Earth Becoming Greener Due To Increased CO2

[x-ray peat]

You continue to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding that if experts are always wrong (this is built into the fundamental framework of science) that you, a non-expert, with no extra information and likely lacking information and insights that the experts have, can make better predictions than the experts. It's like thinking you can beat the stock market because you think company x is underpriced, even though your reasons for thinking that have been accounted for and factored in by the market along with a bunch of other factors you haven't even begun to consider. It's extremely arrogant and why such ideas are mocked and can be dismissed offhand. Unless you're bringing that extra information and insight to the table, you're not offering anything and there's no reason to take you seriously.

What you don't seem to understand is how an independent thinker reaches their conclusions. Most of us weigh the evidence and opinions from many sources and only then make an informed opinion. If your reasoning were correct then experts with the same background and experience level would always agree. The fact is that they seldom do and it's up to every individual to decide for themselves who is more likely correct.
You just keep repeating the same disproven ideas stolen from that oxford grad student and cant seem to understand why nobody is taking you seriously. Obviously you didn't read any of the articles I cited. Why dont you try and expand your base of knowledge a bit and see what the other experts are saying.

 

[jaa]

What you don't seem to understand is how an independent thinker reaches their conclusions. Most of us weigh the evidence and opinions from many sources and only then make an informed opinion. If your reasoning were correct then experts with the same background and experience level would always agree. The fact is that they seldom do and it's up to every individual to decide for themselves who is more likely correct.
You just keep repeating the same disproven ideas stolen from that oxford grad student and cant seem to understand why nobody is taking you seriously. Obviously you didn't read any of the articles I cited. Why dont you try and expand your base of knowledge a bit and see what the other experts are saying.

No I fundamentally do understand what you think and where your thinking is dead wrong. You are operating from a position of deficient information and choosing an outcome that's either in line with your ideology or based on a relatively poor understanding of the material. The stock market analogy is apt. As long as you keep thinking this way you will delude yourself to your own peril with your arrogance.

Edit: I'm not saying therefore it's pointless to learn anything or read anything or coming to your own conclusions. What I am saying is that unless you know the subject matter as good as the experts or have a very good reason as to why they are getting things wrong that if you explained it to them they would agree with, your thinking is fundamentally flawed. And in the case of climate change, with such an overwhelming consensus, it's not even enough to know just as much as the experts. You have to know enough AND be able to provide evidence against the 9:1 or whatever consensus that is in proportion to that prior in order to confidently convince yourself and others of your position. Unless you realize this, you really have no idea how to properly evaluate the strength of your arguments and why you should believe what you believe.

 

[Ideonaut]

Wet bulb temeratures in places like India could rise high enough to literally kill all human life. Switch to the next equilibrium will take thousands of years and kill billions.

"Could"? What kind of argument is that? Certainly not one based on fact. Billions being killed is also baseless speculation. Perhaps you'd like to offer some facts to support your assertions.

 

[x-ray peat]

No I fundamentally do understand what you think and where your thinking is dead wrong.

Your continuous rehashing of the same stolen "expert" ideas shows that you don't. Your refusal to read anything that may differ from your preformed opinion shows us why.

 

[jaa]

Your continuous rehashing of the same stolen "expert" ideas shows that you don't. Your refusal to read anything that may differ from your preformed opinion shows us why.

You're disagreeing with bayesian inferences and the general theory on how to weight our credences of our beliefs. It's as basic as arithmetic. You're analogous to someone arguing 2+2 is 3 and claiming 4 is a mathematical conspiracy based on loose connections and no explanation or mathematical proof for why you think the answer is 3 other than some youtuber told you so.

Again, my posts aren't for you or people like you. Please stop trying to convince me that 2+2=3. Unless you have good evidence for your outlandish claims I'm not wasting any more time with you.

 

[x-ray peat]

Please stop trying to convince me

I've long given up on you. I am refuting your nonsense for the benefit of others. Those who can still think for themselves.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

And yes, for the reasons I repeated over and over again in this and threads like it, plus the link to an article by Oxford philosophers explaining why bayesian reasoning dictates you should default to the expert consensus absent any extra information, you should default to the experts.

Woah oxford philosophers that's pretty heavy stuff. I mean..look at all those titles. My god that authority.

This is like arguing with a child that 2+2 is 4. If you keep insisting it's 3 and want to claim I'm arrogant for insisting it's 4 and trying to walk you through it, that's fine

You're analogous to someone arguing 2+2 is 3 and claiming 4 is a mathematical conspiracy based on loose connections and no explanation or mathematical proof for why you think the answer is 3 other than some youtuber told you so.

Again, my posts aren't for you or people like you. Please stop trying to convince me that 2+2=3. Unless you have good evidence for your outlandish claims I'm not wasting any more time with you.

2 plus 2 is 4 minus 1 that's 3 quick maths!

You're disagreeing with bayesian inferences and the general theory on how to weight our credences of our beliefs. It's as basic as arithmetic.

Oxford plus Harvard is four minus Yale that's three quick maths!

 

[jaa]

Woah oxford philosophers that's pretty heavy stuff. I mean..look at all those titles. My god that authority.





2 plus 2 is 4 minus 1 that's 3 quick maths!




