Cognitive Disconnect

[PacifistParticipant 143]

A few days ago I remembered a conversation between myself and 2 of my sisters.

It was about Man Made Climate Change. I realize climate change has always existed. I’m not convinced men have made major harmful changes to the global environment. However when I expressed this view my sisters simply laughed at me as if it was the most obvious thing in the world. However that’s not the point of the post.

The point is

Sister number 1: Has 2 children

Sister number 2: Has 1 child and flies to Europe, the Caribbean, and Africa for vacations.

Myself: No children and much less of a environmental footprint than either of them.

Why is it that so many people seem to think that having the right opinion on facebook is more important than having a life that reflects those views?

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

“Environmental footprint”

The whole climate change nonsense is total bulls~~~.
Perfect chat topic for stupid bimbos and bored c~~~s.

No idea what people do on facebook. I don’t use facebook.

Monk

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Your sister’s lifestyle inconsistencies have nothing to do with the facts. Anyone who denies climate change flies in the face of all the scientific evidence. You might as well go on thinking that the world is flat in contradiction to all the scientific evidence.
I think Facebook is for the stupid and it does not influence me one way or the other.

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

bobphilo wrote:

Your sister’s lifestyle inconsistencies have nothing to do with the facts. Anyone who denies climate change flies in the face of all the scientific evidence. You might as well go on thinking that the world is flat in contradiction to all the scientific evidence.
I think Facebook is for the stupid and it does not influence me one way or the other.

I don’t think anyone is denying climate change.
The stupid weather always changes.

It’s the “man made” part that I take offense with.

Monk

[Solo MAN’S WisdomParticipant]

bobphilo wrote:

Your sister’s lifestyle inconsistencies have nothing to do with the facts. Anyone who denies climate change flies in the face of all the scientific evidence. You might as well go on thinking that the world is flat in contradiction to all the scientific evidence.

Cite your evidence.

Humans have been collecting climate data for 150 years, to be generous. If you’re a creationist, this time frame represents .025% of a sample size. If you’re an evolutionist, this time frame represents .00000005% of a sample size. Would you trust a physician who told you he had a remedy for your disease and, by the way, it has a .00000005% chance of working?? Please.

Yes, I know that most of the conclusions have been drawn by computer modeling, but if you input s~~~ data or have a biased algorithm, then the results MUST be suspect.

When a movement changes it’s focus from “The coming Ice Age” in the 70’s/80’s to Global Warming in the 90’s to Abrupt Climate Change in the 2000’s to just-plain-ol Climate Change now, it reminds me a great deal of feminism, because they “just can’t quite get it right.” Just like feminism, there is a hidden agenda behind the climate whiners. It’s the same agenda. Manipulation, and Control of the profane masses. And a s~~~load of $$$.

When women lead, destruction is the destination. -- Me.

[HitmanParticipant]

eh, believe what you like regarding climate change.
i think the issue here is not to waste your time talking about it with people who have a closed mind about it..
it could be argued either way.
don’t throw pearls at the swine…

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

Solo MAN’S Wisdom wrote:

bobphilo wrote:

Your sister’s lifestyle inconsistencies have nothing to do with the facts. Anyone who denies climate change flies in the face of all the scientific evidence. You might as well go on thinking that the world is flat in contradiction to all the scientific evidence.

Cite your evidence.

Humans have been collecting climate data for 150 years, to be generous. If you’re a creationist, this time frame represents .025% of a sample size. If you’re an evolutionist, this time frame represents .00000005% of a sample size. Would you trust a physician who told you he had a remedy for your disease and, by the way, it has a .00000005% chance of working?? Please.

Yes, I know that most of the conclusions have been drawn by computer modeling, but if you input s~~~ data or have a biased algorithm, then the results MUST be suspect.

When a movement changes it’s focus from “The coming Ice Age” in the 70’s/80’s to Global Warming in the 90’s to Abrupt Climate Change in the 2000’s to just-plain-ol Climate Change now, it reminds me a great deal of feminism, because they “just can’t quite get it right.” Just like feminism, there is a hidden agenda behind the climate whiners. It’s the same agenda. Manipulation, and Control of the profane masses. And a s~~~load of $$$.

Thank you for writing the reply that I was too lazy to write.

I might add that even if there would be global warming and even if it would be partially caused by humans I wouldn’t give a f~~~. I like it warm.

Monk

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Meister wrote:

Solomon’s Wisdom wrote:

bobphilo wrote:

Your sister’s lifestyle inconsistencies have nothing to do with the facts. Anyone who denies climate change flies in the face of all the scientific evidence. You might as well go on thinking that the world is flat in contradiction to all the scientific evidence.

Cite your evidence.

Humans have been collecting climate data for 150 years, to be generous. If you’re a creationist, this time frame represents .025% of a sample size. If you’re an evolutionist, this time frame represents .00000005% of a sample size. Would you trust a physician who told you he had a remedy for your disease and, by the way, it has a .00000005% chance of working?? Please.

Yes, I know that most of the conclusions have been drawn by computer modeling, but if you input s~~~ data or have a biased algorithm, then the results MUST be suspect.

When a movement changes it’s focus from “The coming Ice Age” in the 70’s/80’s to Global Warming in the 90’s to Abrupt Climate Change in the 2000’s to just-plain-ol Climate Change now, it reminds me a great deal of feminism, because they “just can’t quite get it right.” Just like feminism, there is a hidden agenda behind the climate whiners. It’s the same agenda. Manipulation, and Control of the profane masses. And a s~~~load of $$$.

Thank you for writing the reply that I was too lazy to write.

I might add that even if there would be global warming and even if it would be partially caused by humans I wouldn’t give a f~~~. I like it warm.

Lets see how you like it warm when you’re underwater if you live near the coast

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

bobphilo wrote:

Meister wrote:

Solomon’s Wisdom wrote:

bobphilo wrote:

Your sister’s lifestyle inconsistencies have nothing to do with the facts. Anyone who denies climate change flies in the face of all the scientific evidence. You might as well go on thinking that the world is flat in contradiction to all the scientific evidence.

Cite your evidence.

Humans have been collecting climate data for 150 years, to be generous. If you’re a creationist, this time frame represents .025% of a sample size. If you’re an evolutionist, this time frame represents .00000005% of a sample size. Would you trust a physician who told you he had a remedy for your disease and, by the way, it has a .00000005% chance of working?? Please.

Yes, I know that most of the conclusions have been drawn by computer modeling, but if you input s~~~ data or have a biased algorithm, then the results MUST be suspect.

When a movement changes it’s focus from “The coming Ice Age” in the 70’s/80’s to Global Warming in the 90’s to Abrupt Climate Change in the 2000’s to just-plain-ol Climate Change now, it reminds me a great deal of feminism, because they “just can’t quite get it right.” Just like feminism, there is a hidden agenda behind the climate whiners. It’s the same agenda. Manipulation, and Control of the profane masses. And a s~~~load of $$$.

Thank you for writing the reply that I was too lazy to write.

I might add that even if there would be global warming and even if it would be partially caused by humans I wouldn’t give a f~~~. I like it warm.

Lets see how you like it warm when you’re underwater if you live near the coast

I’ll just move inland.

Monk

[The Laughing ManParticipant 1020]

Pacifist wrote:

However when I expressed this view my sisters simply laughed at me as if it was the most obvious thing in the world.

Because it is, just ask the scientific community if your cognition is disconnected.

Meister wrote:

….
The whole climate change nonsense is total bulls~~~.

Incorrect, only your perception of the topic is likely due to misinformation and or lack of information.

Meister wrote:

I don’t think anyone is denying climate change.
The stupid weather always changes.

It’s the “man made” part that I take offense with.

Climate and weather are different and work on different time scales

This might help;

Its called man made because the time line of global population growth and CO2 emissions rise match up. Also it doesn’t take a rocket scientists to predict what will happen if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Solo MAN’S Wisdom wrote:

Cite your evidence.

Humans have been collecting climate data for 150 years, to be generous. If you’re a creationist, this time frame represents .025% of a sample size. If you’re an evolutionist, this time frame represents .00000005% of a sample size. Would you trust a physician who told you he had a remedy for your disease and, by the way, it has a .00000005% chance of working?? Please.

Yes, I know that most of the conclusions have been drawn by computer modeling, but if you input s~~~ data or have a biased algorithm, then the results MUST be suspect.

When a movement changes it’s focus from “The coming Ice Age” in the 70’s/80’s to Global Warming in the 90’s to Abrupt Climate Change in the 2000’s to just-plain-ol Climate Change now, it reminds me a great deal of feminism, because they “just can’t quite get it right.” Just like feminism, there is a hidden agenda behind the climate whiners. It’s the same agenda. Manipulation, and Control of the profane masses. And a s~~~load of $$$.

There is plenty of evidence out there, the burden of proof lies with you. Also what you’ve stated is purely conjecture. Atmospheric conditions can be found in ice cores and land sediment which date back a lot farther than 150 years. Computer sims are great but aren’t used as the end all be all for determining likely out comes.

Times change as does our scientific understanding of the world. Just because a model was updated doesn’t’ then discount any and all research on the subject matter. You’re committing a Fallacy Fallacy.

Meister wrote:

I’ll just move inland.

Great idea, what do you suppose everyone else will doing?

I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...or should I?

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

The Laughing Man wrote:

Meister wrote:

….
The whole climate change nonsense is total bulls~~~.

Incorrect, only your perception of the topic is likely due to misinformation and or lack of information.

Meister wrote:

I don’t think anyone is denying climate change.
The stupid weather always changes.

It’s the “man made” part that I take offense with.

Climate and weather are different and work on different time scales

This might help;
<iframe width=”500″ height=”281″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/cBdxDFpDp_k?feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

Its called man made because the time line of global population growth and CO2 emissions rise match up. Also it doesn’t take a rocket scientists to predict what will happen if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Solomon’s Wisdom wrote:

Cite your evidence.

Humans have been collecting climate data for 150 years, to be generous. If you’re a creationist, this time frame represents .025% of a sample size. If you’re an evolutionist, this time frame represents .00000005% of a sample size. Would you trust a physician who told you he had a remedy for your disease and, by the way, it has a .00000005% chance of working?? Please.

Yes, I know that most of the conclusions have been drawn by computer modeling, but if you input s~~~ data or have a biased algorithm, then the results MUST be suspect.

When a movement changes it’s focus from “The coming Ice Age” in the 70’s/80’s to Global Warming in the 90’s to Abrupt Climate Change in the 2000’s to just-plain-ol Climate Change now, it reminds me a great deal of feminism, because they “just can’t quite get it right.” Just like feminism, there is a hidden agenda behind the climate whiners. It’s the same agenda. Manipulation, and Control of the profane masses. And a s~~~load of $$$.

There is plenty of evidence out there, the burden of proof lies with you. Also what you’ve stated is purely conjecture. Atmospheric conditions can be found in ice cores and land sediment which date back a lot farther than 150 years. Computer sims are great but aren’t used as the end all be all for determining likely out comes.

Times change as does our scientific understanding of the world. Just because a model was updated doesn’t’ then discount any and all research on the subject matter. You’re committing a Fallacy Fallacy.

Meister wrote:

I’ll just move inland.

Great idea, what do you suppose everyone else will doing?

The sea levels ain’t doing s~~~ and if they do people will just move.

These CO2 – industrialization charts don’t prove s~~~ either.

I can make nonsense correlations with just about anything:

Monk

[The Laughing ManParticipant 1020]

Yes statistics can be manipulated, however, the chart of population / CO2 vs bed sheet tangling cheese addicts do not relate to each other. The fact still remains more people on the planet burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels.

The surface area of the plant can be calculated. The mass of the Ice at the poles can also be calculated. Its math that shows, not even science, that the seas will rise. You are aware the planet has finite space and resources?

I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...or should I?

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

The Laughing Man wrote:

Yes statistics can be manipulated, however, the chart of population / CO2 vs bed sheet tangling cheese addicts do not relate to each other. The fact still remains more people on the planet burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels.

The surface area of the plant can be calculated. The mass of the Ice at the poles can also be calculated. Its math that shows, not even science, that the seas will rise. You are aware the planet has finite space and resources?

And again:

This would just prove that the climate is changing.
Like it always does.

It doesn’t prove human causation.

Monk

[The Laughing ManParticipant 1020]

Meister wrote:

And again:

This would just prove that the climate is changing.
Like it always does.

It doesn’t prove human causation.

I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...or should I?

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

The Laughing Man wrote:

Meister wrote:

And again:

This would just prove that the climate is changing.
Like it always does.

It doesn’t prove human causation.

Monk

[Anonymous 3]

Pacifist wrote:

Why is it that so many people seem to think that having the right opinion on facebook is more important than having a life that reflects those views?

Because human beings are social animals and in most cases need to fit in.

[Author]

Posts