Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation

[Zyster]

Is that 1.6% number the one that they get by a: adding in all the papers that were left out because they didn't express an opinion so they wouldn't have been relevant (Such as papers to do with, say, some specific ice core sample that has nothing to do with current warming so there'd be absolutely no reason to express an opinion) and then ignoring the "implicitly endorses" category because if you include that, you get a bigger number and bigger numbers imply that lots of scientists believe man is responsible for warming, and that would go against the anti-AGW crowd?

- - - Updated - - -



http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion



I suppose you could call science a "set of beliefs" but these beliefs are backed up by observable, testable evidence so that's a bit of a stretch. Some areas of science, particularly cosmology, do concern the cause of the universe, but not the nature or the purpose of it. Science says nothing about superhuman agencies, and doesn't involve devotional or ritual observances and has no moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. So started out on a good note but fell flat on the rest.

All you just did was further support it being defined by religion.

- - - Updated - - -

Care to give a few examples and explain why they apply?

Because I explained above that the "dogma" is subject to revision, and has been multiple times. And when you strip that away, what you're left with has to be stretched pretty darn far to call it religion.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually, modern cosmology is silent on this just as evolution is silent on abiogenesis. The equations of physics blow up if you try and go to t = 0 (cosmological time), which is a fancy way of saying that the equations do not explain what happened at t = 0 or why. Basically, given initial conditions, cosmology tells you how the rest of it unfolds. But where did those initial conditions come from? No friggin clue.

Subject to revision doesn't make it any less a religion.

[Garnier Fructis]

Subject to revision doesn't make it any less a religion.

Call me when the 10 commandments, or Jesus' divinity are up for debate.

[Glorious Leader]

All you just did was further support it being defined by religion.

- - - Updated - - -



Subject to revision doesn't make it any less a religion.

Subject to revision means in principle any hypothesis is subject to falsifiability through empiricism. Religious belief is by definition unfalsifiable.

[Waniou]

All you just did was further support it being defined by religion.

Just saying "yeah... well... nyeh nyeh you're wrong!" does not actually make you right.

So go on. Where does science talk about the nature and purpose of the universe? Which superhuman agencies does science teach about? What moral code does science say humans should live by? Which devotional and ritual observances does science have?

[Tack980]

Fun fact: Science isn't a single person.

If it was, we'd call it religion

Or absurd politics

[Coffeh]

Amazing to watch these comments completely go off-topic to derail the fact scientists were caught (yet again) manipulating the climate change data. People will do anything to ignore the truth of what's going on.

[ControlWarrior]

alright, and...?

Hand waving. Nothing to see here folks. Did I do it right?

- - - Updated - - -

Subject to revision means in principle any hypothesis is subject to falsifiability through empiricism. Religious belief is by definition unfalsifiable.

Looks like someone downloaded a thesaurus app! Still doesn't make your argument any more intelligent.

[Sky High]

Hand waving. Nothing to see here folks. Did I do it right?

yes because leaving it open for a response is clearly a dismissal. well, around here it is.

[zEmini]

Fox news is fake news.

[Zolaris192]

Reported by Daily Mail, the National Review and Fox News so far.

Let's wait for some real news to come in before rushing to judgement.

All mainstream news is fake trash designed to push a specific narrative

The elites used to tell the non-critical thinking masses, which you seem to be apart of, "god made me elite and you a pleb so do as I say or you are damned to hell"

Now they tell you "your first world lifestyle is killing the planet despite no concrete evidence proving it, so be poor and watch your carbon emissions while I fly jumbo jets and air condition 5 houses"

Seriously, wake up

[Allybeboba]

Again with the climate change threads? ... How long does this need to remain a debate?

Maybe we should also start other threads to keep the debate alive:
Is smoking really bad for our health?
Should women have the right to vote?

In some countries women don't have that right. A lot of people don't have many basic "rights". Yet, here we are worrying about ours being taken away instead of helping them.

- - - Updated - - -

Fox news is fake news.

So is CNN. And most mainstream media sources for that fact. People really shouldn't trust ANY mainstream news source 100%. Sadly, it has come to this point.

[zEmini]

In some countries women don't have that right. A lot of people don't have many basic "rights". Yet, here we are worrying about ours being taken away instead of helping them.

- - - Updated - - -



So is CNN. And most mainstream media sources for that fact. People really shouldn't trust ANY mainstream news source 100%. Sadly, it has come to this point.

The larger teh network, the "faker" it gets. You won't get any disagreement with me.

[purebalance]

Conspiracy theory thread?

If this was conspiracy theory, half the things some of the mods here say would fall under that.

[cubby]

Fun fact: Science isn't a single person.

If it was, we'd call it religion

That is worthy of a sig tag line - well done!

And I agree, that's why scientists use collaboration and peer review.

[Glorious Leader]

Hand waving. Nothing to see here folks. Did I do it right?

- - - Updated - - -


Looks like someone downloaded a thesaurus app! Still doesn't make your argument any more intelligent.

I havent really made an argument as far as im aware. You seem to be rather upset however. Do you require a safe space?

[Waniou]

Amazing to watch these comments completely go off-topic to derail the fact scientists were caught (yet again) manipulating the climate change data. People will do anything to ignore the truth of what's going on.

No, it's just the claim that scientists were "manipulating" climate change data was debunked on the first page, so we're kinda out of things to talk about.

[Zyster]

Call me when the 10 commandments, or Jesus' divinity are up for debate.

Doesn't change science is a religion. They will never be up for debate.

- - - Updated - - -

Subject to revision means in principle any hypothesis is subject to falsifiability through empiricism. Religious belief is by definition unfalsifiable.

No its not.

- - - Updated - - -

Just saying "yeah... well... nyeh nyeh you're wrong!" does not actually make you right.

So go on. Where does science talk about the nature and purpose of the universe? Which superhuman agencies does science teach about? What moral code does science say humans should live by? Which devotional and ritual observances does science have?

Actually, it does make me right, but that hasn't been said anywhere regardless.


[Infracted]

[Cthulhu 2020]

No, it's just the claim that scientists were "manipulating" climate change data was debunked on the first page, so we're kinda out of things to talk about.

It's not going to get through to them.

These are the same people that thought climategate was a legitimate thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't change science is a religion. They will never be up for debate.

We're still testing the nature of gravity and many other unanimously accepted scientific theories. "Trust, but verify" is a scientific concept. "Believe and have absolute faith in what I say" is religious.

You don't have to believe anyone who tells you human driven climate change is real. The material is out there. The real stuff, not fake breitbart trash. There's literally mountains of evidence where you can truly sate your "Questioning" of climate change. I won't ever demand that you believe me. I'll just demand that you research to reach your conclusion, and use real science.

[Zenfoldor]

If you want the US to lead by example on climate change, do you then subscribe to the fact that the US is your leader? If the US isn't your leader, then who are they leading by example? Finally, would sticking strictly to the Paris climate accords accomplish anything when it comes to the actual climate?

Here's my thoughts. The climate situation, including all the really short sighted "challenges" we face is an unsustainable situation. There is no feasible way to prevent catastrophic climate change by simply cutting emissions yesterday.

Instead, we should take the money that we were going to spend on cutting emissions and invest them in a project of geo-engineering. This will be the way everyone thinks in 20 years.

What is Geo-Engineering? Simple, the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth's climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.

So why don't we invest in geo-engineering right now? That my friends, is the "right" question.

[Caolela]

Fun fact: Science isn't a single person.

If it was, we'd call it religion

I see wot u did there.