Alpinism and Religion

To J Squared:  Brother/Sister help me understand.  I am unclear where it is you are planting your flag.  If, you are a Conservative (and that is fine), and believe that there are issues with how the vast majority of experts in the field of climate science interpret their work, then, how by definition of the word "conservative", does that give credit to an outlier in the data stream, and how/why then does their input influence you? 

Roy Suggett wrote: To J Squared:  Brother/Sister help me understand.  I am unclear where it is you are planting your flag.  If, you are a Conservative (and that is fine), and believe that there are issues with how the vast majority of experts in the field of climate science interpret their work, then, how by definition of the word "conservative", does that give credit to an outlier in the data stream, and how/why then does their input influence you? 

i'm so glad you said the phrase "outlier in the data stream"

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/

I'm not an imperialist.  I don't have a flag.
when a field of science is set on a course to take over how the world is run, you'd think you'd want to know the knitty gritty.

i think it's hilarious that people here call this a 'debate' but then constantly attack the source, not the idea, whenever a point is raised.

or can climber debates only be about things that are obvious?
how many of the 'anthro-co2 is going to surely kill us' crowd can say they've done as much research as possible on the subject? or are they at some point, giving up and making a leap of faith to the "97% agree"

J Squared wrote: how many of the 'anthro-co2 is going to surely kill us' crowd can say they've done as much research as possible on the subject? or are they at some point, giving up and making a leap of faith to the "97% agree"

There was a time where one person could have a good handle on the then-current body of science-based knowledge.  But that time on earth has long-since passed.

Today, my fallback is then to learn everything I can about the style of climbing that motivates me ... and, for the lesser life topics, I try to be discerning about who I take as an expert. ;)

So, yes, I am proud to say I have done no actual research on many many subjects.

J Squared wrote:

i'm so glad you said the phrase "outlier in the data stream"

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/

I'm not an imperialist.  I don't have a flag.
when a field of science is set on a course to take over how the world is run, you'd think you'd want to know the knitty gritty.

i think it's hilarious that people here call this a 'debate' but then constantly attack the source, not the idea, whenever a point is raised.

or can climber debates only be about things that are obvious?
how many of the 'anthro-co2 is going to surely kill us' crowd can say they've done as much research as possible on the subject? or are they at some point, giving up and making a leap of faith to the "97% agree"

Do you think "learning as much as you can" will put your knowledge level on par with one who has a PhD and works professionally in the field? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

It applies.

Zack Robinson wrote: Do you think "learning as much as you can" will put your knowledge level on par with one who has a PhD and works professionally in the field? 

i'm linking papers by people with PhD's in relevant fields who use empirical data to show there are some considerable flaws with the IPCC model structure.

in your delusional universe you seem to think i'm sitting here telling you "this is how the climate works".  Do you realize that a PhD program is essentially 4 things?  undergrad grunt work, grant writing, reading the scientists who came before you, attempting to do a research project that actually finds something.

meanwhile.. scientists from around the world are discovering the same flaws, and making it through peer review.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/What_went_wrong_999.html

 
it doesn't take a PHD to understand the idea being presented...that "the model isn't complex enough to provide enough accuracy that we should organize society around"

that.. "If IPCC Climate scientists were Physicists: The IPCC has found that the total net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6 W.m-2 with an error range of 0.6 to 2.4 W.m-2. If the IPCC’s same errors for Radiative Forcing Components were applied to the universal gravitational constant, IPCC climate scientists would tell us that the UGC is 6.67 × 10-11 N·m2/kg2 with a range of 2.5-10 N·m2/kg2. They would then assure us there is 90% certainty that acceleration due to gravity on Earth at sea level is in the range 3.7 to 14.7 m.s-2. IPCC climate scientists would tell us apples may be as light as a feather or as heavy as a brick. "

do you have some naive idea that everyone with a PHD is an altruistic perfect scientist who is completely uncorrupted by money and/or politics? (many of the scientists who release info disputing the IPCC model mention that politics drove them out of 'the 97%')
Should we ask all the professed Rationalists in this thread if they have a relevant PHDegree in Theology of some kind?  otherwise their opinion on God is clearly unfounded and doesn't qualify as knowledge?

if you DO hold the view that anyone without a 'PhD in a relevant field' is simply incapable of understanding the issues with the IPCC... you're admitting that you have faith in the IPCC, that you can't possibly understand it.  it's an act of belief.

http://climberswithchrist.com/

J Squared wrote:

 Do you realize that a PhD program is essentially 4 things?  undergrad grunt work, grant writing, reading the scientists who came before you, attempting to do a research project that actually finds something.

Much much more than that, there is a built-in winnowing of the field along the way. I’ll be judgmental here and say that a both knowledgeable and objective person would certainly have mentioned this when making such a list.

meanwhile.. scientists from around the world are discovering the same flaws, and making it through peer review.

And that is the nature of scientific research.  We should be cheering when flaws are found, and if there are flaws then in most cases many will find them.  Even the authors should be cheering though this is not always the case. Bad research exists. 

Still, it seems you and others believe the research on climate change has significantly and repeatedly got it wrong.  That the majority of it is bad research in the area of climate change. Perhaps that is not unlike concerns about the self-feeding of the military-industrial complex. I believe I get that though I have a contrary view.

J^2 - I sure hope you require all the believers in this thread to apply the same level of critical thinking to their religious beliefs. We can't let any "considerable flaws" in someone's model slip on by...

Wouldn't we want to replace fossil fuels even if temps were constant or cooling. Its a finite resource and when its starts running out... uhoh.

