XD Talk

Ocean82 · 08-03-2012, 09:35 AM

A simple application of logic goes a long way.

I had my first super-liberal professor over the summer. It was Natural & Technological Hazards (GEO306T) at Old Dominion. I needed an upper level class outside of the College of Sciences for my degree and this sure as hell beat history or art appreciation.

Anyways, the professor was actually a good teacher. He had a great sense of humor and presented the material well. He did like to get on his soapbox every now and then and make cheap shots at conservatives and right leaners. I just ignored it. That is, until we got onto the subject of Global Climate Change. Now, I do believe the climate is changing. It has been for billions of years and will continue to do so for billions more.

It all started with the Keeling Curve. If you don't know what that is go here: Scripps CO2 Program - Home After his spiel about the curve, I simply asked him how does this prove that anthropogenic global warming is occurring? He said that since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been dumping large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and that increase in CO2, when lined up with the increase in global temperatures correlates perfectly. I then said, yes, but that does not give causality. For example, we are still coming out of an Ice Age. Our ice caps have been melting for 10,000 years. That causes a decrease in albedo meaning our planet is absorbing more sunlight and heat. That increase also increases the amount of CO2 retained in the atmosphere. Additionally, this naturally caused increase adds more CO2 into the ocean meaning less and less can be dissolved in the ocean and thus remains in the atmosphere (the oceans can only hold a finite amount). My point is, they are all linked together and you can't put your finger on one simply because it correlates. They all correlate. Finally, you've been saying all semester that we cannot stop the earth's natural processes (referring to attempts to prevent earthquakes, floods, landslides, etc) then what makes you think we can start a natural process? He didn't answer my question. He couldn't. He gave a great politician-type answer by beating around the bush and not directly answering my question. He ended by saying the Keeling Curve does it for him. Well, I got some graphs that show correlation too.

Leprechauns cause global warming

If it walks like a duck....

Here, we see that increase tuition actually increases enrollment rates!

Facebook is causing the Euro to decline

N.E. Tx.XD · 08-03-2012, 09:36 AM

......alright.

Mudinyeri · 08-03-2012, 09:47 AM

SO many people struggle with this concept - apparently, even professors who (supposedly) teach the concept.

HowardMan · 08-03-2012, 09:49 AM

well played sir. im sure you knew you werent going to change his mind but maybe it got some of the other people in the class to think about it. i remember my first nonliberal teacher in highschool. it was an american history class and she actually presented things from both sides and rather than put her own opinions in she said "you decide if it was a good idea." i didnt know why it stuck out as strange until later but i found i learned waaaaay more (about my own political stance as well as the history topics) in that style of teaching than any other.

**afmo** · 08-03-2012, 09:49 AM

EXCELLENT POST!

Its such a simple concept and so many people have so much difficulty with it.

Eremius · 08-03-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HowardMan

i didnt know why it stuck out as strange until later but i found i learned waaaaay more (about my own political stance as well as the history topics) in that style of teaching than any other.

*gasp* You can't actually mean that making an informed decision and being able to actually rationally argue a point (as opposed to fingers-in-ears-screaming-at-the-top-of-your-lungs) is the superior method?

**Rustynuts** · 08-03-2012, 10:27 AM

Correlation CAN equal causation though. Simply stating it may not does not prove your case. Or his.

**SonOfOdin** · 08-03-2012, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eremius

*gasp* You can't actually mean that making an informed decision and being able to actually rationally argue a point (as opposed to fingers-in-ears-screaming-at-the-top-of-your-lungs) is the superior method?

That is the preferred method it seems.

Bucc5207 · 08-03-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

Correlation CAN equal causation though. Simply stating it may not does not prove your case. Or his.

No, no, no. Correlation is a statistical relationship, used for testing one set of observations against another. Causation is a fundamental connection between two events. They are never 'equal.' Correlation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to establish causation. Correlation alone proves nothing. Lack of correlation disproves causation. The reverse is never true.

Ocean82 · 08-03-2012, 11:29 AM

What Bucc said. There simply isn't enough correlation between human interaction and the rising temps and too much correlation from opposing factors to create causality. Now, I do believe there's enough correlation to continue research, but it's been too polluted by politics and special interest groups to trust. Too much confirmatory bias and illusory correlation.

In defense of my professor, though he was liberal, he did back up his views with good information, personal philosophy, and even the constitution. He's a liberal who actually came to his own conclusions and doesn't spout typical rhetoric. He mentioned support for the 2A, though he personally doesn't care for guns, as long as its in the constitution, you can't take them away. He supported Chick-Fil-A and the boycotters at the same time. He truly believes in the phrase: "I may not agree with your statement, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I actually like the guy, just get annoyed with some of his politics.