When smart people turn dumb

Or pass themselves off as some kind of authorities it pisses me off ...

from JoeUser Forums
Well, I've seen it time and time again,

People who deny global warming exists, offer up a few obscure sources to support their claims (much like tobacco company scientists), and don't even seem to understand that some of the basics aren't even up for dispute anymore (eg like that CO2 actually traps heat - this has been known for a 100 years or better).

What I find a bit frustrating are people who just come in and talk about this in fuzzy issues. They "just don't think" that CO2 emissions are having any effect on global warming, and offer up some strange and bizarre reasons, without any support from any reasonably credible source. These are the same people who bemoan from others, that "these things are pretty easy to check".

It's almost as if they woke up that morning and said, "I've got take my stupid pill, today!". Then they proceed to operate on that basis - despite being clearly intelligent on other forums, they offer up pasty mush, weak thinking, and third rate sources. Ignoring all the while the vast credible number of experts in the field, the plethora of research, and even the well-understood basic dynamics of the global warming "theory". That they do this without offering even the most basis offsets of some sustantial thinking, logic or research showing how the current thinking or research is wrong, is frustrating, infuriating and lazy.

Please - grab a brain!

Just don't expect us to park ours at the door!

JW
misc
783 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey Jay,

What is the most important book, article, etc. about this topic that you have read? What was the clincher for you that made it clear to you that this is absolutely true?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've been reading on this topic for 15 years or better.

What this is about is different - those who say it doesn't exist (I'm fine with that), but themselves offer up weak reasoning, few facts, and no new theories (I think that's feeble coming from someone intelligent).

That's my beef. Global warming "theories" has the mainstream scientific community on it's side - if you have something different to offer up, shouldn't you have some decent facts, strong reasoning or at least a new theory? Otherwise, don't try to pass yourself off as really knowing anything about it. Just say it, "I'm ignorant about global warming, therefore I hold no opinion, or it's simply based on my 'feelings'". Trying to influence others when that person knows very little about it is, in my opinion, deplorable, coming from someone intelligent.

JW
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I also offer up some other comments relating to this, over here ...

Link


JW
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can't or don't claim to know anything about it. I will say, however, when people like yourself start treating their theories as fact (such as putting it in quotes) then you have a bit of a problem. It can certainly be demonstrated that the planet has warmed over a certain period of time. The cause of the warming cannot be proven only speculated. The effect of the warming cannot be proven only speculated. The solution to the warming can only be guessed at. Is this not true?

The problem you are encountering is that the partisanship on both sides of the issue tend to be a little shrill. For example, you yourself have a beef because people make arguments without research to back it up but in the link you sent me I don't see any citations. If you have the evidence on your side what do you care what people choose to believe? You are not going to get anyone to believe by calling them stupid, conversion takes time, patience, and skill. People's beliefs are built from knowledge shared by people they trust....therefore you have to get someone to trust you before they will believe you.

So here is your chance, I am neither a believer or a denier, I am a don't know'er. If you have been studying this for 15 years then surely you can tell me which book or story to read that really nailed the theory...really gave the best evidence. I promise I will get it and read it and try to understand it.

If you get the feeling that I am doubting you then you are right. I suspect you are exactly what you are accusing. The Link you gave me has nothing in the way of a citation or evidence...although it is a pretty good piece explaining why you shouldn't be a market timer or stock picker in the stock market.

If you have been studying something for 15 years you should be able to conjure up something. I have been studying personal finance for three months and I can give you half a dozen books to read. I have been studying software development for 15 years and could probably describe 90% of the books I have read. I can tell you exactly which books have had the most influence on me.

I don't know maybe you are just different...I certainly don't want to pick a fight. But I know there are blind believers on both sides of every issue and when someone calls them out it often seems like they are one.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's what the UN says in their latest climate change report ...

The head of the United Nations Environment Programme, Dr Klaus Toepfer, said: "The scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report [the IPCC report] about human-induced climate change should sound alarm bells in every national capital and in every local community."

The report further notes that ...

"The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years."

Then we've got the 3,000 U.S. scientists who in the late 1990's released the Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption, an unprecedented statement urging the United States to lead in the efforts to stop global warming.

And then there's the 1,500 scientists a couple of years after that who released the "World Scientists' Call for Action," urging government leaders to act immediately to prevent global warming. This statement included 110 Nobel laureates and 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners.

Then the 35,000 members of the American Geophysical Union release a position paper on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases asserting that the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are cause for legitimate public concern.

NASA has also noted that global warming appears to be real, and is a cause for concern.

These are all major, credible and serious sources - BUT if one doesn't WANT to believe global warming is real, then one WON'T.

Again, my beef is that those who "don't believe" offer up nothing really - if an opinion is outside of the informed mainstream, then you need something more than "by goshes and by gollies". I take issue with those who don't think it's real - effectively disputing thousands of experts, and offer up no legitimate research. Anyone who knows anything about global warming knows that, in the serious scientific community, there's very little debate it's here now, and occuring (see citatiions above).

But my experience is that no one can convince really convince anyone to change their minds, when they have a predisposition to believing something else, even in the face of contrary evidence. My observation over the years is that changing one's mind is a 90% internal process, relatively unaffected by external data.

I believe that educated people, especially, should offer upat least some decent facts, strong reasoning or at least a new theory, if they're going to hold an opinion outside of their own area of expertise, and outside of the informed mainstream of that topic.

Otherwise, as I've said before, don't try to pass yourself off as really knowing anything about it. Just admit that "I'm ignorant about global warming, therefore I hold no opinion, or it's simply based on my 'feelings'". Trying to influence others when that person knows very little about it is, in my opinion, deplorable, particularly coming from someone intelligent.

JW
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you realize you are cutting and pasting stuff from something and not giving me the actual citation you are getting it from? Why? Could it be that you are getting this second, third, or fourth hand. Answer this honestly...have you read the report or are you just a hypocrite?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

What I always find interesting are people who have such poor reading comprehension that the go off and write articles that totally mischaracterize what they've read.

For example, I believe it is established that the earth has warmed 1 degree. I don't agree that it is established that mankind is the cause.  I agree that CO2 is a green house gas. I also agree that CO2 in parts per million has gone up in the atmosphere dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution.  I don't agree that this is necessarily caused by CO2 emmissions from humans (deforestation for instance could cause a lot of CO2 not to be absorbed).  I also don't agree that this increase in CO2 necessarily is the cause of global warming.

What is also very interesting are people who really don't have a background in science arguing that others need to take their word for their opinions because they've linked to articles written by "scientists" (respected ones of course).  While at the same time, these same people would be the first to laugh at the Christian fundamentalists who say they can "prove" evolution is false by linking to articles written by "scientists" (respected ones of course).

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why? Could it be that you are getting this second, third, or fourth hand. Answer this honestly...have you read the report or are you just a hypocrite?


I've read portions of the report.

JW
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
What is also very interesting are people who really don't have a background in science arguing that others need to take their word for their opinions


1. You don't really have a clue as to what my educational background is, since I've never discussed it.

2. I'm not suggesting that others need to "take my opinion for it (global warming)". Please re-read the post to improve your reading comprehension.

JW
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've read portions of the report.

I have found the report without your help, thank you very much, and I promise you I will read it over time (it is kind of involved). But I also have read portions of the report...specifically the portion you cited Chapter 3. What strikes me intially is how boldly they go from the evidence (rising CO2) to the conclusion...I was always of the opinion that the Scientific Method left a little room for doubt. Anyway, I cannot come to any conclusions so quickly so I will defer.

Here is a Link to the report.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
And I also found this Link that takes the other side.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyway, I cannot come to any conclusions so quickly so I will defer.


See, now it's people like you that I don't have a problem with or complaint about. It's others who, lacking any training or real knowledge (including reading about the issue) in the area, decide somehow that this is THEIR field of expertise, and freely and ignorantly comment on it (without offering some decent facts, strong reasoning or at least a new theory, if they're going to hold an opinion outside of their own area of expertise, and outside of the informed mainstream of that topic.)


So good on you I say.

JW
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
See, now it's people like you that I don't have a problem with or complaint about


Yeah, but I am not convinced that you are one of these people. It seems to me that you have made up your mind...and I am not sure that is based upon a careful review of the evidence. You seems satisifed with your belief because you are going along with the mainstream. Never mind the fact that the mainstream has and will always be wrong all the time. If every scientist on the planet agreed that it was true, which I am guessing they don't, that doesn't make it right. After all Gravity is still a theory...why are you treating this as if it is a fact?

You automatically dismiss any discussion by your attitude that anyone with contrary evidence is wrong and their evidence is faulty. This isn't good science it is bad politics.

You said earlier that you can never convince anyone of anything and I agree YOU won't be able to with attitudes like that. But I know of at least one athiest who was turned into a Christian by going on a walk with his friend. If they can bridge that gap don't you think it is possible you might convince a global warming denier to a global warming believer?

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

See, now it's people like you that I don't have a problem with or complaint about. It's others who, lacking any training or real knowledge (including reading about the issue) in the area, decide somehow that this is THEIR field of expertise, and freely and ignorantly comment on it (without offering some decent facts, strong reasoning or at least a new theory, if they're going to hold an opinion outside of their own area of expertise, and outside of the informed mainstream of that topic.)

