I like special.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think the word you're looking for is "betterer"

To be conscious of confirmation bias and to consider all of the evidence presented, not just the evidence that you believe suits your case. This goes for both sides of a debate.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

In particular, one thing I've noticed in both in heated internet threads and in real-life debates is that when specific points or arguments are refuted, it's not uncommon that that the person who presented them simply switches to a slightly different argument, remaining exactly as confident in their initial belief and fighting exactly as vigorously as before. Sometimes this happens multiple times, with absolutely no effect on the certainty of anyone involved that "their side" is still right. I've definitely caught myself doing this, and I've found that even once I'm aware of it, it can be sometimes be hard to force myself to stop right away.

If a major piece of evidence you've presented or a major claim you've made has been refuted, and you continue to feel just as confident that you are still correct, it's worth taking some time to consider why. If that piece of evidence or that line of reasoning didn't play an important role in why you believed what you did, then why did you bring it up? If it did play an important role, then why does its refutation have no effect on your certainty? Perhaps it was only one of several independent reasons you had, so your belief still logically stands. But really, if you've just had something you strongly believed shown to be inaccurate, shouldn't that make you at least a little less confident in the other things you've claimed?

And even if nothing you've said has been refuted, it's still worth every so often taking time to reweigh the reasons for your current beliefs, or to decide what evidence would actually suffice to convince you of the opposite. Especially if you also find yourself feeling a strong emotional attachment to your position in a debate, since if your goal is to form accurate beliefs (as opposed to trying to win the debate), it's irrational to remain specially attached what you believe right now merely because it's what you happened to think initially.

Good advice, applicable to everything, not just conspiracy theories.

What I'm getting at is that I wonder to what extent there is any useful advice that helps you avoid conspiracy theories that is more specific than good advice for thinking in general (or that doesn't entail being exessively dogmatic in other ways). I suspect there is, but I also suspect that it's going to end up being rather subtle.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

ok...i think about 10% of people think it is a hoax and few doesnt care or dont have any opinion...
now i will ask question and see if you (90%) can answer.
if climate change is man made...then how did it started up trend since 1700 when man made cause was abscent?
how did medival warm period created if man made factor was missing?
why do you not accept the fact that earth climate will go up and down 1 degree C on its own.
Scientists cameup with multiple model that has been proven wrong and you still believe them.
answer IMO is that earth temperature depends on 10000 variable and man made factor is not even .01%.
although 90% believe it is true but it doesnt necessary make it a true statement.
i read all arguments that was presented and have not changed my mind.
CO2 is not a pollution. we have better things to worry about than co2 level.
temperature change past 100 years is less than 1degree which is normal.
we are coming out of little ice age therefore it is logical to assume that temperature will go up naturally.
also..we should ask how we measure earth average temperature.
i am sure it has error tolerance of some degree.

IMO spending trillions of $ in CO2 level is like buying 1,000,000 $ car insurance for flat tire.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Nobody is claiming that man is the only contributing factor to climate. Not any climate scientist. Not any person in this thread.

Why do you attack a silly position that nobody holds? Please stick to the actual arguments.

So you are saying that you do believe that there is a man-made contribution to climate change, you just disagree on the magnitude?

Absolutely, there are lots of silly beliefs held by majorities.

How have you determined what is a "normal" temperature change?

Of course there are error tolerances on measurements. What is the point you are trying to make here?

What makes you think that those models have been proven wrong? Thanks.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

there are ppl here claiming that global warming is due to mostly man made factor.
i am saying that man made factors were missing before industrial revolution.
there may be man-made factors but even if there is...i dont think it is to a degree we should worry about.

i checked past 2000 years climate changes. i understand that before invention of thermometer it is not accurate as now but mini iceage and medival warm period is undenyable.
my point is that error tolerance and we are worried about .5 degree over 200 years. that is crazy how everyone not see that?

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

I was trying to find good source but there are too many garbage site i have to look through...
your question should be "what model"?
i am sure there are 1000 different model.
one that i am talking about is model that most politicans use"catastrophic weather model."(temperature will rise 5degree or higher next 100 years. NYC will be under water. number of huricane will triple and stronger. etc etc.)
these are the facts:
temperature didnt change 1degree past 2000 years and it will stay that way.
i dont see NYC sinking under 5 feet of water anytime soon and if you believe that you are a fool.
number of hurican have not changed.

If i am wrong...it will be pretty bad.
but if you are wrong... that will be even worse.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

“garbage sites” = sites with information you do not like?

I thought meanwhile you’d be used to everybody else being wrong and fools and you being right

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Politicians are not scientists.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

to me garbage sites are sites that has political motivations and biased.
then again...most mainstream medias are biased..

so many opinions on this issue and many brought good points but have not convinced me yet.
which means that nobody knows what the real truth is. Yet they are convinced that it will kill mankinds.

i really dont care what they believe as long as my tax money is not wasted in a shadow of a paper tiger that everyone believe it is true.

very surprised that so many ppl actually believe what i think is a BS.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Hehe... MW gets back, reloaded with new series of 'irrefutable arguments' from the far right. Funny...

Anyhow - I am not going to argue all that, others will do it better, most of it has already been said, and just go look at serious sites or raw data yourself. So, I take these two points as my axioms, as being demonstrated, proven, and confirmed:

• Global warming is a fact - temperatures are on the rise, although sometimes jerkily
• Human activities are a contributing factor, although not the only cause (we can argue to what extend, but the fact is that humans contribute)

Lets get to the interesting part.



See, MW - *now* you are getting into the area of opinion, and this is what might make the conversation valid again. Disputing and denying facts is boring and unproductive.

The unbiased situation is, pretty much, like that: we have all these trillions of dollars in our budget, and we have to spend it on something. There is a lot of 'something', and the money is not really that much, all things considered, so we need to make some sacrifices, especially in this day and age. And this makes the discussion about how exactly we should spend the money both interesting and relevant (and highly political.)

However - since we are talking opinions now, and political ones, so I am sure it violates the TOS somehow. For this reasons - just a few quick points for you to think about:

• Environment is important, and I think that steps should be taken in protecting it. It is an expense today, true, but I think future generations will thank us for it. Rush Limbaugh would rather take the money for himself and his buddies today and to hell with the kids and grandkids.
• I am not sure if environment should be on the top of our list, but it should be somewhere in there - all other developed countries are thinking the same, and even most americans agree. Rush Limbaugh would rather not even acknowledge environment exists.
• Spending on the environment is much much better than spending on wars (tell me MW - did you support Bush on the Iraq war, which was *proven* to be a hoax? how much did *that* cost?) Rush Limbaugh would rather spend the money on more wars.
• I think spending on environment is better than on subsidies for big business or on bailouts for big corporations - all of which is happening and supported by the right-wing extremists, like Rush Limbaugh.
• Each year we spend countless billions on defense - even though our 'defense' is pretty much 'offense' these day, and a stronger one that most other countries combined. I think I rather put at least part of this money towards something more productive - like environment. Rush Limbaugh would rather build more bombs.
• I could go on and on... but I hope you get the point. If the country stops spending on idiotic things like wars and making the rich even richer - I think we can have a good discussion about how to prioritize the remaining expenses... but as long as we spend on stupid things like wars and bailouts - I rather spend on the environment.

As you can notice - I all of the above thoughts are not dependent on 'belief' in Global Warming or not. Even if Global Warming is just a hoax, I would still rather spend on environment than on wars. Taking Global Warming into account, the issue becomes even more urgent.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

They are? How do you know?

From “many brought good points” and “have not convinced me yet”, how exactly do you come to the conclusion—because “which means” IS a conclusion—that nobody knows what the real truth is?

I’m not saying that anybody knows what “real truth” is, but I’d be interested in how you explain your conclusion. To me, this very much sounds like “if I don’t know then nobody knows”.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Corporate owned media in the US have a well-known conservative bias. They have to please their masters. This includes such farces as giving equal time time to climate deniers. I am sure this is what MW is referring to.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

As I suggested in my previous post, you should try and answer these questions for those of us who believe in man-made global warming. If you can accurately approximate our answers, then perhaps you understand the debate. If you cannot, then how can you refute us?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

[list=]
1850, not 1700.
Ice ages and inter-ace age periods don't care about man-made whatever. Climate has periods, huge ones
According to climate periodicity cycles we should be entering a (real) ice age. Where it is?
[/list]

Actually I don't care about convincing you, because it's clear you just want one-sided explanations. What's your stand on evolution? I think climate change today is like evolution when Darwin exposed it: not enough data to firmly convince anyone. Soon (10-20 years) the Hekla volcano in Iceland will erupt (look up about previous eruptions of it), and this will bring global temperatures down (3-4 degrees for quite a long period) and right-wing d********s will say climate change was greenheads theory and now wrong.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net