The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » For IPCC Advocates Only.....Others need not respond (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
What is the most compelling evidence for anthropogenic global warming and why?

If you don't have anything but your objection to climate science to offer, please refrain from posting or I will report to the mods for being off topic. I'm seeking serious discussion only.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
This sounds like déjà vu all over again.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
The fact that over ninety-nine percent of the scientific studies conducted have found that AGW is, in fact, occurring. (Including the one that was funded by Koch Industries, much, I'm sure, to their dismay.)

Also, the fact that most of the denialist "research" comes from the same foundation that produced studies over a decade ago concluding that tobacco was not addictive and that there was no danger presented by second-hand smoke, is also very telling. That research was funded by Big Tobacco, whereas the research they're conducting today is paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

That kind of says it all.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27112 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2013-08-26 18:17, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What is the most compelling evidence for anthropogenic global warming and why?

If you don't have anything but your objection to climate science to offer, please refrain from posting or I will report to the mods for being off topic. I'm seeking serious discussion only.


The cause proffers a sufficient threat to make otherwise odious positions palatable as "for the greater good". It gives the angry a cause to despise their neighbors for having a picnic and the relatively well off to think less of the starving multitudes as a threat lest they start burning coal to stay warm or cook their food.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
The previous post is off topic pursuant to the OP. Please delete.

:eek:
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27112 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
How so? I'm arguing that if it's sufficiently useful it can be held as true "for the greater good".
...to all the coins I've dropped here
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
The OP asked for "compelling evidence" that supports the reality of AGW, not pragmatic reasons that have nothing to do with whether it is real or not. Such reasons are, therefore, off topic.

(Besides, Jonathan, didn't the "eek" face at the end of my comment let you know that, in keeping with the satirical nature of this thread, I was just messing with you?)

:eek:
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27112 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
To compel is to elicit an action.
Okay, what would you like to be compelled by?
Threat of force? Induced sense of "truth"? Some rationalization that "anything else" would be a threat?
If what you want is the chicken to cross the road - does it really matter if you use a carrot, a stick or an egg?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2863 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Quote:
If what you want is the chicken to cross the road - does it really matter if you use a carrot, a stick or an egg?


I think it does, yes. I'll check with a chicken.
I hope you'll allow me to stay and report, John.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27112 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Okay Laurie I accept that you believe it matters for some reason. I'm not out to discuss convictions. Now if we wanted to establish that conviction in general - mabe we could do a taste test of chicken mcnuggets made from chickens which crossed the road compelled by those three and find out if in general more than half the people can taste that difference?? Smile
...to all the coins I've dropped here
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2863 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Chickens who crossed the road.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27112 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2013-08-26 21:13, magicalaurie wrote:
Chickens who crossed the road.


Who?? Puzzling ... they don't vote or have the right to contract or possess property as far as I know.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2863 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
So??
As far as road crossing goes, could be they come by it naturally. I'll see what I can find on that front.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27112 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2013-08-26 21:15, magicalaurie wrote:
So??


So to write of a dumb animal as if it were a person or citizen with recognized rights (and responsibilities) seems odd to me.
One could argue that we grant animals the right to be useful and tasty and otherwise they are not supposed to be behaving in ways that look like they might be suffering to us. Domestic animals have the "don't eat the baby" and pseudo-child deal as an exception to the tasty aspect in some cultures - to put the matter plainly. No disrespect to anyone's sense or beliefs about animals intended on my part and please feel free to amend or refute what I've posited.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27112 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
@BobC about compelling proof as "highly convincing": I'm not so sure what you mean by "compelling proof" in this context.
Convincing to any (or every??) particular set of preconceptions or prejudices?
I suspect by "highly" we can agree with "percent compliance or certainty of unmonitored compliance".
Compelling is outcome based. How can you know if a thing was compelled unless you at least have evidence of the thing?
Claims about eliciting convictions may also require behavior based verification.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2863 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
There's a dumb animal here, but it's not the chicken, IMHO.

"Research with nonhuman animals..."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2013-08-26 21:33, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
@BobC about compelling proof as "highly convincing": I'm not so sure what you mean by "compelling proof" in this context.
Convincing to any (or every??) particular set of preconceptions or prejudices?
I suspect by "highly" we can agree with "percent compliance or certainty of unmonitored compliance".
Compelling is outcome based. How can you know if a thing was compelled unless you at least have evidence of the thing?
Claims about eliciting convictions may also require behavior based verification.


"Compelling proof" simply means "highly convincing proof." The purpose of this thread was to set forth your reasons for believing that AGW has been proven to a virtual scientific certainty. Everything else, word games notwithstanding, is off topic pursuant to the OP.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2013-08-26 18:21, S2000magician wrote:
This sounds like déjà vu all over again.


I more often suffer jamais vu. Every now and then it's a presque vu.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27112 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
AGW is a fundamental belief held as true in the stated position of the IPCC.
If you're following the dictates of the IPCC - you're been compelled. The chicken has crossed the road.
This is about compulsion. Rationalizing in circles to believe your inner motivations are shared by others is off topic.

IMHO attempting to argue belief from observation is counterproductive - for example if pastafarians have strainers on their heads ... still does not mean that the strainer is proved, it's a natural growth from their heads or any other non verifiable/falsifiable hypothetical proposition is more than text.

It was cold last winter. More AGW please.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Pastafarians are insulted.

No pasta for you, Jon.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » For IPCC Advocates Only.....Others need not respond (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.29 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL