|
leonine -> RE: Can't be Mother Nature (10/4/2013 7:49:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Ah, the DailyMail. Top drawer asswipe; that. And the regurgitator with additional wrapped spin:
Michael T. Snyder is a fundamentalist Christian crank who has started numerous blogs as a testament to his raging insane belief that the world is about to end. He started with The Economic Collapse Blog in 2007, with constant articles stating how the world is going to hell every single day since the meltdown started in 2007. It seems as though Snyder blames the government for every ill in the world, because without it everything would be great.
Like most doom-sayers, it doesn't seem to faze Snyder one bit that every one of his past predictions of economic collapse were dead wrong. This horrendous track record would cause most people to reevaluate their beliefs in the effort to one day be right. Yet, he simply refuses to even address or acknowledge that he has been wrong thousands of times, especially if you count each numbered item of his massive lists. He seems to have explosive diarrhea of the mind that no amount of logic can slow or stop.
So, we will wait upon events. I think it signals the second coming of christ, howz about youse?
I find this most interesting. Snyder uses the available data, as he sees it, and makes predictions. Now, I agree that ~setting dates is putting one's head in the bear trap, but back in the late 60s, or was it in the 70s, science was saying we were heading into an ice age. I saw it on the cover of TIME. This may surprise you, but TIME is not widely recognised as a scientific journal.
Yes, back then *a* scientist (not "science" - abstract nouns don't generally give interviews) predicted an ice age. Other scientists predicted global warming. Over the subsequent decades, the first prediction turned out to be completely wrong, the second accumulated so much correct data that it came to be accepted by every expert not on the oil company payrolls.
Setting dates, and otherwise making precise predictions, is only "putting your head in a bear trap" if you're a tabloid pundit, where the secret of success is to make such vague statements that you can claim to be right whatever happens. For a scientist, making exact predictions (such as dates) is how you show you're a real scientist and not a creationist. Then when your predictions do or don't come true, people know how much weight to give your theories. AGW is accepted by almost all climatologists, geographers, atmosphere scientist, oceanographers, naturalists et cetera, not because they are all in the pay of the World Government Conspiracy, or because they are all revolutionary socialists, but because they have seen its predictions come true for the last fifty years.
Successful prediction cuts no ice at all with politicians, who continue to follow economic theorists whose predictions have failed to come true for as long as they have been writing, but it is the bedrock of science.
|
|
|
|