Oxford plus Harvard is four minus Yale that's three quick maths!

Nice reference. Poor argument. Feel free to bring real arguments if you wish to discuss, otherwise buzz off and stop cluttering things for people who are interested in how to best evaluate ideas with varying levels of background knowledge and expertise.

 

[burtlancast]

Is it a coincidence jaa promotes on these forums both global warming and vaccines?

 

[x-ray peat]

Is it a coincidence jaa promotes on these forums both global warming and vaccines?

When you outsource your thinking to the experts, you ending up believing in all sorts of falsehoods. However the very fact that he rejects expert consensus when convenient, like his probable restriction of PUFAs, shows just how insincere his beliefs in expert opinion really is. Years of government sponsored propaganda beginning with watching Ice Age 2 over and over as a child is a tough thing to overcome.

 

[jaa]

Is it a coincidence jaa promotes on these forums both global warming and vaccines?

Of course not. Just like it's no coincidence the people who deny those things are prone to conspiratorial thinking.

 

[burtlancast]

Of course not. Just like it's no coincidence the people who deny those things are prone to conspiratorial thinking.

Good.

Ray Peat is on the record about 911: "Nothing the government told us makes sense". He advises members here to watch David Ray Griffin's lectures.

So, Ray's a truther.

Ray also denounces the scientific academic world as being largely dishonest.

This is a Ray Peat forum.

If you dislike conspiracies so much, how did you land here?

 

[x-ray peat]

Ray also rejects AGW and vaccines. Apparently @jaa's Bayesian modeling is a bit off

 

[NathanK]

My apologies for triggering the same ole circular arguments already discussed ad nauseam on this forum. Apparently I am immoral for not agreeing to jaa POV regardless of my past decades as an advocate for the environment. Im just a bigger advocate of intellectual humility. Enjoy your SSRIs that over 90% of doctor's prescribe. This debate isnt worth it.

 

[burtlancast]

And jaa's vaccines!
He wrote me he likes to vaccinate his family.

 

[jaa]

Good.

Ray Peat is on the record about 911: "Nothing the government told us makes sense". He advises members here to watch David Ray Griffin's lectures.

So, Ray's a truther.

Ray also denounces the scientific academic world as being largely dishonest.

This is a Ray Peat forum.

If you dislike conspiracies so much, how did you land here?

Oh this line again. Not that you're necessarily saying it here, but these sort of discussions usually end with the starter saying I should believe all or nothing that comes out of Peat's mouth. It is eerily cultish.

I don't believe everything Peat says, especially when it's outside his area of expertise. When I first stumbled upon this forum, I had no idea about Peat's views outside of nutrition. I've since listened to Peat's interviews and read his newsletters and think he's a bit of a whackjob. Anyway, I stuck around here because the added carbs helped, the added sugar hadn't yet started to hurt, I enjoyed the food, and I enjoyed being exposed to different ideas about nutrition.

The inevitable followup question is why don't I listen to the experts when it comes to nutrition. Well I do, to an extent. I find their guidelines concerning processed sugar and leafy greens to be pretty good, and PUFA and commercial grains to be poor. I think human biochemistry is extremely complicated and I think it's very difficult to devise studies that can pinpoint optimal diets which is why I don't 100% follow a food pyramid or whatever is the mainstream advice. And fortunately with nutrition you can experiment on yourself. There are also general evolutionary guidelines and best practices that you can follow to keep yourself healthy while you tweak parameters and try to figure out what works best for you.

 

[jaa]

And jaa's vaccines!
He wrote me he likes to vaccinate his family.

What can I say, I enjoy sticking needles in small children.

You're right Nathan, you exhibit such humility! You and Burt better keep thinking for yourselves and challenging evil scientists like the brave mavericks you are. No need to travel down a well trodden path when you can fumble around in the brush blazing your own trail right behind Peat.

 

[burtlancast]

Oh this line again. Not that you're necessarily saying it here, but these sort of discussions usually end with the starter saying I should believe all or nothing that comes out of Peat's mouth.

No.

It's obviously saying you can't come here disingenuously feigning outrage at other's people disagreements with "authority" (aka experts) while you perfectly knew what you were getting into.

Nobody put a gun to your head to join.

Feel free to disagree with facts; but quit the condescending tone and childish personal attacks ( aka trolling).

 

[jaa]

No.

It's obviously saying you can't come here disingenuously feigning outrage at other's people disagreements with "authority" (aka experts) while you perfectly knew what you were getting into.

Nobody put a gun to your head to join.

Feel free to disagree with facts; but quit the condescending tone and childish personal attacks ( aka trolling).

No? I just relayed how these conversations have tended to go on this forum. You're denying that? That is ridiculous.

And now you're saying I'm trolling? No, I'm outlining how to properly think for people in this thread who haven't committed to becoming a conspiracy nut. I'm not trolling, unlike your last few posts towards me. So take your own advice you clown.

 

[x-ray peat]

The inevitable followup question is why don't I listen to the experts when it comes to nutrition. Well I do, to an extent. I find their guidelines concerning processed sugar and leafy greens to be pretty good, and PUFA and commercial grains to be poor.

The sound of hypocrisy unmasked