Is "man made" climate change only limited to the U.S.?

Borgia_dude · 2020-09-17T20:45:26.345Z

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

See what I mean?

Alas, some conservatives seek the minority position of scientists because it agrees with their politics.

I’ll stick with the majority. I may not always be right with that assumption, but I will be right far more than I’ll be wrong.

Scientific truth is not determined by majority rule. The number of times that the majority consensus among scientists has eventually been proved to be wrong are too many to count.

As I said, I will be right far more than I will be wrong when I accept the majority position. If you want to believe the minority, go ahead. You will be wrong more often then you will be right.

Again, you don’t seem to understand the scientific method. Scientific truth is not determined by a popular vote, it is determined by solid evidence that can stand up to all criticism. What I believe is skepticism until all reasonable doubt is eliminated. When it comes to anthropogenic global warming, skepticism is still very healthy.

I understand the scientific method perfectly but you and I are not employing it here. In the absence of our own expertise in climate science, how should we determine which side is right? I prefer majority of related scientists. You seem to choose the minority position.

Oh, I’m sure you will respond indignantly about you understanding the science with your basic science education and reading of the Interwebs. But I’m not buying it. I’ve only seen a one or two posters on this board who seem to understand the science at a truly scientific level and neither you, nor I, am one of them.

Borgia_dude · 2020-09-17T20:50:02.211Z

Guvnah:

Borgia_dude:

Dude. All I did was confuse you with another poster. It happens. I apologized and do so again.

“Confuse”. Another word for prejudice.

Apologize all you want. What you did is no different from countless other posts. Apologize 100 times. I don’t consider your apologies sincere. And I don’t consider your interactions with me honorable.

It’s same-old, same-old from you, and I don’t expect that to change moving forward.

This seems the appropriate response to this melodrama.

Samm · 2020-09-17T20:56:34.414Z

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

merickson:

Samm:

merickson:

Global Warming means that the temperature the the US was used to 20 years ago has moved to Canada.

Nonsense. According to global warming theory, the greatest increase in temperature is at the higher latitudes.

The two are not incompatible. The greatest increase is at higher latitudes, but ANY increase implies that the band of latitudes that averge X° moves north. The “greatest increase” factors into how far north that band has moved.

You said “global warming means … ” That is NOT what it means.

Means is not relegated to definitions. You’re reading the sentence wrong. It is a consequence.

If that was what he meant, he should have said so.

Means has that definition so he didn’t need to.

You are right, but in that sentence means does not mean consequences.

And once again you have taken the conversation off point with a nit pick distraction. Good on you.

Borgia_dude · 2020-09-17T20:58:46.356Z

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

merickson:

Samm:

merickson:

Global Warming means that the temperature the the US was used to 20 years ago has moved to Canada.

Nonsense. According to global warming theory, the greatest increase in temperature is at the higher latitudes.

The two are not incompatible. The greatest increase is at higher latitudes, but ANY increase implies that the band of latitudes that averge X° moves north. The “greatest increase” factors into how far north that band has moved.

You said “global warming means … ” That is NOT what it means.

Means is not relegated to definitions. You’re reading the sentence wrong. It is a consequence.

If that was what he meant, he should have said so.

Means has that definition so he didn’t need to.

You are right, but in that sentence means does not mean consequences.

Ok. You read it as consequence but everyone sees things differently I suppose. The frailties of the written vs spoken word.

Samm · 2020-09-17T21:00:06.552Z

You are free to believe anything you like, but please, don’t call it scientific … it’s absolutely not.

Samm · 2020-09-17T21:02:03.861Z

No … YOU read it as consequences, I read it as means.

Guvnah · 2020-09-17T22:38:51.741Z

Samm:

No … YOU read it as consequences, I read it as means.

I said it before.

Libs see what they want to see.

amadeus · 2020-09-17T22:48:01.655Z

[quote=“Samm, post:156, topic:235009, full:true”]

amadeus:

But wait, amadeus, isn’t our success as a species do to our big brains which magically appeared here 6,000 years ago? No, young grasshopper, even cockroaches are smart enough to know that their success is not due to their big brains.

What makes you think that cockroaches know that they are successful?

Experience.

Borgia_dude · 2020-09-18T02:26:00.667Z

Samm:

You are free to believe anything you like, but please, don’t call it scientific … it’s absolutely not.

I never said my choice to believe the majority of scientists on a given point was scientific. But it yields better results than believing the minority.

Borgia_dude · 2020-09-18T02:28:07.345Z

Samm:

No … YOU read it as consequences, I read it as means.

Sure. And the word “means” in that context could be definition or consequence. No big deal. Not sure why you think this is important.

