JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

7/31/2017 8:08:49 PM
14
Remember when the Dust Bowl happened and America collapsed entirely and didn't go on to defeat the N­azi's in WWII? Me too. What a dystopian nightmare we currently live in because of poor agricultural practices that ended up causing disaster that can't ever be overcome ever, no matter what. I think if I'm any more sarcastic, I might pass out, so we'll leave it there for now.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Because A getting better under X circumstances will obviously translate to B getting better under Y circumstances. Got it. I wonder if I can apply this to my school work. If I read my chapters for stats and get an A on my exam, I'm sure I'll get an A on my history essay without reading anything on the Gothic invasion of Rome.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • So you know how the dust bowl propagated? Pro-tip: didn't happen like your history test.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • No I don't at all. Have no clue. I'll wait for your point.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Low effort replies get nothing

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Interesting. You reply to research by suggesting that since the dust bowl didn't turn out as bad as science said it would (I haven't read any science on the matter but I believe I already successfully showed that you being right doesn't effect the topic) that therefore a hardly related environmental issue decades later will also not turn out as bad as science says it will. And you have the balls to not reply to the rebuttal because not enough effort went into it? Very interesting. Well I guess that wraps up your subthread.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Interesting. You reply to research by suggesting that since the dust bowl didn't turn out as bad as science said it would[/quote] Climate science wasn't a thing back then. You know, before radar and predictive modeling. But cool. [quote]that therefore a hardly related environmental issue decades later will also not turn out as bad as science says it will.[/quote] You know what they did after the Dust Bowl? We call them man-made lakes. We also have irrigation. We've dealt with environmental disaster and know how to prevent it in the future. The hysteria is likely overblown. Some concern is warranted, but doomsday scenarios are a -blam!-ing joke. [quote]And you have the balls to not reply to the rebuttal because not enough effort went into it? Very interesting.[/quote] What -blam!-ing rebuttal. "No you" isn't a -blam!-ing rebuttal. And the number of times I've pulled up articles tearing people to shreds and they choose to respond to one thing and ignore the rest. I'm not wasting that kinda time on you shitters here anymore. [quote]Well I guess that wraps up your subthread.[/quote] Sure, but do me a favor and go ahead and look up the basics of climatology. Check out them oscillations.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Kody: 8/3/2017 10:47:01 AM
    [quote][quote]Interesting. You reply to research by suggesting that since the dust bowl didn't turn out as bad as science said it would[/quote] Climate science wasn't a thing back then. You know, before radar and predictive modeling. But cool.[/quote]Utterly irrelevant. You completely missed the point. Let me know if you still don't understand by the end of my responses. [quote][quote]that therefore a hardly related environmental issue decades later will also not turn out as bad as science says it will.[/quote] You know what they did after the Dust Bowl? We call them man-made lakes. We also have irrigation. We've dealt with environmental disaster and know how to prevent it in the future. The hysteria is likely overblown. Some concern is warranted, but doomsday scenarios are a -blam!-ing joke.[/quote]You're managing to come up with red herrings and straw men at the same time. The advancement in irrigation and its successes in mitigating agricultural threats has absolutely nothing to do with whether A) humans are significantly accelerating climate change, or B) we can mitigate the symptoms. Repeating your conclusion that alarmists are silly after premises on how we bounced back from the Dust Bowl is a textbook example of not only an unsound argument but an invalid one. [quote][quote]And you have the balls to not reply to the rebuttal because not enough effort went into it? Very interesting.[/quote] What -blam!-ing rebuttal. "No you" isn't a -blam!-ing rebuttal. And the number of times I've pulled up articles tearing people to shreds and they choose to respond to one thing and ignore the rest. I'm not wasting that kinda time on you shitters here anymore.[/quote]Go back and read my post. I used variables to explain in detail what you said did not support your conclusion. And then I created an analogy for you. I'm no sure how you define no u. And you've already wasted time, everyone's time. Support your conclusion with a relevant claim or take your advice and stop wasting your own time. [quote][quote]Well I guess that wraps up your subthread.[/quote] Sure, but do me a favor and go ahead and look up the basics of climatology. Check out them oscillations.[/quote]This is the first time you've made a claim to support your conclusion. Problem is you didn't really explain your claim or how it supports your conclusion. I can only assume you mean to say that because the climate's temp has always increased and decreased in naturally occurring cycles that therefore we're not making too much worse. I'm rusty on my fallacies but I'm sure this is one. Slippery slope maybe? Because John was wet, everyone assumed he did not have an umbrella when he was out in the rain. However, John did use his umbrella. He was only wet because he had just gone skinny dipping. We can have a fact: A is a function of X. This fact does not tell us whether X has any other functions. You assert correctly (I think anyway as you have explained nothing) that the earth is warming due to naturally occurring climate change. This fact does not in any way give insight to the question of how much we are exacerbating it.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • It was a -blam!-ing sarcastic joke, not an academic write-up. You're being a massively pretentious toolbag about it, which is cute, but stunningly unproductive towards any form of meaningful conversation. I get that listing fallacies gets your jimmies revved up, but it's not actually going to get anyone anywhere. The reason I wanted to point out climatic oscillations is to highlight the time-scale involved in several of them. Notably the IPO which has 20 year phases and PDO which can range from a few years to a few decades. Making logical arguments and all that is wonderful, but on base knowledge you don't have, really? You're then going to tell me i'm slippery sloping meanwhile the only climate pattern you might know is El Niño. Call me cautious, but when I know we've only been capturing comprehensive data of the entire globe for more than half a century, I'm a little skeptical of people who come forward saying they have concrete results for over a hundred years in the future. Also knowing these things and being talked down to by a fallacy-slinger, priceless. Anyways, it's been obnoxious talking with you. If X :⇔ G, ∴ B sin(c) so obviously you're making an appeal to authority and therefore logically invalid (I hope I'm doing this right).

