3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, olofscience said:
On 9/15/2020 at 8:11 AM, Coreece said:

Appeal to irrelevant authority.

It's pretty relevant if the discussion is knowledge of bias. In a discussion of primarily science-related debate ("green new deal equals magical thinking") it's especially relevant.

But in this case you're just using John's accomplishments to avoid discussion.

 

18 hours ago, olofscience said:

And who do you think is creating and managing those controlled settings?   People in advertising like you?

Groups of scientists that actually explain their reasoning, rather than some arrogant wannabe on the internet hiding behind their credentials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:
On 9/15/2020 at 8:11 AM, Coreece said:

...Because even in a controlled setting scientists can't be trusted with their own bias, let alone some internet forum.

Seriously?

Then what's the point of having a double blind study, to increase bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kallend said:
19 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Then what's the point of having a double blind study, to increase bias?

Confusing medicine with science.

Who, Olof?  Let's see what he has to say about that:

 

On 9/15/2020 at 4:01 AM, olofscience said:

scientists know what kind of biases exist, how to identify it in scientific papers, and how to correct for it. Bias is literally one of the FIRST things we have consider. Ever wonder why the covid-19 vaccine trials are done double blind?

Hey Olof, John thinks you're confusing medicine with science - but I'm sure that's ok since you're a scientist and have all the credentials to prove it.:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Who, Olof?  Let's see what he has to say about that:

 

Hey Olof, John thinks you're confusing medicine with science - but I'm sure that's ok since you're a scientist and have all the credentials to prove it.:p

Tell us what, exactly, medicine has to do with the Green New Deal (the actual topic of this thread) and how you would perform a double blind science experiment on energy conversion and transmission.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 7:20 AM, brenthutch said:

Your refusal to engage at a substantive level reveals your inability to do so.  If the Prager video was so awful it would be easy to rebut, however it isn’t and you can’t.

Idiotic reasoning like this is why flat earthers are becoming more prevalent. Why anti-vaxxers are gaining traction. Just because somebody puts something somewhere doesn't mean it is worthy of discussion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Hey Olof, John thinks you're confusing medicine with science - but I'm sure that's ok since you're a scientist and have all the credentials to prove it.

I think you are once again confusing science and medicine.

Scientists have bias.   All scientists want to discover things, and that can affect the outcome of their work.  They, unlike laypeople, have a lot of training in how to overcome this - isolation from outside effects, accurate data collection, design-of-experiment and  independent verification of results are among the many tools they have.  They have this training because most of their work involves uncertainty.

Doctors - and especially patients in trials - have bias.  All doctors want to cure their patients, and all patients want to be cured.  They do NOT have training in how to overcome this, since most doctors are not researchers; they are practitioners.  Thus double blind studies are needed to help remove that bias.

You didn't understand what Kallend said, and you didn't understand what Olof said if you think they are disagreeing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Groups of scientists that actually explain their reasoning

okay, so...

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Hey Olof, John thinks you're confusing medicine with science - but I'm sure that's ok since you're a scientist and have all the credentials to prove it.

Your posts have just quickly crossed into "so stupid it's not worth my time to respond" level, so I won't waste my time. Now I understand why kallend only answers some questions.

Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, billvon said:

You didn't understand what Kallend said, and you didn't understand what Olof said if you think they are disagreeing.

That's how I understood Olof, but figured John was likely pointing out the patient vs doctor angle.  But still, even the researchers processing the data aren't aware until everything is final, then the results are revealed, right? 

This is all really beside the point that merely saying you're a scientist and adept to pointing out bias is no way a substitute for actually doing it.

All this crap about bias and my career in advertising are just attempts at deflection.

 

55 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Just because somebody puts something somewhere doesn't mean it is worthy of discussion.

Ya, that's the problem - apparently you don't think that the limitations of reaching net zero by 2050 are worthy of discussion, and that any such naysers must be biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ya, that's the problem - apparently you don't think that the limitations of reaching net zero by 2050 are worthy of discussion, and that any such naysers must be biased.

More than willing to discuss. So far the majority of the discussion has started with:

Climate Change doesn't exist.

If it does exist it is a Chinese Hoax

If it does exist it is natural and beneficial

If it does exist we cannot change it anyways.

