Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you deride the "scare tactics" of climate scienctists and then color climate change in red? Is that not some attempt at scaring on your part?
The great thing about science is that it exists whether you believe it or not. You may think that what climate scientists are saying are "scare tacticts", while climate scientists believe it is the evidence that they see. Should science only report good news? Of course not.
No climate scientist is saying that we are sinners, you are. That is religion, which you also seem to deride.
No good scientist is saying science is infallible. Why do you think they run numerous rigorous experiments before they reach a consensus? There is a consensus among scientists that man made climate change is happening, just not in the general public yet. Just because you say it isn't happening doesn't make it so.
Science is about getting to the truth of things. There have been numerous scientists that have come throughout history that have claimed things thst have gotten them either jailed or even killed. The famous example of this is Galileo who was imprisoned for claiming the crazy idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe but instead went around the sun. Of course it has long since been proven but that doesn't mean it didn't upset some people greatly. Heck, the catholic church only pardoned him 400 years later...better late than never.
You don't have to believe everything scientists say but that doesn't mean you should completely discount everything they say either. Because regardless of what you or anyone thinks science still exists.
Indeed, science exists. What also exists is "alleged science in the form of an unproven hypothesis". And that is where alleged man-made global warming stands; i.e. alleged and unproven, nothing more.
Perhaps you know that:
1) Not too long before the start of the 20th century, scientists held that the continents were "immovable".
2)Prior to Copernicus, the earth was taught by all scientists (and others) to be the center of the universe.
3) Prior to Edwin Hubbell's discovery (circa 1920's), scientists maintained that the universe neither was expanding or contracting.
4) And let's not forget recent contemporary science that held eggs and saturated fats were bad for you.
(Ask me for more examples of scientific dribble and your wish will be my command.)
Why do you deride the "scare tactics" of climate scienctists and then color climate change in red? Is that not some attempt at scaring on your part?
The great thing about science is that it exists whether you believe it or not. You may think that what climate scientists are saying are "scare tacticts", while climate scientists believe it is the evidence that they see. Should science only report good news? Of course not.
No climate scientist is saying that we are sinners, you are. That is religion, which you also seem to deride.
No good scientist is saying science is infallible. Why do you think they run numerous rigorous experiments before they reach a consensus? There is a consensus among scientists that man made climate change is happening, just not in the general public yet. Just because you say it isn't happening doesn't make it so.
Science is about getting to the truth of things. There have been numerous scientists that have come throughout history that have claimed things thst have gotten them either jailed or even killed. The famous example of this is Galileo who was imprisoned for claiming the crazy idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe but instead went around the sun. Of course it has long since been proven but that doesn't mean it didn't upset some people greatly. Heck, the catholic church only pardoned him 400 years later...better late than never.
You don't have to believe everything scientists say but that doesn't mean you should completely discount everything they say either. Because regardless of what you or anyone thinks science still exists.
You don't have to believe everything scientists say but that doesn't mean you should completely discount everything they say either. Because regardless of what you or anyone thinks science still exists.
I have never said that I completely discount everything the scientists say. That is a straw man argument.
My position is that scientists are subject to politics, activism, greed, groupthink and dogma, like any other human endeavor and we've seen ample evidence of this. That is why I treat any reports of breathless alarmism with healthy dose of skepticism.
You talk about science getting to the truth of things? If a scientist in this environment dared to conduct impartial, blind SCIENCE and actually question the man-made-catastrophic warming mindset, he's be marginalized, ridiculed, accused of being in bed with big oil and likely have his career ruined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggunsmallbrains
There is a consensus among scientists that man made climate change is happening, just not in the general public yet. Just because you say it isn't happening doesn't make it so.
Just because you CALL your opinion on the matter a FACT doesn't make it one
Indeed, science exists. What also exists is "alleged science in the form of an unproven hypothesis". And that is where alleged man-made global warming stands; i.e. alleged and unproven, nothing more.
Perhaps you know that:
1) Not too long before the start of the 20th century, scientists held that the continents were "immovable".
2)Prior to Copernicus, the earth was taught by all scientists (and others) to be the center of the universe.