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Kody: 8/3/2017 6:51:32 PM
    [quote]It was a -blam!-ing sarcastic joke, not an academic write-up. You're being a massively pretentious toolbag about it, which is cute, but stunningly unproductive towards any form of meaningful conversation.[/quote]If studies like the ones I linked are remotely accurate then this matters. If air pollution and all that silly environmental nonsense isn't actually nonsense, and millions of people have already died from poor air quality, and on and on and on, then I'm sorry but I don't find your ignorant, smug little "jokes" funny at all. How you can be so smug to say that it's hilarious how people are worried about a 2 degree increase in temperature when we made it through the Dust Bowl but then call me pretentious for pointing out to you how ridiculous that is is utterly perplexing to me. How you can use an unrelated claim to back up a conclusion shooting down citations, or any studies on anthropogenic climate change, and then accuse someone else of not putting effort into the conversation is further perplexing. How you can say literally nothing in response to the OP other than well the climate changes naturally and we got over the Dust Bowl and then accuse someone else of not contributing to the conversation puts the cherry on top. [quote] The reason I wanted to point out climatic oscillations is to highlight the time-scale involved in several of them. Notably the IPO which has 20 year phases and PDO which can range from a few years to a few decades.[/quote]OK so I'll stop calling your fallacies when you stop making them. You're still not making an argument. Thank you for reminding me that different oscillations have different time patterns. Asserting that A) there are cycles, and B) they have different time patterns some ranging decades, supports no conclusion that you've made. I'm going to stop making your arguments for you. I'm suspecting you know less than you infer seeing as how you just keep throwing numbers and keywords around without using them to actually assert anything. [quote]Making logical arguments and all that is wonderful, but on base knowledge you don't have, really? You're then going to tell me i'm slippery sloping meanwhile the only climate pattern you might know is El Niño.[/quote]This is another fallacious argument. Because person A doesn't know all about food, therefore person B is right when he tells person A how to BBQ. However, this is unsound because even if person A doesn't know much about food, he could still be right about BBQ. I have more to say on this after the next quote. [quote]Call me cautious, but when I know we've only been capturing comprehensive data of the entire globe for more than half a century, I'm a little skeptical of people who come forward saying they have concrete results for over a hundred years in the future.[/quote]I haven't once used an appeal to authority as you mention at the end, until now, sort of. I am not a climatologist. I do not have the knowledge or skillset to debate the ins and outs to you. All I can do is refer to studies and little by little educate myself. However, I haven't used the argument that since over 80% of scientists agree about human-caused climate change that therefore..., which would be an appeal to authority. I actually cited 2 studies. If you want to argue those studies, as wrong as they could possibly be, you need to post another study or explain in detail why you believe what you believe so I can verify it myself. [quote]Also knowing these things and being talked down to by a fallacy-slinger, priceless.[/quote]More ad hominem insults to distract. It's not working. And if you "knew these things" I assume you'd have begun explaining by now. [quote]Anyways, it's been obnoxious talking with you. If X :⇔ G, ∴ B sin(c) so obviously you're making an appeal to authority and therefore logically invalid (I hope I'm doing this right).[/quote]Again, no you're not doing it right.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]If studies like the ones I linked are remotely accurate then this matters. If air pollution and all that silly environmental nonsense isn't actually nonsense, and millions of people have already died from poor air quality, and on and on and on, then I'm sorry but I don't find your ignorant, smug little "jokes" funny at all. How you can be so smug to say that it's hilarious how people are worried about a 2 degree increase in temperature when we made it through the Dust Bowl but then call me pretentious for pointing out to you how ridiculous that is is utterly perplexing to me. How you can use an unrelated claim to back up a conclusion shooting down citations, or any studies on anthropogenic climate change, and then accuse someone else of not putting effort into the conversation is further perplexing. How you can say literally nothing in response to the OP other than well the climate changes naturally and we got over the Dust Bowl and then accuse someone else of not contributing to the conversation puts the cherry on top.