Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (36197)

12/6/2012 1:35:19 PM

From: No Mo Mo

3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86356

"No, it's not evident at all. That is pure bullshit."

There's a definition for the kind obstinacy you're battling .....

Fractal wrongness

Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

You're wrong there, and there, oh, and there too, there, now let's step back a little, yep, still wrong.

“”You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable level of resolution. Zooming in on any part of your worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview.

—There's a "de-motivator" poster for everything.

“”You are not just wrong; you are recursively wrong. The wrongness of every possible iteration of any of your arguments is self-similar with the wrongness of your entire worldview.

—There's also a corrected "de-motivator" poster for everything.

Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.

If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet - in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums - your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (36197)	12/6/2012 8:54:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86356

No; the wrong conclusion is that it was warmer 7000 years ago, cuz it wasn't. So those 7,000 year old tree stumps, only now being uncovered by that receding glacier, were actually growing INSIDE the glacier? Really now.... What about the ones that Koch cited have been found (the same age, mind you) in New Zealand and S. America? Or do you believe that there has been some amazing fast tectonic shift of those locations from the N. Hemisphere to the Southern over the course of 7,000 years?? Another conclusion, maybe correct, maybe wrong, is that the Anthropocene began when Ruddman says it does So you don't believe that having nearly ONE HALF of all phytoplankton disappear from the oceans over 60 years has little to no impact on CO2 (and therefore, Global Warming).. And you think human deforestation even comes close to that level? Phytoplankton account for 50% of all photosynthesis on the planet.. And you're not remotely worried about fertilizing them, but you would have us engage in a tree-planting frenzy, right? .. But suddenly you're willing to entertain the notion that, 8,000 years ago, human introduction of agriculture and making bronze tools commenced dramatically increased global temperatures? Seriously.. Is this what you're trying to have us believe? But then, that doesn't quite explain how the earth cooled sufficiently to permit glacial growth over the past 7,000 years.. now does it? Hawk