Threats have always been a significant component of religious social structure. For example religion can have an intentionally divisive effect on families. We generally call such scenarios a cult, but threats of damnation really amounts to just another coercive tacit. If you were raised believing such things, it will be very difficult to shake, particularly if you have a conformist streak (i.e., most people, but not most people on slashdot). Because of how our minds work, religious people almost never comprehend the coercive (or even bullying) nature of what they are doing, since it is all for the salvation of souls (or karma or whatever), and thus the greater good.
We have a duty to protect ourselves, and disbelieve; however, the mechanisms of the mind -- even a slashdot mind -- will be powerless against the emotionally driven pleasure-reward system which seeds arrogance and ignorance. If you ever have a peak experience (and most people have one in their life), some time afterwards you may note how powerless your belief structures where to what happened, and how the mystical just reified whatever ignorance was already in you, and seeded by the narratives by which you grew up.
I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.
It is with reference to sanctimoniousness hypocrisy that people criticise religion as violent. Logic has nothing to do with hypocrasy. Christianity has a lot going for it, but fundamentally, when people start to believe that they have special insight, and that they know better then others, then the greater good will justify all sorts of dangerous and irresponsible behaviour. It really cuts to the heart of psychosis -- religious or otherwise.
Your defence of Christianity would be more coherent if you acknowledged that violence is a direct result of moralism. By comparison, the evil psychopathic murder is only responsible for a drop in the bucket of human misery.
If the tree rings are showing falsely low temperatures after 1960
Well, well, well, we have another armchair scientist demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect. The decline in tree ring proxies has been extensively discussed in literature. The hockey stick doesn't rely on tree rings, and uses multiple proxies, and they all converge.
Did you know that?? All that stuff about "hide the decline" is just nonsense! Who would have thunk it!
Sure we're picking apart Einstein, but any new addition must improve on the very accurate results that Einstein's theories gave.
So you have given a very poor argument.
The science isn't "settled" in that it is a theory of everything. It is "settled" in the sense that we have a clear understanding that climate is change because of CO2. The issue reached consensus in the late 70s. Any improvements will have to account for the data more accurately then current theories.
Science is a lot more messy that a lot of people would like to believe...
Sure, but peer review is better then the blogosphere. And one side of the debate has 10,000s of pages of peer reviewed literature, and the other has the blogosphere.
Publishing peer reviewed science is almost the exact same thing as child molestation. How can anyone not see that?
When the science is about paleoclimate, then absolutely. Those guys are part of a marxist conspiracy. Green is the new red. They'll lie and do anything to impose big government on hard-working freedom fighters.
That's really how the tea party thinks of this issue. It is irresponsible. And when climate change really does start hitting the bottom line, they'll probably blame liberal godlessness, and quietly forget this disingenuous assault on science.
professional correspondence showed he was intentionally lying about his findings
Yet numerous independent investigations have rifled through his emails and found nothing. This is just about mud slinging, 'cause Mann's science doesn't jive with your politics.
Michael Mann has fought so hard to keep them private suggests that there is something in them he would rather the public not know
Not at all. It's simply a natural reaction to a precedent of harassment. It's not just Mann who gets hassled. It is any scientist who publishes anything on paleoclimate, or gives a quote to a newspaper or such.
Two huge problems with this argument:
+ That tree ring data is for summer temperatures only -- not all year around.
+ Scandinavia (what you call norway) is a poor proxy for the entire world.
Muller has been outed as a long-time warmist, his claims otherwise notwithstanding.
You make it sound like he is homosexual, and not a scientists who followed the data where it lead him. The fact that he reached a conclusions that you don't like is PROOF he is BIASED, right? Either that, or you can't handle the truth.
He is both. He is the most extremist fascist socialist ever -- destroying america with his nefarious plans. He is also a pathetic weak leader who cannot get anything done.
Seems like you never heard about the null hypothesis. Weather disasters rack up no matter what and none of what we have seen is in the least out of line with what has happened in history.
oOOooOOoo the "null hypothesis". You must think that 1000s of scientists don't know something about elementary experimental design! That MUST be it! Gee, you could use statistics and evidence to draw conclusions as to the likelihood of various hypotheses. Mmm, let me see... that EXACTLY what that IPCC did!!
Sorry, it might not mean shit to you, but null hypothesis (as you put it) was rejected in a 1979 NAS report (30 years ago). Today, the evidence is just stronger.
