Climate strike: UK school pupils take part in call for urgent action

[anonymoose]

What a fucking stupid post.

And this is an example of an intelligent one?

[Adolf_Twitler]

It's pretty bad when the 5th graders have to protest to get the Irresponsible Adults to care about the world the 5th graders will be inheriting.

It seems the Irresponsible Bad Adults are nasty, and they have allowed for a nasty environment that is making people sick, and is causing our Ozone layer to fail to protect us, and our water to become polluted, and our food we eat to be contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides.

You go 5th graders! You have become the adults in the room!

Is there any wonder why the majority of young voters are democrats?

Is it any wonder why the Right Wing Republicans are such a dying breed of old nasty Irresponsible White rulers of the world, that in order to stay ahead in the polls, they have to cheat to win now with the gerrymandering of districts, using the archaic undemocratic way of voting for presidents, even using the help of arch-rival nations, and the suppression of young voters to win their elections?

That's just nasty! Nasty Republicans are in it just to make a buck for themselves.

[gfm7175]

It's pretty bad when the 5th graders have to protest to get the Irresponsible Adults to care about the world the 5th graders will be inheriting.

It seems the Irresponsible Bad Adults are nasty, and they have allowed for a nasty environment that is making people sick, and is causing our Ozone layer to fail to protect us, and our water to become polluted, and our food we eat to be contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides.

You go 5th graders! You have become the adults in the room!

Is there any wonder why the majority of young voters are democrats?

Is it any wonder why the Right Wing Republicans are such a dying breed of old nasty Irresponsible White rulers of the world, that in order to stay ahead in the polls, they have to cheat to win now with the gerrymandering of districts, using the archaic undemocratic way of voting for presidents, even using the help of arch-rival nations, and the suppression of young voters to win their elections?

That's just nasty! Nasty Republicans are in it just to make a buck for themselves.

I was going to refute your whole post line by line, but then I saw your outright racism towards the end of this post and decided to dismiss it on sight... I am not interested in your racism... Put aside your racism and I will be happy to discuss any of these matters with you.

[moon]

I was going to refute your whole post line by line, but then I saw your outright racism towards the end of this post and decided to dismiss it on sight... I am not interested in your racism... Put aside your racism and I will be happy to discuss any of these matters with you.

I believe that Adolf might have more stimulating pursuits already planned.

[anonymoose]

I believe that Adolf might have more stimulating pursuits already planned.

Godwin's law

Debate forfeited.

[moon]

Godwin's law

Debate forfeited.

Godwin's law ? Adolf is the member's name .

[gfm7175]

Godwin's law

Debate forfeited.

It seems like debate was forfeited from the get-go, as I'm still awaiting a logical & scientific argument FOR "climate change" (heck, even a logical definition of the term would be a good start), as well as awaiting a logical counterargument to the ones I have presented...

Seems like these Church of Global Warming types don't want to play in the deep end of the pool...

[moon]

You and anonymoose enjoy yourselves in the pool now- but don't forget your sun-screen.

[anonymoose]

Godwin's law ? Adolf is the member's name .

My bad.

[gfm7175]

You and anonymoose enjoy yourselves in the pool now- but don't forget your sun-screen.

I'm still ready to discuss anything regarding climate change with you... whenever you're ready...

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

Hello PoliTalker,


Thank you!


Yup, I saw where that one was going right after the "other car was running" part... Of course if one car is idling and being pulled by the other one, it will have a very high MPG rating, and artificially inflate the other vehicle if averaged out between the two of them... Not sure what that example has to do with what I said, though...


Okay.


Your argument here commits what is known as the Pascal's Wager Fallacy. This fallacy is when one predicts that something bad will happen (or probably happen, or maybe happen) if we do nothing. The original form of the fallacy was the assertion that one should join Christianity just in case it IS true, and that there will be awful consequences if one doesn't join it and it turns out to be true. This argument you make is making a similar case, and ends up making the same error of logic. In reality, if nothing is done to "prevent [action] from happening (or probably happening, or maybe happening)", it might not come true at all.

