Mountain Project Logo

Alpinism and Religion


Matt N · · Santa Barbara, CA · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 302

J Squared, RE: the green new deal and all past overambitious legislation

Isn't Social Security Communism or just Socialism? What about Medicare? All the Right wing folks rant and rave about socialism but try taking away their SS or Medicare. Something the Right has actually talked about. Obama never talked about taking your guns, despite the hysteria.

The EPA/Clean Air/Water acts, catalytic converters, etc - all the "pro-business" people bitched and moaned that we'd never be able to make engines cleaner and more efficient - look at LAs air quality today vs the 70s 80s and 90s. It takes aggressive legislation to get worthwhile projects done. CA green building codes, earthquake standards, solar requirements, LED, etc - all the builders bitch and moan that it will make homes too expensive to build, etc. Somehow they get build and people still make their money.

The anti-science, anti-progress, "bring America back[wards] to 'Greatness'" crowd is so gullible that they must believe in false idols - how else would Trump have been elected? Sanders says that it must have been God's plan - ugh, what an ass-kissing true-believer. Talk about not seeing through the cloud.

If that is the side of history you want to be on and support - I sure hope your side loses. (Nothing personal and all that - believe what you want to believe, etc)

Roy Suggett · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 7,609

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? 

J Squared · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2017 · Points: 0
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"
Josh Cameron · · M.O.A.B. · Joined Nov 2010 · Points: 1,120

Who gives a f***? Just climb the damn mountain. The view from the top is probably pretty neat.

Bill Lawry · · New Mexico · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,631
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.
Zack Robinson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2018 · Points: 0
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? 
Ted Pinson · · Chicago, IL · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 210
Josh Cameron · · M.O.A.B. · Joined Nov 2010 · Points: 1,120
Ted Pinson wrote: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Oh no, here we go again. 

Ted Pinson · · Chicago, IL · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 210

It applies.

Josh Cameron · · M.O.A.B. · Joined Nov 2010 · Points: 1,120

I'd say in general, yeah.

When many experienced climbers screw up, they often say it was a "beginner's mistake." I wonder how this theory would account for them. Just curious.

J Squared · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2017 · Points: 0
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.
Ryan Locati · · Bozeman · Joined Jul 2015 · Points: 70
Bill Lawry · · New Mexico · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,631
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.
Matt N · · Santa Barbara, CA · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 302

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...

bttrrtRock Charles · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 5

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.

Ted Pinson · · Chicago, IL · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 210
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.
Jaren Watson · · Idaho · Joined May 2010 · Points: 2,395
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.

It should be noted that while others have made the summit, I’ve got the first free ascent.

Roy Suggett · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 7,609

JW...you made me smile!!  Thanks.

J Squared · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2017 · Points: 0
J Squared · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2017 · Points: 0
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
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Alpinism and Religion "

Log In to Reply