Friday's for future?

[StevenC]

a consensus that she herself couldnt have come to

It's almost like you don't know what that word means.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

It's almost like you don't know what that word means.

MetalHex confirmed.

 

[Darchetype]

It's almost like you don't know what that word means.

Yeah she can come to a consensus but it's based on other peoples data. It's not like she was in the field collecting and analyzing data herself. So shes preaching like she knows it's its the truth.

 

[narad]

That's just my point, when the minority, non-funded scientists come out with "opposing" data, they and their data are the ones being shut up, or else we would hear more about it. (I dont have names and numbers off the top of my head, and I dont want to start a war of throwing numbers and charts at each other).

MetalHex confirmed.

Yeah she can come to a consensus but it's based on other peoples data. It's not like she was in the field collecting and analyzing data herself. So shes preaching like she knows it's its the truth.

Lol, better to be out on a guitar forum posting an opinion based on other peoples data that doesn't even exist, preaching like they know it's the truth.

 

[zappatton2]

It should be mentioned that pure science follows the evidence. It can entertain multiple hypothesis when there are large gaps in knowledge that require scientifically informed speculation. But as gaps in that knowledge fill in, the path between cause and effect becomes much clearer and better defined. There's a point where you set aside the random speculation and build on the knowledge you've accumulated.

We are affecting the climate dramatically. It is a serious issue, likely the most serious issue. And the youth and future generations will bear the brunt of it. Of anyone, I can't think of a generation who should be more invested in the future, we can't survive on the ingrained nostalgia of my generation.

 

[Drew]

That's just my point, when the minority, non-funded scientists come out with "opposing" data, they and their data are the ones being shut up, or else we would hear more about it. (I dont have names and numbers off the top of my head, and I dont want to start a war of throwing numbers and charts at each other).

I dont have a hard time believeing that a 16 year old girl can think for herself...but if you stop for a second and think about it, there is a reason that she is plastered all over the media. Her 15 minutes should have been 15 minutes. The media should have said "well here is this young girl getting involved in politics, she is getting other kids her age involved and has a following. Isn't that nice? Now back to Jim for the weather". They should have left it at that. If there are 16 year old kids who are involved politically, and have opposite view points as her, and also have a following, why arent they being plastered on the news?

Ultimately she is being used to fear monger, shame and guilt trip everybody. And her demeanor and delivery is perfect for that. Also she can think for herself, but that doesn't mean she knows. She is yelling at people based on a consensus that she herself couldnt have come to

I mean, there's one fundamental problem with everything you're saying here.

To all practical extents and purposes, there is no "minority" of scientists working independently and claiming global man-made climate change is a hoax. There have been virtually no peer-reviewed scientific publications concluding man-made climate change was NOT happening - as of 2013, 0.7% of peer-reviewed publications concluded man-made factors were not to blame, while 0.3% were uncertain about the cause. That percentage has been declining over time, and 1% of the scientific community coming to some other conclusion is pretty consistent with using a realistic p-value for statistical tests - you SHOULD get occasional-yet-rare false positives in statistical analysis. If that "minority" runs beyond statistical noise, at that point you should get concerned.

The most disingenuous part of this whole discussion, honestly, is that there's somehow "two sides." The scientific method starts by accepting the null hypothesis - that climate change is NOT occurring due to man-made factors. To publish a paper concluding it is happening, you go about trying to prove that it isn't. 97% of scientists trying to do this are unable to do so, and in turn have to reject the null hypothesis and accept the hypothesis that man-made factors are in play. This is elementary school scientific process stuff. There is no "silenced minority" here.

The reason we don't give equal attention to 16 year olds with opposite points of view is that we as a society don't equate ignorance with expertise. We don't give a platform to poorly-informed individuals who are flat-out wrong, to allow them to spread disinformation. That's a good thing.

And again, with no evidence, you keep insisting she's being "used." Put up or shut up.

 

[StevenC]

I mean, there's one fundamental problem with everything you're saying here.

To all practical extents and purposes, there is no "minority" of scientists working independently and claiming global man-made climate change is a hoax. There have been virtually no peer-reviewed scientific publications concluding man-made climate change was NOT happening - as of 2013, 0.7% of peer-reviewed publications concluded man-made factors were not to blame, while 0.3% were uncertain about the cause. That percentage has been declining over time, and 1% of the scientific community coming to some other conclusion is pretty consistent with using a realistic p-value for statistical tests - you SHOULD get occasional-yet-rare false positives in statistical analysis. If that "minority" runs beyond statistical noise, at that point you should get concerned.

The most disingenuous part of this whole discussion, honestly, is that there's somehow "two sides." The scientific method starts by accepting the null hypothesis - that climate change is NOT occurring due to man-made factors. To publish a paper concluding it is happening, you go about trying to prove that it isn't. 97% of scientists trying to do this are unable to do so, and in turn have to reject the null hypothesis and accept the hypothesis that man-made factors are in play. This is elementary school scientific process stuff. There is no "silenced minority" here.

The reason we don't give equal attention to 16 year olds with opposite points of view is that we as a society don't equate ignorance with expertise. We don't give a platform to poorly-informed individuals who are flat-out wrong, to allow them to spread disinformation. That's a good thing.

And again, with no evidence, you keep insisting she's being "used." Put up or shut up.

If I were in charge of this forum I'd have made a sticky thread in P&CE with a Stats 101 course inside.

 

[Drew]

If I were in charge of this forum I'd have made a sticky thread in P&CE with a Stats 101 course inside.

I used to be, you know. Sometimes I wish I'd never stepped down.

 

[jaxadam]

I used to be, you know. Sometimes I wish I'd never stepped down.

Well, I can be your campaign manager. We’ll take this thing home in 2020.

Vote for Drew P&CE Super Moderator!

 

[Drew]

That's the LAST thing this place needs. I don't have time for it these days anyway, to be perfectly honest. One site is enough.

 

[Mathemagician]

I didn't want to go into the whole climate thing, I am just addressing the girl. She is being used as the mouth piece for fear mongering and shame/guilt tripping/virtue signaling, because she is a kid and apparently kids know better and we should listen to kids. (In this situation she is just parroting).

But just because a bunch of people have come to a consensus, it doesn't mean we should stop research there since consensus doesn't mean that it's the truth. The way I look at it is that in real science real inquiry and real investigation into the truth, there is no room for consensus.

Consensus IS science.

Gravity is explained by Einstein’s THEORY of General Relativity.

Man, sometimes you just can’t take fundamentalists anywhere nice. Basically because they believe everything their chosen book says verbatim, it allows them to ignore science because science is and always has been “group consensus”.

In other words: she personally may be repeating what she’s told. But what’s she’s told to say is accurate based on the entire body of climate science.

Excluding reports commissioned by major polluters and interest groups.

Publicly funded research all arrives at the same premise.

Unless you are an illiterate who refuses to admit that the world’s scientific community may know more than you on the subject they’ve studied their entire careers.

I cannot imagine saying “competition brings prices down” and having someone argue with me and say “I believe that economic theory can’t be verified and therefore isn’t valid”.

Funny, fundamentalists don’t argue with economists or money managers. That entire field is based on assumptions and theory.

 

[Darchetype]

Ultimately she is being used to fear monger, shame and guilt trip everybody.

you keep insisting she's being "used."

In other words: she personally may be repeating what she’s told.

That is my main point. She is being used. It's very Hitler-esque. I dont know where you're getting this "fundamentalist" nonsense from.

 

[jaxadam]

That's the LAST thing this place needs. I don't have time for it these days anyway, to be perfectly honest. One site is enough.

No one runs campaigns like me. I run the best campaigns. I'll run a campaign so good it will make your head spin.

 

[MFB]

That is my main point. She is being used. I dont know where you're getting this "fundamentalist" nonsense from.

Show.
Us.
The.
Proof.

 

[Drew]

That is my main point. She is being used. It's very Hitler-esque. I dont know where you're getting this "fundamentalist" nonsense from.

Again:

And again, with no evidence, you keep insisting she's being "used." Put up or shut up.

 

[Darchetype]

This is not proof, this is not even evidence, it is just a meme. But it is one that demonstrates the striking similarity between the propaganda techniques that the Nazi's used to fear monger. Combine that with her delivery, and that's why I said the whole technique is very "Hitler-esque".

 

[Mathemagician]

That is my main point. She is being used. It's very Hitler-esque. I dont know where you're getting this "fundamentalist" nonsense from.

How is that what you are taking away?

This is from someone giving a presentation saying “we have destroyed coral reefs, we are burning the Amazon, oceans are rising, average global temps are increasing annually, and ice shelves have melted that won’t be coming back.”

And you have been convinced to focus on WHO sent the message rather than the message itself?

You. You are the fundamentalist.

 

[Darchetype]

How is that what you are taking away?

This is from someone giving a presentation saying “we have destroyed coral reefs, we are burning the Amazon, oceans are rising, average global temps are increasing annually, and ice shelves have melted that won’t be coming back.”

And you have been convinced to focus on WHO sent the message rather than the message itself?

You. You are the fundamentalist.

Not WHO. HOW.

 

[StevenC]

This is not proof, this is not even evidence, it is just a meme. But it is one that demonstrates the striking similarity between the propaganda techniques that the Nazi's used to fear monger. Combine that with her delivery, and that's why I said the whole technique is very "Hitler-esque". View attachment 73473

Holy shit it actually is MetalHex.

 

[Drew]

This is not proof, this is not even evidence, it is just a meme. But it is one that demonstrates the striking similarity between the propaganda techniques that the Nazi's used to fear monger. Combine that with her delivery, and that's why I said the whole technique is very "Hitler-esque". View attachment 73473

Seriously? This is the strength of your argument?

This is a watercolor painting by Hitler, who was an aspiring painter before he was an aspiring dictator.

This is Disneyworld

OMG MICKEY MOUSE IS BEING USED WALT DISNEY IS A FEARMONGERER BAN FROZEN ITS JUST NAZI PROPHAGANDA!!!!!!!

Seriously man. If you're going to make wild accusations like "Greta Thunberg is being used" then it's going to take a little more than a meme to be taken seriously here. This isn't 4chan.

Holy shit it actually is MetalHex.

Their idea of what constitutes evidence is almost identical, no? I'd be curious to see an IP address.