[/quote] You're talking about people dying from poor air conditions, you got any studies on how the average lifespan has continued to grow during that time? Kinda weird how despite all the pollution people are living longer and longer as if being connected to the electrical grid is a net positive for everyone. Could we improve air quality? Yeah, and we have. And we'll continue to do that, because people like breathing clearer air. And no, I'm not rejecting anthropogenic climate change. That's preposterous (if I was pretentious this is where I'd talk about straw men). I'm skeptical of the predictions of outright catastrophe that some alarmists pedal. [quote]OK so I'll stop calling your fallacies when you stop making them. You're still not making an argument. Thank you for reminding me that different oscillations have different time patterns. Asserting that A) there are cycles, and B) they have different time patterns some ranging decades, supports no conclusion that you've made. I'm going to stop making your arguments for you. I'm suspecting you know less than you infer seeing as how you just keep throwing numbers and keywords around without using them to actually assert anything.[/quote] Ever notice how people who have introductory knowledge claim to be more knowledgeable about something, while those who have studied for years claim they don't know much? There's a formal name to this psychological phenomenon, but I can't be -blam!-ed to look it up right now. [quote]I haven't once used an appeal to authority as you mention at the end, until now, sort of. I am not a climatologist. [quote]I do not have the knowledge or skillset to debate the ins and outs to you.[/quote] All I can do is refer to studies and little by little educate myself. However, [quote]I haven't used the argument that since over 80% of scientists agree about human-caused climate change[/quote] that therefore..., which would be an appeal to authority. I actually cited 2 studies. If you want to argue those studies, as wrong as they could possibly be, you need to post another study or explain in detail why you believe what you believe so I can verify it myself.[/quote] Hey, look you admitted something. Cool. Guess what I'm not a climatologist either. And guess what else, I don't doubt human-amplified climate change. I'm just skeptical of certain models that are being pushed in an effort to scare-monger. [quote][quote]Also knowing these things and being talked down to by a fallacy-slinger, priceless.[/quote] [quote][quote]Also knowing these things and being talked down to by a fallacy-slinger, priceless.[/quote] More ad hominem insults to distract. It's not working. And if you "knew these things" I assume you'd have begun explaining by now.[/quote] Your replies are too long for me to give a shit. If we went through point by point and hashed things out, maybe. But when all I see is you talk endlessly about how what I'm saying is invalid, why even bring it up? You're wasting your own time. [quote][quote]Anyways, it's been obnoxious talking with you. If X :⇔ G, ∴ B sin(c) so obviously you're making an appeal to authority and therefore logically invalid (I hope I'm doing this right).[/quote] Again, no you're not doing it right.[/quote] Holy -blam!-, you're dense. I was thinking the sin() would give it away. I'll give you a joke warning in the future.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by OldboyVicious: 7/31/2017 9:42:11 PM
    Remember when in the 80's the hole in the ozone wasn't fixed and we got plunged into an ice age?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • The ozone hole was only fixed by the widespread reduction of the use of the chlorofluorocarbons that made it in the first place

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I do. They taught it to us in school. I keep seeing people who weren't even born yet try to say it never happened, but it most certainly did in California schools. We were also told to use plastics to save the trees. That plastics were the future and everyone should use plastics for everything. Now they say plastics are causing the world to end, so don't use as much plastic. Lmmfao. It's funny how nothing they use as fear tactics ever happens. Same people who said Y2K was going to end the world. 😂💯

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Because A) SOMEONE telling everyone plastics were good was obviously a conglomerate of independent scientists with ethical motives B) Scientists being wrong once means don't trust science C) The government selling fear through science means all science is fear mongering

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon