Originally Posted by Kill4Me
Well you didnt say it but I am. If this is an assumption then they all are.
Well you didnt say it but I am. If this is an assumption then they all are.
Red herring. Read up yourself on confirmation bias and assumption. To deflect into the minutae of confirmation bias and how it applies to your memories as a 16 year old detracts from the lack of evidence for your global warming claim. Again, you made the claim. I didn't. Stay focused, now.
It doesn't interest me all that much. If the marches start happening, I think I know which side I will stand on.
My mind is on something else. I'm using this to get there. You just helped.
Ha! you would march for something that is nothing more than a speculative hypothesis...a fckin' conjecture. Unbelievable you are, says Yoda.
It's not confirmation bias in this instance. I haven't told you about the periods of doubt as well. I wasn't like a wide eyed cartoon character marching forward to a single beat all my life. Its well rounded.
Actually, I'm closer to the truth than you are because I've seen many things with my own eyes, city boy.
Confirmation bias
It feels like Im talking to ENFps.
I chose to bring up a very personalized story, because I predicted when I opened this thread how the conversation was going to go. Instead of trying to appeal with science articles links, I chose something tangible for me. By itself a picture proves nothing and I am fully aware of that but thanks for being a condescending asshat.
Ofc global warming isnt real for you, you are a monkey sitting in a concrete city, your experince of global warming is a sound byte on a television. Correct? The answer is yes.
It cracks me up those that profess to be “outside the system” when in actuality they are more entrenched in it than they realize.
To make this about a confirmation bias is just a cheap shot pussy move because I can assure you I greet the world with naked eyes most of the time.
Welcome to the american matrix. Where you cant believe anything you see or hear. You cant even beleive your own mind. Lol. Btw you are IEE in socioland.
Hey! Give us some credit. I know we're off the mark sometimes, but other times we hit the nail on the head. It is just the nature ofunbridled by
.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Ya well wtv.
Heh, to each their own. Btw, regardless of global warming's cause, I do think we need to make a transition to electric cars instead of gas and move away from coal power plants to greener alternatives. Simply for a better planet for future generations.
I just think carbon taxes is an awful and half assed way to solve the problem. It will do little to reduce emissions unlike real changes like the aforementioned ones. That won't make corporations and governments money though.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
i do t care think whatever you want to think cause you will anyway.
It works both ways. Most people are stubborn in their views, you and me are not exempt from this.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
No it doesnt dont you get it let me out of here all views have validaty everything is everything everything is true nothingnis true yes no why government
Well it depends on the subject matter at hand. Some things are obvious and others are not. The trick is figuring out which is which.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Typical triggered SJW you are. Positively no challenge for me in debate. I told you that the picture doesn't prove anything early on. But you proceeded to rant about how it does. And then there's the original post:
*cough* *cough*So, that's me doing a Loa Tzu impression over looking a neat Glacier in 2015. I'm situated in Glacial National Park, on the Canada side, here you can see the magnificent Glacier that................. oh wait, shoot shoot shoot, I'm so sorry guys. There is no Glacier. The Glacier is gone, because it melted.
Over the past 30 years, melting, leaving behind dust and rock. Ya............................a Glacier that stood 12,000 years after the Ice Age, melted in 30. Right, global warming is not a thing. RRRIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTtttttttt tttttt ta. Right its not caused by people................*cough* *COUGH*
Don't say I didn't tell you so, but I told you so.
You, sir, have more triggers than a weapons factory.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 02-04-2018 at 04:33 PM.
^
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
You're clearly mistaken. You must have taken leave of your senses. Look back at the first post. You're not the author lol.
How 'basic bro' a summary of what I'm saying and where I'm coming from. You only see through this tiny little lens, and you hear my message as some kind of liberal SJW chest thumping. I cut tree down for a living, and I'm not a hippy. Having said that, I have no illusions, delusions about the current state of affairs in regards to man's relationship with the natural world. If you want to keep talking to me, get on my level and don't bore me with this.
[quote]
Positively no challenge for me in debate. I told you that the picture doesn't prove anything early on. But you proceeded to rant about how it does. And then there's the original post:
[/qoute]
And see, this is why I said in the start: you are not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I already had this entire argument/ rant before it started and look it went just where I knew it was going to.
Also, its really odd for a SLE to not take into account a more intuitive way of viewing the world.
That you think I was triggered is a total misinterpretation.*cough* *cough*
Don't say I didn't tell you so, but I told you so.
You, sir, have more triggers than a weapons factory.
