Trying to understand conservative reasoning, (A well mannered thread.)

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, corrado33 said:

Except for the "christian member" in your signature. If you're going to broadcast it, at least realize that people can see it. It doesn't matter what you are, it only matters that you are a climate change denier, and you argue like every conservative I have every argued with. That is what this thread is about. Conservative argumentative reasoning. You attempted to explain to me otherwise, then went ahead and virtually did every action I said in the OP. That's a hard argument to win in that "No conservatives don't argue like this" and while arguing that point actually argue like that. And sure, I'm not sure if you said "no conservatives don't argue like this." but considering that was the premise of this thread, I'll take it.

 

You are giving the literal definition of a cop out. "An excuse for not doing something." Ugh. When faced with a problem that make a person rethink their own beliefs, most conservatives will do exactly what you did. Sidestep the problem, and go after me personally, or make an excuse as to why they can't answer the question. So no, I don't care what you are, all I know is that you argue like a conservative, and if you find it offensive to be called that, I really don't care. You are acting no better than them and have shown me nothing to the contrary. I have never called you stupid, nor do I think you are. I have never attacked you, I've attacked your beliefs, which you are unwilling to change or even considering looking at the other side of the argument. I simply find your method of reasoning sub-par, as it goes as far as "I believe what I believe because I believe what I believe." There is no reasoning involved. 

Wow I have been called out......

You presume what my stance is by generalizing my beliefs ... such a scientific deduction.

We talked about that. 

You are wrong about me.

 

Still I have not taken a stance on climate with you as of yet. And still you presume that I have. 

For the record I do not deny climate change. I do not agree with the perimeters in which the majority makes claims to but that I will keep to myself as it does not have bearing in this discussion.

I did not go after you I explained what was going on and the reason for not wanting to continue.

No you did not call me stupid and neither did I claim you did.

You attacked beliefs but not those that are mine.

I have not made any attempt to  "I believe what I believe because I believe what I believe." 

All I have explained to you is reasoning on conservatism but for some reason you keep steering the conversation to climate change. I even used an analogy to  make a point that had nothing to do with climate change and that for some reason you did not understand so I decided to move from using it further (though my 8 year old daughter did understand it by the way). 

Honestly I think you are picking a fight with conservatives over climate change and this is what I have deduced from the entire thread. 

I have no want to discuss climate change. I am more than happy to discuss the conservative mindset with you as I began to do but I will not continue to play banter with you while you continue to attack those that are willing to help.

 

Honestly if you are really looking for it I would have to say you are acting inline with a very liberal and socialist mindset and this I have been able to conclude based on my understanding of human behavior in which is something I will claim to have a great deal of knowledge and understanding on. 

You have attempted to bate 3 separate time whether intentionally or not and so I am done with this conversation.

 

Lastly, you lack the age and experience to apply the things you are arguing in this thread and it shows a lot I strongly suggest you stop.

 

[corrado33]

2 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Wow I have been called out......

You presume what my stance is by generalizing my beliefs ... such a scientific deduction.

We talked about that. 

You are wrong about me.

 

Still I have not taken a stance on climate with you as of yet. And still you presume that I have. 

For the record I do not deny climate change. I do not agree with the perimeters in which the majority makes claims to but that I will keep to myself as it does not have bearing in this discussion.

I did not go after you I explained what was going on and the reason for not wanting to continue.

No you did not call me stupid and neither did I claim you did.

You attacked beliefs but not those that are mine.

I have not made any attempt to  "I believe what I believe because I believe what I believe." 

All I have explained to you is reasoning on conservatism but for some reason you keep steering the conversation to climate change. I even used an analogy to  make a point that had nothing to do with climate change and that for some reason you did not understand so I decided to move from using it further (though my 8 year old daughter did understand it by the way). 

Honestly I think you are picking a fight with conservatives over climate change and this is what I have deduced from the entire thread. 

I have no want to discuss climate change. I am more than happy to discuss the conservative mindset with you as I began to do but I will not continue to play banter with you while you continue to attack those that are willing to help.

 

Honestly if you are really looking for it I would have to say you are acting inline with a very liberal and socialist mindset and this I have been able to conclude based on my understanding of human behavior in which is something I will claim to have a great deal of knowledge and understanding on. 

You have attempted to bate 3 separate time whether intentionally or not and so I am done with this conversation.

 

Lastly, you lack the age and experience to apply the things you are arguing in this thread and it shows a lot I strongly suggest you stop.

 

Again, more personal attacks against me, with no evidence to support your own beliefs. I said it would come to this, and it has. I shouldn't have expected better. I was not the first person to bring up climate change, I simply responded to incorrect information that that is the direction this thread has gone. 

 

If you trust in your beliefs so strongly, then why are you afraid to defend them? Or even state them outright? 

 

You said you want to help me understand the conservative mindset, then explain that to me. You may not be conservative, but you've been arguing for typically conservative points over the course of this thread. Obviously you have some sort of connection there. At this point it doesn't matter what the argument was about, it's about how you presented the argument, and why you resorted to personal attacks against me instead of attempting to defend your actual or made up beliefs. That is the argument I brought up in the OP, and the question that no one so far has answered. 

 

I have never once called your character into question, yet you have done it to me multiple times throughout the thread. You think you're on the moral high ground, but it's simply not true. 

[SansVarnic]

9 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

<snip>

Go back and re-read my first comment.

That is your answer.

 

There was not one person attack in my last comment.

