maxdancona
 
  0  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:14 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I declare this thread firmly in the hands of the loons. Bye.


Woo Hoo!

I have successfully defended Science against the assault of Setanta! I am not sure if Bill and Hawkeye will prove to be so easy.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:14 pm
@Setanta,
Do you declare that the climate models that started the global warming craze are accurate? If you do, then you might be the one who doesn't respect science.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:16 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:25 pm
@maxdancona,
You're ******* delusional. I have not assaulted science. Quote the post in this thread in which i have denied global warming, you f*cking idiot. You're so obsessed with starting a pissing contest, you're so wrought up in your hysteria, that you haven't even bothered to read what i post. You just scan my posts for something to argue about.

My little dog is more of a scientist than you are. You're a weenie who writes code, and calls himself a scientist.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
Do you realize the social death sentence he would receive today if he did this routine? First off, college kids wouldn't even let him perform on campus because you know he is going to have a bit that is going to hurt their feelings. Second he is attacking their new religion, yes, I said religion. The left's religion and the only one they hold dear is climate change. Insult their religion and they are going to make your pay. Just about everything else is free game, but do not insult their religion of climate change.
BillRM
 
  0  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:37 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I am not sure if Bill and Hawkeye will prove to be so easy.


You will need to defend the idea that the results of the climate models have anything to do with reality as in being able to give valid results when run over the past known climate history of the planet.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:51 pm
@Setanta,
Here we go again

Quote:

******* delusional .... f*cking idiot ... You're so obsessed ... pissing contest ... hysteria ... weenie...


I hope it was good for you.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:58 pm
@maxdancona,
Honestly Setanta, you probably think making you blow up like that is my goal. It isn't. I am just here to defend my opinions, and when you start making it personal I tend to push back a little harder.

But it does tickle me what it happens.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 05:01 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Do you realize the social death sentence he would receive today if he did this routine?

Yep, and he was able to do that COMMERCIALLY and get laughs, in what was it, 2004? It is astonishing how fast free thought and free speech have degraded in this society. That is one of the big reasons we are looking at Trump very likely being our next president....the people have gotten to ENOUGH!.

Quote:
but do not insult their religion of climate change.

Do not challenge any of their cherished opinions, because according to these anti freedom assholes that is grounds for silencing by force. In Australia, Europe especially the government supports this bullshit. Is it any wonder governments increasingly have no credibility with the people? I should say not, it was all very predictable. Bad work by the elites carries with it drastic negative consequences. Let's load up Trump into the POTUS chair and get the fix started I say.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 05:11 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I declare this thread firmly in the hands of the loons. Bye.


It's kind of on the order of religious threads, isn't it?
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 05:35 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Setanta wrote:

I declare this thread firmly in the hands of the loons. Bye.


It's kind of on the order of religious threads, isn't it?


Not only, I got told that my argument that Trump does not need any more than the 23% of hispanics that polls say he already has to beat Hillary is such a loony proposition that there is no point in exploring the question. I am pretty sure that I could win that debate on the facts, but snoof took off in a huff. I think he said that he put me on ignore for that too.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 05:37 pm
For anyone who is still interested in the topic, there is an interesting question that no one is even trying to answer.

Science makes some claims with certainty that we all accept all almost certainly true (obviously nothing is 100% certain, but we get to the point that any uncertainty is insignificant).

We all accept the germ theory (which was once quite controversial) as supported with "overwhelming evidence". If I state that it is certain there are micro-organisms that cause disease and can spread from person to person. I don't think that even Setanta would give me a hard time about that.

So now we have a bunch of recent issues that scientist claim they are certain about. Human induced climate change is one of them. Other are that AIDS is caused by HIV and that there is no causal link between vaccinations and autism.

I have two points.

1) There are times when the scientific community is certain about something (or deems that any uncertainty is insignificant). The tangential examples given so far have not been cases where the scientific community has cited "overwhelming evidence" for a working hypothesis.

When the scientific community has said they are certain, to the point that say that climate change is certain, they have been right.

2) The scientific community, the people actively working in the field (i.e. not me or you) are the people who are best suited to say if something is certain or not. They have specific education and training. They run the research. They design the satellites.

You can claim that the scientific community can be corrupted... but this has historically happened. Big tobacco was unable to buy itself a consensus (and they tried). Science still reached the conclusion that smoking causes cancer. Establishment science was saying this through the 1940s and 1950s (it was the public who were fooled by the bogus science).

Big oil tried to buy scientific findings in the case of climate change. Science has reached the opposite consensus in spite of this.

Now a question for any reader...

If you don't trust the scientific institutions and the consensus of the people actually doing the research , then how do you make your decisions?

It seems to me that most people make science decision based on their own political or ideological views and the scientific community is only trusted when its finding support the preconceived notions of Americans.

To me this is the problem. And no, this has nothing to do with religion.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 05:40 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Science makes some claims with certainty that we all accept all almost certainly true (obviously nothing is 100% certain, but we get to the point that any uncertainty is insignificant).


It makes a lot of claims massively overpaying the level of certainty, as well as lets advocates do the same using their work, without an outcry from those who know the truth that the people are being lied to. THis is one of the biggest reasons science is now increasingly held in disrepute.

Quote:
If you don't trust the scientific institutions and the consensus of the people actually doing the research , then how do you make your decisions?
By listening more to the people I trust than to those I dont trust, and by going into the studies themselves to look for myself. Usually the science is truthful, it is the intros and the conclusions that are full of dishonest manipulation of the facts. THis is however a lot of work, so I cant do it very often. BTW one the the best approaches is to look first at what assumptions are being made, often we need to go no further to know that all the fancy big words and claims of certitude are bullshit, that the authors are working on their agenda rather than trying to discover reality, and thus we can safely disregard the claims without further ado.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 05:47 pm
@maxdancona,
Your problem is I doubt that anyone on this thread question that mankind putting out megtons of co2 is not having some effects on climate.

The question is how must is that effect and how meaningfull is that effect not that there is no effects.

When you get into predicting the degree of sea level raise over a century or the drought patterns or hurricanes activate in the future you are into pseudoscience not science.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 05:56 pm
@BillRM,
I am not talking specifically about climate change now...

My question now is that there are some scientific claims you accept. There are others you don't accept.

You are not a scientist, you don't understand the math or read the journals or check the data from the satellites. You probably read a couple of synopsis of the science off the internet that was written by someone with your point of view. Am I wrong about this?

I also am not a scientist (I did earn a Physics degree). I have not read the journals or looked at raw data. What I have done is looked at the synopsis of the science from the scientific community.

The advantage of my strategy is that the synopsis of the science that I am reading comes from the people who are actually getting the education and training, doing the research, writing articles in journals and pouring over raw data.

Getting scientific understand from scientists doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Getting scientific understand from politicians does.

You do realize that your beliefs on climate change are exactly what one would expect given your political positions on other issues. Don't you see how this could be a problem? In good science, understanding is not impacted by political ideology.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:10 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:

Getting scientific understand from scientists doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Getting scientific understand from politicians does.

That went out the window in large degree when as the journalists did these members of elite decided that advocacy is part of their job description. It does in fact destroy their profession, and it does not matter if the advocacy is motivated by politics, by religion, or by something else . They are no longer unbiased observers of and reporters of reality, as a result their work is often shoddy and they can never be trusted.

If you want to confirm that this civilization is dying you need look no further than the collapse of these two professions. The why's take a bit more work however, that is complicated.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:14 pm
I have trouble reading Max; that may be related to some physics repulsion thing and my gut..

I'm still interested in the subject.

thank you, Rosborne and others.

BillRM
 
  0  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:18 pm
@maxdancona,
Sorry but those detail predictions depend on computers models that to be useful the programmers must have very accurate and very complete equations of the whole earth climate.

An no I am not an expert on climate but I had work on complex computer modeling of the US economic system and still have a few notebooks full of notes from that period of my life.

No my friend given the good but limited prediction I had seen on hurricane path and intensity over a period of days in a small area somehow the idea that technology and science can do useful worldwide and centuries long climate predictions seems once more pseudoscience then science.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:37 pm
Quote:
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.


Look at this statement, skip past the vast majority of the language which constitutes an appeal to the crowd. What is all this supposed certainty about, when you boil it down?

This: "climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk"

You don't need a single study to know that. It doesn't tell you a goddamn thing. It's always been true, always will be. So what?
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:42 pm
@layman,
Quote:
This: "climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk"

You don't need a single study to know that. It doesn't tell you a goddamn thing. It's always been true, always will be. So what?


Why does what is quoted in that post get a -2 readability score and is at the 22nd grade level (stuff for the mass market should be 8 or less) ? Because it is bullshit, and no one wants the little people to figure this out.

These fuckers continue to offend me.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/14/2025 at 06:08:00