5 ms·

The article has a weird tone. Why is he being so agressive against people who think the opposite of him? I mean if you are tolerant against people whose religi

The article has a weird tone. Why is he being so agressive against people who think the opposite of him? I mean if you are tolerant against people whose religion place the women in a submission role and restrain to nothing individual rights, you can be also tolerant to people who think the earth is not warming up.

alexkiritz 12y ago
Who ever agreed to be tolerant of fascist religions?
cushychicken 12y ago
I'll wager a guess that it's because the stakes of being wrong on climate change are pretty high.
- refurb 12y ago
  Isn't the stakes of being wrong in the other direction (that global warming isn't happening) just as high? Imagine if we spend billions/trillions of dollars trying to capture CO2, reduce oil consumption, etc. and it turns out CO2 wasn't the cause of global warming. That money could have done a lot of good if spent in other ways (i.e. lift millions of people out of poverty).
  - cushychicken 12y ago
    So we end up spending billions/trillions of dollars reducing consumption of nonrenewable resources and developing cleaner technology. What a waste.
pizza234 12y ago
Well, it's more complicated than "thinking the opposite"; it's more along the lines of "thinking the opposite of what hurts the wallet". Religion is a correct analogy. If in a certain culture, women are submitted, that doesn't hurt people outside it. People globally feels - and is, actually - threatened by global warming, so it's understandable to have ahem heat directed to people with power and without sense of collaboration (and I'm using an euphemism here), which is the current requirement for working out the problem.
waps 12y ago
Somehow that doesn't seem to be possible. The entire question is a fraud of course : the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. While that does satisfy some standards used in science, no scientist in his right mind would refer to that as "proven", because it isn't. So here's my version : 1) There is no argument from either maths, or even a simulation from first principles (NOT measured data and statistics and correlations) that shows a scenario like global warming. 2) principle of the excluded third ("tertium non datur") was an accepted standard in logic before Christ was born. It states that any statement that cannot be proven from first principles is disproved just by that fact (NOT wrong, but that wasn't asked) Ergo, climate science disproved. Or at least, there is no known proof. There is loads and loads of statistical correlations indicating it exists, but there is no correct argument from first principles known, which is what I'd require to say "proof". It is overwhelmingly likely (well I haven't checked, but I believe them) that it exists, but not proven. Now please keep in mind what I am and am not claiming here before you vilify me. I am claiming that climate science is very far from satisfying the standard used in exact sciences that is referred to when scientists use the word "proof". Obviously I am not claiming that global warming will reverse or is just a mistake or whatever. The graph has been rising pretty constantly for 150 years or so, and yes, it absolutely does not look like it will reverse. This is however very far from having an explanation from first principles for climate change.
- leephillips 12y ago
  While the idea of "proof" here is just a distraction, we have vastly more than merely "statistical correlations". We know that we've significantly increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and we have a pretty good idea of what that does to a climate: "Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect." From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.
rossjudson 12y ago
Because they don't just "think" the opposite of him; they claim that they have a scientific basis for their position. It's like the difference between hearing someone committed a crime, and watching them commit it (and testifying about it). We certainly tolerate people who think unicorns fly out of pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, but we don't let them make decisions that will affect the health and well-being of a significant part of the planet's population.
- belovedeagle 12y ago
  This is the very definition of dogmatism. You literally just claimed that thinking differently is okay, as long as it's not your sacred cow which is getting involved in the discussion. Let me help you understand what this sounds like: "Because they don't just 'think' that evolution is real; they claim that the bible isn't the inspired Word of God!" That's absolutely no different than what you just wrote: science is your "inspired Word" about which no one can disagree, even if they're allowed to disagree about everything else.
Guthur 12y ago
Or tolerant of a society that uses women to sell cars, films, magazines. Objectifies them to the point where they are mere symbols of sexual desire. Or we could tolerate a society where your private correspondences will be read where your home will be invaded and your every move monitored. Or a society which takes your wealth and funds a bloated military industrial complex, banking system, or anyone else with a large enough lobby group. But it's the internet, spouting assertions from positions of ignorance is common place.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
"Being tolerant" of a person's views doesn't entail "being respectful of" them, nor does it imply one must simply abide their expression in silence. Here's a counter-question: why is it that when people who have extraordinary or extraordinarily extreme opinions are questioned or challenged there seems to almost always be an attempt to deflect the discussion toward one revolving around respect and tolerance instead of the merits of the issue involved? (That's kind of a rhetorical question, really--my long and varied experience on topics of this sort has led me to one conclusion if nothing else, and that is this: people who hold such views and attempt such deflection aren't interested in honest dialog.)
- talmand 12y ago
  I usually see the opposite, the people with extreme opinions are often told their intolerance doesn't have to be tolerated. Often times this bothers me because the people who choose not to tolerate the intolerable are the ones who seem not interested in honest dialogue. My reasoning is because most often they are the people who also get to label what is considered intolerance and extreme opinions. Then, the use of such labels is the reason to dismiss the opposing viewpoint without honest dialogue. If you take an objective viewpoint of common debates on the news and whatnot, you'll see it.
  - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    Nah; you're just repeating the same "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" idea I wrote about. It has nothing to do with objectivity--that's your own subjective opinion and projection.
    - talmand 12y ago
      I see your mistake, but I was not referring to the argument that you describe. Which I would agree is a rather silly argument to make. I'm speaking of situations where the opposing viewpoint is labeled as intolerant before the label-er even knows what the opposing viewpoint is or is mistaken of what the opposing viewpoint is; usually from emotional reactions. In those instances it is rather easy to remain objective enough to see what's going on. I would believe you provided an example of what I'm describing. You labeled me as a "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" person before you knew whether I believed that or not.

