Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 18242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 337
  1. #271
    BF4 gamer commiecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gainesville, FL
    Posts
    2,542
    Thanked: 704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    Honestly,
    Any of those on that that list you have up there is a good reason to run the other way. And since when does concensus become fact. Concensus becomes dogma that stifles the science we love.
    So basically one side is saying "We agree with scientists about scientific stuff because there's consensus" and the other side is saying "We disagree with the scientists because we don't trust that they understand science."

    Italy's problem is being assisted by Germany. It's not because they ignore things, but rather their infrastructure is literally ancient and the country has very limited space. Still, as a point of comparison, I'd be interested to see the percentage of Americans who deny global warming compared to the percentages in the other countries I listed.

    Having lived in Florida my entire life I'd say that the majority of storms in this area follow near their predicted route and not on some path that no one expects.

    EDIT: I think we're at an agree to disagree impasse.
    Last edited by commiecat; 11-17-2010 at 02:13 AM.

  2. #272
    Senior Member heirkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    553
    Thanked: 243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commiecat View Post
    So basically one side is saying "We agree with scientists about scientific stuff because there's consensus" and the other side is saying "We disagree with the scientists because we don't trust that they understand science."

    Italy's problem is being assisted by Germany. It's not because they ignore things, but rather their infrastructure is literally ancient and the country has very limited space. Still, as a point of comparison, I'd be interested to see the percentage of Americans who deny global warming compared to the percentages in the other countries I listed.

    Having lived in Florida my entire life I'd say that the majority of storms in this area follow near their predicted route and not on some path that no one expects.
    Those first few sentences are exactly what I was going to post in this thread a few days ago. One side generally trusts the scientific community and the other thinks that it's corrupted and bad and that we need truth. So they then take up the positions of nut job pseudo-scientists who are significantly worse than the scientific community when it comes to bias, caving in to biased funding, etc...but I guess you guys would call the 97% (or something close to that) of climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming pseudo-scientists and use the exact same point I just made against me...well, I'll still go with the 97% of climate scientists and the scientific community here. For all of you saying that not all scientists agree, that number I just gave has been studied. The percentage of climate scientists that believed that global warming is anthropogenic was in the high 90%'s.

    Honestly, not a single one of us has done first hand research on the issue, and therefore nobody here is even close to being qualified to actually give an opinion on the issue in a more important setting than an online forum (e.g. in the senate). When I'm in this type of situation, I look at the research of others and the points of view of experts in a given field. Then I make up my mind about what I can and can't safely assume...so go ahead and pick and choose your 3 poorly conducted "studies" to "prove" that global warming is not anthropogenic.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to heirkb For This Useful Post:

    markevens (11-17-2010), NYCshaver (11-17-2010)

  4. #273
    Member kevin007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    99
    Thanked: 16

    Default

    This whole debate is funny and sad at the same time.
    It seems the most uncommon thing among people is common sense!
    I don't need an scientist to tell me what I can figure out for myself with some simple research an my own eyes.
    If the people in this thread who can truly look anyone in the eye and say that we as human beings have not polluted the air, which in turn rains down into our drinking water which now contains hundreds of chemicals in it's purest form. We have not pollutded our oceans, which feeds us?
    We are even polluting space now.
    I'm sorry, we have not effected our planet except for in a good way right everyone
    Please...Only Republicans and sheep would believe everything is peachy with the world and only the natural cycle of things are causing the glaciers to melt at the rates they are now and just keep watching the weather guys and keep those blinders on and your ears covered or you may actually let some information in and learn something.
    Well, I am done wasting my breath.
    Those of you who continue to actually believe all the Co2 we spew does nothing along with destroying Brazils rain forests as just a fraction of our
    contribution to the situation please don't let me pull your head out of the sand. Carry on.
    The rest of us know the real deal.
    Peace.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kevin007 For This Useful Post:

    NYCshaver (11-17-2010), Sailor (11-17-2010), Utopian (11-17-2010)

  6. #274
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3919
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    when somebody tells me science is this or science is that, i usually would want to know how well they did in their science classes in school and college and when was the last time they read a scientific paper and could distill a summary of the important stuff in it.
    but before i would consider their opinion on any scientific matter i would like them to at least once in their life to have published a scientific research, so that they have demonstrated an actual experience with the work that is involved in science from having an idea to finding facts pro and contra, evaluating them, coming up with a conclusion, and finally defending it.

    talking anonymously on the internet is cheap, the hard thing to come by is competence.

    the one thing that distinguishes science is predictive power.
    and yes, if you can predict that something will happen with 50.0001% probability and later your measurement confirms that small difference from 50% that's indeed science even though to most people the whole experiment will be nothing more than completely random events.