J Squared wrote:

i'm linking papers by people with PhD's in relevant fields who use empirical data to show there are some considerable flaws with the IPCC model structure.

in your delusional universe you seem to think i'm sitting here telling you "this is how the climate works".  Do you realize that a PhD program is essentially 4 things?  undergrad grunt work, grant writing, reading the scientists who came before you, attempting to do a research project that actually finds something.

meanwhile.. scientists from around the world are discovering the same flaws, and making it through peer review.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/What_went_wrong_999.html

 
it doesn't take a PHD to understand the idea being presented...that "the model isn't complex enough to provide enough accuracy that we should organize society around"

that.. "If IPCC Climate scientists were Physicists: The IPCC has found that the total net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6 W.m-2 with an error range of 0.6 to 2.4 W.m-2. If the IPCC’s same errors for Radiative Forcing Components were applied to the universal gravitational constant, IPCC climate scientists would tell us that the UGC is 6.67 × 10-11 N·m2/kg2 with a range of 2.5-10 N·m2/kg2. They would then assure us there is 90% certainty that acceleration due to gravity on Earth at sea level is in the range 3.7 to 14.7 m.s-2. IPCC climate scientists would tell us apples may be as light as a feather or as heavy as a brick. "

do you have some naive idea that everyone with a PHD is an altruistic perfect scientist who is completely uncorrupted by money and/or politics? (many of the scientists who release info disputing the IPCC model mention that politics drove them out of 'the 97%')
Should we ask all the professed Rationalists in this thread if they have a relevant PHDegree in Theology of some kind?  otherwise their opinion on God is clearly unfounded and doesn't qualify as knowledge?

if you DO hold the view that anyone without a 'PhD in a relevant field' is simply incapable of understanding the issues with the IPCC... you're admitting that you have faith in the IPCC, that you can't possibly understand it.  it's an act of belief.

Geology with a focus on oil exploration and extraction is NOT a relevant field.  How about linking from something that is NOT a tin-hat Climate denial website?  Everything you have posted has been thoroughly debunked, including the latest:

https://skepticalscience.com/monckton15errors.html
The problem is that your raging confirmation bias is causing you to seek out articles that agree with your preconceived notion founded at the top of mount stupid, which you climbed by watching Fox News and/or “research,” while ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts your opinion.

JW...you made me smile!!  Thanks.

Ted Pinson wrote: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/paperpdf/seersucker.pdf

Ted Pinson wrote:

Geology with a focus on oil exploration and extraction is NOT a relevant field.  How about linking from something that is NOT a tin-hat Climate denial website?  Everything you have posted has been thoroughly debunked, including the latest:

https://skepticalscience.com/monckton15errors.html
The problem is that your raging confirmation bias is causing you to seek out articles that agree with your preconceived notion founded at the top of mount stupid, which you climbed by watching Fox News and/or “research,” while ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts your opinion.

the scientific method is founded on doubt... and testing a hypothesis from all angles.
how are you going to learn anything new by only listening to the people who already believe that "we're all going to die in 12 years unless we 'fix the climate'

your raging bias to not look at anything which is contrary to your norms is quite sad.

oh please, paragons of intellect.  debunk this
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php/645-climate-tipping-alarm-vs-scientific-forecasting

or debunk this.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/28/nature-unbound-ix-21st-century-climate-change/

meanwhile.. out in the real world. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trudeau-stands-alone-as-canada-and-the-world-abandons-green-energy

What mountain climbing and religion share in common is faith in and gambling on uncertain outcomes you can't but be sure about until you actually arrive.

Healyje wrote: What mountain climbing and religion share in common is faith in and gambling on uncertain outcomes you can't but be sure about until you actually arrive.

And what leads up to the “arrival” seems quite different compared to the historically dominant religion (US).

In mountain climbing, the older I get, the journey is more meaningful than being on top. And bailing is not failure - just part of the journey - though the chance of returning to try again draws me but is not paramount.

With religion, getting to the top is usually the eternal everything. And how you did it is diminished in that eternity. And bailing is unthinkable which leads to all sorts of surprising partnerships.

Roy Suggett wrote: A connection between alpinism and religion...I do not think so, maybe spiritualism.

Is there always a difference between spiritualism and religion? No. Not always.

Jon Po wrote:

Is there always a difference between spiritualism and religion? No. Not always.

Please explain when there is no difference between the two.  

Bill Lawry wrote:

With religion, getting to the top is usually the eternal everything. And how you did it is diminished in that eternity.

We’re back on topic for a hot second! Thanks, Bill. Could you expound on your second sentence there? 

If quotes are still allowed on this thread , someone more versed in CS Lewis than me can pull out that one that’s to the effect of “If you die and find out Christianity is false, at least you will have lived well.” </butcher> (Can’t find it at the moment because I’m a bit wheeeee after returning to Colorado after a month in EPC). But the gist is that a spiritual life is its own intrinsic reward, even if the afterlife is bunk.

Of course, calling yourself an religious person and then being a hypocritical, judgmental asshole for all of your life is not really an intrinsic reward. But allegedly, if you attain inner peace and true joy even in the midst of adversity, that’s something worthwhile.

The problem of pain is perhaps the most important question any worldview can address. I’d like to hear some different views on that. Why is there suffering in the world? (aside from offwidth). What should we do about it? As our very own Dr. Watson said twenty pages ago, how does your worldview/religion/science/ answer the question “How should I deal with the death of my friend?”