[MrDynamicMan]

16 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Except for the "christian member" in your signature. If you're going to broadcast it, at least realize that people can see it. It doesn't matter what you are, it only matters that you are a climate change denier, and you argue like every conservative I have every argued with. That is what this thread is about. Conservative argumentative reasoning. You attempted to explain to me otherwise, then went ahead and virtually did every action I said in the OP. That's a hard argument to win in that "No conservatives don't argue like this" and while arguing that point actually argue like that. And sure, I'm not sure if you said "no conservatives don't argue like this." but considering that was the premise of this thread, I'll take it.

 

You are giving the literal definition of a cop out. "An excuse for not doing something." Ugh. When faced with a problem that make a person rethink their own beliefs, most conservatives will do exactly what you did. Sidestep the problem, and go after me personally, or make an excuse as to why they can't answer the question. So no, I don't care what you are, all I know is that you argue like a conservative, and if you find it offensive to be called that, I really don't care. You are acting no better than them and have shown me nothing to the contrary. I have never called you stupid, nor do I think you are. I have never attacked you, I've attacked your beliefs, which you are unwilling to change or even considering looking at the other side of the argument. I simply find your method of reasoning sub-par, as it goes as far as "I believe what I believe because I believe what I believe." There is no reasoning involved. 

Dude, you're being overly aggressive. There's no way either of you are gonna convince the other if you're both shouting. 

[SansVarnic]

2 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Dude, you're being overly aggressive. There's no way either of you are gonna convince the other if you're both shouting. 

Thanks but I am attempting to be quite calm about this. But maybe not?

[TheKDub]

8 hours ago, corrado33 said:

-Snip-

Just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean they support Trump, just like how because someone is a liberal doesn't mean they're against Trump.

 

From my side of things as a conservative, a huge amount of the garbage that the liberal crowd is spewing is all from the bias and clickbait of the mainstream news. For example, pretty much all of the major news sources that tend to lean towards the liberal side are titling the temporary suspension on travel as a 'Muslim ban', when in no way is it targeted at Muslims in specific, it's targeted at seven countries (Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran), all of which the Obama administration had deemed as primary sources of terrorist activities. If you put the fake news and bias of the mainstream media aside, it's a perfectly reasonable suspension on travel.
They're suspending travel for 90 days so they can review and update the screening process used, that way we're not going to essentially just let terrorists flow over into the USA.

 

It's incredibly difficult to have an intelligent conversation with someone from an opposing mindset in modern times where most sources of information that one side may see as legitimate, really might not be so legitimate. There's way too much false information being spread around and passed off as facts, and way too much bias and word bending being put into things.

 

Something that definitely makes it harder for Conservatives to take Liberals seriously is the clear lack of logic that many Liberals are displaying, and how they're in essence sheep, just going with what everyone else does, and not thinking for themselves. So much hypocrisy going around everywhere, it's just absurd.

[MrDynamicMan]

5 hours ago, Mooshi said:

I ask the same question of the far left. Radical thinking, everything is offensive, let's do something completely against our best interest because feelings. 

 

I'm neither and believe both "sides"  are bat shit insane on the deep ends. 

I agree in entirety. The thought patterns of both the far left and far right are are identical once you strip the basic subject away: denial of facts, dogmatic refusal to consider other positions, and a general "everyone else is completely wrong and we're the only ones who know anything." approach. They're also almost entirely morally motivated. Post modernist is society. I think it's the centrist libs and conservatives that are the only reasonable areas left. Libertarians can be reasonable but a lot of them lean very far right and end up creating their own dogma that spirals into ancap. I find them still more palatable that commies or anarchists though, as they do tend to be the most open to others ideas. 

 

Personally, I'm somewhere between libertarian and egalitarian. Socially I'm extremely liberal (classically, not in the regressive left sense that has hijacked the term) but I think progressive taxing and an extremely robust and effective infrastructure is the best way forward. 

[MrDynamicMan]

7 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Thanks but I am attempting to be quite calm about this. But maybe not?

Youre acting perfectly fine, I was just saying that to make the point that if either party starts shouting the conversation spirals. 

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Youre acting perfectly fine, I was just saying that to make the point that if either party starts shouting the conversation spirals. 

Agreed

[christianled59]

Not hoping into the argument, but it seems that the OP (who specifically said they wanted to avoid arguments) is the aggressor in most of these debates. lol

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, Kloaked said:

I've looked at a lot of evidence about this climate change stuff given to me by my liberal friends, one in particular who has an Ph D in some field of research. I wasn't convinced that it's something that humans are causing and something that we can control.

I think you are underestimating how much influence human society can and already has on planet wide ecosystems.

 

Humans have wiped out entire species of animals with nothing more than rocks, sticks/spears and arrows. This all happened before we could form large villages/towns, sail large oceans or write. We have introduced plants and animals to foreign lands causing wide spread devastation, trophy hunted animals to extinction, polluted large quantities of fresh water supplies, over drawn from ground water, over fertilized land poisoning it, removed entire forests and mountains, moved and created rivers and lakes.

 

Nature itself may be extremely powerful, more than we are but it isn't exactly an unfair fight and one we could make unfair in our favor/detriment if we wanted.

 

We have the power right now to utterly destroy the climate of the earth for thousands of years, maybe forever, and we could do it in minutes. Either nuclear bomb wide areas of the earth or blow up the moon (more than minutes), yes if we wanted to we could. Why don't we do this? Self preservation, this is one of our most strong basic instincts and for good reason.

 

This isn't an argument for or against climate change but in regards to the view on us humans not having the ability to greatly impact our environment which directly effects the climate. We sure do and have, there isn't a single intelligent person (forget scientists) that could logically argue the counter of this.

 

So no we do not have the power to control the climate but we have the power to effect it and that is the problem. If we could control it that would mean we can change it at will in the way we choose and when which we can't.

[LAwLz]

OP, I don't think you have noticed this but your post are aggressive, filled with extreme generalizations (such as "if you voted Trump then you are a science denier"), assumptions, incorrect facts (don't even bother to look at the dates of the graphs you're posting), strawman arguments and other logical fallacies.

 

For crying out loud dude, just go back and read your own posts. You might feel like everyone who argues against you is denying science but that's because you are doing the exact same thing. Hell, in one post you casually dismissed scientific papers because you had another source which did not agree, and then you went "my source is right, yours is wrong" (not in those exact words).

This is a problem with both sides. They only trust science which suits their own agenda.

It's like Googling for "proof that bigfoot exists" and then go "aha, this first search result on Google shows that I am right!". Both sides are guilty of this (you specifically).

 

You have at several points in this thread made critical factual mistakes and later gone "oops I didn't know X and Y but that doesn't matter" like when you posted a graph of the "last 8 years" when the graph stops at 2009 (do you even look at your own sources?) or how you talked about "domestic terrorism" without knowing what it means.

You can't do these things and then make huge generalizations of the opposite side. You look like an asshole.

 

And look, it might seem that I am a Trump supporter in contrasts to you, because you seem to be a far left extremist but I am not. I think Trump is a bad joke which somehow got elected. I completely understand why it happened (you have the left extremists to blame), but I don't like it.

 

I am just trying to make an extremist realize he might not be as unbiased as he thinks, and hopefully he will learn to look at the word from a different perspective. The world isn't as black and white as you seem to think, and this very limited world view you have can be very harmful both to yourself and society.

 

 

You might not realize it, but you and Trump have the same way of thinking. Instead of looking at things and people for the complex things they are, you instead choose to put everything into black and white terms. Trump wants to ban Muslims or whatever his plan is, because he thinks of them all as terrorists.

You dislike conservatives because you think of them all as science deniers.

You are both acting like children whose brains haven't fully developed yet.

[Guest Kloaked]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

I think you are underestimating how much influence human society can and already has on planet wide ecosystems.

 

Humans have wiped out entire species of animals with nothing more than rocks, sticks/spears and arrows. This all happened before we could form large villages/towns, sail large oceans or write. We have introduced plants and animals to foreign lands causing wide spread devastation, trophy hunted animals to extinction, polluted large quantities of fresh water supplies, over drawn from ground water, over fertilized land poisoning it, removed entire forests and mountains, moved and created rivers and lakes.

 

Nature itself may be extremely powerful, more than we are but it isn't exactly an unfair fight and one we could make unfair in our favor/detriment if we wanted.

 

We have the power right now to utterly destroy the climate of the earth for thousands of years, maybe forever, and we could do it in minutes. Either nuclear bomb wide areas of the earth or blow up the moon (more than minutes), yes if we wanted to we could. Why don't we do this? Self preservation, this is one of our most strong basic instincts and for good reason.

 

This isn't an argument for or against climate change but in regards to the view on us humans not having the ability to greatly impact our environment which directly effects the climate. We sure do and have, there isn't a single intelligent person (forget scientists) that could logically argue the counter of this.

 

So no we do not have the power to control the climate but we have the power to effect it and that is the problem. If we could control it that would mean we can change it at will in the way we choose and when which we can't.

I agree and stand with all of this, just to be clear. I can't deny something that is very tangible.

 

More of where I'm coming from is a political standpoint where the people who deny a man made climate change are generally the ones I agree with on other topics. I don't agree with them on a lot of things (religion, how lgbt people are treated by them generally, and so on). I even got asked to not come back to my home church of 20 years because I needed to focus on school, and that someone who worked there got upset with me on Facebook when I said that lady in Arkansas or whatever should have issued the gay couple a marriage license or stepped down from her position.

 

What my goal is for everyone to come to an agreement and not look at things so one sidedly. So when it comes to this climate change stuff, I explained why the people who aren't a combined think the way that they do.

[corrado33]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

OP, I don't think you have noticed this but your post are aggressive, filled with extreme generalizations (such as "if you voted Trump then you are a science denier"), assumptions, incorrect facts (don't even bother to look at the dates of the graphs you're posting), strawman arguments and other logical fallacies.

 

For crying out loud dude, just go back and read your own posts. You might feel like everyone who argues against you is denying science but that's because you are doing the exact same thing. Hell, in one post you casually dismissed scientific papers because you had another source which did not agree, and then you went "my source is right, yours is wrong" (not in those exact words).

This is a problem with both sides. They only trust science which suits their own agenda.

It's like Googling for "proof that bigfoot exists" and then go "aha, this first search result on Google shows that I am right!". Both sides are guilty of this (you specifically).

 

You have at several points in this thread made critical factual mistakes and later gone "oops I didn't know X and Y but that doesn't matter" like when you posted a graph of the "last 8 years" when the graph stops at 2009 (do you even look at your own sources?) or how you talked about "domestic terrorism" without knowing what it means.

You can't do these things and then make huge generalizations of the opposite side. You look like an asshole.

