Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
Neon,
On global warming, it is often said that there is a "consensus" on the issue. However, there are too many scientists that disagree for a "general agreement or concord; harmony" to be said to exist. In fact - here is the proof of it:
Less than half of all published scientists support global warming theory.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641 |
Funny as I found several articles on the scientific databases which disagree with that article. Then there is the problem that no single scientific body of national or international standing has come out in dissent of GW. Unfortunately as is often the case, I can't offer them as they are in pay to view databases, in which most academic work is found.
Quote:
As for general data that points to errors in either the global warming theory itself - or what it means to the earth's ecology - here are some tidbits:
Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories
http://newsbusters.org/node/13948
|
This article is full of holes, it's heavily biased, and its working from the assumption of natural climate shifts only (global warming is more then just that), also the average global temperature increase claimed of 9 degrees F in the article flies in the face of most articles I have read which calculates the average temperature at about 5.5 degrees F. That makes me suspicious of the entire article.
Ya that is already known to the scientific community that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and taken into account in the theories and calculations. The problem is what is happening now is going far beyond the normal natural cycles, according to virtually all the data we have.
This article doesn't say a whole lot to me. First off the title is a dramatization, and isn't supported, as most of the scientific community according to the studies I have read supports the theories. Sure there are some dissenters, there always will be. Second I would be very interested in knowing who is funding them.
Quote:
|
The reality is - it is still a huge question. The recent emails that have been exposed simply bring that question into focus even more. When you have documented evidence that scientists willfully hid and destroyed original data, refused to allow independant review of their processes and computer models, and intentionally blacklisted other scientists who failed to uphold their desired view, I would say what they have done is not just "misconduct", but points to the fact that the real data didn't point to what they claim. We will see.
|
I have yet to see any actual evidence of wrong doing, just a lot of unsubstantiated claims coming from certain groups. If you have any actual evidence, please show me it as I would love to see it. I could also point to the huge swarms of false data and other crap coming from the other camp.
Oh and yes some scientific groups and individuals have been blacklisted. Mostly for committing demonstrable scientific fraud. SB covered that sufficiently though.
Quote:
|
On the theory of altruism is truly self-centered - I am vaguely familiar with it. The reality is that you can take any action that anyone does, and find some way to claim it is selfish. A parent does for their child, only because they want that child to love them. A person compliments a co-worker on their appearance, they are either "kissing a$$" or - if the person is the opposite sex, trying to get laid. Giving to charity makes them feel better about themselves.... etc etc.
|
Its actually found in several different theories, in 2 fields of human study. Parents love their children partly as they are genetically programed to, and the behavior is reinforced by hormonal responses. They also represent a continuation of themselves. Plus there is the socially conditioned and motivated reward of doing good by your kids, which when parents do as they have been socially conditioned to do, they naturally feel good about themselves (endorphins release).
A lot of this stuff is social conditioning. We are conditioned by our society to behave in certain ways, and when we do our brain reward ourselves (endorphins again). This is what can make such behavior egocentric, as are we acting for truly altruistic reasons, or are we really doing it for the reward we get for following social behavior.
Quote:
|
In many ways, its rather a "freudian" way of thinking, though he was preoccupied with sexuality and perversion, this is tied to selfcenteredness under every circumstance. Sorry, but those who subscribe to the theory are often doing what is called "projecting" - using their own personal views of how they see themselves (often without realizing it) onto every other person. There are plenty of mental health professionals that do not ascribe to the same theory.
|
Not really. Freud did certainly have an interest in human sexuality, which is unsurprising given that he came from one of the most sexually repressed societies in history (late Victorian, early Edwardian). Btw the concept of projection came from Freud himself
. This is actually based on much more modern research, including research using fMRI imaging of the brain showing the activated centers of the brain when doing certain things.
Quote:
|
Now - the free market and hard work issue. The American Dream is real my friend. Too many people live it and create it every day. Answer me this - how many people become successful by being lazy in a free market society? No - hard work does not guarantee success, and yes, it takes more than just that to succeed. However, I said a hard worker has an ADVANTAGE over a lazy person - I didn't say a hard worker had a guarantee of success. Yes, some people work hard and never make it. This is undeniable. But the free market gives no guarantees to rich or poor. It does however, offer the chance to rise above - should you accept the challenge. In a socialistic economy, that chance does not exist. Thus, which is better in that one aspect?
|
Hard work alone never guarantees success. Also hardly anyone achieves the American Dream, to become independently wealthy and successful. The vast majority slog it out day to day, never getting ahead. There is very little chance to get ahead to most people, unless they are dumb lucky, or are much smarter then average. I would also say that the smart lazy people have an advantage over the hard worker, they find the ways of getting others to do for them. There are also several lazy people who let their money work for them. To succeed in a free market system, you need to have your money work for you, not work for your money. But you need money in the first place to do that, or a hell of a lot of luck. Frankly I think intelligence in our society is a far more useful trait to have then hard work, you much more likely to go farther having that over the other, especially if you mix ruthlessness in.