I admire your tenacity and level-headedness about this, Kim. I gave up long ago.Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Daniel,danieLion wrote:What's so "usual" about the so-called "suspects" you speak of?
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.
No fallacy of argumentum ad populum, no innuendo, no snarky, no snide. Simple, honest, obvious, plainspoken - that's me.danieLion wrote: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.Kim O'Hara wrote:
Yep - usual suspects.
Kim
Kim
global warming
Re: global warming
Last edited by Dan74 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
Re: global warming
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.
Re: global warming
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)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
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.
Re: global warming
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.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.
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.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Re: global warming
As I said on the thread on Dharma Wheel:Alex123 wrote:See this:
(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 ( ) but what happens over decades - as compared to the last couple of thousand years - is important and will affect people.
Kim
Re: global warming
Thanks, DanDan74 wrote:I admire your tenacity and level-headedness about this, Kim. I gave up long ago.
I like to think I'm determined, though my friends tend to think of me as stubborn and my enemies call me pig-headed 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.
Kim
Re: global warming
My apologies.Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Daniel,danieLion wrote:What's so "usual" about the so-called "suspects" you speak of?
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.
No fallacy of argumentum ad populum, no innuendo, no snarky, no snide. Simple, honest, obvious, plainspoken - that's me.danieLion wrote: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.Kim O'Hara wrote:
Yep - usual suspects.
Kim
Kim
Re: global warming
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.daverupa wrote:sourceAs 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.
Re: global warming
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.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?
Re: global warming
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).Kim O'Hara wrote:what happened to climate over thousands of years when there were no people around did not affect people ( ) but what happens over decades - as compared to the last couple of thousand years - is important and will affect people.
Is my level-headed tenacity over your head?
Re: global warming
Are you familiar with the Buddha's teachings on nutriment?manas wrote: We will basically eat ourselves to extinction.
Re: global warming
Opinions are neither indisputable nor that important.manas wrote:...there is so much that is indisputably important...
Re: global warming
What you said is the epitome of PC.manas wrote:It's not considered very 'PC' to say what I just said above.
Re: global warming
You mean irrational beliefs like these?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.
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.
Re: global warming
I guess often it's because they are emotionally compelled to do so.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.
Kim
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...
_/|\_