  7. #275
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central new jersey, USA
    Posts
    728
    Thanked: 240

    Default

    At least I have seen links to some studies by the man made global warming is bull side. This thread has long since left the what do you believe.... Theme to a debate. Which serves two purposes: 1) people become more entrenched in their beliefs 2) people become frustrated others can't see what they see as stupidly simple. That said at least I can see some honesty from the argument that their may be other or exclusively other causes to climate change. At least they willingly admit their is another side while according to many of the posts here if you don't buy into man made global warning you have to be a stupid republican conspiracy nut. It is a theory!!!! That means it hasn't been proven correlation does not show causation I learned that in 6th grade and in the case of man made climate change correlation has not been reasonably established let alone causation. Like I said stupidly simple yet I'm sure many of you feel it is stupidly simple that humans in less than 100 years have inflicted more damage on a planet that has undergone drastic changes constantly during it's billions of years of existence.

  8. #276
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3919
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehekler View Post
    It is a theory!!!! That means it hasn't been proven correlation does not show causation I learned that in 6th grade and in the case of man made climate change correlation has not been reasonably established let alone causation.
    Actually this means only that you have no idea what "a theory" means, when used in the context of science. And I'm sorry to point out, but the "I've seen links" argument is pretty much the same as "I've seen a bible on the shelf at the store, therefore I know the pope is wrong/right".
    You have either read the scientific research and understand the underlying facts, or you're just making stuff up randomly, or parroting somebody else's talking points.

  9. #277
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central new jersey, USA
    Posts
    728
    Thanked: 240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gugi View Post
    Actually this means only that you have no idea what "a theory" means, when used in the context of science. And I'm sorry to point out, but the "I've seen links" argument is pretty much the same as "I've seen a bible on the shelf at the store, therefore I know the pope is wrong/right".
    You have either read the scientific research and understand the underlying facts, or you're just making stuff up randomly, or parroting somebody else's talking points.
    Just wanted to make it clear I was arguing that at least the global warming is bull crowd on this tread attempts to back up there statements. Nothing more not that any of the links provided should be seen a peer accepted, scientific studies just that in this thread it seems the pro man made climate change crowd seems to make outlandish statements without taking the time to find any supporting material. The quality of the material on either side leaves much to be desired but it shows at least a level of passion for the topic. In the context of science I believe a theory is something more than a hypothesis and less then a law. It's possible I'm wrong (it happened once) but I don't think that's the case.

  10. #278
    Never a dull moment hoglahoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    8,922
    Thanked: 1501
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin007 View Post
    I am done wasting my breath.
    rest ... Peace
    bless your soul. Can I have your razors, and does this mean we won't be getting the UFO thread you promised?
    Find me on SRP's official chat in ##srp on Freenode. Link is at top of SRP's homepage

  11. #279
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    272
    Thanked: 19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehekler View Post
    Just wanted to make it clear I was arguing that at least the global warming is bull crowd on this tread attempts to back up there statements. Nothing more not that any of the links provided should be seen a peer accepted, scientific studies just that in this thread it seems the pro man made climate change crowd seems to make outlandish statements without taking the time to find any supporting material.
    Plenty of people in this thread have provided links supporting man made global warming.

    In fact I posted a link in response to one of your posts. Message #159

    Quote Originally Posted by thehekler View Post
    The quality of the material on either side leaves much to be desired but it shows at least a level of passion for the topic.
    No the majority of climate scientists agree on man made global warming so the quality is much better on that side.

  12. #280
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central new jersey, USA
    Posts
    728
    Thanked: 240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NYCshaver View Post
    Plenty of people in this thread have provided links supporting man made global warming.

    In fact I posted a link in response to one of your posts. Message #159



    No the majority of climate scientists agree on man made global warming so the quality is much better on that side.
    I do not have time to look back at the post but I believe you are referring to the NASA.gov link. I saw this link at the time and held back from commenting as I did not want to come off as a teacher grading a 7th grade term paper. I purposely left that post out from my remarks as the quality of what was linked left much to be desired. It assumed correlation without any evidence. If I remember correctly it gave a random stat on temp and a random level of CO2 without any other data or a explanation of how the data was established. If you pick and choose whichever dates you want you can make it appear as if anything is happening. I am not saying that was done only that because of the lack of information it is impossible to know.

    I fear you have confused the terms quality and quantity. Just because more people support one side does not mean that side gas better quality, only quantity. If their is any field where majority should be ignored it is science where a single individual has been proven right over the institution over and over again. On another note I am disappointed that this thread has taken another turn. It started out as a question of belief which I supported, then it turned into a debate which I participated in, it has now moved to an arguement which I will refrain from participating in any further.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •