|
joether -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 8:36:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
For those of you who may have questions on climate change, this is a good place to go to to get your answers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
If you still have questions that have not been answered by this page, I'd recommend contacting a local university professor on the subject. Because I'll admit I'm no genius, and while I don't want this thread to become a hot bed of further conflict, I just wanted to point people in a good direction if they actually want answers. If you just want to fight and argue, be my guest, but you can do it without me.
Good day everyone.
Modern day conservatives are like Christian conservatives back in the '80s and '90s. Those conservatives did anything and everything to disprove the Theory of Evolution. Paying scientists to lend their 'credibility' and publish 'research' to show that Creationism was not only correct, but the Theory of Evolution was wrong. Yet, when actual scientist sat down, ran the same experiments, they can up with totally different results. So being scientists, they ran the same experiments over and over again. An each time, obtaining the same results they got the first time. So they asked those Christian conservatives to walk them through the whole experiment from start to finish. The problem was, the Christian conservatives threw out any and all evidence that would contradict the Holy Bible (which to them was 100% factual). That evidence was removed and the remainder was used in the conclusion. Scientists were not sure whether to laugh in the Christian conservative's faces, or give a blistering degree of harsh criticism. In the end, they did both. To this day, Christian Conservative's do not even have 1/1,000,000 the evidence supporting their view on Creationism as what is known on the Theory of Evolution. Still, scientists, unlike Christian conservatives, acknowledge that while Creationism could be true, the evidence supporting it is staggering low and flimsy.
Modern day conservatives view the Theory of Climate Change in much of the same way; that their viewpoint trumps the gigantic mountain of evidence collected so far that states otherwise. Even in the face of the facts and evidence, the Modern day conservative will still, religiously I might add, stick to their viewpoint. To a conservative, science is seen as an evil tool of mankind. Used in ways they can not understand, most because they never sat down in a real science class and taught what science is from a real science teacher/instructor. Nor put through different lab experiments. Whether in an actual lab or field work.
In both cases, both groups of conservatives (some Christian conservatives are also Modern day conservatives) have benefited from the Theory of Evolution. And as time passes, will benefit from the knowledge gain through science on the Theory of Climate Change. Regardless, both groups will be against science, since its easier to be ignorant and a fool, than sit down and learn to be something else.
Further, its the view that either theory is a belief like a religion. Conservatives in both cases, approach science like politics: zero sum. Zero sum means one side has to win and the other lose. Like a football game. Yet, if you asked if I believe in either theory, I would say 'no'. I would however go on to state: "both theories present an indepth understanding into the nature of reality that benefits mankind in the long run. A theory is the highest level of scientific concept, supported by much in the way of evidence collected so far. A theory is stated as the simplest way of understanding all the data so far collected." Long answer, right? Yet, that is the true difference between conservatives and scientists. The first group can only manage simple concepts and answers; the second group is nor fearful of big words, ideas, concepts, or thoughts. It should not be a surprise given that knwledge, why many scientists are also liberal in their political viewpoint.
I wonder what the next scientific theory will be argued by conservatives in the future. I expect, given data and observation of the previous two scientific theories, the new one will have a new crop of conservatives assaulting it with mindless rants and questionable if not discredited 'scientists'. Further, based on what has been observed and studied by scientists, those future conservatives will benefit directly and indirectly from the knowledge learn, yet all the while denying they do.
|
|
|
|