 

And look, it might seem that I am a Trump supporter in contrasts to you, because you seem to be a far left extremist but I am not. I think Trump is a bad joke which somehow got elected. I completely understand why it happened (you have the left extremists to blame), but I don't like it.

 

I am just trying to make an extremist realize he might not be as unbiased as he thinks, and hopefully he will learn to look at the word from a different perspective. The world isn't as black and white as you seem to think, and this very limited world view you have can be very harmful both to yourself and society.

 

 

You might not realize it, but you and Trump have the same way of thinking. Instead of looking at things and people for the complex things they are, you instead choose to put everything into black and white terms. Trump wants to ban Muslims or whatever his plan is, because he thinks of them all as terrorists.

You dislike conservatives because you think of them all as science deniers.

You are both acting like children whose brains haven't fully developed yet.

Yes, and I have admitted when I was wrong. Can you show me where I dismissed a peer reviewed scientific paper? Because I have not done as such. What I did was dismiss a website written by someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change. An obviously biased source. Articles on the internet are NOT scientific papers. They are simply media, nothing more, especially when they come from non-reputable sources. Did people not learn this in high school? What websites are ok to trust and which aren't? I have presented scientific literature, at it's source, as evidence, in one of the most respected scientific journals that exists, and you're calling that into question? Are you saying that those papers are wrong? (Not you personally... I'm not sure how to write that.) I can post thousands more if you'd like. 

 

I'm not making this up. Nature the journal, in all its forms, rank at the highest of the "most well respected journals list." 6 of the top 10 journals across the world are nature journals.

 

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

 

Do you guys not see my side of the argument? I'm giving you the best sources of information I have, hoping that I will receive the same from you, yet I've received nothing other than biased websites. I'm getting arguments that say "well the science supports my opinion" with no scientific backing. Can you not see how frustrating that is? People are misinterpreting what scientific papers say for the sake of better news. It's like your friend telling you that your doctor told you that the mole on your back is cancerous, when the doctor said no such thing. That is so extremely frustrating. It's undermining. 

 

Yes, I did say my source was more correct than the one posted, and I was right. I'm sorry, but primary sources (peer reviewed journal articles) are better than secondary (scientific news articles) and tertiary (news articles) sources every time. No one needs to interpret the scientist's data other than himself. Am I wrong here? I'm really not trying to be aggressive, I'm just so frustrated. The other side of the argument never backs up their opinions. I don't get it. That's not how a debate works. In any debate or law setting the other side would have been thrown out long ago for refusing to back up their positions. I don't get it, it's not logical. If people are ok with saying "I've done research on this, I've read articles." then why are they afraid to post those same articles? The only conclusion I can come to is that those same people know those articles are biased and know they will be shot down by mainstream scientific publications. Or, they haven't actually done research or read articles. How can I draw any other conclusion? If I'm wrong I WANT to know! I want someone to help me find articles that disagree with my thoughts. Whenever I point out that that's the only conclusion I can come to, it's taken as a personal attack. Why is asking someone to back up their opinions taken as a personal attack?

 

You're also arguing semantics. No, I am not a linguist. Yes, I will make mistakes with WORDS every once in awhile. And I FREELY admitted when I was wrong. Something the other side isn't even willing to consider. You're calling into question a graph a posted that was 6 years out of date, when the other side of the argument is posting graphs that are hundreds of thousands of years out of date and out of scope. Yes, that graph was out of date, yes, I admitted it a full 10 seconds after I posted it, then I forgot to look for a better one. 

 

I suppose the argument here that no one has mentioned is this. "What is considered the most reputable source for facts?" To me, obviously, it is the conclusions that science has come to after many years of study of a subject. I can't answer for anybody else. 

 

You say I am guilty of "googling" for proof, but I'd ask you to try to find the sources I posted on google. Obviously the nasa source is there, but the nature publications are not public domain. You cannot and will not find them in their entirety on google. (Unless you are connected to a network which gives you access, a la a university.) Do you disagree? I am the ONLY one in this thread who has used anything BUT google to find evidence. Do you not understand how frustrating this is. I'm TRYING SO HARD to give you the absolute best information the smartest people on the planet have come up with and you are ignoring them based on preconceived notions instilled into you by people who probably know less about the subject than you or I. What I am giving is the best the human species has to offer. I've giving you the words written by the people who know the most about the subject. The people who are at the top of their field. And people are straight up ignoring it. I don't get it. I can't understand. Why?

 

But of course, that will be ignored. 

 

I'm still waiting for someone on the other side of the argument, whatever it is, to support their views with scientific experiments and facts rather than conjecture and opinions. That's all I want. That's all I've ever wanted.

[corrado33]

10 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

I agree in entirety. The thought patterns of both the far left and far right are are identical once you strip the basic subject away: denial of facts, dogmatic refusal to consider other positions, and a general "everyone else is completely wrong and we're the only ones who know anything." approach. They're also almost entirely morally motivated. Post modernist is society. I think it's the centrist libs and conservatives that are the only reasonable areas left. Libertarians can be reasonable but a lot of them lean very far right and end up creating their own dogma that spirals into ancap. I find them still more palatable that commies or anarchists though, as they do tend to be the most open to others ideas. 

 

Personally, I'm somewhere between libertarian and egalitarian. Socially I'm extremely liberal (classically, not in the regressive left sense that has hijacked the term) but I think progressive taxing and an extremely robust and effective infrastructure is the best way forward. 

While I agree that there are awful people on both sides, I do not consider myself extreme left. I'm not denying reputable facts, I'm not refusing to look at other data. No one has presented me with other reputable data to look at! Am I wrong? I am extremely willing to change my opinions, so long as they are more supported by science than my current ones. 

 

In fact, as I was looking for international terrorism facts before, I actually found that they have NOT been going down since 2000. There was a small spike in 2010, but since then have gone down to the lower levels before the spike. If someone has posted that i would have admitted it, but I feel no obligation to argue for both sides of the argument. I will no longer say that "international terrorism has gone down since before Obama." because it's not true. I'm pretty sure I'm the ONLY one in this thread who actually HAS changed an opinion. Or is willing to.

 

Does the above fact change my opinion of the travel ban? Not quite, but my stance has shifted a bit. 

[RocketFarmer]

Don't buy that you want to understand anything.  Think this is just a thread to troll conservatives.  Have fun with that.

[Shakaza]

14 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Give a conservative a question they have to answer with facts and science, and they'll cop out every time.

Sir, I apologize, but that is flat out:

Now, I don't particularly like Trump, at all, in any shape or form, but it fits quite well, don'tcha think?

 

I don't think you're being very fair in this thread. Although, yes, some conservatives or other individuals in right-leaning groups act in the way you described, there are many, some of which who have posted in this very thread, who have given admirable attempts to be cordial in speaking and reasonable in their arguments, and you seem to have some sort of bias against them rather than giving what they're saying a fair chance and dismantling their arguments with any sort of logic. Further, you don't seem to have a problem, or, I have to assume so, since you haven't mentioned it, with people who are liberal or left-leaning acting in similar ways. Let's use the climate change example, shall we? Although I tend to find the idea that humans are the primary cause of climate change in this era more believable, I don't see certain people who also share this belief handle arguments against it well. Instead of taking the evidence the other side presents and analyzing it, they simply disregard it because they say bias is involved, even though they don't provide proof, or say the data is wrong without providing a counter-source. You also might have a Bible-thumping, hardcore conservative on one side, and then a die-hard liberal anti-theist on the other. No group is free from these extreme ideals, and you can't fairly talk about one's shortcomings without mentioning the other. It makes you look childish and shortsighted.

[JoseGuya]

Im not a conservative myself, I'm a libertarian, and specifically a free market anarchist.

 

But some of the discussion here are completely misguided.

 

On science: It does not matter if 99 scientists claim thing A would happen if we do Y and just one says thing B would happen if we do X, science IS NOT a democracy, its facts, its logic (false or true), it is absolute. I will not debate the climate change issue, I just wanted to refresh that for everyone here. 

 

On conservatives reasoning over science: Yes, some conservatives will deny science facts because the Bible, but not all. The main problem conservatives have with climate change is not the proposition "Climate is changing", the issue is what we should do about it. Private property is essential to the eyes of a conservative, so the solutions of the Kyoto Convention are an insult to conservatives. 

 

Personally, I believe that with private property comes responsibility and respect for others' property. If you want to pollute a river in your land, do so, but if the pollutant reaches other peoples' property, you must pay for the cleaning of the river, and some more for lost opportunity of use of said river. The same can be said about air and land. This is where corporations get to harm entire populations, and are never punished for their actions, they should, and because they harmed other peoples property and life, with are values a conservative can agree with. 

[straight_stewie]

21 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Liberal says "that thing isn't true."

Liberal says "here is the scientific data supporting the opposite thing." 

Conservative says "Science is shit, I don't believe it."

Never in my life have I seen this actually happen, excluding arguments between minors.

Believe it or not, YOU are the problem. People who believe that one side is always wrong and the other is always right, especially without understanding the fundamental values and beliefs of both sides are the problem. People who refuse to listen to actual facts (not media facts) and logic are the problem. Politicians who do not know jack shit about what they are talking about are the problem, and people who allow them to maintain power are the problem. All of these people are abundant on all sides of the political spectrum in this country.

You say "let's keep this clean" and then make an EXTREMELY biased post, the only outcome of which could be to cause inflammatory or supportive remarks and arguments rather than debates. 

If you want to talk logically and scientifically about the current admins policies, why things are the way they are, or the fundamental differences between the two major political parties in the United States, feel free to message me. You might actually learn something.

[corrado33]

1 hour ago, straight_stewie said:

Never in my life have I seen this actually happen, excluding arguments between minors.

Believe it or not, YOU are the problem. People who believe that one side is always wrong and the other is always right, especially without understanding the fundamental values and beliefs of both sides are the problem. People who refuse to listen to actual facts (not media facts) and logic are the problem. Politicians who do not know jack shit about what they are talking about are the problem, and people who allow them to maintain power are the problem. All of these people are abundant on all sides of the political spectrum in this country.

You say "let's keep this clean" and then make an EXTREMELY biased post, the only outcome of which could be to cause inflammatory or supportive remarks and arguments rather than debates. 

If you want to talk logically and scientifically about the current admins policies, why things are the way they are, or the fundamental differences between the two major political parties in the United States, feel free to message me. You might actually learn something.

 

1 hour ago, Shakaza said:

Sir, I apologize, but that is flat out:

Now, I don't particularly like Trump, at all, in any shape or form, but it fits quite well, don'tcha think?

