Actually, here's a book that says just that: that climate change is a vehicle by which ideas, characters and projects can be organized around and propelled by. The author says that we should ask not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us. He says that the myth transcends the science.
Actually, all people deserve respect. Isn't it ironic how religious people are often labeled as intolerant, while anti-religious are considered tolerant?
The truth is that one can be religious and also be rational, intelligent, thoughtful, and scientific.
You claim to be interested in truth, but actually you obfuscate the very rational thinking that aids the pursuit of truth by your labeling, stereotyping, generalizing, and ridiculing. You're as much an enemy of truth as those who blindly accept every word of a religious text as literal truth.
Your vehement, hateful intolerance speaks volumes about yourself. You label and generalize and stereotype and ridicule anyone who you disagree with. You build a nice wall around yourself by grouping together all who you disagree with into one giant group of ignorant fools. And you conclude by attempting to sound rational by asking for proof of something which can be neither proven nor disproven. You set your own standard and dismiss anyone who can't meet it.
Yet you claim that you are the one seeking truth. I consider that to be hypocrisy.
Here's an outlier for you: I am a Christian. I believe that God exists. I believe he created the universe. I believe it doesn't matter how he did it or how long it took. I believe he created our universe full of natural laws for us to discover through science. I believe that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. I believe that the government should not exert moral control over its citizens, excluding crimes such as murder, theft, etc. I believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. I believe that all human beings should be treated with respect and dignity. I believe in the pursuit of Truth. I believe that not all the answers may be discoverable, short of building a time machine.
Sorry if I don't fit into your mold. I encourage you to examine yourself and find out why you're so full of hate right now.
Perhaps their hypothesis is that government is, generally, incapable of doing things efficiently, and therefore it's best for government to do only that which is absolutely necessary--that government has an innate tendency to grow perpetually, unbounded. Another way to put it might be, "First, do no harm."
Frankly, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me.
"It might also be noted that some influential [stereotyping-negative-adjective] [group-I-disagaree-with] believe [something extreme]. It follows that [something reasonable] is pointless and that any concern whatever about [something important to me] betrays a mistrust in [what they believe in]. Just the perfect recipe for completely irresponsible behavior. [Ad hominem completed.]"
All this labeling and stereotyping: it's what historians will really look back with dismay on. Yet it's always happened, and I suppose it always will.
What is needed is for people to stop labeling and stereotyping and generalizing and ridiculing people based on irrelevant, personal beliefs and opinions, and instead to reason with one another.
Argh, "insightful"? Really? This is nothing but labeling, generalizing, and stereotyping. The "F word" (fundamentalist) is simply a convenient tool used to belittle ones' opponent of the day, whether it's "Islamic fundamentalists" or "Christian fundamentalists." A "fundamentalist" is simply a person or group one disagrees with. The same goes for "extremist"--it's just anyone who, in one's personal opinion, has an extreme opinion.
Notice how the parent ridicules religious people by equating belief in religion to belief in a flat earth (something obviously factually untrue)--and ridicules people who disagree with him by equating belief in a flat earth with anti-AGW and Creationism--both of which are factually unprovable and un-disprovable. He also blanketly accuses religious people of being irrational--a claim which is, itself, irrational.
He concludes with alarmism and fatalism.
This is convenient for those who have agendas other than the pursuit of truth.
Part of the problem is labeling and generalizing, as you do here--the us vs. them thinking. It divides, when we need to unite. It puts people on the defensive, which makes rational discussion difficult. It distracts from the real issues, and makes the issue one of politics.
Your problem is you're not paying close enough attention to what the actual scientists are saying. Sea level is rising faster than any predictions from before about 2005, temperature rise has been within the margin of error on their projections and IIRC one scientist speculated in 2007 that at the rate things are going the Arctic could be ice free by 2013 but most cryologists didn't believe that.
What you're saying is simply untrue! For just one example, in this video an MIT professor of metereology shows that even a supporter of AGW theory admits that the data on sea level is inconclusive! http://youtu.be/-sHg3ZztDAw The data claimed to support AGW theory is statistically insignificant! It's a farce!
Saying the science is settled is maybe a bit of hyperbole but when scientists in a field no longer spend time arguing about a point and a consensus is developed to the point that it would take and astoundingly revolutionary new finding to change it then I think you can say the science is settled as much as it is ever going to be. In climate theory the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not debated; the fact that CO2 levels have increased at an accelerating rate is not debated; the fact that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for the vast majority of that increase is not debated. Given that it would be astounding if we did not get global warming. The scientists have moved on to filling in the details.
Claiming that a matter is settled, that it's no longer argued about, that it's accepted as fact--that's an effective propaganda tactic in the absence of conflicting data. "Everyone knows it's the truth, man. You're not one of those crazy deniers, are you?" But you're just plain wrong about all of that! Are you dishonest or ignorant?
Correlation does not equal causation. Are you familiar with that fact? Doesn't seem like it. Yet this lack of logical thinking is exactly what leads "most people" to accept the "fact" of AGW.
What you said is simply not true. The body of evidence is not ridiculously overwhelming. For you to compare AGW to specific theories of Relativity or Evolution, and then to entire fields of study such as chemistry and biology, is dishonesty on your part--that or ignorance.
To top it all off, you call anyone who disagrees with you irrational. How ironic.
It reminds me of witchhunts--someone saying, "We all know she's a witch--the evidence is ridiculously overwhelming, and everyone in town agrees it's a fact. Holding out belief on the hope that at the last minute some impossible new truth that nobody ever considered is going to overturn the truth we all know, is at best magical thinking. It just doesn't have any rational basis and shouldn't be compared to rational thinking." All because a woman had a birthmark or something.
For just one example of how the scientific evidence is not conclusive nor overwhelming, look at this, which was posted earlier in the comments: http://youtu.be/-sHg3ZztDAw An MIT professor of meterology explains quite clearly how the scientific "evidence" that's claimed to support AGW is not even statistically significant! He even speaks against the president of MIT while working for her--he's not afraid to tell it like it is.
He also shows how authorities like the IPCC are misquoted and misrepresented by other authorities, and how it all trickles down. There's even a book by a man who's a proponent of using the "myth" of global warming as a rallying point for ideas and "characters and projects"--he said that we should ask "what global warming can do for us," and that it "transcends the science"! This politicising of AGW has been going on for 40 years, and the snowball is now big enough to be noticed by the population at large.
In the end, it becomes "accepted" or "common knowledge" by people like yourself--meanwhile, the truth is, at best, unknown. And having no scientific basis for their position, supporters of the "facts" fall back on peer pressure, bandwagoneering, ad hominems, labeling, and name-calling--saying that "deniers" are crazy. Actual rational thinking will see through such transparent manipulation.
Yes, sadly there are anti-AGW groups who use similar tactics--and shame on them as well. They obviously have their own agendas which are unconcerned with the truth--they merely would benefit from different outcomes, so they support the opposing view.
Both groups are irrelevant, however--what matters is the truth.
So my question to you is, what is your agenda? What is AGW doing for you? Is it helping you push your projects or desires? If AGW isn't true, do your goals stand on their own merits? Have you been brainwashed, or are you just dishonest and using the ends to justify the means?
Can you refute Lindzen's claims about the data and methods and models? That's the science--and if you can't refute what he said, then you can't support your own view.
Whoopteedoo. He's committing common sense. As long as he doesn't keep the file indefinitely, there's nothing ethically wrong with doing that. In principle it's time-shifting, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Of course Netflix and lawyers will disagree--it won't maximize their profit in their imagination. So what?
You know, if you get technical about it, I would guess the average Internet user commits copyright infringement at least once a week.
I am always surprised when Slashdot posts an article talking about life on other worlds that no one seems to even mention the research into UFOs and aliens visiting Earth. There has been a lot of serious research into the evidence of ET visitation, government coverups, etc, and the research is ongoing--books continue to be published. I'm not talking about silly stories for publicity. I'm talking about years of research into obscure government documents, interviews of civilians and former government officials, in both the USA and other nations. For example, Friedman's book on Roswell puts forth a very convincing case for a blatant government coverup lasting for years, including payoffs of eyewitnesses, disappearances, destruction of property as intimidation, etc. There's also a very interesting book on the Brazil UFO incident in which a craft crashed and several reptilian ETs are said to have survived, been treated by local medical personnel, been seen and smelled by local civilians, and even communicated telepathically with doctors in the hospital.
The point I'm making, though, is not that they are real--my point is, why have I never ever seen this discussed on Slashdot?
Thanks for actually posting something thoughtful, unlike the other, actual trolls. I probably lean Libertarian, but I hesitate to generalize my opinions enough to identify fully with any party, regardless of who I may vote for. Really, we need less bandwagoneering and more thoughtfulness and deliberation.
Sadly, principles are indeed lacking from today's politics. I wonder if they'll ever return.
As an aside, your slight against Christians did not go unnoticed. In contrast, even though I expressed disagreement with homosexuals, I didn't ridicule them. Again, a great example of hypocrisy is the incivility of those who demand civility toward themselves. Freedom is not enough for some people--they want others to agree with them, as well, which takes away others' freedom.
