Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The End of Snow?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The End of Snow? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/20/2015 9:12:03 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
A good article explaining the cold temperatures much of north america has been experiencing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/pastglobalwarming

Yet the article from the link I supplied also indicates that global warming could also be a natural cycle that happens on earth and has happened several times over earth's history, especially when you look at global warming from a geological time scale.

You mean, it isn't settled?

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
    David Bellamy, botanist.
    Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
    Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
    Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
    Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
    Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
    Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
    Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
    Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
    Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
    Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
    Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
    Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
    Zbigniew Jaworowski, physician and ice core researcher.
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
    Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
    Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
    William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
    Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
    Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
    Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
    Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
    Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University
    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
    Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
    Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
    Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
    George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
    Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
    Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
    John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
    Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
    Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.
    Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
    Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
    Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
    Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
    Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
    Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
Source


That you look at a mere 57 individuals that disagree with concept 'Climate Change, without understanding....WHAT...their issues are exactly; is a sad and desperate attempt to still have an argument in this thread. How many scientists exist in the America, Kirata? And the evidence shows many of those support the Theory of Climate Change. Yes, there will be people that disagree with the evidence. There were people that thought the entire atmosphere would burn away if an atomic denotation took place. And people thought it was impossible to duplicate tissue.

What your not understanding of the scientists listed above is not that they completely disagree with climate change. Their disagreements are a whole couple of levels more complicated than what your suggesting. That you will cling onto one of these individuals and say "HA! This person disagrees with the Theory, therefore, the whole there, mountains of evidence, and all your liberal conspiracies are unfounded' is not an argument; just some desperate conservative that has no clue what they're babbling about. I'm just going to save you from getting hard-core bashed by everyone. Its happened on the forums, when this subject has come up. Those that did it, got bashed. It didnt work for them, it will not work for you.

Consensus in science operates a bit differently than you might be used to without an organization of people.Scientist do not leave out the possibility that they haven't discovered something that would disprove the current understanding of climate change. Let's just say for the sake of the argument something did. Scientists (unlike deniers) would sit down and consider the information, and run experiments with this new information. Testing outcomes and forming conclusions on it and how it relates to climate change. Then form a new viewpoint that incorporates the new information with all the other information and move forward again. Science, unlike religion, can self-correct after finding information that doesnt fit with understanding of a concept.

Deniers on the other hand, would see that information as justification that they were right all along. And would be shown as a pack of idiots when the scientist convene to discussion and form a new conceptual idea that puts the new information in with the old.

This will be a very good article for you to study up on.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/20/2015 9:26:19 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The issue of 'what is causing Climate Change' has been settled.

Something is settled alright, but it's not what you think.


This coming from a denier is pretty amusing. What is the current score of your failing posts to mine with the accurate information? I've lost count! Actually, I'm not really keeping count. Because the subject matter is not a football match like you seem to think. That you have to win, regardless of what you have to state or explain. There really isnt a contest here. That its hard for you to understand that, is not my problem nor fault. You made statements that were not true given the information known, and were shown the correct information. An you where shown where to find that information.

Scientists have moved on from 'Is Climate Change taking place?' and 'How?', to 'What can be done about it?'. That you cant understand this, is your problem. Not mine, nor all the scientists. That you will keep pushing for some weird argument after another, to find some 'chink' in the armor of scientific understanding and knowledge, is really silly. Scientists do not know everything on Climate Change. But they know quite a bit more on the subject matter than you do! An they are not afraid to publish their findings. They actually encourage others to run their experiments. Not because it strokes their ego, but to see if others get the same or similar results.

You have this huge partisan view from the conservative ideology. Did you ever consider that your political philosophy is wrong, and not the science?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/20/2015 9:34:08 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
Joether (biggest partisan from the left on the board...speaking of another's' views as partisan): You have this huge partisan view from the conservative ideology. Did you ever consider that your political philosophy is wrong, and not the science?

The science is not settled joether and science is not proven by consensus.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/20/2015 9:45:53 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

What is the current score of your failing posts to mine with the accurate information?

Dunno. If you're interested, you can start counting with these search results:

joether making shit up
joether lying
joether second amendment
joether obama

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

You have this huge partisan view from the conservative ideology.

You're making shit up again (see here). My political leanings are left-libertarian.



K.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/20/2015 10:31:29 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/20/2015 9:50:49 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Hey, K; could you put up the site where you got that, again, please? I did one a while (one computer) ago and I A) Can't find my graphic and B) want to see if my results are different, now.

Thanks,



Michael


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/20/2015 9:55:50 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Hey, K; could you put up the site where you got that, again, please? I did one a while (one computer) ago and I A) Can't find my graphic and B) want to see if my results are different, now.

There are several different tests of the same type online, but that particular one is here:

http://politicalcompass.org/

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/20/2015 9:56:47 PM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/20/2015 10:02:59 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Thank ye, kind sir.

(Touching the line centrist; almost middle Libertarian)



Michael


< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 2/20/2015 10:18:54 PM >


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/20/2015 11:46:05 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Joether (biggest partisan from the left on the board...speaking of another's' views as partisan): You have this huge partisan view from the conservative ideology. Did you ever consider that your political philosophy is wrong, and not the science?