 

I don't think you're being very fair in this thread. Although, yes, some conservatives or other individuals in right-leaning groups act in the way you described, there are many, some of which who have posted in this very thread, who have given admirable attempts to be cordial in speaking and reasonable in their arguments, and you seem to have some sort of bias against them rather than giving what they're saying a fair chance and dismantling their arguments with any sort of logic. Further, you don't seem to have a problem, or, I have to assume so, since you haven't mentioned it, with people who are liberal or left-leaning acting in similar ways. Let's use the climate change example, shall we? Although I tend to find the idea that humans are the primary cause of climate change in this era more believable, I don't see certain people who also share this belief handle arguments against it well. Instead of taking the evidence the other side presents and analyzing it, they simply disregard it because they say bias is involved, even though they don't provide proof, or say the data is wrong without providing a counter-source. You also might have a Bible-thumping, hardcore conservative on one side, and then a die-hard liberal anti-theist on the other. No group is free from these extreme ideals, and you can't fairly talk about one's shortcomings without mentioning the other. It makes you look childish and shortsighted.

Both of you are saying that I'm not listening to other "facts." Please show me where these facts are! That's all I'm asking. My argument over the last page is that no one has given me facts worth considering, and no one has responded to that.

 

Are you considering the website posted before about climate change legitimate evidence? That's the only thing that has been posted that attempted to disagree with the nature articles I had posted previously. I discussed it, and dismissed it. The website itself says humans are part of the problem, exactly opposite of what the person who posted was saying, so the argument was moot. He attempted to cherrypick data from the website and draw his own, misguided, conclusions from them.

 

Please, I'm begging you, show me the evidence. I'm doing exactly what both of you said. I responded to the criticism with scientific evidence from journals, not google. I don't understand how you can say I'm the problem when I'm doing exactly what you say is the solution. 

 

I am NOT unwilling to change my beliefs, but I see no reason to. Yes, my stance has shifted, as I mentioned in my post previous to this, but I can't stress this enough, no one has presented me with scientific evidence to the contrary. Please show me!! I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm literally begging you. I cannot find it! 

 

Are you trying to make the argument that there is no scientific evidence to the contrary and the other side of the argument consists of feelings? If that is true (which I have no idea if it is) then it's... awful. You're pitting science and the scientific method, the best method to figure things out in the world, vs the feelings of people who have no reason to know any information about the topic at hand. Is that not... unreasonable? 

 

I have asked this in almost every post I've made in this thread, yet no one has done it. You're all assuming that I'm being an asshole because I refuse to look at other evidence. That is NOT TRUE, I have looked at EVERYTHING posted to the contrary of my arguments (Which consisted of a single website.). I've read through it. You're trying to tell me that I'm refusing to do things, when in fact I've already done them... I don't get it. I will repeat this again, no one has posted anything else for me to read! No one has posted the evidence you say I'm "ignoring." Please, show me where it is! 

 

You guys are both saying that I'm doing things that I'm not doing. Yes, I'm claiming that science is almost always right. In fact, I'd go as far as argue that the conclusions found by modern scientists over many years of research will be right. I've tried to find modern examples of a widely supported scientific theory that was wrong and the best I came up with was cold fusion. Except... that was never widely supported. It was as single experiment, which was subsequently proven wrong very quickly... If you know of any other modern theories that have been disproven, please tell me. Yes, you can find many ancient theories that have been disproven, when scientific equipment wasn't available, but that was different. The scientific method wasn't around and peer review wasn't a thing. 

 

Science has a great track record over the last 70-100 years. The news does not.

 

Do you guys understand how far we've come since 1900? Do you know we've had penicillin for less than 100 years? Ancient science is nothing compared to what we have now. Science has fundamentally changed from people doing experiments in their basements and garages and publishing books on their own to huge labs with people constantly looking over your shoulder to make sure you're doing the experiment correctly. This is what peer review is about. The information that survives skepticism is the best information we have. 

 

I have given ACTUAL facts. I have given ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC DATA. The two articles I posted are from actual scientific journals. Not MEDIA facts. Yet you say that "people who give media facts are the problem." When I have done no such thing. Please, I'm begging you, look back at the information I have presented. 

[straight_stewie]

17 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Both of you are saying that I'm not listening to other "facts." Please show me where these facts are! That's all I'm asking. My argument over the last page is that no one has given me facts worth considering, and no one has responded to that.

I don't even know what subject you're going on about. The only thing I came here to say is that you are just as bad as the "conservatives" that you hate so much. And this last post of yours proves it. 

Many, many conservatives, including myself, are highly steeped in the fields of science and logic. Probably more so than you are. So please, carry on about how illogical and stupid I am, when you'v never actually had a conversation with me anyway.

[Verrierr]

35 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Are you trying to make the argument that there is no scientific evidence to the contrary and the other side of the argument consists of feelings? If that is true (which I have no idea if it is) then it's... awful. You're pitting science and the scientific method, the best method to figure things out in the world, vs the feelings of people who have no reason to know any information about the topic at hand. Is that not... unreasonable? 

Isn't that how democracy works? The ruler of a state is in fact chosen by the feelings of the people.

 

38 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Science has a great track record over the last 70-100 years. The news does not.

That's not really true. I'm sure quite a few theories and even theorems have been proven wrong in that time. I can't give you exact numbers, but what I'd like to point out is that science has been wrong (or biased) on more than one occasion.

 

I confess to not reading all the previous posts, but from what I cought it seems like you're asking for evidence against global warming right?

Disapproving global warming is quite a hassle at this point in time. There are a lot of people who make a lot of money on it. That is a fact, and it is not meaningless, argue as you might.