Finally, without religion, there is no fundamental basis for an ethics other than pragmatism--and such pragamatism is simply individualistic, so it's not really ethics at all.
How about this for irony: people like you want me to be tolerant of your opinion; I explicitly tolerate it by stating that it should be legal and allowed; but you are intolerant of my opinion--you want me to not only tolerate yours but endorse it--you want freedom from my interference, but you want to control my opinion. How's that for hypocrisy.
Haha, awesome: express a moral opinion and get modded Troll. Well, duh, this is Slashdot, where nothing is wrong except patents, copyrights, and Microsoft (and I'm against all three).
One of the things I'm tired of is the false dichotomy presented, implying that not endorsing a behavior is the same as being intolerant of it. How much more explicitly tolerant can one be than to say that a behavior should be allowed and legal?
The real bigots are the ones who are not tolerant of those they perceive as intolerant.
What a skewed perspective you have. Religion isn't as big a deal in the two parties as the media makes it out to be. Calling all Republicans "fundamentalist Christians" (which is really a non-sequitur that can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean) is ludicrous. And saying that all Republicans want to "control how other people live their lives" is ridiculous as well.
Yeah, there are SOME people who think that homosexuality should be illegal. Well good luck with that. They are a tiny minority. I think it's immoral but even I don't think it should be illegal. You should stop generalizing so much--it's foolish and ignorant. It prevents rational discourse and actual learning.
IMO the Democrats want to control the populace FAR more than the Republicans. Think, Obamacare, taxes, gun control, welfare, job enforcement, and general nanny-state stuff.
Maybe the parties aren't as far apart as they used to be--but it's silly to lump them together like you did, and to lump their internal values together like that. Reality is far more complex.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, here's a book that says just that: that climate change is a vehicle by which ideas, characters and projects can be organized around and propelled by. The author says that we should ask not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us. He says that the myth transcends the science.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=why+we+disagree+about+climate+change
It's so blatant, it would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Sad but probably true. +1 Insightful.
You did a nice job of framing religious people and anyone who doesn't agree with the AGW hypothesis as irrational. How very hypocritical of you.
Actually, all people deserve respect. Isn't it ironic how religious people are often labeled as intolerant, while anti-religious are considered tolerant?
The truth is that one can be religious and also be rational, intelligent, thoughtful, and scientific.
You claim to be interested in truth, but actually you obfuscate the very rational thinking that aids the pursuit of truth by your labeling, stereotyping, generalizing, and ridiculing. You're as much an enemy of truth as those who blindly accept every word of a religious text as literal truth.
Your vehement, hateful intolerance speaks volumes about yourself. You label and generalize and stereotype and ridicule anyone who you disagree with. You build a nice wall around yourself by grouping together all who you disagree with into one giant group of ignorant fools. And you conclude by attempting to sound rational by asking for proof of something which can be neither proven nor disproven. You set your own standard and dismiss anyone who can't meet it.
Yet you claim that you are the one seeking truth. I consider that to be hypocrisy.
Here's an outlier for you: I am a Christian. I believe that God exists. I believe he created the universe. I believe it doesn't matter how he did it or how long it took. I believe he created our universe full of natural laws for us to discover through science. I believe that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. I believe that the government should not exert moral control over its citizens, excluding crimes such as murder, theft, etc. I believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. I believe that all human beings should be treated with respect and dignity. I believe in the pursuit of Truth. I believe that not all the answers may be discoverable, short of building a time machine.
Sorry if I don't fit into your mold. I encourage you to examine yourself and find out why you're so full of hate right now.
Perhaps their hypothesis is that government is, generally, incapable of doing things efficiently, and therefore it's best for government to do only that which is absolutely necessary--that government has an innate tendency to grow perpetually, unbounded. Another way to put it might be, "First, do no harm."
Frankly, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me.
"It might also be noted that some influential [stereotyping-negative-adjective] [group-I-disagaree-with] believe [something extreme]. It follows that [something reasonable] is pointless and that any concern whatever about [something important to me] betrays a mistrust in [what they believe in]. Just the perfect recipe for completely irresponsible behavior. [Ad hominem completed.]"
All this labeling and stereotyping: it's what historians will really look back with dismay on. Yet it's always happened, and I suppose it always will.
What is needed is for people to stop labeling and stereotyping and generalizing and ridiculing people based on irrelevant, personal beliefs and opinions, and instead to reason with one another.
You're not helping.
