Brink the game is real!

(Apples) #61

I dont know how you have the time to explain all that tok… I clearly see 2 worlds here and dang its clearly not good… kind of creepy also.

Peace

(tokamak) #62

There’s not really two parties, just one big party that genuinely wants to know what’s really going on and a wealthy fringe group with a big financial interest in hijacking sincere curiosity and promoting one narrative.

Scientists are also to blame as few of them want to enter the political arena which opens up the possibility for abuse by not-so scientific parties. Dissidents know that they don’t need to be right, they only need to voice criticism in order to receive equal time and attention from journalists who merely try to seem objective and provide both sides of the argument, making it look like there’s a 50-50 chance one of the parties is in the right.

Personally I am able to devote a lot of time to this because this is exactly my field of study. Few others can afford to put so much time into this and are dependant on what the media comes up with. So explaining the issue in a way a layman can understand it is a pretty good exercise for me.

(Vaporman) #63

LOL. Actually that is a name I’ve been using since the days of X-Band on the Super NES. Long before I was in the propane business. But, it certainly is reflective of my career now.

As for dissidents ONLY being those with financial interests and not based on any science, the words “bull” and “crap” come to mind. For every scientist that agrees with Tok, I can find an equal and opposing scientist. So, where does that leave us? It leaves most people in Tok’s position left to simply accuse one side of using psuedo-science or fear mongering. Which is a very weak position to be in. I couldn’t care less if Tok had a degree in every science under the sun, in the case of climate change he would still be interpreting evidence with his own presuppositions going in. His own view of things. As do I. It is unavoidable. There is no neutral view, and to claim that there is would be quite simply a lie.

In this instance, I am to believe that news media, fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists, and the scientists that side with them are soley focused on their own self interests, and they are alone in that focus. Riiiiiiiight. All scientists have plenty of incentive to perform their research in such a way that it benefits them and their institutions. That is not to say that all research is performed with this sole focus. But the incentives are there and they are every bit as enticing as those being worked for by other parties. To think otherwise is pretty foolish.

With this in mind, it’s fair to conclude that there are those who feel the same as Phil Jones, and those who oppose him. But neither side can claim to be morally pure in their quest to define their findings as absolute truth. So the real question is which side best can make sense of the evidence that is out there. Are we to believe that humans can impact weather patterns and climate to such a degree that we could face catastrophe in the near future without a change in course? Or is the fact that the planet has had warming and cooling phases throughout it’s entire existence applicable to the age we now live in? I believe the latter because it makes the most sense.

(tokamak) #64

Is that a challenge? I would gladly accept that one.

So, where does that leave us? It leaves most people in the position of simply accusing one side of using psuedo-science or fear mongering. Which is a very weak position to be in.

The thing is that one side has published peer-reviewed paper and the other side honestly has nothing. Dissidents complain they’re not receiving as much attention, but that’s mainly because they don’t publish any research for others to comment on.

I couldn’t care less if Tok had a degree in every science under the sun

I wouldn’t expect you to care about that.

he still interprets evidence with his own presuppositions going in. His own view of things. As do I. It is unavoidable. There is no neutral view, and to claim that there is would be quite simply a lie.

Science is not a matter of opinion though. There’s only true and false. Our actions will have real consequences regardless of whether our views agree with that.

Currently many people in Haiti believe the cholera outbreak is a voodoo curse. You can respect that presupposition all you like but it won’t help them in any way to protect them from cholera.

In this instance, I am to believe that news media, fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists, and the scientists that side with them are soley focused on their own self interests, and they are alone in that focus. Riiiiiiiight. All scientists have plenty of incentive to perform their research in such a way that it benefits them and their institutions. That is not to say that all research is performed with this sole focus. But the incentives are there and they are every bit as enticing as those being worked for by other parties. To think otherwise is pretty foolish.

So perhaps you would agree with laying the incentives to rest and just look at the scientific facts? The financial incentive to deny global warming is far bigger anyway, but that doesn’t automatically make them wrong (even though they are).

(Vaporman) #65

That is equivalent to arguing that because one recipe for chocolate chip cookies has been read and used while another is left ignored for whatever reason, then the well used recipe is obviously superior. Which cannot be proven.

Forgive me for finding the peer-review process to be laughable at best. The individuals, publishers, editors, scientists, etc. who are involved in this process are as much a group of “good ole boys” as any other. You know, many peer reviewed publishings regarding Intelligent Design are out there. So then, should we all just accept Intelligent Design as being on equal footing with evolution?

I didn’t say it was a matter of opinion. The problem is that scientists in your camp can only perform research that leads them to believe they know truth. We cannot take an exact replica of earth and peform experiments on it in order to prove the effects man is having and will have on earth. There are assumptions made. Conditions created based on those assumptions.