 

It's no easy task to find an articles that is genuinely unbiased for either side really, but I too like the people writing those articles am human and possess a brain of my own and can therefore perform some simple calculations, which allows me to cast some doubt on if not the global warming then at least on carbon dioxide's influence on it.

 

Currently carbon dioxide is assumed to be at the level of about 400ppm (0.04%).

It's specific heat under the assumption of constant pressure (since atmospheric pressure varies only slightly) is 36.96 [J/(mol*K)] (gonna omit units from now on)\

For nitrogen it's  29.09, and for oxygen it's 29.43

Since I'm not looking for exact numbers but only the influence of carbon dioxide on them I'm going to assume that nitorgen constitues 78.96% of atmoshpere and oxygen 21%.

This allows me to calculate the approximated specific heat of air using this formula:

78.96%*29.09+21%*29.43+0.04%*36.96=29.164

 

And now to calculate the impact of co2 in the air on the specific heat of air (this could be done better, I'm just simplyfying):

(0.04%*36.96)/29.164=0.0005%

 

That 0.0005% doesn't seem like much to me. Perhaps I'm making some cardinal mistake in my thinking but as far as I know people in support of greenhouse effect claim that it's the higher specific heat of carbon dioxide that is the culprit behind it. Am I wrong?

[Misanthrope]

Conservative reasoning suffer from the same problem that Liberal reasoning suffers: Bipartisanship.

 

To start, everyone should immediately abandon the "left and right" concepts and use the compass as the bare minimum:

 

After that ideally most people would be willing to discuss things on a per-issue basis. I am not opposed to people having some "core" principles but what turns most people away is hearing "You're liberal, good then repeat after me: Fuck white cis males" or "You're a Conservative? good then repeat after me: 1776 will commence again *gunfire*"

 

Most people are actually leaning more towards the center and this wouldn't need to be the case if people where willing to talk to each other more and making non-issues out of repeating the same rthetoric they've heard from either side.

[corrado33]

2 hours ago, Verrierr said:

Isn't that how democracy works? The ruler of a state is in fact chosen by the feelings of the people.

 

That's not really true. I'm sure quite a few theories and even theorems have been proven wrong in that time. I can't give you exact numbers, but what I'd like to point out is that science has been wrong (or biased) on more than one occasion.

 

I confess to not reading all the previous posts, but from what I cought it seems like you're asking for evidence against global warming right?

Disapproving global warming is quite a hassle at this point in time. There are a lot of people who make a lot of money on it. That is a fact, and it is not meaningless, argue as you might.

 

It's no easy task to find an articles that is genuinely unbiased for either side really, but I too like the people writing those articles am human and possess a brain of my own and can therefore perform some simple calculations, which allows me to cast some doubt on if not the global warming then at least on carbon dioxide's influence on it.

 

Currently carbon dioxide is assumed to be at the level of about 400ppm (0.04%).

It's specific heat under the assumption of constant pressure (since atmospheric pressure varies only slightly) is 36.96 [J/(mol*K)] (gonna omit units from now on)\

For nitrogen it's  29.09, and for oxygen it's 29.43

Since I'm not looking for exact numbers but only the influence of carbon dioxide on them I'm going to assume that nitorgen constitues 78.96% of atmoshpere and oxygen 21%.

This allows me to calculate the approximated specific heat of air using this formula:

78.96%*29.09+21%*29.43+0.04%*36.96=29.164

 

And now to calculate the impact of co2 in the air on the specific heat of air (this could be done better, I'm just simplyfying):

(0.04%*36.96)/29.164=0.0005%

 

That 0.0005% doesn't seem like much to me. Perhaps I'm making some cardinal mistake in my thinking but as far as I know people in support of greenhouse effect claim that it's the higher specific heat of carbon dioxide that is the culprit behind it. Am I wrong?

Ok, I'm going to make a very concerted effort not to offend you.

 

Warning, the below is a tangent to any previous discussion. It does not discuss if man contributes to global warming, but rather how CO2 (whether manmade or not) affects global warming. I'm simply responding to the above post.

 

I also looked for disproven scientific theories in modern science, I could not find any, would you be so kind as to post some for me? I honestly expected to find some, but could not find any.

 

CO2 in the atmosphere is much more complicated than you are making it. It's not just about the specific heat of air, it's about how CO2 absorbs and emits light, not only that, but CO2 participates in a few reactions that make worse greenhouse gasses. (And it participates in a few that get RID of some greenhouse gasses, but the downsides heavily outweigh the positives.) In essence, you're installing a large heat sink on the atmosphere. Partially because of the specific heat of the air, sure but partially because of the vibrational energy stored in molecules. Temperature is kinetic energy, by definition. The problem with molecules that absorb and emit light in the infrared/visible spectrum, is that they don't allow heat to escape the earth's atmosphere. Other greenhouse gasses turn UV light, which is generally reflected away from the earth, into light that WILL pass through our atmosphere. Or rather, greenhouse gasses make it more difficult for heat to escape the atmosphere. And you're probably saying "well that means they won't let heat IN the atmosphere" but unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. Most of the energy imparted on the earth via the sun is in the visible spectrum (hence why we evolved to see it  ) However, when it hits the earth, it gets converted to longer wavelengths, via a variety of methods. CO2 can absorb those longer wavelengths. So as the longer wavelength of light is on its way out of our atmosphere (from "reflecting" off of the earth (very very non-scientific term... but let's just say it's more complicated than I want to get into.)) a CO2 molecule will absorb it. Eventually, the CO2 molecule will re emit this bit of light/energy however, it does NOT emit UP. It emits in 360 degrees (on all 3 axis). So half of the time, it will emit the energy back down toward earth, further warming it. 

