[New Users] Please note that all new users need to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours. Thank you for your patience.
Check out the v.229 On Air: An Absolute Unit Patch Notes here!
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forums Code of Conduct: https://forums.maplestory.nexon.net/discussion/29556/code-of-conducts

Sandwich

About

Username
Sandwich
Joined
Visits
169
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
2,630
Badges
18
Posts
155
Birthday
January 10, 1999
Personal Quote
"If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time." - Ken M
About Me
Just a sandwich, move along. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  • Climate Change

    And only a fool places 100% trust in anything and everything a scientist says. The scientific method is not about finding evidence that supports your claim. The idea of the scientific process is to try and disprove your claim so that the only other possibility is that your claim is right. If your claim is that all swans are white then you don't go about proving it by finding a bunch of white swan and go "there, see." You go about it by trying to find any other color swans that would contradict your claim. The same goes anthropomorphic climate change or anything else. It is unscientific to go "well every scientist agrees with me, that means I must be right." You don't need a fancy degree to be a scientist. A scientist is merely someone that follows the scientific method. So long as you use the method, for whatever it may be, you are being a scientist.

    Your entire argument is predicated on the the illusion that the majority of scientists agree with you. You even said it, the stat comes from the percentage of those who expressed an opinion. But the majority of scientists did not state a position, so that majority group is not represented. So to say that 97% of scientists agree with man-made climate change is false because not every scientist was equally taken into consideration, only those that expressed an opinion which are the minority. And again, it still didn't make the distinction between humans being the main cause and humans being a cause. I would love to hear from the ones who says that humans are not the main or even a cause. Don't you think that's more interesting and informational than hearing that humans are the main cause which you've already heard a thousand times? I don't even have to rely on the appeal to popularity fallacy for this.
    I don't put 100% trust in everything that comes from science. Not sure if you were referring to me or Scarlet there, but I don't automatically trust everything that comes from science. It's all about evidence, and there is evidence for climate change, and anthropological climate change.
    It's the same reason I don't believe in god, and the same reason I know evolution is real. Evidence. (or a lack thereof)

    On a more semantic point, I think the scientific process is hardly about trying to prove yourself right or wrong. It's just about making a hypothesis and collecting data to evaluate that hypothesis. I guess you can call yourself a scientist as long as you follow the scientific method by your definition, but that doesn't give you any credibility in the scientific community. Like I mentioned before it's so much more complicated than that.

    The popularity fallacy does apply here, I'll admit.
    Implying that global warming is true just because a lot of scientists say it's so (as I did) is wrong.
    However, I'm not just saying that it's true because scientists did a hand vote and most of them agree, but because that number points towards the large body of evidence which supports anthropological climate change.
    Lilyflower
  • Climate Change

    Well, the thing you need to understand is that when talking about climate change you're talking about a geological time scale... meaning things won't change overnight and as things slowly change, we'll automatically adapt regardless.
    That's really not true though. Our infrastructure isn't going to adapt to anything when the sea levels rise. Venice isn't a very good example either since it was basically built on water in the first place. They can much more easily make smaller adaptations to water levels than can the average city.

    The affects it will have on us are not going to be so slow that they'll hardly be a problem.(Honestly no matter how slow they were this would still be a problem) This is by no means saying "WE HAVE THREE YEARS TO BUILD NOAH'S ARC", but we will see the effects and they are going to be serious issues.

    The most obvious effect is the Earth's water cycles being thrown way off. Humans have already crowded Earth, and rising water levels only make it worse. We lose land, for living, and land for production, which is serious. Melting ice and higher oceans also means more evaporation, and more violent weather. The shift of climates will affect habitats of many animals, and may lead to the collapse of ecosystems. Farmers are having problems keeping up with increasingly unpredictable weather patterns, and the increasing heat is making the world more habitable for disease and pests.
    I could name some more, but the idea is that climate change will have an impact on us and we're not just going to adapt it away so easily.
    Lilyflower
  • Climate Change

    The point isn't whether climate change exists, it obviously does, the point of contention is whether or not climate change is influenced by mankind and, most importantly, whether any level of irrational fear/hysteria is justified.

    Most people don't even believe in climate change because they've been LIED TO again and again and again. Largely as a result of fear mongering hysteria. I mean just look at Al Gore's original propaganda video making insane level claims about how the whole planet should have been destroyed YEARS ago... and yet... here we all are! You can only lie to people so many times before you start to lose their trust.

    On the whole though, a return of the Holocene Climatic Optimum is not something anyone should be afraid of... in fact, it would be a VERY GOOD THING! Unfortunately we're no where even close to getting back to it. We'd have to increase greenhouse gas emissions by upwards of 500% and even then it would likely take several hundred years to actually reach that point...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

    Would be nice to get back the Sahara rain forest though!
    Holocene Climatic Optimum sounds pretty cool. Yet... that would still bring the plethora of issues climate change has placed on our doorstep.
    It's really not about fear or hysteria though, it's just about the facts. Climate change is going to cause some major problems in years to come, partly because of mankind, and partly due to nature. When people deny it exists or refuse to address the problem (especially politicians like Donald Trump) it's making things worse for everyone.

    Edit: Reading a little more about the Holocene Warm Period, it's hard to apply it to current events, because the Holocene had very different causes than today's climate change. Holocene was mostly caused by orbital forcing. In other words, the gradual change in the orbit of Earth around the Sun changed the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. What we observe today has much more to do with humans. In fact, scientists calculated that if we lived in the same conditions as the Holocene period today, it would actually be even hotter than it was then.
    Lilyflower
  • Arlong endorses Donald Trump

    Honestly I just don't see any reason to vote for him. I used to dislike the two equally: Trump was a fool and Hillary dishonest. But now, Trump is beginning to tell as many if not more lies than Hillary.
    Just in the recent debate between the two it was counted by one article (probably leaned left, to be fair) that Trump said around 34 things that were either wrong, misleading, or complete lies. Ironically Hillary had much less.
    A good example is when he denied saying that "global warming is a chinese hoax" during the debate, but it's pretty obvious he did if you literally just go through his twitter:

    image


    Not to mention him lying about the Iraq war. While there are sources showing his public support for the Iraq war before we went in, all he had was "ask Sean Hannity".
    The article he cites about him being against the war was when they were already a year in.
    There's him refusing to release his tax returns, and blaming ISIS on Obama even though he wasn't even president when ISIS started.
    There's the whole birther movement that he continued to press even after Obama proved himself, and then him trying to say Doyle said it too even though she actually didn't.
    Recently his Trump Foundation which ran for years was forcefully shut down because they actually lacked the certifications to take money from the public.

    In addition to making a fool of himself there's a whole other list of idiotic things that Mike Pence or Trump's campaign people have said as well. It's just too much...

    I'm not fond of Clinton either. She told some lies too at the debate, and that's not to mention the email mess, her continually lying about the classification of the emails, and denying for a while that she did anything wrong. I was surprised when she admitted fault in the debate.
    There's also DWS and the DNC in general screwing over Bernie Sanders which was pretty lame. When DWS resigned after the leaks, Hillary immediately made her the honorary chair of her campaign. That had me livid.

    Yet, I find myself leaning towards Hillary after that debate.

    I'm curious what Trump supporters think about all this stuff.
    UzumeWillScarletSqampLilyflower
  • Reasons to main Jett

    ---------------------------------------------------------







    ---------------------------------------------------------
    HolyGiraffeLilyflowerQucc