Science strikes back: anti-Trump march draws thousands to Washington

[De Lupe]

Facts are facts and they don't change based on how nice a person is, I agree. But people being receptive to those ideas certainly is influenced by how things are presented. That's all I have been trying to get at. No one is winning anyone over to their side these days, they are yelling in their echo chambers to an audience who wants to eat the shit they spew. Yeh Mr. Limbaugh, I am sure democrats are willing to hear you out on an issue after you have been calling them communists and other assorted insults for 20 years. Oh yeh Berkeley students, I am positive the people you hate love you now after having labeled them racist, bigots.

Even if you are talking to Hitler, you should still be civil and let the ideas speak for themselves. If you find yourself unable to continue with a person because they just dont get it for whatever reason, you dont just say "ehh fuck it, you are an idiot" Thats a sure way to never be able to reach that person.

People can change, ideas and beliefs evolve over time. I am where I am now in political stance because of 20 years of growth. I used to be heavily anti gay marriage, THIS forum offered arguments I could not refute and changed my mind.

I'm not saying people can't change, because they can. It takes a hell of a lot of work, but they can. But people who willingly choose to live in ignorance, who willingly choose to ignore facts, who willingly choose to live with misinformation... Those people don't want to change. And they won't, no matter what you do. That's why we have men in their 80s who still can't accept a woman as an authority figure. In their perfect bubble world, no such thing is possible. And, until circumstances occur that forcefully rip them from their bubble and pop it in front of them, they will never accept alternatives as even being possible.

You were willing to educate yourself on a topic. You heard out the opposition. You analyzed your own ideals and adjusted your opinions to align with the facts presented to you. And I commend you for that. You dragged yourself out of the pit of ignorance. Most people are not willing to acknowledge that they might be wrong. Their egos won't let them. Or, worse, they recognize that they are wrong but still refuse to adapt because of [insert reasons here.] And when you fight against that mentality repeatedly for extended amounts of time, it wears you down and tempers start to flare.

Its the "Us or Them" attitude. YOU are not my enemy if you wish to see stricter controls on guns. I am not YOUR enemy because I believe in full legalization of drugs. We just have different ideas is all.

I agree that the "UvT" mentality is the ultimate source of the Dem vs Rep bitchfest known as the American government. It needs to be weeded out if the country is ever going to change. We are not the United States of America anymore; we are the Republican vs Democratic States of America.

The entire government needs a system reboot, but that will never happen as long as everyone is taking sides.

[Garnier Fructis]

Look, I'm not one of those nut bags that cares where people pee. I think the entire thing is stupid, on both sides. But the fact of the matter is, we divide bathrooms by sex, not gender. We have only two bathroom choices, not 37 or whatever number of genders you little scamps are up to now. Yet, we are told, that people get to decide for themselves what their sex is. How is this not biology denial? I just find it curious that science is used as a trump card, until it trumps the opposite direction of liberal thought, then it's gender, not sex. It's blatant hypocrisy.

It's not denial because you made a subtle change to arrive at the denial; we call that a straw-man. People don't decide what their sex is. But that's not the question. It's about gender, not sex. And no, this isn't hypocrisy. This just looks like hypocrisy because you don't think there's a meaningful difference, and then get 'surprised' when you get seemingly contradictory statements. Which wouldn't happen if you were actually careful about distinguishing the concepts.

This same standard of biology denial is applied to youth sports as well. The same Liberal that just called everyone science deniers, thinks it's completely fair for a boy who identifies as a girl (nothing wrong with that), to compete against girls. This denies the science of biology, in every way. Like it or not, males are stronger, usually bigger, and have access to the relative super powers brought on by testosterone. It's patently ridiculous to suppose that sex is a choice that can be made by merely stating it. If you want to get in to hormone therapy, surgeries, etc., my argument weakens and the fairness tightens. But there is no standard for youth sports that requires anything but simply stating you are now the opposite sex as before. How is that not science denial? It's blatant hypocrisy.

It's not science denial because science doesn't give a fuck about what's fair and what's not in terms of competing in sports. We're just freely conflating policy that relates to sex and gender with the science of biology, at this point. It's policy, and I'm almost sure that the 'denier' label comes up when someone inevitably brings up some actual point of science, and then people respond to that. Which would again be a failure to separate distinct issues.

In regards to the models, if a Conservative is presented with two opposing models of future climate, no matter which he or she chooses, they are a science denier.

Because the question of which model to choose, is itself a wrong question. This is a statistical field. Every quantity of interest is statistical. If you look at a single output, a single model, you are virtually guaranteed to be 'wrong.' Is this a problem? Of course not. Answering 'yes' to this last question would be tantamount to rejecting the validity of statistical physics. No, we have to look at the whole spectrum of models, the whole range of predictions.

So yes, if any conservative anyone is picking a model and sticking with it, then they're doing it wrong.

If you question, in any way, the tiniest shred of climate science, you are a mouth breathing moron who doesn't believe in science, and probably beats his wife. At some point, Liberals need to admit that it's ok if things are challenged, even if it's their favorite political issue.

It's not the fact that you guys question it. It's that your specific challenges are silly. Many are things that were fiercely debated... decades ago. And then, when you guys are given the resolution or scientific answer to your challenge, you ignore it.

Nearly every single time I write out a scientific response to a challenge or question from a skeptic, they don't respond to me. They just seek out the one or two posts which insulted them, and respond to those instead. And then, lo and behold, I'll see the same person write the same thing in another thread and ignore me again when I once again type out the answer. So not only are they typically presenting challenges that have long since been addressed, they don't even care about the answer.

That is what makes them deniers. Because they love to ask the 'tough' questions, but aren't interested in sticking around for the 'tough' answers. The desire to get to the truth of things is a fucking facade.

Arguments are made stronger by being challenged, not weaker. Simply calling someone a science denier, because they disagree, is in fact NOT winning the debate, it's ensuring debate never happens. It's the social equivalent of burying your head in the sand, while claiming to be taller.

Correction: good challenges make an argument stronger. That's why, if you look at current climate research, there are disagreements about actually relevant shit that needs to be sorted out.

Inane challenges, however, are simply a waste time. That's why very few people waste time responding to drivel like "but climate change has been happening since before man, so how could it be us?" I'm not even sure why I waste time responding to this, since as I remarked above I virtually never get a response.

Can you provide a climate model that is older than say 10 years, or preferably 15 years, that shows now that what it modeled has actually happened, and therefore is proven correct? How many can you provide that were not correct? Was the person who doubted the ones that were not correct back then, vindicated now, or is he still just a science denier that no doubt abuses his children?

As I noted above, this is a wrong question. The last 17 years fit within the range of predictions, with a caveat: it sits on the low end of the spectrum. See page 768:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...er09_FINAL.pdf

Before you go "AHA! 111 of the 114 models were wrong!", take a look at the entire picture. What do you see? Numerous 10-15 year periods where the model average over or under estimated the actual warming. Does this mean it's shit? No, because you can quite clearly see that it's correct on the long term, and more importantly, even the last 15 years have been within the range of model outputs.

Why does this happen? Fluctuation, basically. That's what the 3 pages after the images elaborate on. The punchline being that we're very likely to see a couple periods where models underestimate the temperature in the future. I'll be impressed if skeptics don't just quietly ignore this when it happens, even though their current talking points would still apply.

So yeah, models are just fine. There are definitely still 'decadal' effects that need to be identified and incorporated into the models, but these don't change the long term agreement of models and data. It's no surprise, therefore, that skeptics love to zone in on a timescale where these effects are relevant and distract away from the long term trends and agreement.

I mean, Algore said by now that Florida would be gone, or whatever. Meanwhile, the coast hasn't moved an inch. Is it science denial to note the fact that that shit never happened?

Al Gore is not a scientist, so I don't give a fuck about him. The science denial is using this as evidence against climate theory, considering accurate projections and rates have been given by scientists long before. I have gone down this route before. Someone brings up Al Gore's sea level shit and complains about how wrong climate predictions are. I point them to material from actual scientists, and get ignored. Because apparently, we're more interested in pretending that what Al Gore said was science, then actually looking at science.

Finally, the idea that climate change is not a political issue is completely ridiculous. Conservation itself, is a political issue. The fact is, all of the "solutions" to climate change, are political. You can't say it's not political, when you lobby Washington to put America at a competitive disadvantage, by limiting pollution while other nations do not.

What to do about climate change is political. The science, is not. I don't know whether you guys are doing it on purpose or not, but you guys seem to freely conflate the policy with the science and switch abruptly between them in discussion whenever it suits you. Just like you're doing here.

- - - Updated - - -

So....because one side refuses to listen it gives you lease to be rude? Sorry no, I do not agree. WE are talking grade school manners here, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Flinging shit because THEY flung shit.....come on now, be better than that.

It's a special kind of frustrating when the side that loves to use rhetoric like 'climate alarmists' suddenly gets all fucking hurt when they get a label applied to them.

Besides, it's not like skeptics could continue a discussion without receiving insults. I know this from experience: someone asks a question or presents a challenge, I give an answer. But do they respond to me? Almost never, because they just respond instead to the guy that insulted them and complain about the insult and about how 'my side' only insults them.