If you ignore history, however, you'll always think things are going to hell in a handbasket... as people have done all the time in history.
The whitewashes explicity decided not to invetigate Mann's "hide the decline" because he did it and it couldn't be denied.
This is materially false. You are living in a fantasy world. Go read one of the many independent investigations on this, or better yet, read the original email yourself.
In the 19thC, the chinese banned opium, and also banned trade with the west. But there was a black market for opium in china, so the british just shipped it from india as a method to get access to chinese goods.
It never would have happened if but for two things: europeans thought that trade is their *right* (with china or elsewhere), and the chinese believed themselves to be utterly superior in all things to the barbarians, and could therefore ignore and dictate terms.
Chinese now refer to this period as the "century of humiliation", and there was much legitimate humiliation. In the end, the europeans won because they had ironclads and modern armies. Might made right. If the chinese had acknowledged that they had come up against barbarians that they couldn't control, then there would have been no trade embargo, and no century of humiliation. After-all, trade was all the european powers were after fundamentally. (Exception: Russa wanted territory, and got a lot of it.)
The fact is that both parties are corrupt (as evidenced by all the untruths spoken tonight).
Corruption is a naive view of politics. They really *believe* what they are saying -- even when it is outright lies.
And sure many conservatives view dems as ideological fools. That is how the epistemic bubble works. Find some testimonials of GOP faithful who lost the faith, and compare and contrast.
Slashdot Mirror
Threats have always been a significant component of religious social structure. For example religion can have an intentionally divisive effect on families. We generally call such scenarios a cult, but threats of damnation really amounts to just another coercive tacit. If you were raised believing such things, it will be very difficult to shake, particularly if you have a conformist streak (i.e., most people, but not most people on slashdot). Because of how our minds work, religious people almost never comprehend the coercive (or even bullying) nature of what they are doing, since it is all for the salvation of souls (or karma or whatever), and thus the greater good.
We have a duty to protect ourselves, and disbelieve; however, the mechanisms of the mind -- even a slashdot mind -- will be powerless against the emotionally driven pleasure-reward system which seeds arrogance and ignorance. If you ever have a peak experience (and most people have one in their life), some time afterwards you may note how powerless your belief structures where to what happened, and how the mystical just reified whatever ignorance was already in you, and seeded by the narratives by which you grew up.
There is no "law of supply and demand". It's a fiction.
Sure there is. You must factor in the elasticity of demand, and the barriers to entry for supply.
I spend my days typing. Last I checked, many people do. You can pry my keyboard from my cold dead hands.
Sorry, I can't acknowledge the completely absurd. Can you give me some statistics showing that violent felons are mainly incarcerated for "moralism"?
Read "Our better Angles" for a history of violence.
I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.
It is with reference to sanctimoniousness hypocrisy that people criticise religion as violent. Logic has nothing to do with hypocrasy. Christianity has a lot going for it, but fundamentally, when people start to believe that they have special insight, and that they know better then others, then the greater good will justify all sorts of dangerous and irresponsible behaviour. It really cuts to the heart of psychosis -- religious or otherwise.
Your defence of Christianity would be more coherent if you acknowledged that violence is a direct result of moralism. By comparison, the evil psychopathic murder is only responsible for a drop in the bucket of human misery.
Problem is that those sorts of details seldom make it out to news reports on the work.
Because they are inconvenient details for that comfortable little bubble of denial.
If the tree rings are showing falsely low temperatures after 1960
Well, well, well, we have another armchair scientist demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect. The decline in tree ring proxies has been extensively discussed in literature. The hockey stick doesn't rely on tree rings, and uses multiple proxies, and they all converge.
Did you know that?? All that stuff about "hide the decline" is just nonsense! Who would have thunk it!
Well, science must be wrong whenever it disagrees with your politics.
Sure we're picking apart Einstein, but any new addition must improve on the very accurate results that Einstein's theories gave.
So you have given a very poor argument.
The science isn't "settled" in that it is a theory of everything. It is "settled" in the sense that we have a clear understanding that climate is change because of CO2. The issue reached consensus in the late 70s. Any improvements will have to account for the data more accurately then current theories.
Science is a lot more messy that a lot of people would like to believe...
Sure, but peer review is better then the blogosphere. And one side of the debate has 10,000s of pages of peer reviewed literature, and the other has the blogosphere.
Publishing peer reviewed science is almost the exact same thing as child molestation. How can anyone not see that?
When the science is about paleoclimate, then absolutely. Those guys are part of a marxist conspiracy. Green is the new red. They'll lie and do anything to impose big government on hard-working freedom fighters.
That's really how the tea party thinks of this issue. It is irresponsible. And when climate change really does start hitting the bottom line, they'll probably blame liberal godlessness, and quietly forget this disingenuous assault on science.
professional correspondence showed he was intentionally lying about his findings
Yet numerous independent investigations have rifled through his emails and found nothing. This is just about mud slinging, 'cause Mann's science doesn't jive with your politics.
Michael Mann has fought so hard to keep them private suggests that there is something in them he would rather the public not know
Not at all. It's simply a natural reaction to a precedent of harassment. It's not just Mann who gets hassled. It is any scientist who publishes anything on paleoclimate, or gives a quote to a newspaper or such.
And frankly, I see nothing wrong with examining relevant email communications from Dr. Mann on that basis.
You get a bunch of Koch funded "do-gooders" who do nothing all day but file FOIAs to make a nuisance of themselves. And maybe some mud will stick!
It's pretty pathetic.
Two huge problems with this argument:
+ That tree ring data is for summer temperatures only -- not all year around.
+ Scandinavia (what you call norway) is a poor proxy for the entire world.
This is obviously cherry-picking. See the full story here.
Also, click on the parents link, and note that it fails to offer an explanation.
Muller has been outed as a long-time warmist, his claims otherwise notwithstanding.
You make it sound like he is homosexual, and not a scientists who followed the data where it lead him. The fact that he reached a conclusions that you don't like is PROOF he is BIASED, right? Either that, or you can't handle the truth.
He is both. He is the most extremist fascist socialist ever -- destroying america with his nefarious plans. He is also a pathetic weak leader who cannot get anything done.
The hockey stick graph was independently validated by nearly a dozen different reconstructions.
I can't believe how many denier trolls have got mod points today.
Seems like you never heard about the null hypothesis. Weather disasters rack up no matter what and none of what we have seen is in the least out of line with what has happened in history.
oOOooOOoo the "null hypothesis". You must think that 1000s of scientists don't know something about elementary experimental design! That MUST be it! Gee, you could use statistics and evidence to draw conclusions as to the likelihood of various hypotheses. Mmm, let me see... that EXACTLY what that IPCC did!!
Sorry, it might not mean shit to you, but null hypothesis (as you put it) was rejected in a 1979 NAS report (30 years ago). Today, the evidence is just stronger.
If you ignore history, however, you'll always think things are going to hell in a handbasket ... as people have done all the time in history.
Like the history of increasing weather disasters!
Of course I'm wrong, along with the scientific community. You just gotta find the logic to connect the dots.
It looks like a denier has come through and marked the insightful criticism as a troll.
The whitewashes explicity decided not to invetigate Mann's "hide the decline" because he did it and it couldn't be denied.
This is materially false. You are living in a fantasy world. Go read one of the many independent investigations on this, or better yet, read the original email yourself.
Talk about cherry-picking.
We did it with the Chinese and opium.
In the 19thC, the chinese banned opium, and also banned trade with the west. But there was a black market for opium in china, so the british just shipped it from india as a method to get access to chinese goods.
It never would have happened if but for two things: europeans thought that trade is their *right* (with china or elsewhere), and the chinese believed themselves to be utterly superior in all things to the barbarians, and could therefore ignore and dictate terms.
Chinese now refer to this period as the "century of humiliation", and there was much legitimate humiliation. In the end, the europeans won because they had ironclads and modern armies. Might made right. If the chinese had acknowledged that they had come up against barbarians that they couldn't control, then there would have been no trade embargo, and no century of humiliation. After-all, trade was all the european powers were after fundamentally. (Exception: Russa wanted territory, and got a lot of it.)
And don't cry obstructionism in general. The Democrats did their fair share while Bush was in office.
Yeah... about half as much.
The fact is that both parties are corrupt (as evidenced by all the untruths spoken tonight).
Corruption is a naive view of politics. They really *believe* what they are saying -- even when it is outright lies.
And sure many conservatives view dems as ideological fools. That is how the epistemic bubble works. Find some testimonials of GOP faithful who lost the faith, and compare and contrast.