The science is not settled joether and science is not proven by consensus.


I'm a 'big partisan' because I'm hitting you and the other conservatives with something you dont like...

FACTS

I have the ability to consider many things. Including whether a viewpoint of mine is wrong. Can you say the same? 'No', you cant. You know, I know it, and everyone else knows it.

Present an argument. Back it up with evidence. Make it sound like....YOU....created the argument. And didn't just 'copy/paste' the viewpoint from somewhere, or a talking points memo from ALEC! Look at how I present an argument. Did I copy/paste someone else's viewpoint ans pass if off as my own like a few conservatives on here?

*coughKirata*cough*

No, I'll give a source to show where the information is originating from. So you can look at it, and determine for yourself if things are true and correct. The problem you have CD is unique: Your just lazy on the facts. That is how I can destroy your arguments so often. Put some study into your argument, we can debate the concept, rather than me picking apart the 'how' you got your information.

I have no problem with someone disproving something I think, believe, or feel is correct. But I'm not going to take your word for it. I need...evidence....facts....stuff that I can study for a bit of time. To be 'off topic' for a moment, there is a few things I've learned over the years on gun control from the more conservative members (i.e. BamaD). That when they have made good arguments with good evidence, rather than the psychotic bullshit from the NRA; I have updated my views accordingly. I can tell the difference between the genuine argument and supporting information verse the cut/paste job.

Many conservatives for example, hate how President Obama talks. I disagree with the man at times. The difference between the conservatives and myself is not because I'm liberal. Its because I understand his argument and the supporting information that comes along with it. That he explains his thought process so I can understand "Ok, I can see the chain of events here".

I give these long-winded replies, in the hopes you can understand my argument and the supporting information. You can disagree afterward. But my hope is that you say "Ok, I understand what he is saying, and why he is saying this. Its a decent argument....BUT....I have this view here". And proceed to give it with supporting information. Now...THAT'S....a discussion forming.

I'm a partisan because I love liberty, freedom, and my country. That I'm a partisan because I give a shit about other people; many of them I dont know! That I do good Samaritan stuff....makes me a partisan in this country. I'm a partisan because I rather have facts and evidence instead of silly and stupid bullshit. Or maybe....just maybe, I'm an American that lives in a liberal republic called 'The United States of America'.


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 12:17:06 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
What is the current score of your failing posts to mine with the accurate information?

Dunno. If you're interested, you can start counting with these search results:

joether making shit up
joether lying
joether second amendment
joether obama


So you put up a bunch of search examples of stuff I said, because you disagree with me. Just because I used facts and evidence to completely, and absolutely fucking destroy your viewpoints, is....NOT...lying. I know that's a hard concept to understand....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
You have this huge partisan view from the conservative ideology.

You're making shit up again (see here). My political leanings are left-libertarian.




How many times did you take the 'exam' to arrive at that viewpoint? I cant even trust your answer, because you have been so dishonest on so many topics over the past few months. Your credibility is gone.

I can go through that same test and get the same result. Not to tough once you understand how a libertarian thinks on things. Your not a libertarian. They make sense half the time; you never make sense!

You must have enjoyed all the 'Sith' questions. Do you know what the sith religion is?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 12:28:45 AM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
What is the current score of your failing posts to mine with the accurate information?

Dunno. If you're interested, you can start counting with these search results:

joether making shit up
joether lying
joether second amendment
joether obama

I applaud your tenacity in swimming through sewage, K.

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 1:01:45 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

What is the current score of your failing posts to mine with the accurate information?

Dunno. If you're interested, you can start counting with these search results:

joether making shit up
joether lying
joether second amendment
joether obama

Just because I used facts and evidence to completely, and absolutely fucking destroy your viewpoints, is....NOT...lying.

You're lying again, but thanks for reposting the links.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
You have this huge partisan view from the conservative ideology.

You're making shit up again (see here). My political leanings are left-libertarian.

How many times did you take the 'exam' to arrive at that viewpoint?

Once. I just took it again, out of curiosity, and scored the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I cant even trust your answer, because you have been so dishonest on so many topics over the past few months. Your credibility is gone.

And you'll be right back with a list of my "dishonest" posts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Your not a libertarian.

I didn't say I was a libertarian.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

You must have enjoyed all the 'Sith' questions. Do you know what the sith religion is?

You're making shit up again. There are no "Sith" questions on the test.

K.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 1:06:57 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Joether (biggest partisan from the left on the board...speaking of another's' views as partisan): You have this huge partisan view from the conservative ideology. Did you ever consider that your political philosophy is wrong, and not the science?

The science is not settled joether and science is not proven by consensus.

You are incorrect in the second of the claims you advance in your post. The criterion of truth in science is consensus. - a theory becomes settled science when the overwhelming majority of scientists in that discipline agree that it is valid.

On the first claim, the science will never be settled - to claim that the science or knowledge is settled suggests that everything it is possible to know about climate change is known and that will never be the case. But that is quite a different thing to denying that a consensus exists among climate change scientists regarding global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists subscribe to the existing consensus that climate change is real and influenced to a large degree by human activity.