I have every right to challenge the credibility of your flimsy evidence. that's how debate works, silly pants. I'm not making any claim thus I don't have to offer any evidence. So kiss it. I don't want to be on your level. Your level is so full of platitudes and super boring.
I don't care that you cut trees down. I'm not impressed. You take disagreement so personal. Yes, you are an SJW. Embrace it!
Five days later, still on it. Talk to the hand. and still, no evidence whatsoever for your global warming claim. but hey, you cut down trees!Positively no challenge for me in debate. I told you that the picture doesn't prove anything early on. But you proceeded to rant about how it does. And then there's the original post:
[/qoute]
And see, this is why I said in the start: you are not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I already had this entire argument/ rant before it started and look it went just where I knew it was going to.
Also, its really odd for a SLE to not take into account a more intuitive way of viewing the world.
That you think I was triggered is a total misinterpretation.
Okay, as I said you're no challenge for me in debate. antz-in-your-pants? it wasn't me. Don't worry, xerx gets antz too when I disagree with him, he is even worse. I said fortune cookie once and he went ballistic. you're not there yet but still...i think an ESE thing to get easily triggered when others dispute their alleged evidence.You take disagreement about global warming super personal lmao. It's okay, different strokes for different folks or something.
I spend to many nights under the night sky to want to ruin it all. Don't you think there is still real magic out there and don't you think its even remotely possible it could really be polluted and why stand in the way of people trying to put a few brakes on constant consume, consume, consume and polluting every bit of the natural world. I mean , I know that's how people think Se works --- you know it doesn't though.
As far as how I take disagreement, I take it personal when I actually feel there is something very real to disagree about. The natural means something to me, not as some romantic blow hard tree hugger. I see its beauty every where I go, and also watched as it changed before my minds eye. Not as some bias confirmation, but as seeing what is actually there, and not there.
Where are all the frogs and salamanders I used to hear on summer nights in my home valley? Gone now, due to rising temperatures. Gone in less than 20 years. Every summer I wold spend hours listening to them as I laid in a sleeping bag on a trampoline, or wandered through a creek. I don't hear them anymore, because there are no more. This is real k4m. You need to wake up and listen to me. Don't hear me like I'm some projected idea of a SJW. Read my words, not read the minds interpretation of them.
I don't need evidence. The writing is on the wall. Heres my suggestion to you. This summer, back up your car for the weekend, take your chick and drive out to the nearest country side. There, you need to consume about an 8th of magic mushrooms. While you are high, you need to wander from human settlements into natural ones and then back. You need to see what is right in front of you, which shouldn't be hard, because you an Se type who is in reality most times anyway. You need to have some kind of framework for what it is I'm talking about, and right now its just an intellectual exercise for you.Five days later, still on it. Talk to the hand. and still, no evidence whatsoever for your global warming claim. but hey, you cut down trees!
Yeah cause cooking for others is my thing...lol. I'm not a ESE, but nice try. My life has been way to shitty to have pulled off ESE. Way to all over the place. Plus Se isnt big bad and scary to me. Its reality sensing. I am flattered you would think I could pull off a rational Ej though, so maybe I'm doing something rightOkay, as I said you're no challenge for me in debate. antz-in-your-pants? it wasn't me. Don't worry, xerx gets antz too when I disagree with him, he is even worse. I said fortune cookie once and he went ballistic. you're not there yet but still...i think an ESE thing to get easily triggered when others dispute their alleged evidence.
Last edited by imarite; 02-09-2018 at 06:35 AM.
Great. Super. Write a book. Portrait of a tree-cutter as a young man. IT's got nothing to do with the price of tea in China, though.
He was on the trampoline one night when a snowflake landed on his forehead and then transformed him into a snowflake. hahaha
Global warming, remember, that thing you will march in the streets for. If you aren't an SJW, then me labeling you one won't magically transform you into one....you care a bit too much. To even approach my level you would have to drop these image issues.
Dude, 20 years. Not experiential evidence for Global Warming. Maybe if you lived for 56 millions years old, your sensory perceptions would have some weight (wait, I've said this to you before to you at another time and place) Oh yeah, on this thread a few pages ago.
Must be the great wall of Wacey's shroom-inspired hallucinations you saw this writing on.I don't need evidence. The writing is on the wall. Heres my suggestion to you. This summer, back up your car for the weekend, take your chick and drive out to the nearest country side. There, you need to consume about an 8th of magic mushrooms. While you are high, you need to wander from human settlements into natural ones and then back. You need to see what is right in front of you, which shouldn't be hard, because you an Se type who is in reality most times anyway. You need to have some kind of framework for what it is I'm talking about, and right now its just an intellectual exercise for you.
hey gimme the name of your dealer. that is some powerful shit. I could make a ton off it. big demand out there for meteorological hallucinations.
you said it. you don't need evidence. congratulations, you just echoed the global warming position better than any pro-global warmer on this thread. You have no fckin' evidence. Bingo. Global Warming 101.
Cooool, the old "I would love to be that type" maneuver. Very smooth. I haven't seen that one in awhile.Yeah cause cooking for others is my thing...lol. I'm not a ESE, but nice try. My life has been way to shitty to have pulled off ESE. Way to all over the place. Plus Se isnt big bad and scary to me. Its reality sensing. I am flattered you would think I could pull off a rational Ej though, so maybe I'm doing something right
yeah, cooking and perceiving your life as having been shitty are not disqualifiers for ESE.
Lol, k.
No it won't, except Trump tries to write the narrative as well and I see it for what that is and it's okay to correct an incorrect vision.Global warming debate, remember, that thing you will march in the streets for. If you aren't an SJW, then me labeling you one won't magically transform you into one....you care a bit too much me thinks the lady doth protest.
Its long enough to see the truth. I know its hard for your inner hardware to comprehend other minds are recording something because it doesn't come naturally for you..so the socionics prophesy goes.Dude, 20 years. Not experiential evidence for Global Warming. Maybe if you lived for 56 millions years old, your sensory perceptions would have some weight (wait, I've said this to you before to you at another time and place) Oh yeah, on this thread a few pages ago.
Actually those trips where in another time and place and also had different themes and lessons. They were only suggested because its a clear and total way to "drop the bullshit". As far as hallucinations go, oh please, you think I'm a roob here? I can tell what's a silly brain picture and what's a true insight.Must be the great wall of Wacey's shroom-inspired hallucinations you saw this writing on.
I know, I had a dual once.hey gimme the name of your dealer. that is some powerful shit. I could make a ton off it. big demand out there for meteorological hallucinations.
Doesn't realize he (k4m) is still apart of the system, just another anti-science, anti-reality, dream perpetuator. Watching this anti-science movement from the outside is fascinating. America, once the bastion of scientific thought, suddenly the opposite because.... well could be the religious literalists, or the lack of framework education (20th on the math and science metrics as compared to the other countries). Sad.you said it. you don't need evidence. congratulations, you just echoed the global warming position better than any pro-global warmer on this thread. You have no fckin' evidence. Bingo. Global Warming 101.
Except it kinda is.Cooool, the old "I would love to be that type" maneuver. Very smooth. yeah, cooking and perceiving your life as having been shitty are not disqualifiers for ESE.
Also, why are we talking to each other like caddy bitches and using weird snarky tones.
OMG. I'm being called anti-science by the guy that just told me, "I don't need evidence."
hahaha
Busted!
Total Ownage.
Nice catch. Good thing I purposely threw it at you.OMG. I'm being called anti-science by the guy that just told me, "I don't need evidence."
Busted!
hahaha
My opinion is on sciences side. the authority, the consensus.
And you are now a broken record.
You had your fifteen minutes of fame on this thread with that. It was torn apart like William Wallace at the end of Braveheart.
Back to the same water fountain are you...you're like a reality television hasbeen.
Time for new material, omarossa.
Meh, I lost interest days ago bud. So did you.
actually, I can argue this until the cows come home, but it's Friday night....so I'm outta here like prince harry's bald spot.
Time to get lost in the nightlife. mmmm look for those to pull into my schemes and manipulations like a blood-sucking reprobate. tehe.Hula-hoop girls will soon be in full swing.
But I might add, the thread has been very productive....even discovered the phrase "confirmation bias" triggers you SJWs.
hahahaha
Ciao, and remember
.
It is suspicious the way a person is ridiculed and discredited when they say they don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or somehow express doubt that it is entirely man made.
I agree. The problem is you get treated like a pariah kind of like a flat earther rather than someone that is just skeptical about the authority on science. In the end of the day, that is all it is. We are putting our trust on scientists that can be easily manipulated by financial and political motivations, which can result in the truth being distorted.
Perhaps, the scientists are all right and global warming is predominately man made with minimal influence from natural factors. That is fine if that is the case as it is a very real possibility, but the fact that you are not allowed to question it and are ridiculed for it is just bizarre.