alexkiritz 12y ago

Who ever agreed to be tolerant of fascist religions?

cushychicken 12y ago

I'll wager a guess that it's because the stakes of being wrong on climate change are pretty high.

refurb 12y ago
Isn't the stakes of being wrong in the other direction (that global warming isn't happening) just as high? Imagine if we spend billions/trillions of dollars trying to capture CO2, reduce oil consumption, etc. and it turns out CO2 wasn't the cause of global warming. That money could have done a lot of good if spent in other ways (i.e. lift millions of people out of poverty).
- cushychicken 12y ago
  So we end up spending billions/trillions of dollars reducing consumption of nonrenewable resources and developing cleaner technology. What a waste.

pizza234 12y ago

Well, it's more complicated than "thinking the opposite"; it's more along the lines of "thinking the opposite of what hurts the wallet". Religion is a correct analogy. If in a certain culture, women are submitted, that doesn't hurt people outside it. People globally feels - and is, actually - threatened by global warming, so it's understandable to have ahem heat directed to people with power and without sense of collaboration (and I'm using an euphemism here), which is the current requirement for working out the problem.

waps 12y ago

Somehow that doesn't seem to be possible. The entire question is a fraud of course : the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. While that does satisfy some standards used in science, no scientist in his right mind would refer to that as "proven", because it isn't. So here's my version : 1) There is no argument from either maths, or even a simulation from first principles (NOT measured data and statistics and correlations) that shows a scenario like global warming. 2) principle of the excluded third ("tertium non datur") was an accepted standard in logic before Christ was born. It states that any statement that cannot be proven from first principles is disproved just by that fact (NOT wrong, but that wasn't asked) Ergo, climate science disproved. Or at least, there is no known proof. There is loads and loads of statistical correlations indicating it exists, but there is no correct argument from first principles known, which is what I'd require to say "proof". It is overwhelmingly likely (well I haven't checked, but I believe them) that it exists, but not proven. Now please keep in mind what I am and am not claiming here before you vilify me. I am claiming that climate science is very far from satisfying the standard used in exact sciences that is referred to when scientists use the word "proof". Obviously I am not claiming that global warming will reverse or is just a mistake or whatever. The graph has been rising pretty constantly for 150 years or so, and yes, it absolutely does not look like it will reverse. This is however very far from having an explanation from first principles for climate change.

leephillips 12y ago
While the idea of "proof" here is just a distraction, we have vastly more than merely "statistical correlations". We know that we've significantly increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and we have a pretty good idea of what that does to a climate: "Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect." From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.

rossjudson 12y ago

Because they don't just "think" the opposite of him; they claim that they have a scientific basis for their position. It's like the difference between hearing someone committed a crime, and watching them commit it (and testifying about it). We certainly tolerate people who think unicorns fly out of pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, but we don't let them make decisions that will affect the health and well-being of a significant part of the planet's population.

belovedeagle 12y ago
This is the very definition of dogmatism. You literally just claimed that thinking differently is okay, as long as it's not your sacred cow which is getting involved in the discussion. Let me help you understand what this sounds like: "Because they don't just 'think' that evolution is real; they claim that the bible isn't the inspired Word of God!" That's absolutely no different than what you just wrote: science is your "inspired Word" about which no one can disagree, even if they're allowed to disagree about everything else.

Guthur 12y ago

Or tolerant of a society that uses women to sell cars, films, magazines. Objectifies them to the point where they are mere symbols of sexual desire. Or we could tolerate a society where your private correspondences will be read where your home will be invaded and your every move monitored. Or a society which takes your wealth and funds a bloated military industrial complex, banking system, or anyone else with a large enough lobby group. But it's the internet, spouting assertions from positions of ignorance is common place.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago

"Being tolerant" of a person's views doesn't entail "being respectful of" them, nor does it imply one must simply abide their expression in silence. Here's a counter-question: why is it that when people who have extraordinary or extraordinarily extreme opinions are questioned or challenged there seems to almost always be an attempt to deflect the discussion toward one revolving around respect and tolerance instead of the merits of the issue involved? (That's kind of a rhetorical question, really--my long and varied experience on topics of this sort has led me to one conclusion if nothing else, and that is this: people who hold such views and attempt such deflection aren't interested in honest dialog.)

talmand 12y ago
I usually see the opposite, the people with extreme opinions are often told their intolerance doesn't have to be tolerated. Often times this bothers me because the people who choose not to tolerate the intolerable are the ones who seem not interested in honest dialogue. My reasoning is because most often they are the people who also get to label what is considered intolerance and extreme opinions. Then, the use of such labels is the reason to dismiss the opposing viewpoint without honest dialogue. If you take an objective viewpoint of common debates on the news and whatnot, you'll see it.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  Nah; you're just repeating the same "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" idea I wrote about. It has nothing to do with objectivity--that's your own subjective opinion and projection.
  - talmand 12y ago
    I see your mistake, but I was not referring to the argument that you describe. Which I would agree is a rather silly argument to make. I'm speaking of situations where the opposing viewpoint is labeled as intolerant before the label-er even knows what the opposing viewpoint is or is mistaken of what the opposing viewpoint is; usually from emotional reactions. In those instances it is rather easy to remain objective enough to see what's going on. I would believe you provided an example of what I'm describing. You labeled me as a "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" person before you knew whether I believed that or not.