I was sweeping in and out of the climate change debates with laughter to the point where I was expecting perfect example
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Thaw
leonis89 — 13 years ago(April 19, 2012 12:43 PM)
I was sweeping in and out of the climate change debates with laughter to the point where I was expecting perfect examples of Godwin's law.
But after the laughter it got me wondering. Have any of you who are arguing for/against climate change, actually read ANY cited peer reviewed articles on the subject? And I don't mean just going on to Fox News and/or CNN, reading 3 lines and then blurting out what they said. I mean the raw research done by real scientists and not some half baked paraphrase done by a journalist.
Here's a tip. If you hear a quote or statement; demand a source, look it up and then call bull**** when necessary. -
xenatikkanen-1 — 13 years ago(August 06, 2012 08:18 AM)
What's your point? I mean, yeah, I agree not to regurgitate what you hear on the news or the internet, but what is your point on climate change? Are you disputing it or just trying to get people to read? Your thread is kind of vague.
-
leonis89 — 13 years ago(August 06, 2012 08:23 AM)
The point wasn't to argue the plausibility of climate change. Been there, done that and to be honest, I can't be bothered.
On the other hand, whether or not someone accepts climate change, I want to know where they're getting their disinformation from. -
xenatikkanen-1 — 13 years ago(August 06, 2012 12:48 PM)
I don't have a problem with you asking someone to have the proper information, but don't you think it is a bit arrogant to just assume that someone has disinformation, depending on what side of the argument they are on (at least that is how your post reflects). I am not asking you to engage in a debate. Lord knows there are enough doofuses that still think climate change is a hoax, and if they are happy in their ignorant bliss, I send the woolly mammoth their way
-
leonis89 — 13 years ago(August 06, 2012 01:02 PM)
I don't assume that literally everyone is spouting disinformation when talking about climate change. That would be a rather bold assertion. What I'm saying is with all the heated arguments on this forum, I get the vague impression that an awful lot of people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about regardless of which position they're arguing for. Supporting a correct position for the wrong reasons is just as bad as supporting a wrong position.
Take this for example. When someone makes a specific claim, I ask for a source. If they have one I can (hopefully) backtrack it to it's origins. It's a lot of clicky work, book hunting and emails but on occasion I get there eventually. More often than not, it's usually some obscure website that fires out bold assertions and attempts to make itself look legit. Even when news reporters are interviewing climatologists you have to be paying biblical levels of attention because it's not too hard to edit even simple interviews to make it appear they're saying something completely different.
That's what I'm saying. It's ridiculously easy to support a claim even if it's for the right reasons and appears to be well supported.
Being an example of the Dunning Kruger effect is something I greatly try to inhibit.
A good quote to live by would be from Richard Feynman.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -
xenatikkanen-1 — 13 years ago(August 07, 2012 06:20 AM)
You make some great points, and I agree with you. Supporting a position is one thing - but doing so for the sake of doing so or say, the lesser of two evils kind of thing, is not better than arguing against said position.
I am a "research" kind of person. It takes me forever to buy a piece of electronics, let alone to convince me of a particular side of an argument. I generally base my feelings and ideals after I have cultivated them for a period of time, sometimes years of studying something. There are a few positions I have changed after a decade of feeling one way, because new, abundant information has presented itself disproving my original position.
It's funny you say disinformation. I have had friends try to convince me of something or will say "people have told me" and then I argue with them jokingly sometimes about these "people." Who are these people? How many people? What is your representative sample, etc. I drive friends nuts with that. I rarely take things at face value.
On your Feyman quote: The same can be said for Kabbalah. For some time, certain celebrities and such have latched on to the ancient, mystical Kabbalah, as if it is trendy or something. My dad once said (as have several Rabbis), you NEVER understand Kabbalah. People have studied it their entire life and still don't necessarily get it. How could these people suddenly think their enlightened or "understand it?" It's really for mystics - kind of like Zoroastrians.
I had this kid decide to do his Thesis on a topic that he thought he could solve. No one who's been working on it for the last 40 years has been able to solve it - yet this kid decided in a few months that he was going to. NOT. Didn't happen, btw. LOL -
saltnurwound — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 04:24 PM)
So what you're saying is, nothing can be learned from the news.
If all the networks and government agencies start reporting and declaring something is happening, we are not to believe it unless we become experts on the subject ourselves first.
I call beep
You DO have a stance on global warming, and it isn't one of acceptance. It's a common theme amongst 'deniers' to be general skeptics of information coming from the mainstream media, as I'll bet you call it. Maybe you even call it the 'liberal media'.
We, including you, all learn a lot about the world through the media. We are not experts in climatology, nor do we need to be. If that were the case, we would need to become experts in pretty much everything before, as you put it, we can consider the information we have acquired trustworthy.
I'm no big supporter of any environmental issues. I don't care one way or the other about climate change, but that doesn't mean I don't believe what pretty much EVERY news organization is reporting. Well, everyone but Fox and other hard right crazy sources.
Quit thinking your opinion about this matter so much. And what kind of weirdo spends all sorts of time researching something so they can go back with 'links' in order to claim victory in an Internet debate.
Who cares? People either believe it, or they don't.