Using this analogy, we would not be debating whether or not cholera is a voodoo curse. We would be debating whether or not man caused the outbreak of cholera, or if it was simply an act of nature.

I don’t deny the fact of warming. I deny it was caused by man. Please show me the facts you speak of that prove without doubt that man caused this current warming trend. You can’t. You can only present a set of conditions that exist and extrapolate from there that these conditions have resulted in warming. Of course, I am doing that very same thing. There is no denying that in the past our planet has gone through these same pains without help from us. Conditions that I present as a reason for why we have warming now.

P.S. Congrats on 3,500 posts by the way. :slight_smile:

(Senethro) #66

head explodes

clutches Darwin plushie

(Vaporman) #67

[QUOTE=Senethro;249436]head explodes

clutches Darwin plushie[/QUOTE]

LOL. I’ll see your Darwin plushie and raise with my Cambrian Explosion 100 piece puzzle (unopened MIB!!!) Mwahahahaha!.

(Senethro) #68

Someone was looking out for you! How did you go from that to thinking that ID has an irreducibly complex hind limb to stand on?

(LyndonL) #69

Meh science isn’t opinon sure, but it still isn’t infalliable since the person who wields it (man) isn’t infalliable… A puzzle may look complete but not be until all pieces are present, which sometimes is impossible to tell… and even then it comes down sometimes to interpretation.

(Vaporman) #70

Oooh. Nice. Very nice.

I suppose it happened when I ADDED information to my brain cells. Prior to that, I had evolved a habit of letting random mutation eliminate it all the time. :slight_smile:

(xTriXxy) #71

some people see in brink our future, someone our present. by one article , brink the game is mirror of british society.
my opinion is. brink the game could be combination of both.

(Nail) #72

Brink is a game made by a small team developer, it’s an entertainment diversion, not a commentary on world society, even if it parallels it.

:wink:

(LyndonL) #73

… or IS IT??? DA da Dowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!

(madoule) #74

"at best a game can stir up a discussion. well it did, prior to release, in this very thread. mission accomplished. no its time to release some new gameplay footage!

(Apples) #75

Huh, you can try to write a paper and make it reviewed, I guess you have no clue how hard is it to publish one… I may be wrong, but unless you are in this “circle” please explain to me how is it “laughable” at best??? I’m writing papers and I can assure you that before it gets accepted you have to re-write it many time, and defend your facts with many backups, or you are just a sheep in front of a pack of wolves… It’s not at all easy.

ID is not my field at all so I wont comment on that, but I cant see why accepting it as par with evolution would be that big of a blasphemy anyway, as long as scientists back-up their comments with facts…

Oh and please link to the “as many” scientist’s paper with counter-arguments… I really want to see that

Here’s one of the latest imposter on the subject, reviewed indeed : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/claude-allegre-the-climate-imposter/

You can buy his book, almost everything is wrong in it oO, and no its not an opinion, its wrong because it has been proved wrong, plus its even more than wrong, its cheating on purpose as proved by many other authors.

Anyway, mankind has nothing to do with it, so lets just f**k that and continue our carbon rush!

Peace

(Vaporman) #76

Never claimed it to be easy. You’ll get no argument from me on that. The level of difficulty involved in the process does not affect the validity of it.

Again, no argument here. I personally find ID very fascinating and a legitimate alternative.

I simply do not have time to do this. However, if I come across a list of dissenting scientists that has previously been compiled by another party, I will present that to you for your own research into their findings.

Not familiar with this person. Truth is, even liberal environmentalists are beginning to cross over. Only one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWVXarkPOAo&feature=player_embedded

[QUOTE=Apples;249477]Anyway, mankind has nothing to do with it, so lets just f**k that and continue our carbon rush!

Peace[/QUOTE]

Um, will do.

(tokamak) #77

I am working on a digestible case for global warming but I think it would be wasted on someone who actually thinks ID is to be taken seriously.

(Senethro) #78

If you are working in communication of science to the public re climate change and have any presence on the internet, then it’ll be Americans you’ll be bumping into. I’m sure you know the stats on the prevalence of creationist thought there, so you should rise to the challenge!

(tokamak) #79

Yes right but considering ID to be even remotely valid truly does say something about one’s appreciation of science as a whole, not necessarily the individual theory but all the conventions.

(murka) #80

Do any of you know for certain that the Sun isn’t responsible for the changes or know any article that has any proof on it. Just because some people put the graph of CO2 together with global temperature doesn’t mean it’s related. In the 70’s they believed that the Ice Age was nearing and global cooling was a threat. What if the things we do to counter “global warming” makes it worse?
Human stupidity is the only infinite value in the universe.
The same way how some math function approximations look equal or nearing equality, but lose precision after some point.
Heck, i rather believe people who give out their opinions once or twice in their lifetime, not people who give them every day. “Intelligence is like a river, the deeper it is, the quieter it flows”