If you're going to black list me, you shouldn't write something that you want me to respond to.  So I will write this response and try to ignore your blogs in the future since you black listed me. But don't kid yourself, black listing the owner is something requires me to voluntarily abide by.

Anyway, my point about global warming I thought was pretty clear and that is: WE DON'T KNOW YET.  You, on the other hand, have made article after article stating very clearly that you think the issue is definitive.  My repsonses have all been in the area of uncertainty. We don't know.   And while I don't know what you do for a living or what your training is, I have read enough of yoru blogs to conclude that you don't think very analytically. 

As Freemark pointed out, the scientific method is a pretty specifc thing.  Taking a few pieces of data and coming to a hard and fast conclusion on global warming is reckless to say the least.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
It seems to me that you have made up your mind...


Yes, I have. And freely state so. I'm not confused about my belief at all. Global warming is real.

After all Gravity is still a theory...why are you treating this as if it is a fact?


Is this the silly season, or what? Very few scientific theories can ever (*EVER*) be proven 100%. That doesn't mean that people can't make reasonable decisions on a "theory". Take me - I use the elevator, or stairs. I never jump off the 10 storey building, *hoping* for good results. Gravity works for me.

You automatically dismiss any discussion by your attitude that anyone with contrary evidence is wrong and their evidence is faulty.


Not saying that at all. Please re-read the post. Einstein didn't just *say* "I don't think these other theories are any good". He educated himself, thought, produced facts, and offered a new theory. Not trying to be objectionable here, but I'll repeat it for the third or fourth time.

"I believe that educated people, especially, should offer upat least some decent facts, strong reasoning or at least a new theory, if they're going to hold an opinion outside of their own area of expertise, and outside of the informed mainstream of that topic."

JW


PS - you should probably avoid specious comments like these ...

although it is a pretty good piece explaining why you shouldn't be a market timer or stock picker in the stock market.



Let's compare notes - I''ll send you my PDF file for the internet book I wrote on picking stocks, and you send me yours. I'll bet my 60,000 words reads a lot better than yours. Ask for it anytime - free, it you want it - I've already offered it on this venue before.

JW
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad,

I tried to "unblacklist you", but I wasn't sure how to do it.

Anyway, you're pretty quick to slam people ("poor reading comprehension", "don't think very analytically".) I thought it would be better to request that you stay off my blog, than to get pissed off and say something nasty in return. Frankly, I don't need this kind of shit. I wouldn't let my kids talk to me that way, and I sure ain't going to like it from anyone else.

JW
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
. I was just agreeing with what you stated that you can't determine which company would be successful and it turns out that you are a stock picker. Didn't you say that nobody could predict which company in a particular class would be successful.

I don't have a book on picking stocks, but if you want me to send my book on diversification in portfolios I can't...I haven't written it yet.

Sure go [email protected]
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
They "just don't think" that CO2 emissions are having any effect on global warming, and offer up some strange and bizarre reasons, without any support from any reasonably credible source

What you don't seem to understand is that you are a zealot. Since your mind is made up there is no credible source you would accept. So when I say you automatically dismiss any discussion that is what I mean.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
What you don't seem to understand is that you are a zealot. Since your mind is made up there is no credible source you would accept. So when I say you automatically dismiss any discussion that is what I mean.


That's not true. I'll accept credible evidence - in fact, people who know me say that, along with my capacity for critical thinking, my ability to completely change my mind is among my strengths.

Didn't you say that nobody could predict which company in a particular class would be successful.


Not quite - these are new industries. Different than suggesting winners in old industries (which tend to be much more stable).

I'll send the book - hope yours isn't a minimum sized free account, as it'll clog it up. Also I have a spreadsheet that goes with the book (warning: it's a beta version). Would you like that too?

(You can send me your other email (assuming you have one), privately to my email at [email protected], if you wish.

JW
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's not true. I'll accept credible evidence - in fact, people who know me say that, along with my capacity for critical thinking, my ability to completely change my mind is among my strengths.

Ok. Maybe I am wrong...I have a hard time coorelating that with your statements...but maybe that's my bias.

I think hotmail will work fine, thanks to gmail. Send the spreadsheet too.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK I've sent it. I'm going to delete your last posting with your email, since it's private and doesn't really relate to the conversation.

JW
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad, You've been removed from the blacklist.

Taking a few pieces of data and coming to a hard and fast conclusion on global warming is reckless to say the least.


Is this what you're accusing the IPCC report scientists of, the American Geophysical Union of, the Nobel Laureates of, The Medal of Science winners of - or just little old me because I quoted from them?

Those august persons tend to think it's reckless not to do something about global warming, when it's appearing more certain that it's actually happening now. Look at the whole thing like insurance (you still buy fire insurance yearly, even though you don't actually think your house is gong to burn down this year, right?) - with ever increasing odds that things aren't going to work out too well.

JW