|
Post by socold on Jun 14, 2010 23:24:05 GMT
I don't think your "In other words" is justifiable. The context of the sentence is as per the example given. Eg debating over what words such as "plausible" mean. It's just language changes, not trying to "remove the uncertainties", in fact other people would accuse the process of trying to add uncertainties.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 15, 2010 1:21:26 GMT
I don't think your "In other words" is justifiable. The context of the sentence is as per the example given. Eg debating over what words such as "plausible" mean. It's just language changes, not trying to "remove the uncertainties", in fact other people would accuse the process of trying to add uncertainties. More psychobabble.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 15, 2010 1:35:50 GMT
I don't think your "In other words" is justifiable. The context of the sentence is as per the example given. Eg debating over what words such as "plausible" mean. It's just language changes, not trying to "remove the uncertainties", in fact other people would accuse the process of trying to add uncertainties. In the field of attestation putting an uncertainty in and labeling it as such is considered the proper thing to do. This allows your reader to make the decision. Not doing so is the very definition of fitting science to the chosen policy. Like the first step in solving your drug problem is admitting you have a drug problem; the first step in eliminating uncertainties is admitting they exist. However, if you are right Socold. And this is the scary part. You are the biggest problem in the way of a solution. Every minute, every day that goes by with cadres of people denying there is a problem the funding for good independent and open studies to find the right answers to the issue is delayed as well by trying to push around uncertainties stuff gets funded that isn't relevant and time is wasted in getting an answer. If mankind kills himself thats how in most likelihood we are going to do it just like a drug addict does. People like Steven Schneider just doesn't get it. The solution isn't to imitate the addicted because they seem so effective in continuing to be able to be stupid, they aren't a good example to follow.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 15, 2010 10:00:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2010 19:08:46 GMT
I don't think your "In other words" is justifiable. The context of the sentence is as per the example given. Eg debating over what words such as "plausible" mean. It's just language changes, not trying to "remove the uncertainties", in fact other people would accuse the process of trying to add uncertainties. In the field of attestation putting an uncertainty in and labeling it as such is considered the proper thing to do. They give a temperature range for sensitivity (implicit uncertainty) and also use the term likely, which is defined in the IPCC report as a measure of certainty. I think that's sufficient for a summary. Lets just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jun 15, 2010 19:54:18 GMT
A couple of things you have to understand about folks on the alarmist side of AGW before you talk to them. 1st. Any fact that goes against the religion is excommunicated, it simply does not exist for Warmies. 2nd. Any “fact” that appears to support the religion is gospel, (The AGW word for it is “robust”) no matter how preposterous and patently false it is…
For AGW zealots, whoops I meant to say… For the glorious supporters of the obviously perfectly proven and settled science of AGW, life is simple. Ignore, suppress, and ridicule anything that does not support the religion, and embrace everything that does, no matter how truly awful it might be.
For those who try to reason with them, prepare to waste your breath.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 15, 2010 23:49:39 GMT
For AGW zealots, whoops I meant to say… For the glorious supporters of the obviously perfectly proven and settled science of AGW, life is simple. Ignore, suppress, and ridicule anything that does not support the religion, and embrace everything that does, no matter how truly awful it might be. For those who try to reason with them, prepare to waste your breath. Gotta love that sarcasm. Man after my own heart.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 16, 2010 15:14:04 GMT
A couple of things you have to understand about folks on the alarmist side of AGW before you talk to them. 1st. Any fact that goes against the religion is excommunicated, it simply does not exist for Warmies. 2nd. Any “fact” that appears to support the religion is gospel, (The AGW word for it is “robust”) no matter how preposterous and patently false it is… For AGW zealots, whoops I meant to say… For the glorious supporters of the obviously perfectly proven and settled science of AGW, life is simple. Ignore, suppress, and ridicule anything that does not support the religion, and embrace everything that does, no matter how truly awful it might be. For those who try to reason with them, prepare to waste your breath. But I am an optimist- this sort of apocalyptic socka mania falls apart because the apocalypse always declines to cooperate and actually happen. that forces the true believers to go out and find another pile of crap to believe in, but during the time they are looking, things can be actually quiet reasonable and productive.
|
|