Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by McFuu View Post
    The scientific consensus on climate change is exactly that, we are making an impact but science doesn't really know if our level of impact matters in the long run. And what is meant by that is will our very fractional speeding up of warming on the Earth actually matter.
    Right. Me farting has an impact. Its like such a small fraction of the gas on the planet it doesn't make any change you can feel but it made made some tiny, tiny change. I think V8s are example. Is a Hellcat making more impact than a Volt? yeah, I'd assume so. But does it matter? I'm pretty sure it does not.

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Frontenac View Post
    Okay, I'm not at all like that guy. What I am saying is that people are looking for knowledge that is set for all time. They want their questions answered once and for all. That Mac guy is exactly like that. He's in search of absolute, and he rejects science because some scientists or thinkers were wrong (by the way, Aristotles as a scientist, really?). And some people are ready to believe any word spouted out by a guy because it has Ph.D. at the end of his name. Well, science does not believe in absolute truths. Theories are accepted while they work. When observations contradict them, they are modified or discarded. This is how science progresses.
    I'm sorry I thought you were being rhetorical a few posts back. Of course I don't think that and people that do are about as bad as the one's saying it's a religion.
    Last edited by Sky High; 2017-07-29 at 11:50 PM.

  3. #183
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by McFuu View Post
    I'm 100% there with you. I get this. The difference between the science and politics of climate change is huge right now. And some statements you've made push into that territory. Namely mentioning a snowballing effect, or saying the rapid change doesn't smooth things out. Problem is we have no idea, Doomsday predictions falls outside of science. The Earth has been much warmer than it currently is, and in fact we are in a period of lower temps and weather stability. Our current climate is outside of what we would consider usual for the Earth.
    This really isn't all that true, or more accurately, it's technically true on specific points but wrong on the overall claim.

    Science absolutely can suggest potential catastrophic outcomes, because we've seen them occur in the past, due to similar but not identical pressures. That "not identical" is where the uncertainty creeps in. And in many cases, such as with major breakage of land ice shelving into the ocean, it's not a question of "if", at all. It's entirely "when", and "how much at once".

    In the large scheme of things, human pollution has added a volcano eruption or two worth of damage to the environment.
    That is complete, unadulterated nonsense. It's not true. Human emissions are on the order of 60-100x volcanic emissions year-by-year. A major eruption like that of Mount St. Helens might catch volcanic emissions up to anthropogenic emissions for a few days, but it won't be maintained.

    Human emissions absolutely dwarf volcanic emissions, and it's not even remotely close.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/

    The variance in "60-100x" largely rests on how they calculate; some calculations account for the effects of ejecta like dust, which tends to have a cooling effect, and that results in the lower estimates. But regardless, mankind is punching out way more CO2 than volcanoes. In the absence of a supervolcanic eruption, which hasn't happened in human history, there's no chance volcanic emissions are all that significant.


  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    I'm not really disagreeing with most of what you're saying. I'm just saying that you're using the word "fad" incorrectly.

    - - - Updated - - -



    What do you mean it must be falsifiable? Do you mean your must be able to test your hypothesis? I agree with that but the poster's statement that, "If you can't disprove it then it is fact" is just absurd. That's not how science works. That's not how logic works.

    You can also definitely prove things in science. So, not sure what you mean by that either.
    No. You do not understand science. You CANNOT prove anything in science.

    https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/0...-a-good-thing/


    The problem with the idea that you "prove" things in science is to suggest you've found EVERY bit of knowledge in a field (which you'd have no way of knowing if you did or not) and came to the most accurate conclusion. This is impossible. You can disprove things in science. You cannot prove things in science.

    Science is in the realm of disproof.

    And falsifiable means is the theorem able to be disproven (Hypothetically speaking)? If no, it's not science.

  5. #185
    Deleted
    Thinking a scientific theory is true is still a believe.
    Yes the earth is round, this can be proven by photo etch
    ( Don't start about fakes) but for example gravity, the earth pulling down. But why can't this be a other force 'a downpushing force for example'? I Do stand behind science but it kind of starts to feels like a religion for myself where I believe things that can't actually be proven.

  6. #186
    If we are counting social science and psychology then yeah I have plenty.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Legendix187- View Post
    Thinking a scientific theory is true is still a believe.
    Yes the earth is round, this can be proven by photo etch
    ( Don't start about fakes) but for example gravity, the earth pulling down. But why can't this be a other force 'a downpushing force for example'? I Do stand behind science but it kind of starts to feels like a religion for myself where I believe things that can't actually be proven.
    A downward pushing force? Cool. Now what is causing this downward pushing force rather than gravitational pull? Gravity makes a lot more sense than what you claim.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by McFuu View Post
    I'm 100% there with you. I get this. The difference between the science and politics of climate change is huge right now. And some statements you've made push into that territory. Namely mentioning a snowballing effect, or saying the rapid change doesn't smooth things out. Problem is we have no idea, Doomsday predictions falls outside of science. The Earth has been much warmer than it currently is, and in fact we are in a period of lower temps and weather stability. Our current climate is outside of what we would consider usual for the Earth.

    In the large scheme of things, human pollution has added a volcano eruption or two worth of damage to the environment. Its hard to predict if it's significant. One of the reasons we should slow our output is because of the uncertainty. But attributing Extinction level events to human involvement is baseless, seeing as there have been plenty of climate related Extinction level events without us. It could just be our time.

    The easiest like example of the fervor being created by this is the people who think it's not safe to bring children in the world because the world is getting so violent. When in reality it's never been more peaceful.
    He directly stated that the snowball effects are all possibilities, not something we can predict with solid certainty.

    Also, there's no conjecture about rapid change being more problematic than slower change. The faster you add energy to a system, the more pronounced the results. Always.

    Your "volcano or two of pollutants" statement is complete horseshit. It's not based in any facts. We know it's significant because the CO2 rise we're seeing is normally associated with massive deglaciation.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  9. #189
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Verzen View Post
    A downward pushing force? Cool. Now what is causing this downward pushing force rather than gravitational pull? Gravity makes a lot more sense than what you claim.
    Claim? Ofc it makes more sense but what proves it? I stand behind the theory of gravity but imo it's still believing the most logical theory that can't be disproved or disproved yet.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Legendix187- View Post
    Thinking a scientific theory is true is still a believe.
    Yes the earth is round, this can be proven by photo etch
    ( Don't start about fakes) but for example gravity, the earth pulling down. But why can't this be a other force 'a downpushing force for example'? I Do stand behind science but it kind of starts to feels like a religion for myself where I believe things that can't actually be proven.
    We know gravity isn't a downward pushing force because it's the same force that keeps planets and moons in orbit. We can use the exact same calculations for objects falling to Earth as we can for the Earth's orbit of the sun, with some additional parameters factored in.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Legendix187- View Post
    Claim? Ofc it makes more sense but what proves it? I stand behind the theory of gravity but imo it's still believing the most logical theory that can't be disproved or disproved yet.
    You can't prove any theory in science. A theory is a hypothesis that explains all the facts it purports to explain consistently. Gravity does that.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  11. #191
    Deleted
    All I was trying to say is that that makes science a believe imo, not to debunking gravity.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by LaserChild9 View Post
    So why did no scientists "sell out" to the right? Love that. Scientist disagrees with your opinion? Must have sold out to the left...
    Let me clarify by saying I don't believe all scientists have sold out, I shouldn't use such a broad statement as it's unfair.

    There are some scientists who have sold out to corporations and the almighty dollar. They are easy to spot because they are likely to make spurious claims like smoking is good for you or having lead in petrol is no bad thing.

    My point is more a comment on today's modern scientist, fresh from university. Today's educations system is dominated by the progressive left, that is not an opinion that is a demonstrable fact. The question is how much as that leftism infiltrated the thinking within the scientific teaching. Because I can see the left side of politics and the modern scientist working hand in glove in a lot of topical issues, I come to my own conclusions. To me, a scientist with no real qualifications in climatology who stands next to a left wing politician and declares the imminent end of the world unless we make sacrifices is no different than the scientist who works for oil companies and tells us burning fossil fuels is good for us.

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Torto View Post
    Let me clarify by saying I don't believe all scientists have sold out, I shouldn't use such a broad statement as it's unfair.

    There are some scientists who have sold out to corporations and the almighty dollar. They are easy to spot because they are likely to make spurious claims like smoking is good for you or having lead in petrol is no bad thing.

    My point is more a comment on today's modern scientist, fresh from university. Today's educations system is dominated by the progressive left, that is not an opinion that is a demonstrable fact. The question is how much as that leftism infiltrated the thinking within the scientific teaching. Because I can see the left side of politics and the modern scientist working hand in glove in a lot of topical issues, I come to my own conclusions. To me, a scientist with no real qualifications in climatology who stands next to a left wing politician and declares the imminent end of the world unless we make sacrifices is no different than the scientist who works for oil companies and tells us burning fossil fuels is good for us.
    There hasn't been a single scientist anywhere claiming the imminent end of the world. None. That all comes from journalists and people like Gore.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Legendix187- View Post
    All I was trying to say is that that makes science a believe imo, not to debunking gravity.
    Knowledge is simply well-supported belief, if you want to break it down far enough. There is nothing, nothing, you can know with 100% certainty.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  14. #194
    Banned Hammerfest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Verzen View Post
    Do YOU have any views that go against mainstream science? What are they? Why do you have those views?
    Yes... or, more precisely, my views go against mainstream Scientism.

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    What the fuck? Science has NEVER been about creating a theory and working to disprove them. That's literally the opposite of how it works. I can't disprove that you have no idea what you're talking about. So, I guess it's fact.

    SCIENCE!
    So you are saying science is about proving something then creating a theory to suit it? You are going to have to explain that one.

  16. #196
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    Knowledge is simply well-supported belief, if you want to break it down far enough. There is nothing, nothing, you can know with 100% certainty.
    Arguably, that you (as an entity of some kind) exist, and mathematics.

    Literally everything else is rooted to one degree or another in observation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Torto View Post
    So you are saying science is about proving something then creating a theory to suit it? You are going to have to explain that one.
    No, science is about testing questions, and when the answers to those questions are consistent and reliable enough that your hypotheses are consistently verifiable, those confirmed hypotheses form what is known as theory.

    You're back to not understanding what science is.


  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    There hasn't been a single scientist anywhere claiming the imminent end of the world. None. That all comes from journalists and people like Gore.
    It wouldn't take me long to find a list of eminent scientists who claimed the world would be 20 foot under water by the next century. Should I bother?

  18. #198
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Torto View Post
    It wouldn't take me long to find a list of eminent scientists who claimed the world would be 20 foot under water by the next century. Should I bother?
    It's not physically possible for the world to be under 20 feet of water. So I seriously doubt you'd find any.

    6m of sea level rise in the next century, though, is possible. It would take some major shelving of land-based ice sheets, but that's a question of "when" rather than "if". It's not generally included in modelling because it's a sudden event, not an ongoing process.

    I'd lay easy money that every single person you'd put on that list used some variation of "could be as high as", "might be as much as", "if X and Y happen, could reach" or the like, rather than some kind of confident "definitely 7m+ by 2100".


  19. #199
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by theostrichsays View Post
    To be honest I haven't checked any of the recent dietary guidelines put out or AHA releases, but after switching from a "healthy" high carb diet to the Keto diet my individual numbers and general health has improved drastically, and it goes entirely against my doctors recommendations prior to seeing my improvements, and former AHA information.

    So that would likely be the closest.

    After checking health.gov dietary recommendations it looks like they are still recommending high grain/carb diets.
    High five for Keto, mister kangaroo. I'm 50 pounds down and counting. Counting much more slowly these days, but all the same. Now, how much of that is just not eating garbage like the 15+ prior years and how much is the keto diet itself doing its thing, who knows. But so far I can't complain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerfest View Post
    Yes... or, more precisely, my views go against mainstream Scientism.
    It seems like you are saying that science is some sort of belief system. Even though it isn't. Either you understand it or you don't, and it is clear, you fucking don't.

Posting Permissions

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