The whole point of science is to question our reality if the evidence is uncertain. Sure, some things are obvious like the Earth being round, gravity existing and even global warming itself. However, global warming being man made should not be in this category and be open for debate.
We need to figure out exactly how much of it is man made and how much of it is natural factors instead of leaving it as an open and shut case that it is predominately man made.
For example, a lot of things about nutrition in the past, scientists were dead certain about, are complete bunk now if not the opposite. Scientists are not these infallible super humans that are incapable of making mistakes.
They are only human and are capable of making mistakes. However, as long as we keep an open mind about uncertain aspects then we will arrive at the truth sooner rather than later. To top it all off like the OP suggested, the 97 percent consensus is largely based on global warming itself existing.
There is not much of a consensus on whether it is man made or not, in fact scientists are split and debating this issue. Yet, the 97 percent consensus myth is hammered down constantly like propaganda.
Real science is dying and being replaced with scientism, a religious form of science where you conform to it or suffer ridicule no matter who you are. This doesn't sound much different than religious insitutions influence on science in the past.
Last edited by Raver; 02-12-2018 at 04:51 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
You should criticize it. Scientists criticize each other's ideas constantly. No one is safe. Theories with the best summation of logic, reason, and evidence win out every time. But being skeptical of the authority of science is an ideological position(or lazy position), as science itself is based on rationalism, empiricism, materialism, and naturalism. If the science is biased, provide evidence. If the conclusions are false, provide a better argument. If the observations aren't ideal, provide better ones. Provide a better experiment. Don't just criticize it because "science can't prove everything." I get what you mean, and I agree to some extent, but this in no way diminishes the authority and weight of science and what it reveals about the universe.
Yes, I get what you're saying and I agree with most of it. Personally, most of the time I stand by science and I use it to guide my life, but sometimes I am skeptical of it if the evidence is insufficient. However, the highlighted part is where I disagree with you. Theories with the best summation logic, reason and evidence don't win out every time.
They may win out most of the time, but sometimes it fails and this is where criticism of scientific theories need to come in. Just because there is a social consensus does not mean that we can not have any doubt on an issue especially if it is new. Sure, there is a lot of things in science that stood the test of time and we can close the book on that, but some things escape this.
Anyways, my main issue is not with science specifically, but scientism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
This thread itself is good evidence of scientism. Lot of punch lines, put downs and appealing to authority, but little to no concrete evidence being used to support global warming.
To show you the difference between scientism and actual science, I'll show you two links:
Scientism: http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bil...b06b9cb91767f1
Science: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...l#.WoIL45-vBdZ
First link shows fake scientist Billy Nye (he's a mechanical engineer) spew his propaganda with falsedoms and punch lines. Basically no real science, just scientism and he is the priest of this false religion.
Compare that to the second link. An actual group of scientists looking at all sides of the issue, weighing all the outcomes and using the scientific method. They came to exact same conclusion as Billy Nye, but the method they used was science, not scientism.
The method of the first link is why some people remain skeptical because there is a lot of dogma being spewed as propaganda to convince people emotionally to accept global warming as man made.
If the method of the second link was only used then you would get less people skeptical of man made global warming because there is no need to do what is done in the first link, but it is done anyways for inexplicable reasons.
Last edited by Raver; 02-12-2018 at 09:26 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
It is very likely man made. It is now established scientific fact, like evolution. The null hypothesis: Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has no affect on average global temperature. The evidence refutes the null. There isn't anything emotional about these facts.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are putting billions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year. We know the earth is warming.
It is possible that it isn't man-made, but the burden of proof is on those that claim it is a natural cycle to establish that the warming cycle just so happened to coincided with the burning of fossil fuels, during the Industrial Revolution. This fact wouldn't help AGW skeptics. A natural cycle would only exacerbate the warming occurring due to greenhouse gases.
Like you said, the burden of proof is on me to prove that this recent warming is possibly natural. So here is an ample amount of graphs showing that the temperatures have been this high before and much higher. Look back in thousands of years and you will notice that the temperatures have been somewhat higher and if you look back millions of years, the temperatures have been significantly higher.
The past temperature rises have nothing to do with CO2 because we weren't around then, so what makes us so sure that we have something to do with it now? I am sure it is a possibility that we are the cause, but we cannot be too sure when temperature has constantly increased and decreased in the past. We are clearly in a warming cycle now, I will not deny that, but we cannot be too sure that it is predominately due to man made reasons:
Last edited by Raver; 02-13-2018 at 02:59 AM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