And the whole time I'm sitting here like: "hello? I answered your question? Are you kidding me?"

[Mormolyce]

Isn't climate change natural? You know 4 seasons...

My head hurts.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm not saying people can't change, because they can. It takes a hell of a lot of work, but they can. But people who willingly choose to live in ignorance, who willingly choose to ignore facts, who willingly choose to live with misinformation... Those people don't want to change. And they won't, no matter what you do.

I succeeded, once. Maybe it's conceited of me to think that I was the cause, but one day one of my family members with whom I had regular disagreements, finally decided to look at what actual scientists were saying for once. They looked at youtube videos and debates where actual climate scientists laid out the case for climate change and decided that it made a lot more sense.

Plus, we've had a conservative poster make a thread about why they changed their mind away from being a skeptic. So yeah, even though I sometimes get frustrated to the point of just lobbing snark and insults, it pays to make an honest attempt at answering questions. Because you never know. One day, maybe, they'll give it an honest look.

[Endus]

Seems you are focusing on the perpetrators of the lies, I am talking about the individuals interacting with other individuals on forums in person and so forth. The people who listen to Limbaugh do not deserve your ire, if they are wrong, inform them in a civil manner. If they refuse to listen, move on. You will never convince anyone by being rude. Unless you do not care to convince others? To bring more people to the light as it were, a stronger force to shape policy.

This really isn't complicated.

Someone who has no clue about a topic will be open to being convinced, with evidence.

Someone who's made their mind up to spread harmful and false propaganda, maliciously, is never going to be convinced of anything, no matter how "nice" you are to them. Ignoring the venom they spew and refusing to identify it as the lies that it is, is harmful to the greater societal debate, because it grants their views a false sense of credibility.

You can't seriously argue that it's unfair to call a liar a "liar" because they might get angry and keep lying. That kind of person was going to keep lying anyway.

[PC2]

You can't seriously argue that it's unfair to call a liar a "liar" because they might get angry and keep lying.

It's a fallacious tactic, personal labeling is ad hominem.

[Endus]

It's a fallacious tactic, personal labeling is ad hominem.

No, ad hominem is when the premise of your argument is an insult of your opponent.

Pointing out that their premises are lies is not an ad hominem fallacy, and noting that those lies make the one issuing them a liar is just an accurate observation.

"You're a poopyhead, therefore you're wrong" is an ad hominem.
"You're wrong because of X, Y, and Z, you poopyhead" is rude, but not an ad hominem.

[announced]

i'd respect scientists more if they didnt march for political purposes. they should instead do something awesome like build a giant laser and aim it at Washington to demonstrate the effects of global warming. or something similar and cartoon villain.

[PC2]

No, ad hominem is when the premise of your argument is an insult of your opponent.

Pointing out that their premises are lies is not an ad hominem fallacy, and noting that those lies make the one issuing them a liar is just an accurate observation.

"You're a poopyhead, therefore you're wrong" is an ad hominem.
"You're wrong because of X, Y, and Z, you poopyhead" is rude, but not an ad hominem.

If you can prove that their premise is a lie then you don't ever need to resort to ad hominem name calling.

Calling someone a poopyhead never has merit, only addressing the ideas and argument itself has merit.

[Rudkobing]

Luke, I AM your father.

[Ghostpanther]

If you can prove that their premise is a lie then you don't ever need to resort to ad hominem name calling.

Calling someone a poopyhead never has merit, only addressing the ideas and argument itself has merit.

Very well said. Well done sir.

[Felya]

If you can prove that their premise is a lie then you don't ever need to resort to ad hominem name calling.

Calling someone a poopyhead never has merit, only addressing the ideas and argument itself has merit.

When did Internet forums become a safe space?

- - - Updated - - -

Very well said. Well done sir.

You voted for a president that coined the term lying Ted...

[PC2]

When did Internet forums become a safe space?

Since it started in the West, a safe space for all ideas and criticism. There is no intrinsically bad or evil people, thus all strong arguments ignore the particular person.

[Garnier Fructis]

Since it started in the West, a safe space for all ideas and criticism. There is no intrinsically bad or evil people, thus all strong arguments ignore the particular person.

There's an infuriating converse to your second sentence, which is that on this particular topic many people ignore strong arguments. And by 'many people', I'm mostly talking about one side.

To your credit, you actually respond. Even if your responses typically frustrate me.

[Felya]

Since it started in the West, a safe space for all ideas and criticism. There is no intrinsically bad or evil people, thus all strong arguments ignore the particular person.

What does 'it started in the west' have to do with it? It is a safe space for ideas, including those that might be inflammatory to your character. This isn't your job... this isn't your family... this isn't a formal gathering... you are posting on a gaming forum. If you think someone calling you a liar is trying to hinder you in any way, please realize that it's also handing you a soap box. You can choose how to express it...

Option one, is to show that you are not a liar. An accusation as such, warrants and justifies you in not only repeating your honest reply, but also elaborate on it. Provide more info... show them how much of liar you actually are.

Option two, is to silence your self, by choosing to dedicate this opportunity... this soap box being handed to you... to complain about the language used.

I know the option we chose... I am happy when people call me a liar. It justifies me talking more... I want people to tell me what they think of me, instead of trying to drown me in bullshit, as they grind their teeth at the screen. Let it out... it's healthy... I won't report, never have, never will...

- - - Updated - - -

There's an infuriating converse to your second sentence, which is that on this particular topic many people ignore strong arguments. And by 'many people', I'm mostly talking about one side.

To your credit, you actually respond. Even if your responses typically frustrate me.

What is a strong argument? There is a reason why science is being attacked... and the definition of a strong argument is the point. You need to establish a base for what is acceptable and then accommodate. That's when the problem happens, as most if the time, the anti-science argument, hinges on the person making it... admitting they are wrong. It's all self referencing... because science, isn't a strong argument.

[Garnier Fructis]

What is a strong argument? There is a reason why science is being attacked... and the definition of a strong argument is the point. You need to establish a base for what is acceptable and then accommodate. That's when the problem happens, as most if the time, the anti-science argument, hinges on the person making it... admitting they are wrong. It's all self referencing... because science, isn't a strong argument.

Well if an argument requires the other person realizing they're wrong, then there are basically no strong arguments. Remember the volcano dude from the other thread? It was pointed out a ton of times that he completely misunderstood something, and that his own sources argued against his position. It was basically an ironclad case that he was dead wrong. I would consider that a strong argument. The response from him, though, was basically "I'm right, you're wrong, neener neener neener scrubs!"

[Endus]

If you can prove that their premise is a lie then you don't ever need to resort to ad hominem name calling.

The "name calling" in question was literally "you're lying". Which, if it was a lie, is just a straight-up accurate statement. Calling people out for lying is not an "insult", not if they are actually lying.

[Felya]

Well if an argument requires the other person realizing they're wrong, then there are basically no strong arguments. Remember the volcano dude from the other thread? It was pointed out a ton of times that he completely misunderstood something, and that his own sources argued against his position. It was basically an ironclad case that he was dead wrong. I would consider that a strong argument. The response from him, though, was basically "I'm right, you're wrong, neener neener neener scrubs!"

Yep, that's what I mean. It's why I spent several posts before replying to yours, talking about how evil it is to be called a liar.

Science poses government and wealth, or power in general, a major threat. It is an authority that cannot be purchased. It isn't one that can be argued in a congressional hearing on its legitimacy. It's a threat that simply impossible to control, if it remains the authority.

Realize, all this talk of politics in science is not what is being claimed. The issue with climate change, is completely irrelevant to politics. The actual issue is what we do about it. If the public believes it or demands it and votes accordingly, it will spur action. The issue there is not scientists, but the public. The issue is the public demanding a reaction, that for what ever reason, government does not want to have. Oil companies, government and us most likely wouldn't give a shit about climate change, if the results didn't inherently demand a reaction. When that demand happens, the threat is the public reaction, to those who would be most impacted.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, will not perish.

[Ghostpanther]

The "name calling" in question was literally "you're lying". Which, if it was a lie, is just a straight-up accurate statement. Calling people out for lying is not an "insult", not if they are actually lying.

But it is a lot more classy to do it the way PrimaryColor said. Because if you call someone a lair because you think or even are convinced you are right, what happens later if you are found to be wrong? Stay classy my friend.

[PC2]

What does 'it started in the west' have to do with it?

I ment Western countries typically have strong internet free expression, as opposed to other places like Russia or China. Of course there is room for improvement.

What is a strong argument? There is a reason why science is being attacked... and the definition of a strong argument is the point. You need to establish a base for what is acceptable and then accommodate. That's when the problem happens, as most if the time, the anti-science argument, hinges on the person making it... admitting they are wrong. It's all self referencing... because science, isn't a strong argument.

I don't think the person matters. Doesn't truth exist independent of people? If two people agree or disagree on heliocentrism, the truth is the same regardless of the people. According to Popper strong science is falsifiable statements that resist falsification.