
Nah, I was talking about the environmental/global warming crowd in general, from the top scientists and politicians all the way down to the kid down the road from me. You have been pretty grumpy lately though. Here, try some music.Factman wrote: It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.
Well, I'm not too worried about Inhofe actually winning anything in court, although I suspect he'll cost a lot of people a lot of money. I know from long experience that the easiest way to undermine the assholity of Inhofe and his ilk is to point out how ridiculous they are. You don't do that by being as serious as they are, you don't do it by reciting facts, and you don't do it in court. You do it by using the lighter side of culture...you know, music, literature, humour, things like that...to set a tone that they can't match with their attack-dog tactics. And yes, that does include putting up songs in threads about politics and global warming and no, it doesn't mean that every song has to be directly related to the subject. Part of what makes music so effective is that the context it is heard in can influence perceptions about the subject that creates that context.However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.
piscator wrote:heck, that's why i thought the Wagner piece was so metaphorically appropriate
its got it all - Bukowski's rising sound, Wagner's racism, horses, a nice warm mountaintop, a heroic mortal combat with the fate of the world at stake overseen by Masters Of The Universe who occasionally plot on each other for supremacy, and a big horn section - what's not to like?
Well, two things Jim:JimC wrote:One aspect of this whole thing concerns education. I teach an advanced science course for our Year 10 lads (secondary school ends at Year 12 here...). In the second half of the year, I teach a big unit on energy, first covering the basic physics, then moving onto human use of energy and its consequences. They will certainly be doing some project work, and I will be able to provide some good sites for them to visit thanks to macdoc and Fact Man...
Hopefully, teaching the science right will be a good start. I think it is very important to be positive about the practical things we can actually do - I want my lads to be future voters who will have a background in the science.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests