Proposition 23 - Stop Global Warming Silliness- Will it Pass? (bill, oil)

[Ritchie_az]

I for one would never argue with a man caused climate change denier or doubter, anyone who can ignore science that much, doubts or denies by faith alone, and one cannot argue with those who live on faith instead of facts.

It is like trying to tell a small child there is not Santa Claus, certainly not worth the time.

But is it not indeed faith that makes you so sure that a theory is fact? Does the recent global warming scandal not cast at least a little doubt on that faith? What about the theory makes you so sure?

At least go through years of schooling to back up your opposition. In the mean time I will lean towards the majority of expert opinion, not some random politician not trained in this field.

And do you just go with opinion polls to determine what issues to stand for? I don't have a PhD, but I can think for myself, research, study and form educated opinions and conclusions. That seems more sturdy than chasing the wind....

[Ritchie_az]

are you a Climatologist with a PhD?

Are you? Saying, "I'll go with what the majority says" is like chasing the wind. Certainly you can research and study for yourself. Try to understand instead of just going with the flow.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by native56

There is no doubt? I doubt it along with millions of others.

You doubt science but you believe in an invisible creator of all life?

Faith but Doubt?

I think it all comes back GOD.
See, many Bible thumpers have trouble rationalizing science of any kind, so the reason they are so against global warming is because then we could perhaps say that there was no flood with Noah. Etc...

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by UB50

I thought Meg said she was FOR Prop 23 last night during the debate?

Is she just another politician who speaks out of both sides of her mouth?

Sounds like she wants to play both sides against the middle.


"Brown said Whitman was trying to have it both ways and that her proposal creates "regulatory uncertainty." He touted his plan to produce 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy in the state. "The people who are crying are two big oil companies in Texas and a petrochemical company in the Midwest," a reference to the funders of the Yes on 23 campaign."
Jerry Brown - Meg Whitman debate: Greenhouse gas laws| PolitiCal | Los Angeles Times

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

You doubt science but you believe in an invisible creator of all life?

Even science doubts science! That's what the whole thing is about, the scientific method. Propose a theory, test it, discover errors, refine or replace the theory, and then do it all over again.

[Ritchie_az]

I'll let the experts handle that and trust their judgment.

Again, you are trusting the theory of a (shrinking) majority. That sounds a lot like blind faith. Good luck to you with that.
What might be more useful is following the link I provided earlier with the names of prominent (PhD) scientists who disagree with the global warming theory. Research the reasons why they disagree with the theory. Then compare that to the theory itself. Then, based on that, form your own conclusions.
Otherwise, you are indeed chasing the wind.

You doubt science but you believe in an invisible creator of all life?

A lot of what is called "science" is indeed faith. The global warming theory, for example, is not science (it's a part of the scientific process, but is not science itself), but many people place faith (in some cases, a lot of faith) in that theory. A lot of people on this forum have placed faith (sometimes blind faith) in it.
The point is that to claim the global warming theory is science is incorrect. It's a part of the process (like the Global Cooling theory is a part of the process... like peer review is a part of the process, etc, etc, etc) but it is not anything more than that right now. Just a small part of the process--a theory that has not been proven true and has many encountered "problems". But many still place much faith in it.

Propose a theory, test it, discover errors, refine or replace the theory, and then do it all over again.

Exactly. Right now, it would seem, that the theory is in the "refine or replace" stage.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Exactly. Right now, it would seem, that the theory is in the "refine or replace" stage.

Every scientific theory is in that stage. We have greater or lesser faith in the likelihood of various theories (we're nearly 100% sure that the Earth is round... well, sort of round and a bit smooshed!). There's a lot of doubt about the theory that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe (because we simply have no information). The GW theory is somewhere in the middle, there's some evidence that seems to support it, there's some evidence that seems to contradict it. It's just a theory, just like every other scientific theory.

People who have no background in science just don't seem to get it.

[Ritchie_az]

Every scientific theory is in that stage. We have greater or lesser faith in the likelihood of various theories (we're nearly 100% sure that the Earth is round... well, sort of round and a bit smooshed!). There's a lot of doubt about the theory that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe (because we simply have no information). The GW theory is somewhere in the middle, there's some evidence that seems to support it, there's some evidence that seems to contradict it. It's just a theory, just like every other scientific theory.
People who have no background in science just don't seem to get it.

Well, that is true. There are certain "laws" or proven theories that would seem exempt from that part of the process, but even those are challenged from time-to-time.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Are you? Saying, "I'll go with what the majority says" is like chasing the wind. Certainly you can research and study for yourself. Try to understand instead of just going with the flow.

"Thinking for yourself" is great if your intellect is exceptional and your depth of specialized knowledge in your field of inquiry is deep. But the old adage that "there's nothing more dangerous than a little bit of knowledge" still rings true. Look at creationists. They "study" the death out of evolution, yet their arguments show that they still don't understand it. Same with global climate change denialists. Most of them couldn't explain the experimental data to you if you asked them to. Few if any of them even have the mathematical prowess to work the calculus that the evidence is based on.
Their conclusion precedes their analysis of the data, so they only examine that small portion of the data field that seems to confirm the conclusion they were predisposed to embracing from the get-go. It's the old R.J. Reynolds Straw Man Argument all over again.

[Ritchie_az]

"Thinking for yourself" is great if your intellect is exceptional and your depth of specialized knowledge in your field of inquiry is deep. But the old adage that "there's nothing more dangerous than a little bit of knowledge" still rings true. Look at creationists. They "study" the death out of evolution, yet their arguments show that they still don't understand it. Same with global climate change denialists. Most of them couldn't explain the experimental data to you if you asked them to. Few if any of them even have the mathematical prowess to work the calculus that the evidence is based on.

So I guess it's better to be ignorant and blindly follow the wind. I should just veg out in stupidity and let the "smart people" figure things out for me, and do whatever they say. Good call!
After all, I'm too stupid to understand. I'm just a lowely peasant. I'm not like those "smart people" who know oh so much. I should let the ruling class figure out everything for me.

Their conclusion precedes their analysis of the data

I think many of those who who agree with the global warming theory have done just that. Look at the hysteria. The movies. The "news". Over an unproven theory with many holes in it?
The pot is black.

P.S. Regarding evolution, I highly recommend the documentary Expelled: No Intellegence Allowed hosted by Ben Stein.