3) Prior to Edwin Hubbell's discovery (circa 1920's), scientists maintained that the universe neither was expanding or contracting.
4) And let's not forget recent contemporary science that held eggs and saturated fats were bad for you.
(Ask me for more examples of scientific dribble and your wish will be my command.)
Here's another...
In the early turn of the last century, before WW2, the majority of scientists and leaders in this country all thought eugenics was swell idea too.
Indeed, science exists. What also exists is "alleged science in the form of an unproven hypothesis". And that is where alleged man-made global warming stands; i.e. alleged and unproven, nothing more.
Perhaps you know that:
1) Not too long before the start of the 20th century, scientists held that the continents were "immovable".
2)Prior to Copernicus, the earth was taught by all scientists (and others) to be the center of the universe.
3) Prior to Edwin Hubbell's discovery (circa 1920's), scientists maintained that the universe neither was expanding or contracting.
4) And let's not forget recent contemporary science that held eggs and saturated fats were bad for you.
(Ask me for more examples of scientific dribble and your wish will be my command.)
*Sigh*
The examples you cited are actually perfect examples that science is not religion. It is a self-correcting process. Many laymen have trouble understanding this aspect of science. Say we build a bridge and after we built it we found a weakness in the design. The scientific method kicks in, we figure out what's wrong with the design, we find a way to correct it, and we update our bridge design principles.
Same goes for climate science. They would collect data, come up with models to form predictions, and make corrections where needed.
This is exactly the opposite of religious doctrine. You guys still believe in the virgin birth and all that nonsense.
Do you understand the scientific process at all? Predictions are made based upon the current amount of data. Of course at the beginning when the data is new and less reliable predictions will be...guess...less reliable. And then when data becomes more and more abundant and accurate predictions become...that's right...more accurate. So you are deriding the predictions of past scientists because they are gaining more information and refining their claims?! That IS science! Maybe you choose to believe something regardless of what new information is attained. That is why you are not a scientist.
Using that method, anyone can predict anything and eventually be right.
Using that method, anyone can be wrong and explain why they are wrong and then blame the data.
The fact is that to date, the data does not prove that in the history of the planet, climate change is the result of human activity as a primary factor and cannot be caused by another primary factor.
Reminds me of all the sensationalism when talking about records in climate conditions. Oh my, within the last 100 years this or that hasn't happened. Well, can't say that anymore, now it has.
The climate has changed since the planet formed. It has experience greater and lesser changes throughout time including when humans were not present on it. The Scientists know this to be fact yet that really doesn't matter.
The only reason Global Warming was changed to Climate Change is because the climate always changes and you can just as easily blame it on humans as cows farting in the wind.
The thing about arguments of convenience is that once you use something that always changes as the basis for the argument, you can say anything and pick the data as you please to prove your point.
For decades, scientists had everyone believing Pluto was a planet until they simply changed their minds.
It isn't religious faith, it is intelligence to know one's knowledge limits. Over 97 percent of weather scientists all over the world have concluded that man made climate change is occurring. I accept that because I am not a climatologist, so I trust the experts in this regard.
There is a phenomenon called Dunning-Kruger where the unskilled perceive their knowledge and research capability more adequate in a subject than they really are. Denialists often fall into this trap, doing "research" that supports their own worldview, and ignoring the huge consensus that exists on the topic.
The examples you cited are actually perfect examples that science is not religion. It is a self-correcting process. Many laymen have trouble understanding this aspect of science. Say we build a bridge and after we built it we found a weakness in the design. The scientific method kicks in, we figure out what's wrong with the design, we find a way to correct it, and we update our bridge design principles.
Same goes for climate science. They would collect data, come up with models to form predictions, and make corrections where needed.
This is exactly the opposite of religious doctrine. You guys still believe in the virgin birth and all that nonsense.
No one has said science is religion. Some of us think that the man-made-catastrophic-climate-change and/or the modern environmental movement is akin to a religion.
Big difference.
I happen to be an atheist, so no, I don't believe in the "virgin birth and all that nonsense" but thanks of the ad hominem nonetheless
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