 

Here are a few references if you'd like to read up on it yourself. I fully admit I am not an atmospheric chemist. I am a spectroscopist, (study how and why molecules absorb and emit light.) hence why my discussion focused on that.

 

I must warn you, the problem with scientific publications is that they are DENSE. They are NOT written for the layman (I'm not using that in its negative connotation, just in the literal sense.)

 

Atmos1.pdf

Atmos2.pdf

Atmos2.5.pdf

atmos3.pdf

 

Some of these are older, and I'm sure someone will shoot one or two down. In all honesty, science has stopped studying IF CO2 is affecting the climate and the earth, and started studying WHAT the effects are. The last one (about ocean acidification) discusses that. 

 

See that's the issue. Yes, the public does know SOME things about the scientific issues, but generally, that's only the tip of the iceberg, to use a colloquialism. If you only take into account the small amount that the public hears about, then things may SEEM good. Hell, increased CO2 = faster growing plants that use less water. Hell yeah! But that's never the full story, as the publications above lay out. 

[Verrierr]

51 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Ok, I'm going to make a very concerted effort not to offend you.

 

I also looked for disproven scientific theories in modern science, I could not find any, would you be so kind as to post some for me? 

 

CO2 in the atmosphere is much more complicated than you are making it. It's not just about the specific heat of air, it's about how CO2 absorbs and emits light, not only that, but CO2 participates in a few reactions that make worse greenhouse gasses. (And it participates in a few that get RID of some greenhouse gasses, but the downsides heavily outweigh the positives.) In essence, you're installing a large heat sink on the atmosphere. Partially because of the specific heat of the air, sure but partially because of the vibrational energy stored in molecules. Temperature is kinetic energy, by definition. The problem with molecules that absorb and emit light in the visible (or UV) spectrum, is that they don't allow heat to escape the earth's atmosphere. Or rather, they make it more difficult for heat to escape the atmosphere. And you're probably saying "well that means they won't let heat IN the atmosphere" but unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. Most of the energy imparted on the earth via the sun is in the visible spectrum (hence why we evolved to see it  ) However, when it hits the earth, it gets converted to longer wavelengths, via a variety of methods. CO2 can absorb those longer wavelengths. So as the longer wavelength of light is on its way out of our atmosphere (from "reflecting" off of the earth (very very non-scientific term... but let's just say it's more complicated than I want to get into.)) a CO2 molecule will absorb it. Eventually, the CO2 molecule will re emit this bit of light/energy however, it does NOT emit UP. It emits in 360 degrees (on all 3 axis). So half of the time, it will emit the energy back down toward earth, further warming it. 

 

Here are a few references if you'd like to read up on it yourself. I fully admit I am not an atmospheric chemist. I am a spectroscopist, (study how and why molecules absorb and emit light.) hence why my discussion focused on that.

 

I must warn you, the problem with scientific publications is that they are DENSE. They are NOT written for the layman (I'm not using that in its negative connotation, just in the literal sense.)

 

Atmos1.pdf

Atmos2.pdf

Atmos2.5.pdf

atmos3.pdf

 

Some of these are older, and I'm sure someone will shoot one or two down. In all honesty, science has stopped studying IF CO2 is affecting the climate and the earth, and started studying WHAT the effects are. The last one (about ocean acidification) discusses that. 

 

See that's the issue. Yes, the public does know SOME things about the scientific issues, but generally, that's only the tip of the iceberg, to use a colloquialism. If you only take into account the small amount that the public hears about, then things may SEEM good. Hell, increased CO2 = faster growing plants that use less water. Hell yeah! But that's never the full story, as the publications above lay out. 

I did say that I'm simplifying things a lot. My knowledge of the subject by far surpases what I've let on so far. I do know the basics of how photons interact with electrons for one thing. I simply find it very hard to belive that the miniscule difference in carbon content in the air would lead to massive changes which a lot of people claim are about to become reality. I'd wager that this process carries much less significance to the temerature on Earth than the increase of specific heat of air actually.

 

51 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

a CO2 molecule will absorb it. Eventually, the CO2 molecule will re emit this bit of light/energy however, it does NOT emit UP. It emits in 360 degrees (on all 3 axis). So half of the time, it will emit the energy back down toward earth, further warming it. 

This is very wrong, seriously. For one thing not "will absorb" but "might absorb". That's just common decency.

Given the amount of carbon in air the chance that a photon of energy that has the wavelength at which it can't be absorbed by any atom common in air but can be absorbed by carbon actually coming in close enough proximity to get absorbed by it... The chance of this actually happening is simply laughable. Just off the top of my head I'd say it is far below 0.01%. Probably by a few magnitudes. And even if it did happen often enough to bear some significance. There is absolutely no reason for which the once cought and reflected back to earth photon cannot be recought by another carbon atom and this time emitted "UP".

 

By the way this is just nitpicking but it's not exactly "half of the time". This depends a bit on the geology of the terrain but the higher you go that chance grows ever so slightly smaller than the magical 50% since earth is not an infinite flat surface but a sphere (also an aproximation, of course).

51 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

from "reflecting" off of the earth (very very non-scientific term... but let's just say it's more complicated than I want to get into

I don't need an explanation. I know how it works.

 

One thing I suppose I should apologize for is assuming you're "layman". I thought I could shut you up with a bunch of numbers. Obviously I was proven wrong on this one.