Argh, "insightful"? Really? This is nothing but labeling, generalizing, and stereotyping. The "F word" (fundamentalist) is simply a convenient tool used to belittle ones' opponent of the day, whether it's "Islamic fundamentalists" or "Christian fundamentalists." A "fundamentalist" is simply a person or group one disagrees with. The same goes for "extremist"--it's just anyone who, in one's personal opinion, has an extreme opinion.
Notice how the parent ridicules religious people by equating belief in religion to belief in a flat earth (something obviously factually untrue)--and ridicules people who disagree with him by equating belief in a flat earth with anti-AGW and Creationism--both of which are factually unprovable and un-disprovable. He also blanketly accuses religious people of being irrational--a claim which is, itself, irrational.
He concludes with alarmism and fatalism.
This is convenient for those who have agendas other than the pursuit of truth.
Discrediting them is another way of silencing them. Why can't it just be about the science?
Besides, "virtually none" is a meaningless thing to say.
Part of the problem is labeling and generalizing, as you do here--the us vs. them thinking. It divides, when we need to unite. It puts people on the defensive, which makes rational discussion difficult. It distracts from the real issues, and makes the issue one of politics.
Just stop it, will ya?
You're suffering from a burden of proof fallacy. This is one of the fundamental fallacies of the entire AGW movement.
Your problem is you're not paying close enough attention to what the actual scientists are saying. Sea level is rising faster than any predictions from before about 2005, temperature rise has been within the margin of error on their projections and IIRC one scientist speculated in 2007 that at the rate things are going the Arctic could be ice free by 2013 but most cryologists didn't believe that.
What you're saying is simply untrue! For just one example, in this video an MIT professor of metereology shows that even a supporter of AGW theory admits that the data on sea level is inconclusive! http://youtu.be/-sHg3ZztDAw The data claimed to support AGW theory is statistically insignificant! It's a farce!
Saying the science is settled is maybe a bit of hyperbole but when scientists in a field no longer spend time arguing about a point and a consensus is developed to the point that it would take and astoundingly revolutionary new finding to change it then I think you can say the science is settled as much as it is ever going to be. In climate theory the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not debated; the fact that CO2 levels have increased at an accelerating rate is not debated; the fact that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for the vast majority of that increase is not debated. Given that it would be astounding if we did not get global warming. The scientists have moved on to filling in the details.
Claiming that a matter is settled, that it's no longer argued about, that it's accepted as fact--that's an effective propaganda tactic in the absence of conflicting data. "Everyone knows it's the truth, man. You're not one of those crazy deniers, are you?" But you're just plain wrong about all of that! Are you dishonest or ignorant?
Correlation does not equal causation. Are you familiar with that fact? Doesn't seem like it. Yet this lack of logical thinking is exactly what leads "most people" to accept the "fact" of AGW.
We are saying...that GW is accepted by most informed people as fact, verging on irrefutable fact.
An unsupported assertion.
Even if true, it is logically irrelevant and not an argument in support of the conclusion of AGW.
How ironic is it when someone who claims that science supports a theory and that dissenters are unscientific makes an unscientific argument?
What you said is simply not true. The body of evidence is not ridiculously overwhelming. For you to compare AGW to specific theories of Relativity or Evolution, and then to entire fields of study such as chemistry and biology, is dishonesty on your part--that or ignorance.
To top it all off, you call anyone who disagrees with you irrational. How ironic.
It reminds me of witchhunts--someone saying, "We all know she's a witch--the evidence is ridiculously overwhelming, and everyone in town agrees it's a fact. Holding out belief on the hope that at the last minute some impossible new truth that nobody ever considered is going to overturn the truth we all know, is at best magical thinking. It just doesn't have any rational basis and shouldn't be compared to rational thinking." All because a woman had a birthmark or something.
For just one example of how the scientific evidence is not conclusive nor overwhelming, look at this, which was posted earlier in the comments: http://youtu.be/-sHg3ZztDAw An MIT professor of meterology explains quite clearly how the scientific "evidence" that's claimed to support AGW is not even statistically significant! He even speaks against the president of MIT while working for her--he's not afraid to tell it like it is.
He also shows how authorities like the IPCC are misquoted and misrepresented by other authorities, and how it all trickles down. There's even a book by a man who's a proponent of using the "myth" of global warming as a rallying point for ideas and "characters and projects"--he said that we should ask "what global warming can do for us," and that it "transcends the science"! This politicising of AGW has been going on for 40 years, and the snowball is now big enough to be noticed by the population at large.
In the end, it becomes "accepted" or "common knowledge" by people like yourself--meanwhile, the truth is, at best, unknown. And having no scientific basis for their position, supporters of the "facts" fall back on peer pressure, bandwagoneering, ad hominems, labeling, and name-calling--saying that "deniers" are crazy. Actual rational thinking will see through such transparent manipulation.
Yes, sadly there are anti-AGW groups who use similar tactics--and shame on them as well. They obviously have their own agendas which are unconcerned with the truth--they merely would benefit from different outcomes, so they support the opposing view.
Both groups are irrelevant, however--what matters is the truth.
So my question to you is, what is your agenda? What is AGW doing for you? Is it helping you push your projects or desires? If AGW isn't true, do your goals stand on their own merits? Have you been brainwashed, or are you just dishonest and using the ends to justify the means?
Can you refute Lindzen's claims about the data and methods and models? That's the science--and if you can't refute what he said, then you can't support your own view.
Whoopteedoo. He's committing common sense. As long as he doesn't keep the file indefinitely, there's nothing ethically wrong with doing that. In principle it's time-shifting, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Of course Netflix and lawyers will disagree--it won't maximize their profit in their imagination. So what?
You know, if you get technical about it, I would guess the average Internet user commits copyright infringement at least once a week.
Well, modded troll for asking a simple question. Guess that proves my point. Way to go, Slashdot.
I am always surprised when Slashdot posts an article talking about life on other worlds that no one seems to even mention the research into UFOs and aliens visiting Earth. There has been a lot of serious research into the evidence of ET visitation, government coverups, etc, and the research is ongoing--books continue to be published. I'm not talking about silly stories for publicity. I'm talking about years of research into obscure government documents, interviews of civilians and former government officials, in both the USA and other nations. For example, Friedman's book on Roswell puts forth a very convincing case for a blatant government coverup lasting for years, including payoffs of eyewitnesses, disappearances, destruction of property as intimidation, etc. There's also a very interesting book on the Brazil UFO incident in which a craft crashed and several reptilian ETs are said to have survived, been treated by local medical personnel, been seen and smelled by local civilians, and even communicated telepathically with doctors in the hospital.
The point I'm making, though, is not that they are real--my point is, why have I never ever seen this discussed on Slashdot?
Thanks for actually posting something thoughtful, unlike the other, actual trolls. I probably lean Libertarian, but I hesitate to generalize my opinions enough to identify fully with any party, regardless of who I may vote for. Really, we need less bandwagoneering and more thoughtfulness and deliberation.
Sadly, principles are indeed lacking from today's politics. I wonder if they'll ever return.
As an aside, your slight against Christians did not go unnoticed. In contrast, even though I expressed disagreement with homosexuals, I didn't ridicule them. Again, a great example of hypocrisy is the incivility of those who demand civility toward themselves. Freedom is not enough for some people--they want others to agree with them, as well, which takes away others' freedom.
Finally, without religion, there is no fundamental basis for an ethics other than pragmatism--and such pragamatism is simply individualistic, so it's not really ethics at all.
The insightfulness of your comment eludes me.
How about this for irony: people like you want me to be tolerant of your opinion; I explicitly tolerate it by stating that it should be legal and allowed; but you are intolerant of my opinion--you want me to not only tolerate yours but endorse it--you want freedom from my interference, but you want to control my opinion. How's that for hypocrisy.
Haha, awesome: express a moral opinion and get modded Troll. Well, duh, this is Slashdot, where nothing is wrong except patents, copyrights, and Microsoft (and I'm against all three).
One of the things I'm tired of is the false dichotomy presented, implying that not endorsing a behavior is the same as being intolerant of it. How much more explicitly tolerant can one be than to say that a behavior should be allowed and legal?
The real bigots are the ones who are not tolerant of those they perceive as intolerant.
Are you implying that some form of government is immune to corruption?
What a skewed perspective you have. Religion isn't as big a deal in the two parties as the media makes it out to be. Calling all Republicans "fundamentalist Christians" (which is really a non-sequitur that can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean) is ludicrous. And saying that all Republicans want to "control how other people live their lives" is ridiculous as well.
Yeah, there are SOME people who think that homosexuality should be illegal. Well good luck with that. They are a tiny minority. I think it's immoral but even I don't think it should be illegal. You should stop generalizing so much--it's foolish and ignorant. It prevents rational discourse and actual learning.
IMO the Democrats want to control the populace FAR more than the Republicans. Think, Obamacare, taxes, gun control, welfare, job enforcement, and general nanny-state stuff.
Maybe the parties aren't as far apart as they used to be--but it's silly to lump them together like you did, and to lump their internal values together like that. Reality is far more complex.
How do you print your custom pads with the cyan grid?
$ rsync -avP --delete /home/$USER /media/$EXT_hard_drive/backup/$USER