In the case of global warming, it is purely a religious belief. There is no science involved with it. Science does not have theories about the unquantifiable. It does not have theories about circularly defined buzzwords. If one religiously believes that "global warming" is going to cause [insert dangers here] and that [insert preventative measures here] need to be taken, then by all means practice that religion, but one shouldn't call it science when it outright denies science.

One needs to think about what path global warming belief is taking them down... It takes them down a path of denying science, denying logic, denying religion, denying philosophy, and etc... It leads them towards ignorance, towards fundamentalism, towards oligarchy, towards void arguments/paradoxes, etc...


Continued Pascal's Wager Fallacy from above...

Define "climate change"...

What "action" should be taken and why?


Continued Pascal's Wager Fallacy. False Dichotomy Fallacy.

My calculation was showing precisely how we have no clue what the "global temperature" is, since Statistical Mathematics shows that, EVEN IF thermometers were uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer (all requirements of statistical mathematics which are NOT being met at the present time), that (since temperature variance by mile and minute is so great) the margin of error is far too great to even come up with a reasonable guess as to what the Earth's surface temperature is... We would need at least 200 million (likely many more than that) thermometers before we could even BEGIN to come up with a reasonable statistical analysis of a global temperature at any particular moment of time.


I'm fine with improving efficiency and energy sourcing too... But that all depends on the free market, and what happens to be the most efficient/viable source of energy for any particular situation. A lot of times, coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear are far superior in cost/efficiency/etc. than other alternatives such as solar, wind, and hydro. Some areas make good use of those alternatives, but many other areas find those alternatives to be non-feasible. Windmills happen to kill many birds, which isn't a good thing either. It all needs to be sorted out by the free market, and right now, the power sources I mentioned are just much more feasible to power our economy.


Indeterminable...


Indeterminable...

OK, I get your entire approach. If it can't be calculated mathematically then it doesn't exist. Sounds very idealistic. I'm not buying in, but it's quite convincing. I can see how you rationalize it.

Except for the part where you identified the wisdom of hoping for the best but preparing for the worst (which statistically has you covered no matter what happens) as Pascal's fallacy. Wrong!

My way, we are covered no matter what happens. Your way, we are screwed if you are wrong. There is no reason to take any risk. It is simply smarter to hope for the best case but still prepare for the worst case. No religion required.

I believe you have gone at this thing not open minded, but with a predetermined conclusion, and found a way to disprove any other possibility (at least the best way you can) and thus your entire argument is not one of a rational approach, but rather one of filling in the blanks to best connect the dots to the foregone conclusion.

Mathematics is everywhere in life, but it requires proper data from which to reach a true answer. You are correct that it is not possible to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth, but we are doing the best we can, and the data shows a rise.

Those measurements support the scientific theory of human caused global warming, as do the time-lapsed photographs from space of disappearing polar ice cover and glaciers, something which would logically coincide with warming temperatures.

And thermometers are not the only way to get a record of the changing climate on Earth. What about ice cores?

[moon]

My bad.

Good now though. Respect by accident.

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

Hello PoliTalker,

OK, I get your entire approach. If it can't be calculated mathematically then it doesn't exist. Sounds very idealistic. I'm not buying in, but it's quite convincing. I can see how you rationalize it.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. A global temperature DOES exist. I'm not denying that.

What I'm saying is that we do not currently have the means to accurately measure a global temperature. That's what I am showing with the statistical mathematics calculation that I have presented... Without accurate global temperature data, there's no way for us to determine a "climate" for Earth as a whole... I say "climate" there because climate is localized, by definition; there is no such thing as a "global local". Phoenix has a climate, San Francisco has a climate, and etc... Earth (as a whole) does not have a climate... Is Earth's climate hot and arid? Is it cold and wet? ... ... See why this is an issue?

Except for the part where you identified the wisdom of hoping for the best but preparing for the worst (which statistically has you covered no matter what happens) as Pascal's fallacy. Wrong!

It is PRECISELY what Pascal's Wager Fallacy is, for the reasoning I explained in my prior post.

My way, we are covered no matter what happens. Your way, we are screwed if you are wrong. There is no reason to take any risk. It is simply smarter to hope for the best case but still prepare for the worst case. No religion required.

This is a PRIME example of Pascal's Wager, though... It's predicting that a bad event will happen if nothing is done to prevent that bad event. I'll even rephrase your comment into Pascal's original wager to show you what you are claiming...

"My way, you are covered no matter what happens. Your way, you will burn in hell for all eternity if you are wrong. There is no reason to take any risk. It is simply smarter to hope that hell doesn't exist, but still prepare for God sentencing you to burn in hell for all eternity for your rejection of him. No religion required."

So, are you a believer in the Christian God? If not, then why are you denying your own "wisdom" from above??

I believe you have gone at this thing not open minded, but with a predetermined conclusion,

Not at all... I have specifically laid out the three main grounds which I reject global warming on. Ground #1 is Logic, Ground #2 is Science, Ground #3 is Mathematics. The Church of Global Warming denies all three of these things.

It denies Logic (for starters) by attempting to form an argument around a circularly-defined buzzword (thus, a void argument).

It denies Science (for starters) because it denies the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics as well as the Stefan Boltzmann Law. It attempts to create energy out of nothing, it attempts to make heat flow backwards, and it attempts to reduce radiance while increasing temperature.

It denies Mathematics (for starters) by not selecting raw temperature data by Rand N, not using uniformly spaced thermometers, not having the same observer simultaneously reading them, not declaring a variance, and not calculating a margin of error.

If you'd like to address Ground #1, I am more than happy to hear you provide a non-circular definition for the term "global warming" (or "climate change", if you prefer).

If you'd like to address Ground #2, I am more than happy to hear your falsification of those currently standing laws of science, or to hear a proposal which adheres to those laws of science.

If you'd like to address Ground #3, I am more than happy to hear how you or anyone else has determined a global temperature by following those axioms of Statistical Mathematics.

and found a way to disprove any other possibility (at least the best way you can)

I'm not attempting to disprove anything. The burden of proof is not on me; I am not the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on YOU. YOU need to show that global warming IS happening... I am simply telling you my reasoning for rejecting it.

and thus your entire argument is not one of a rational approach,

It is QUITE rational, actually... It is based on Logic, Science, and Mathematics, all of which the Church of Global Warming outright denies (as I have explained already).

but rather one of filling in the blanks to best connect the dots to the foregone conclusion.

I'm not filling in anything... I am simply following the axioms of the closed functional systems of logic and mathematics, as well as adhering to currently standing laws of science.

Mathematics is everywhere in life, but it requires proper data from which to reach a true answer. You are correct that it is not possible to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth,

Great! We agree here.

but we are doing the best we can, and the data shows a rise.

What is this "proper data" which 'shows a rise'?? It doesn't exist. There is no data available which follows the requirements which I have outlined (selection by RandN, uniformly spaced thermometers, simultaneously read by same observer, declaration of a variance, margin of error calculation... ... ...) Yes, I do have a fairly high standard for data, but at the very least, I do require it to follow the axioms of Statistical Mathematics.

Those measurements support the scientific theory of human caused global warming,

Same issues as I've said above... The axioms of Statistical Mathematics are not being followed...

Also, there is no "scientific theory" of global warming. Science has no theories about unquantifiable buzzwords. Global Warming doesn't even have a logical definition yet (only various circular definitions).

Was this "global warming" 'theory' tested against a null hypothesis??

as do the time-lapsed photographs from space of disappearing polar ice cover and glaciers, something which would logically coincide with warming temperatures.

Were the photographs fudged? What time period do they cover? Why is that specific time period considered "holy" as opposed to any other time period?? The polar ice cover is just fine... polar bears are thriving.

And thermometers are not the only way to get a record of the changing climate on Earth. What about ice cores?

Earth does not have a climate. Atlanta has a climate... Green Bay has a climate... Earth does not have a climate. What IS Earth's climate? Hot and arid? Cold and wet? ... ... Ice cores only measure a specific location; they are not uniformly distributed across the Earth. Also, ice is permeable to CO2... In other words, ice cores run into similar problems that our current thermometers do. An ice core in [insert location here] tells you nothing about the temperature of [insert different location here].

Try again.

[moon]

gfm7175;

Earth does not have a climate.

Sure it does. Regions have climates- described by the average of conditions there- and the climate of the earth as a whole is also described by the average of its parts. Just because it isn't described in regional terms does not preclude its holistic existence. You should think about this before charging onwards under your banner of denial.

For other readers- standing back from the earth, viewing it from the moon, say- the earth climate can be seen in non-regional terms, the colors of the oceans and land-masses, the ice-masses, the colors and movements of the atmosphere. Sure, we're viewing its climate in terms of geological time - but it's a climate none-the-less. Quite obviously, that overall earth-view will change according to the higher temperatures of global warming. That's global climate-change.

When these kids march in protest they are protesting all over the earth because their modern education has instilled in them that they are all inter-dependent upon each other. One species defending one climate- the global climate. They are wilfully deaf to the sirens of capitalist destruction- as they should be.

[PoliTalker]

Hello PoliTalker,

Hello gfm7175,

Rut roh. Another long detailed post maker. We are sick, you know. We are so out of place in this sound byte world.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. A global temperature DOES exist. I'm not denying that.

What I'm saying is that we do not currently have the means to accurately measure a global temperature.

I don't recall ever arguing that we had a means to measure global temperature. I am not a scientist. I'll leave those things up to the experts. I don't see why the main stream news has any reason to present a massive (almost impossibly so) hoax to the world. I believe what they say. The Earth is warming. Heck. For all I know they could not be trying to pick a single number for the temperature of the Earth. Maybe all they are doing is using data from existing thermometers and noticing trends - such as lots of the readings rising gradually over time.

This is a PRIME example of Pascal's Wager, though... It's predicting that a bad event will happen if nothing is done to prevent that bad event.

That's where we differ. I am not predicting anything. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and working from the premise that we don't know what is going to happen in the future. We have two indicated possibilities and two possible ways to proceed. We can take measures to be prepared in case of the worst case, or we can hope for the best case and do nothing. Most of us see that as an unnecessary risk. It is unwise to incur any risk when there is little to be gained and so much to be lost. That would be foolish.

We want our bases covered no matter what happens. It has nothing to do with Pascal, and everything to do with being wise and doing the smart thing at this point in time, given what we know. I understand you are so sure you are right, and you see some big downside to this, that you strongly object to going along with the rest of the world. That's fine. You are entitled to your view. But when it depends on incorrectly assuming that I am predicting anything, then I know it's based on an incorrect assumption. I am not predicting anything.

I'll even rephrase your comment into Pascal's original wager to show you what you are claiming...

Pointless, because then you've turned it into something else. I can't be held responsible for something you copied and doctored up.

So, are you a believer in the Christian God? If not, then why are you denying your own "wisdom" from above??

Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the discussion. Hello. We are talking about what may or may not be happening to the planet and what to do about it.

Not at all... I have specifically laid out the three main grounds which I reject global warming on. Ground #1 is Logic, Ground #2 is Science, Ground #3 is Mathematics. The Church of Global Warming denies all three of these things.

My approach is logic based also. It is illogical to take any risk which is not necessary, especially where there is so very much at risk.

It denies Logic (for starters) by attempting to form an argument around a circularly-defined buzzword (thus, a void argument).

Sounds like a semantic argument.

It denies Science (for starters) because it denies the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics as well as the Stefan Boltzmann Law. It attempts to create energy out of nothing, it attempts to make heat flow backwards, and it attempts to reduce radiance while increasing temperature.

Incorrect. I have never heard the main stream news claim that the reports of global warming create energy out of nothing. If we could have energy from nothing, we would not need to generate so much CO2 trying to get energy.

It denies Mathematics (for starters) by not selecting raw temperature data by Rand N, not using uniformly spaced thermometers, not having the same observer simultaneously reading them, not declaring a variance, and not calculating a margin of error.

Since the Earth is not symmetrical, nor is land evenly distributed, there is no easy formula for the optimal distribution of thermometers.

Your argument here is to impose an impossible condition for the other case, and then claim it is impossible, so you don't believe the results. You are entitled to your own view, but scientists are going to use what data they have, and they will reach their conclusions completely independently of your input. If they are confident in their determination, I would believe them, the ones reported in the main stream news, as the more reliable information; over the posting of an eloquent anonymous poster on an internet chat site. To me, that is logical.

I'm not attempting to disprove anything. The burden of proof is not on me; I am not the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on YOU. YOU need to show that global warming IS happening... I am simply telling you my reasoning for rejecting it.

Now you are imposing a requirement of proof. Nothing need be proven before precautions are taken. When a hurricane comes ashore, nobody stands there on the beach in a glass house saying: 'No need to worry - it is not proven that the hurricane will hit here." That person would be technically correct in saying so. That would also be an idiot. No. The wise thing to do is to take precautions. Wisdom says: Hope for the best case, but prepare for the worst case. Sure, it might cost a little bit to be prepared but that is like insurance against the possible losses should the worst case occur.

It is QUITE rational, actually... It is based on Logic, Science, and Mathematics, all of which the Church of Global Warming outright denies (as I have explained already).

I'm sure you feel it is rational. You've explained why you feel that way. I understand your reasoning. I simply disagree with it. I keep reverting back to that basic logic that it is not wise to take an unnecessary great risk where there is little to be gained. And no reason to take that foolish risk. What do we have to gain by doing nothing and hoping for the best case? I don't see the up side here. Really. What's to be gained? The changes we want to make are not going to destroy our lives or cost us a lot of money. That has not been shown. We are trying to save lives here. And the result could very well mean much cleaner, more reliable energy at a lower cost.

What is this "proper data" which 'shows a rise'?? It doesn't exist. There is no data available which follows the requirements which I have outlined (selection by RandN, uniformly spaced thermometers, simultaneously read by same observer, declaration of a variance, margin of error calculation... ... ...) Yes, I do have a fairly high standard for data, but at the very least, I do require it to follow the axioms of Statistical Mathematics.

That would be expecting perfection in an imperfect world.

Global Warming doesn't even have a logical definition yet (only various circular definitions).

If true, this is all you need. You've got us. Why even go into all that other stuff? In the words of a wise salesman, once you've made the sale, shut up.

Well, the reason, of course, that you have so many other convincing points, and don't simply rely on this one particular one, is that you know this isn't 'IT.' But the fact that you've chosen to augment your argument with this desperate diversion is that you know this alone isn't enough, and you also know that the rest of it doesn't really do the trick either, does it?

How many times have you presented this overwhelming all-the-bases-covered approach in chat rooms?

Has it *ever* worked? Have you *ever* convinced someone who believes the main stream news media when they say we are headed toward human caused global warming to change their mind and reject the main stream news? Maybe people who don't share your predetermined conclusion are just not buying it. Maybe the real reason you've gone to this great length is not to convince anybody else, but to convince yourself.

Hmmmmm.

Were the photographs fudged? What time period do they cover? Why is that specific time period considered "holy" as opposed to any other time period?? The polar ice cover is just fine... polar bears are thriving.

Bears may be hanging in there for now but the planet is losing ice. The Earth is warming, and we can do something about it if we act now. We can make the inevitable changes less drastic if we take smart measures now.

Earth does not have a climate. Atlanta has a climate... Green Bay has a climate... Earth does not have a climate. What IS Earth's climate? Hot and arid? Cold and wet? ...

I don't recall trying to argue that the entire Earth had just one climate. But I am seeing how you like to invent straw men.

... Ice cores only measure a specific location; they are not uniformly distributed across the Earth. Also, ice is permeable to CO2... In other words, ice cores run into similar problems that our current thermometers do. An ice core in [insert location here] tells you nothing about the temperature of [insert different location here].

Just more of your creative deflections of anything that does not support your predetermined conclusion. Look. I am willing to approach this from a neutral position. We have two indicated possibilities and two possible ways to proceed. Your position is that there is only one possibility. You've already ruled out my entire argument before we begin discussing how we should proceed. You're claiming to be perfect here, claiming that there is no possibility that you could be wrong, that you are all-knowing and therefore we should listen to you and do it your way.

That is not reasonable. It is fallible We are both humans. (At least I hope so. If that's not the case then I win the argument by default) Humans make mistakes. The logical approach is to begin the discussion on the premise that either possibility can exist. Either nothing is happening and we then need take no precautions, or something is happening and we should do what we can to prepare. If we can agree on reasonable precautions for the possibility that something might really be happening, then it becomes a basic logical no brainer to take those precautions because that eliminates any risk. And the risk is actually quite great, so it is very wise to take a course of action which rules it out.