"Theory" isn't a bad word, nor does it mean an idea that you should probably ignore. And what's more, it's a theory with a lot of scientific consensus behind it. Almost all of the "potholes" you mention originate outside of the scientific process, which is why the "non-believer" (for lack of a better description) side of the debate is long on personal attacks and mud-slinging, and short on scientific argument. Even the recent CRU hack analysis revealed a lot of non-scientific things that sound bad, but very little actual bad science.
"Theory" isn't a bad word, nor does it mean an idea that you should probably ignore. And what's more, it's a theory with a lot of scientific consensus behind it. Almost all of the "potholes" you mention originate outside of the scientific process, which is why the "non-believer" (for lack of a better description) side of the debate is long on personal attacks and mud-slinging, and short on scientific argument. Even the recent CRU hack analysis revealed a lot of non-scientific things that sound bad, but very little actual bad science.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Nowhere did I say "theory" was a bad word.
"consensus" isn't "scientific fact"
The potholes do not fall outside the scientific process - have you not been paying attention? There are serious questions about methodology now that people are looking into the actual data.
Again, you "believers" seem to be the ones who have taken to the personal attacks even more since Climategate broke. Before that you did so as well to anyone who dared questioned the agenda or data.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
What you really mean is, you're not willing to accept a reduction in your lifestyle...period. There is no way you personally understand the issue well enough to unequivocally declare that the fix won't fix anything, and there is very little expert support for your position either.
That's what this debate is really about. People don't like the idea of changing their lifestyle, but they don't want to out and out say that they'd rather just ignore the issue...so it becomes about attacking the issue itself.
Yes you did, you're arguing that what climate scientists have is something MUCH less than fact, something we're stupid if we pay attention to.
There is NO question about their scientific methodology...climategate is entirely about what scientists said to each other in private conversations. That's not science, even if it's scientists talking. I've looked, and I have yet to find ANYONE actually looking at the data and saying specifically either what was wrong with it, or what was wrong with the analysis.
The personal attacks you're talking about are because you people persist in commenting on scientific concepts you obviously no nothing about, with no scientific backing for your arguments. You invent conspiracy theories and muddy the waters a great deal, but when it comes to actual scientific debate of the facts and theories involved, you have nothing to say. That's irritating, because while you argue that you're just in search of the truth, your methods suggest anything but.
You know, a lot of what Newton taught about physics was made irrelevant after Einstein. Should we stop teaching Newtonian physics?
It basically boils down to this.
If the right-wing pundits embraced climate change as being real, we'd have all the right wing followers on this site doing a heel-turn on this issue the next day.
It comes down to ideology. If you look at the body of evidence, it's clear that man-made CO2 is impacting the environment in a negative way. However, when a full 50% of the US follows the ideology of Rush, Hannity, Palin and all those other mouth-breathers, then the scientific issue becomes a political issue.
If the right-wing pundits embraced climate change as being real, we'd have all the right wing followers on this site doing a heel-turn on this issue the next day.
It comes down to ideology. If you look at the body of evidence, it's clear that man-made CO2 is impacting the environment in a negative way. However, when a full 50% of the US follows the ideology of Rush, Hannity, Palin and all those other mouth-breathers, then the scientific issue becomes a political issue.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Correct, you believers don't have "scientific fact".
Actually there is much question about the methodology. If you'd pay attention instead of letting your religion blind you - you'd see this.
Ah yes, the believers once again trying to say everyone else is stupid because they don't believe in their theory.
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 17,020
- 5,083
- 136
So, do we still teach Newton's material as if we do not know of Einstein's work? Your logic is half baked and incomplete.
Well, that's exactly how it is done. I completed three college courses in physics before we even began touching Einstein's stuff. Not to mention my class in high school. That would be because Newton's material is still plenty useful for most applications.
CO2, if produced in sufficient quantities without some sort of offset will cause global warming. That shouldn't even be debatable, all you need to do is look at Venus' atmosphere to understand it's fact. The argument we have now is: Have we produced enough CO2 in the past 110 years to impact climate change, or is it just a natural cycle we are going through?
In my view, the answer doesn't really matter. If we haven't, would it be better to wait until we have a crisis until we decide to act? If the argument is that it's too expensive to do it now, it's cheaper to do it now than it is to do it later.
Nothing in science if proven, and science rarely discovers things intentionally. Newton had solved the nature of existence, until we realized he hadn't. When the electron was discovered in the 1890s, it was useless. Now our entire world relies on it. Penicillin was discovered on accident. I think there is a lot of potential for new discovery by investing in a green economy.
Last edited:
Man made global warming or "climate change" should never have been a political issue. It's a problem that can be measured and analyzed from a scientific perspective. It became a political issue when radical leftist groups decided it would be a great vehicle to help them further their political agendas and gain more power over society. They push climate change like zealots not because of climate change itself, but because they can use it as a perfect excuse to enact their idiotic schemes.
SparkyJJO
Lifer
- May 16, 2002
- 13,357
- 7
- 81
Nope. I'd call them all a bunch of idiots too.
Global warming should never have become political. But Al Gore helped turn it political. It is a tool of the left-wingers to grab more and more control over personal lives.
Please, the right-wing is just as enarmored with controlling our personal lives. If the right had their way, everything we do would be tapped/recorded (see Patriot Act), the homosexual lifestyle would be outlawed, abortions would be prohibited. The list goes on.
Both sides don't value freedoms, period. The sooner this truth gets into everyone's head, the faster we can move on as a nation.
SparkyJJO
Lifer
- May 16, 2002
- 13,357
- 7
- 81
Not to derail the thread, but abortions being outlawed is not a bad thing. It's murder.
But I will agree that yeah both parties are rotten. But true right wingers don't want to control people's lives. True right wingers are harder to come by though. Sometimes I feel like I'm part of a dying breed, everything is more and more control over people and lie cheat steal to get there, screw anyone else. Makes me sad and mad at the same time.
But I will agree that yeah both parties are rotten. But true right wingers don't want to control people's lives. True right wingers are harder to come by though. Sometimes I feel like I'm part of a dying breed, everything is more and more control over people and lie cheat steal to get there, screw anyone else. Makes me sad and mad at the same time.
Last edited:
We have peer reviewed scientific evidence...you don't. From my point of view, that pretty much settles it right there, the rest is just noise. My only "religion" here is science, and on that front, you guys have absolutely nothing. Surely if there was some merit to your position, there would be at least a handful of peer reviewed articles, or papers, or anything, supporting it. Instead, it's all OP-ED pieces and blog posts and angry guys on TV. My "side" has it's share of windbags like Al Gore, who wouldn't know science if it knocked on their front door, but that's not ALL we have.
You come up with clever names to call us, and conspiracy theories involving every scientist and scientific publication on the planet, and anti-intellectual bullshit about how people with expertise in a field are elitist if they claim to understand it better than random gomers on the Internet...but you don't have a very good scientific argument. Which is why you NEED to call AGW supporters "believers" and whine that they are calling you "stupid" (I don't really remember saying that, but hey, who am I to argue?).
Look, personally, I'm a pro-life person, but I also recognize the fact that an unwanted pregnancy can ruin lives. I'd rather have the option open for women/families to fall back on if they cannot support another person.
Also, abortion wasn't a hot topic until about 40 years ago. It was legal for over 150 years.
Huh? Abortion was illegal before 40 years ago, when Roe v. Wade struck down the laws. While it was illegal at the state level and i haven't confirmed this, my impression is that it was illegal in all 50 states.
I'm not sure of the history going back centuries. My impression is that it was generally not legal, but there wasn't exacly the medical knowledge to do it reliably, so I'm not sure how much of an issue it was.
Actually in Leviticus (the same part book that also contains the "scripture" about the evils of homosexuality) there are verses that demand in cases of incest the female be immediately killed to insure that the abomination of a baby is destroyed as well. If you take that passage as absolute fact (like most fundamentalists do about the verse on homosexuality which is only a few pages away) Christianity is completely okay with killing babies.
Can you quote the specific scripture? Another interesting one is for out of town rapes, the rapist is required to marry the victim and pay her family silver. Doesn't mention her having a say.
(Hard to cut and paste any text on this PS3 browser, so I didn't post the specific scripture).
On Genx's childish 'argument', basically he's implying that there is not enough solid science to justify basing policy on it, while not saying that which he can't make an argument for.
Instead, he's playing semantics with the words 'fact' and 'theory', as if a well-supported 'theory' isn't enough to base policy on. So, he's merely disrupting the rational discussion.
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
According to your dogmatic set of values. There's a large amount of people that don't subscribe to the "life began at conception" view that was decided by the religious right in the early 90s
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
It's the same issue with evolution - common folk, fueled by idiotic pundits, don't have a grasp of what "theory" means in the scientific sense.
1. Observe phenomenon
2. Generate theory/model
3. Make predictions using 2
4. Compare to empirical data/backtest
If your model makes predictions in line with empirical data, you have a valid theory/model.
But regardless all of that, the pint of this thread was that no one has an economic incentive to push climate change. Science has no agenda.
And we have emails showing that these scientist at the CRU will go to great lengths to keep counter papers from being published. And that included getting rid of editors at publications. We have also seen that do no want the share their data with anyone that disagrees with them as they would rather delete than share it. And according to them they have lost the original data sets, which means non of their work is currently reproducible, which is very bad science indeed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter