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.
Gullible people will believe anything. That's why this hoax has not yet died even after it has been proven to be a hoax. And we pay the price for it.
Post the papers that show it to be a hoax. Don't link to a blogger you like who says it's a hoax. Only science matters, not the bloviating of denialist idiots.
So questioning a flawed, unproven theory is (in your mind) opposing the principles of science? Your contention (although you do not realize it, as you have no concept of valid science) is the antithesis of science, as it ignores the cornerstone of the scientific method- refuting the null hypothesis.
I believe in-
theory of evolution
big bang
string theory
special and general relativity
an expanding universe
the multiverse
16 different dimensions
the germ theory of disease
the validity of vaccinations to reduce disease
I do not believe in -
ghosts
the Biblical description of creation (despite being a Christian, it is an allegory)
space aliens
conspiracy theories
mediums and clairvoyants
astrology
homeopathic medicine
leprechauns
Atlantis
............................. and the concept of man made global warming
So questioning a flawed, unproven theory is (in your mind) opposing the principles of science? Your contention (although you do not realize it, as you have no concept of valid science) is the antithesis of science, as it ignores the cornerstone of the scientific method- refuting the null hypothesis.
I believe in-
theory of evolution
big bang
string theory
special and general relativity
an expanding universe
the multiverse
16 different dimensions
the germ theory of disease
the validity of vaccinations to reduce disease
I do not believe in -
ghosts
the Biblical description of creation (despite being a Christian, it is an allegory)
space aliens
conspiracy theories
mediums and clairvoyants
astrology
homeopathic medicine
leprechauns
Atlantis
............................. and the concept of man made global warming
If bloggers is where you get your science from, who am I to argue.
This isn't really what is being disputed. Whether or not it is mainly driven by man made causes is being disputed. There is also some dispute about whether this is just a short term trend (geologically speaking).
And can you post a source from a science oriented magazine, respected scientific group, or a respected organization that says there is dispute whether humans are causing global warming?
No you can NOT post such a source, you can only (say) it.
If bloggers is where you get your science from, who am I to argue.
Bloggers?
Unlike you, I actually have graduate degrees in science. Further, I have published over 20 bench scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature, and have taught science at major universities.
You, unfortunately, are a prime example of the Dunning-Krueger effect, in which those with the least training and experience in a field assume the presumption of supreme expertise and knowledge.
Are you kidding me? You know nothing about actual science, have never published anything in the scientific literature, and have never been a faculty member in an area of science at a major university.
Yet, by pulling the "D-lever" in a voting booth, you KNOW more about science than me! Hillarious, yet very predictable. I wonder what would happen if you pulled the other lever? Would you be conferred with common sense?
Don't even suggest that you know more about science than I do, as it is so absurd and ridiculous as to warrant nothing but contempt and pity for one so presumptuous with so few credentials.
If bloggers is where you get your science from, who am I to argue.
Bloggers?
Unlike you, I actually have graduate degrees in science. Further, I have published over 20 bench scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature, and have taught science at major universities.
You, unfortunately, are a prime example of the Dunning-Krueger effect, in which those with the least training and experience in a field assume the presumption of supreme expertise and knowledge.
Are you kidding me? You know nothing about actual science, have never published anything in the scientific literature, and have never been a faculty member in an area of science at a major university.
Yet, by pulling the "D-lever" in a voting booth, you KNOW more about science than me! Hillarious, yet very predictable. I wonder what would happen if you pulled the other lever? Would you be conferred with common sense?
Don't even suggest that you know more about science than I do, as it is so absurd and ridiculous as to warrant nothing but contempt and pity for one so presumptuous with so few credentials. Don't bother exposing further ignorance, as it has been completely revealed.
Unlike you, I actually have graduate degrees in science. Further, I have published over 20 bench scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature, and have taught science at major universities.
I find this hard to believe, because if it were true you would know better than to wave your sheepskin around. You would know better than to think your background in an unrelated field gives you insight into a completely unrelated topic.
I also don't think someone who has the chops you claim to have would describe themselves as having "degrees in science". But even if you're telling the truth about your own background, that doesn't change the fact that current climate theory is supported by the facts whereas denialist claims are not. The facts don't hinge on how many degrees you claim to have.
Unlike you, I actually have graduate degrees in science. Further, I have published over 20 bench scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature, and have taught science at major universities.
Unlike you, I actually have graduate degrees in science. Further, I have published over 20 bench scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature, and have taught science at major universities.
You, unfortunately, are a prime example of the Dunning-Krueger effect, in which those with the least training and experience in a field assume the presumption of supreme expertise and knowledge.
Are you kidding me? You know nothing about actual science, have never published anything in the scientific literature, and have never been a faculty member in an area of science at a major university.
Yet, by pulling the "D-lever" in a voting booth, you KNOW more about science than me! Hillarious, yet very predictable. I wonder what would happen if you pulled the other lever? Would you be conferred with common sense?
Don't even suggest that you know more about science than I do, as it is so absurd and ridiculous as to warrant nothing but contempt and pity for one so presumptuous with so few credentials. Don't bother exposing further ignorance, as it has been completely revealed.
Unlike you, I actually have graduate degrees in science. Further, I have published over 20 bench scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature, and have taught science at major universities.
You, unfortunately, are a prime example of the Dunning-Krueger effect, in which those with the least training and experience in a field assume the presumption of supreme expertise and knowledge.
Are you kidding me? You know nothing about actual science, have never published anything in the scientific literature, and have never been a faculty member in an area of science at a major university.
Yet, by pulling the "D-lever" in a voting booth, you KNOW more about science than me! Hillarious, yet very predictable. I wonder what would happen if you pulled the other lever? Would you be conferred with common sense?
Don't even suggest that you know more about science than I do, as it is so absurd and ridiculous as to warrant nothing but contempt and pity for one so presumptuous with so few credentials.
A few questions if I may (to see if your telling the truth above.)
1.) List 2 branches of science (or 2 kinds of scientists) that are connected to paleontology?
- And explain how they are connected?
2.) Would a group of scientists in the same field be more like a tight knit group (or) independent thinking persons?
- And if a tight knit group, what event would cause scientists in the same field to act like independent thinking persons?
- And what event would cause them to become a tight knit group again?
3.) Is there any branch of science that is not connected to another branch?
- If so what branch?
If what you said above is true you should be able to answer at least 2 of the above questions.
Chad.
Last edited by chad3; 01-07-2015 at 09:35 PM..
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.
