RE: bird flu hoax (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

DomKen -> RE: bird flu hoax (2/16/2008 10:55:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

        Think in terms of, 'it's happening and it's all your fault because you're baa-aaad' vs "it's happening and we don't really understand the complexities."

        There you go making my point for me again.  You popped this into the denial column.  To deny your version is to deny the whole.   Mighty Christian of you.


http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1070635

    Then we have your link to this statement.  I'll stand right next to that.  If that makes me "the enemy" then so be it.

      I'm not denying that climate change might be related to human activity.  I'm challenging the explanations, and rejecting the solutions that say we have to kill the patient to save the bed.

I was on the fence on that one but claiming we don't understand the complexities of climate change is very close to the line. If you feel I misinterpreted your statement I'll take your word that you meant that differently.

However your post does raise a question about your implicit assumption I find most puzzling. Why do you believe reducing greenhouse gas emmissions would be bad for the economy? Would not new businesses have to emerge to supply CO2 control devices? Wouldn't solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers employ skilled workers? Wouldn't development of zero emmission vehicles, if done by US automakers, result in reinvigoration of the auto manufacturers?

Seems to me that a 'green' revolution could be very good for our economy including reinvigorating our manufacturing sector.



TheHeretic -> RE: bird flu hoax (2/16/2008 11:07:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


I was on the fence on that one but claiming we don't understand the complexities of climate change is very close to the line. If you feel I misinterpreted your statement I'll take your word that you meant that differently.





       I think insisting we DO understand the complexities is far over the line.  We know very well from the geologic record that the climate of this planet has gone through many changes before we ever got here.  You are on the wrong side of Occam's Razor.  Getting shrill, and insisting that a data-set of one is meaningful doesn't help.


      



DomKen -> RE: bird flu hoax (2/17/2008 8:55:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


I was on the fence on that one but claiming we don't understand the complexities of climate change is very close to the line. If you feel I misinterpreted your statement I'll take your word that you meant that differently.





      I think insisting we DO understand the complexities is far over the line.  We know very well from the geologic record that the climate of this planet has gone through many changes before we ever got here.  You are on the wrong side of Occam's Razor.  Getting shrill, and insisting that a data-set of one is meaningful doesn't help.

?
I'm guessing you think Occam's Razor is "the simplest solution is usually the right one" and that global warming isn't the simplest solution. What Occam actually said atnd what is useful in science is, translated into English, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Which IOW is "all things being equal, the simplest explanation that accounts for all the data is right until something contradictory comes along." Anyone who has hung around the internet for very long has seen somebody post their elaborate complicated theory about something or other. The fact is that no matter how well thought out that theory might be if all it does is account for exactly the same data present, simpler theory explains it will never be accepted since it is unnecessarily complicated.

You could be right that this climate change is entirely natural and the massive release of carbon sequestered from the atmosphere from 300+ million years is having no effect. However claims of this sort either ignore the change in CO2 concentration in the last 250 years or attempt to claim it isn't related to human activity which, to me and most researchers in the field, seems extremely unlikely. So all things are not equal between the deniers and those who report that global warming is happening and think human action is a factor in this event so there is no unnecessary multiplication of entities between the two explanations and therefore Occam's is not violated.

I'm still much more interested in your response to the second half of my previous post.



camille65 -> RE: bird flu hoax (2/17/2008 9:01:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

dom, I was 9, just saying what I remeber about it.  But it was real scientists saying back then.  The idea was incorparated into lots of things all over the culture, from kids Science magazines to Christians, saying, see Science agrees with us.  Movies, newspapers.  The Enviromental movement was vocal.

But if you say it didn't happen according to your research, you must be right...
 Oh I remember all of that too. So I don't think it was just a local thing going on, it was talked about in class and was very 'real'. I was about 11.



MusicalBoredom -> RE: bird flu hoax (2/17/2008 9:29:11 AM)

As has been stated, media hype does not mean that the stated problem doesn't exist.  I also worked a great deal in the telecom sectors fixing two digit year problems from about 1995 until 2000.  I knew there were problems but I never thought I needed to build an end-of-humanity-as-we-know-it bunker or stock pile food and water.

Much of the preparation for potential dangers is like what we do here (Louisiana) when there is a hurricane in th gulf.  We buy batteries, food and water anytime one is approaching.  Most of the time the hurricane doesn't land anywhere near us but I would hardly say we were responding to hype or that a real potential problem didn't exist.

On a lighter note, maybe all things are really related.  global cooling caused people to stay inside and do what humans do.  Britney Spears parents get used to staying inside and produce a child sometime later.  Britney grows up but gets sick and while in the hospital on New Years Eve 1999 has bird flue accidentally injected into her due to a Y2K glitch.  During a drunken stupor in a park she falls asleep and a mosquito bites her, gets drunk and infects 100,000 pigeons in the park with the flu.  Now the entire world is at risk and Britney isn't to blame for her behavior -- it's the result of global cooling, Y2K and bird flu.

D



TheHeretic -> RE: bird flu hoax (2/17/2008 10:41:42 AM)

 

       Spin it any way you like, post hoc, ergo hoc doesn't trump Occam. 

       I love a good, wild-ass theory.  What I don't like is an insistence that it is the only possible truth.  I especially don't like it when any question is either attacked or buried in bullshit answers.

      I'm all in favor of the potential economic benefits of a green energy revolution.  I reject that it must be achieved according to a leftist agenda.

      



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125