Samm · 2020-09-18T06:11:20.151Z

amadeus:

Samm:

amadeus:

But wait, amadeus, isn’t our success as a species do to our big brains which magically appeared here 6,000 years ago? No, young grasshopper, even cockroaches are smart enough to know that their success is not due to their big brains.

What makes you think that cockroaches know that they are successful?

Experience.

What kind of experience do cockroaches have that informs them of their success?

Samm · 2020-09-18T06:14:00.685Z

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

You are free to believe anything you like, but please, don’t call it scientific … it’s absolutely not.

I never said my choice to believe the majority of scientists on a given point was scientific. But it yields better results than believing the minority.

Better results? What do you mean? Are you keeping score or something? That’s not scientific either. That’s just playing the odds. Don’t you care whether the majority is right or not?

Samm · 2020-09-18T06:26:30.104Z

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

No … YOU read it as consequences, I read it as means.

Sure. And the word “means” in that context could be definition or consequence. No big deal. Not sure why you think this is important.

Me? You are the one who is going on and on about it. I’m just responding to your posts.

Borgia_dude · 2020-09-18T10:29:09.026Z

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

You are free to believe anything you like, but please, don’t call it scientific … it’s absolutely not.

I never said my choice to believe the majority of scientists on a given point was scientific. But it yields better results than believing the minority.

Better results? What do you mean? Are you keeping score or something? That’s not scientific either. That’s just playing the odds.
Don’t you care whether the majority is right or not?

Do you agree the majority of scientists is more often right on a given scientific topic?

Neither of us has the time or expertise to fathom all scientific claims to assay it’s veracity. How then to decide what to support? I suppose one could remain neutral.

Borgia_dude · 2020-09-18T10:31:05.848Z

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

No … YOU read it as consequences, I read it as means.

Sure. And the word “means” in that context could be definition or consequence. No big deal. Not sure why you think this is important.

Me? You are the one who is going on and on about it. I’m just responding to your posts.

Oh. Ok. I just popped in to clarify that in context means was used as consequence trying to help the conversation. You then started arguing. Whatevs.

Samm · 2020-09-18T21:12:43.595Z

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

You are free to believe anything you like, but please, don’t call it scientific … it’s absolutely not.

I never said my choice to believe the majority of scientists on a given point was scientific. But it yields better results than believing the minority.

Better results? What do you mean? Are you keeping score or something? That’s not scientific either. That’s just playing the odds.
Don’t you care whether the majority is right or not?

Do you agree the majority of scientists is more often right on a given scientific topic?

Neither of us has the time or expertise to fathom all scientific claims to assay it’s veracity. How then to decide what to support? I suppose one could remain neutral.

One could remain on the topic instead of elaborating on the philosophy of who is right and who is wrong and what that means for truth.

Samm · 2020-09-18T21:16:01.958Z

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

Borgia_dude:

Samm:

No … YOU read it as consequences, I read it as means.

Sure. And the word “means” in that context could be definition or consequence. No big deal. Not sure why you think this is important.

Me? You are the one who is going on and on about it. I’m just responding to your posts.

Oh. Ok. I just popped in to clarify that in context means was used as consequence trying to help the conversation. You then started arguing. Whatevs.

If that’s not a pot vs. kettle statement I don’t know what is. One person alone cannot argue.

amadeus · 2020-09-18T21:37:50.535Z

Samm:

amadeus:

Samm:

amadeus:

But wait, amadeus, isn’t our success as a species do to our big brains which magically appeared here 6,000 years ago? No, young grasshopper, even cockroaches are smart enough to know that their success is not due to their big brains.

What makes you think that cockroaches know that they are successful?

Experience.

What kind of experience do cockroaches have that informs them of their success?

About the same level of experience needed to inform us of human success.

Samm · 2020-09-18T22:24:40.375Z

amadeus:

Samm:

amadeus:

Samm:

amadeus:

But wait, amadeus, isn’t our success as a species do to our big brains which magically appeared here 6,000 years ago? No, young grasshopper, even cockroaches are smart enough to know that their success is not due to their big brains.

What makes you think that cockroaches know that they are successful?

Experience.

What kind of experience do cockroaches have that informs them of their success?

About the same level of experience needed to inform us of human success.

I suppose you can defend that thesis …

amadeus · 2020-09-18T22:51:08.689Z

Samm:

amadeus:

Samm:

amadeus:

Samm:

amadeus:

But wait, amadeus, isn’t our success as a species do to our big brains which magically appeared here 6,000 years ago? No, young grasshopper, even cockroaches are smart enough to know that their success is not due to their big brains.

What makes you think that cockroaches know that they are successful?

Experience.

What kind of experience do cockroaches have that informs them of their success?

About the same level of experience needed to inform us of human success.

I suppose you can defend that thesis …

They have far more experience as a species or at least genus. We think that our success is due to our big brains. Cockroaches are not deluded enough to believe something like that.