global warming

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: global warming

Postby Dan74 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:01 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
danieLion wrote:What's so "usual" about the so-called "suspects" you speak of?

Hi, Daniel,
I was really thinking about Alex and http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963.
I do apologise to you, SamVara and PB if you weren't part of that.

danieLion wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Yep - usual suspects.
:rolleye:
Kim

Kim. Drop the innuendo and admit you're committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)--where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so--when you make snarky, snide comments like this.

No fallacy of argumentum ad populum, no innuendo, no snarky, no snide. Simple, honest, obvious, plainspoken - that's me.

:namaste:
Kim


I admire your tenacity and level-headedness about this, Kim. I gave up long ago.
Last edited by Dan74 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:09 am

manas wrote:It doesn't need to be a drastic affair. People worldwide ought to be encouraged to either not have children, or to just have one.



Unfortunately the amount of radiation being released into air and pacific ocean isn't getting down. There is more and more radiation, and as a side effect of that is sterility and early death. Fukushima accident may have been start of mass die off.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:18 am

danieLion wrote:-the fallacy of insufficient statistics/the fallacy of insufficient sample: basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent all the data


You make a good point. We can't extrapolate a trend from hand picked data of only decades (or even a century) long considering that earth has undergone climate change for 4.5 billion years. It is like guessing the tendency of the football game from only 1/100000th seconds of action. Or it is like guessing the stock's long term trend only from a minute chart (and avoiding monthly, weekly, daily charts)

The size of data is simply too small and insignificant to make predictions with. When we take charts of LONGER, then the trend is actually down, and we are actually closer to ice age rather than hothouse.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby manas » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:26 am

Alex123 wrote:
manas wrote:It doesn't need to be a drastic affair. People worldwide ought to be encouraged to either not have children, or to just have one.



Unfortunately the amount of radiation being released into air and pacific ocean isn't getting down. There is more and more radiation, and as a side effect of that is sterility and early death. Fukushima accident may have been start of mass die off.


That is my point. I wish we would not destroy ourselves like this. It doesn't have to be this way. If we could just exercise more foresight and intelligence as a species, we would not end up rushing like lemmings over a cliff, towards these kinds of catastrophes, which would correct population growth in a drastic, painful way, when there are smarter, gentler, more intelligent methods.

The question is, taken as a whole - as a species - how much collective wisdom do we have? Can we correct ourselves, or will we let Nature do the correcting for us, via famine, disease, and starvation?

Metta.
User avatar
manas
 
Posts: 2109
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:09 am

Alex123 wrote:See this:
Image
Image
Image

As I said on the thread on Dharma Wheel:
(1) out of date and unsourced.
(2) Forster appears to have some credibility but I would like to see the source and context before I said any more; Whiehouse works for a denialist think-tank which refuses to divulge its funding source (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War ... Foundation); and Curry is a well-known denialist with little expertise in climate and less credibility.
(3) Irrelevant and misleading. As I explained to you repeatedly in "The New Normal", what happened to climate over thousands of years when there were no people around did not affect people ( :rolleye: ) but what happens over decades - as compared to the last couple of thousand years - is important and will affect people.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:17 am

Dan74 wrote:I admire your tenacity and level-headedness about this, Kim. I gave up long ago.

Thanks, Dan :smile:
I like to think I'm determined, though my friends tend to think of me as stubborn and my enemies call me pig-headed :tongue: and I really don't like misinformation on important topics to go unchallenged and uncorrected.
And I am eternally (well, so far!) curious about why and how people manage to maintain irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:45 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
danieLion wrote:What's so "usual" about the so-called "suspects" you speak of?

Hi, Daniel,
I was really thinking about Alex and http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963.
I do apologise to you, SamVara and PB if you weren't part of that.

danieLion wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Yep - usual suspects.
:rolleye:
Kim

Kim. Drop the innuendo and admit you're committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)--where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so--when you make snarky, snide comments like this.

No fallacy of argumentum ad populum, no innuendo, no snarky, no snide. Simple, honest, obvious, plainspoken - that's me.

:namaste:
Kim

My apologies.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:49 am

daverupa wrote:
As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.


source

:spy:

If there going to use it to tax me or otherwise regulate my behavior it had better be more than opinion, whiche is all their fancy inferences and inductions amount to.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:59 am

manas wrote:The question is, taken as a whole - as a species - how much collective wisdom do we have? Can we correct ourselves, or will we let Nature do the correcting for us, via famine, disease, and starvation?

According to the Buddha we have very little wisdom, individually or collectively. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't need The Path. We'd just free ourselves with little Effort. But even when we free ourselves via The Path, this does not eliminate physical death, whether it come in the form of famine, disease, starvation, etc.... Famine, disease, starvation, and physical death are Nature, and have always been so and will always be desptie our little, tiny, current opionions about climate change or global warming. The Path has nothing to do with overcoming Nature. The Path is about accepting Nature in all it's gory, bloody, deadly, impersonal and invetitable FORCE. Nature doesn't give a f*ck what we think about global warming or climate change. Nature will always win in the end, and thinking we can change that is pure delusion and contrary to The Path.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:05 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:what happened to climate over thousands of years when there were no people around did not affect people ( :rolleye: ) but what happens over decades - as compared to the last couple of thousand years - is important and will affect people.

You're committing the informal fallacy of insufficient sample sizes (the fallacy of insufficient statistics/the fallacy of insufficient sample: basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent all the data) which also qualifies your predictions as commissions of the informal fallacy known as hasty generalization (generalization from the particular/leaping to a conclusion/hasty induction/secundum quid: inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence; essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables).

Is my level-headed tenacity over your head?
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:07 am

manas wrote: We will basically eat ourselves to extinction.
Are you familiar with the Buddha's teachings on nutriment?
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:09 am

manas wrote:...there is so much that is indisputably important...
Opinions are neither indisputable nor that important.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:11 am

manas wrote:It's not considered very 'PC' to say what I just said above.
:?: What you said is the epitome of PC.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:15 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:I am eternally (well, so far!) curious about why and how people manage to maintain irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


You mean irrational beliefs like these?

Climate change "science" involves the commission of the informal fallacy of insufficient sample sizes which qualifies the predictions as commissions of the informal fallacy known as hasty generalization, a.k.a.:

-the fallacy of insufficient statistics/the fallacy of insufficient sample: basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent all the data

-generalization from the particular/leaping to a conclusion/hasty induction/secundum quid: inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence; essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables

Climate change "science" also involves the commission of the informal fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. a.k.a., correlation proves causation--a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. In this case, the fallacy is committed when the claim is made that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. It also involves the informal fallacies of the single cause (causal oversimplification)--it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes (which takes us back to hasty generalization); incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison; regression fallacy--ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy; argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)--where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so; and an appeal to emotion--where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning, in this instance it is a special appeal to fear where the argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice not only towards to the opposing side but aslo by appealing to an imminent yet somehow unknown future danger.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby Dan74 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:34 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:And I am eternally (well, so far!) curious about why and how people manage to maintain irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

:coffee:
Kim


I guess often it's because they are emotionally compelled to do so.

Sometimes very intelligent people can hold extremely irrational beliefs. Look at Bobby Fisher, for example, or Grothendieck, or Goedel - my profession is full of brilliant weirdos....

As for Global Warming, it is quite astounding to me that Daniel, for example, thinks that the foremost scientists in the world are unaware of basic rule of reasoning, but there you go...
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: global warming

Postby daverupa » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:12 am

Dan74 wrote:the foremost scientists in the world


Well, foremost climate scientists; but yes, to lump their conclusions together as 'opinion' is a bewildering whitewash.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4135
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Dan74 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:36 am

Last edited by Dan74 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:44 am

daverupa wrote:
Dan74 wrote:the foremost scientists in the world

Well, foremost climate scientists; but yes, to lump their conclusions together as 'opinion' is a bewildering whitewash.

Let's be really clear how strong the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming really is. This chart is the result of a formal, published, review of what all professionally active climate scientists believe, as demonstrated by their professional publications:
pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg
pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg (33.13 KiB) Viewed 322 times

See http://www.jamespowell.org/ for the analysis and methodology.

Anyone reading this who now refuses to accept the validity of AGW in general (you don't have to accept all the tiniest details) should turn off their computer right now because it was designed by scientists, a bunch of loonie lefties who probably made it so it will rot users' brains and infect them with everything from animism to zoroastrianism ...

Oh, you're still reading?
Great!
:group:
Then we can drop that stupid argument about whether AGW is real, and move on to how to deal with it.
There's a lot to do.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:12 pm

Hi, Kim. Glad to read that you are doing well.

I won't add any more to the "unending debate" other than to say that the issue is not the fact of global warming, because we both know that it depends upon when you begin your survey of global temperatures as has already been mentioned earlier in this thread.

Image

Versus:

Image

My perspective has to do with "climatologists" not addressing all the causes and contributions, which point was brought to the fore by physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, vulcanologists, and etc.. Since I have long ago grown tired of addressing these repeatedly, I will decline to do it again. Suffice it to say, that we still have much to learn, and much to discover.

For those, who decry man's contribution to GW, my advice is to turn off your computer, turn off your cars, walk to the store, reduce, reuse, and recycle.

May all beings find peace, contentment, and take joy in the accomplishments of politicians. :hug: :anjali:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: global warming

Postby chris98e » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:00 pm

polarbuddha101 wrote:Also, we happen to be coming out of an ice age so warming is to be expected. :namaste:


Yeah we're coming out of an ice age and into the heat age and global warming is speeding the heat age up faster into the too hot to live in age. Also, I really don't know what ice age scientists are talking about. The real ice age was a long time ago. I wouldn't say that there's another ice age happening. The real ice age was when everything was covered in ice way back in the real ice age 20,000 years ago. The only reason why they still call this the ice age is because Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. In an ideal world that ice should probably exist no matter what. However because of global warming they have less time to stick around.
chris98e
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Kim OHara and 6 guests