What I haven't seen much, if anything of:

Climate change is a problem, aiming to reduce emissions and pollutants is worthwhile, but gee maybe 2050 is a bit ambitious.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

That's how I understood Olof, but figured John was likely pointing out the patient vs doctor angle.  But still, even the researchers processing the data aren't aware until everything is final, then the results are revealed, right? 

Depends on the design of the trial.  Usually the people doing the data processing are the researchers themselves, so they wait as long as they can before they break the blind.

Quote

Ya, that's the problem - apparently you don't think that the limitations of reaching net zero by 2050 are worthy of discussion, and that any such naysers must be biased.


That's a great topic of discussion.  "It's all a big media hoax" is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

That's how I understood Olof, but figured John was likely pointing out the patient vs doctor angle.  But still, even the researchers processing the data aren't aware until everything is final, then the results are revealed, right? 

This is all really beside the point that merely saying you're a scientist and adept to pointing out bias is no way a substitute for actually doing it.

All this crap about bias and my career in advertising are just attempts at deflection.

 

Ya, that's the problem - apparently you don't think that the limitations of reaching net zero by 2050 are worthy of discussion, and that any such naysers must be biased.

The subject of bias arose in the context of PragerU, quoted by BrentH..  Dennis Prager is a bigot, and a conservative activist who makes no pretense to be unbised. 

Your comments on bias are irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and just throwing dust into the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, kallend said:

Your comments on bias are irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and just throwing dust into the air.

How about the comments on the National Academy of Engineering with regard to wind and solar?  I will refresh your memory,

“Many people believe that wind and solar energy are essential for replacing nonrenewable fossil fuels. They also believe that wind and solar are unique in providing energy that’s carbon-free and inexhaustible. A closer look shows that such beliefs are based on illusions and wishful thinking.”

Did you catch that?  Illusions and wishful thinking.  It reminds me of my original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

How about the comments on the National Academy of Engineering with regard to wind and solar?  I will refresh your memory,

“Many people believe that wind and solar energy are essential for replacing nonrenewable fossil fuels. They also believe that wind and solar are unique in providing energy that’s carbon-free and inexhaustible. A closer look shows that such beliefs are based on illusions and wishful thinking.”

Did you catch that?  Illusions and wishful thinking.  It reminds me of my original post.

I realize that you can read and recognize words, but do you ever stop and try to figure out what they mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kallend said:

The subject of bias arose in the context of PragerU, quoted by BrentH..  Dennis Prager is a bigot, and a conservative activist who makes no pretense to be unbised. 

Your comments on bias are irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and just throwing dust into the air.

He asked a pretty relevant question that you keep ignoring.

What specifics in the video do you disagree with?

Which do you have to admit are true?

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

“Many people believe that wind and solar energy are essential for replacing nonrenewable fossil fuels. They also believe that wind and solar are unique in providing energy that’s carbon-free and inexhaustible. A closer look shows that such beliefs are based on illusions and wishful thinking.”

And yet I power my house and both my cars 100% from solar.  I guess Fred Singer has some gaps in his experience.  I'll go with reality over a paid fossil fuel shill any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

He asked a pretty relevant question that you keep ignoring.

What specifics in the video do you disagree with?

Which do you have to admit are true?

He can’t. That is why he has resorted to name calling and personal attacks.  It is typical left wing tripe.  Of course I give him some credit for obfuscating an otherwise loosing argument.  The alternative is that he truly believes that solar panels and windmills last forever and are constructed by gnomes and fairies and not by fossil fuel intensive industrial processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 typical left wing tripe.

Dude, you were quoting Fred f*cking Singer.  The guy who was paid by the tobacco industry to deny that smoking caused cancer, and then by oil companies to deny climate change.  That's as tripe-y as it gets.  And that's what you base your worldview on?  Not reality, but on what a paid denier says?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kallend didn’t like Prager, he said he trusts  the National Academy of Engineering, so I quoted a source on their website.  The fact of the matter is that views expressed on both articles are true and you are having difficulty dealing with the message so you attack the messenger.  I guess Michael Moore is also a right wing hack in the pockets of big oil and big tobacco. (Face palm)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3