_____________________________



(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 1:14:49 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The criterion of truth in science is consensus.

Firstly, science doesn't seek "truth," it seeks facts. So there is no criterion for "truth" in science. Secondly, the history of science includes a laundry list of things about which the "consensus" was wrong. So even if science was a search for truth, "consensus" would be a poor criterion.

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/21/2015 1:22:12 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 1:46:53 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
This post like the previous one and the one before it, are off topic (for the third time....)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

What is the current score of your failing posts to mine with the accurate information?

Dunno. If you're interested, you can start counting with these search results:

joether making shit up
joether lying
joether second amendment
joether obama

Just because I used facts and evidence to completely, and absolutely fucking destroy your viewpoints, is....NOT...lying.

You're lying again, but thanks for reposting the links.


If I'm lying, then show the evidence. In the United States one is innocent until proven guilty. In Kirata-land, one is guilty without the need for evidence to be presented. Isn't that how tyrannical governments operate, Kirata? For someone so in love with liberty, you seem to always favor lies and tyranny.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
You have this huge partisan view from the conservative ideology.

You're making shit up again (see here). My political leanings are left-libertarian.

How many times did you take the 'exam' to arrive at that viewpoint?

Once. I just took it again, out of curiosity, and scored the same.


An I will quote you Kirata, "A broken clock is right twice a day...."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
I cant even trust your answer, because you have been so dishonest on so many topics over the past few months. Your credibility is gone.

And you'll be right back with a list of my "dishonest" posts?


An honest person would admit in their post that they are being 'off topic'. Tell me Kirata, where in this post of yours is on the current topic? The current topic being 'Climate Change'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Your not a libertarian.

I didn't say I was a libertarian.


From Post #84, I quote:

"My political leanings are left-LIBERTARIAN."

Left, right, about-face, little finger by the seam of your coat, in a box by the corner of the bed under the dresser.

Your not on the left. That much is known. I looked at that 'exam' It was silly, racist, one-sided, and stunk like a Sith Lord.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

You must have enjoyed all the 'Sith' questions. Do you know what the sith religion is?

You're making shit up again. There are no "Sith" questions on the test.


How do I know your not on the left? That you didnt know what a Sith is. Comes from Star Wars. Darth Vader was a Sith Lord. The Sith deal in absolutes with no question for what could be between. You typically deal in absolutes in your posts. You never give ground to the consideration of anything between two extremes. Nor do you consider the other person could be correct in their viewpoints.

There were plenty of 'Sith Questions'. But because you did not know what a Sith was, how could you know what to look for?

"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races." (sith AND Racist)

"People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality" (they arent divided by politics or religion?)

"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." (not the only two things to try to control in an economy)

"The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."

"The rich are too highly taxed." (compared to what?)

"Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ." (not only a Sith but worshipper of Crom)

"Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public." (FOX 'news' would be out of business n 9 seconds flat).

"All authority should be questioned." (do you question your doctor? Your barber? Your local PD? The US Military? God?)

"All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind." (another racist thought)

"People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce." (no compassion, no hope)

"The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline." (since adults have been noted for there awesome record of discipline, right?)

"Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support." (sometimes the 'why' they arent working is a good reason)

"No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." (who judges independence?)

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." (the only thing worst than the two party format we have now....)

"In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation." (this is revenge, not justice)

"You cannot be moral without being religious." (need I say more on the Sith?)

I did that 'exam' of yours. Put down all 'disagrees' and got nearly the same result you did! I might even suggest you didnt put much thought into the answers, but were seeking the end result. How much tries did you go through to get the desired answer?


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 1:53:24 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The criterion of truth in science is consensus.

Firstly, science doesn't seek "truth," it seeks facts. So there is no criterion for "truth" in science. Secondly, the history of science includes a laundry list of things about which the "consensus" was wrong. So even if science was a search for truth, "consensus" would be a poor criterion.


Hate to say it tweak, but he is right. Someone did learn something from me :P

I would only add....

Scientists reach consensus by the agreement of facts, yet leave open the possibility that something else could state things in a totally different viewpoint/manner. Which is why God has never been proven or dis proven by science.

That said, consensus is a human expression of community. Humans are very sociable creatures. As such, unwittingly we reach consensus in order to move on to other concepts and ideas. That we are more civilized then those that came before us; we realize and leave the possibility open to coming back to the previous consesus due to new evidence or issue(s).

Likewise, Kirata, Tweak is also correct on the second paragraph....

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
On the first claim, the science will never be settled - to claim that the science or knowledge is settled suggests that everything it is possible to know about climate change is known and that will never be the case. But that is quite a different thing to denying that a consensus exists among climate change scientists regarding global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists subscribe to the existing consensus that climate change is real and influenced to a large degree by human activity.


< Message edited by joether -- 2/21/2015 1:55:53 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 1:53:48 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

If I'm lying, then show the evidence.

You quoted it. And thanks again, by the way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

How do I know your not on the left? That you didnt know what a Sith is.

You're a hoot! I think we're done here.

K.


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 1:59:25 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
If I'm lying, then show the evidence.

You quoted it. And thanks again, by the way.


Your definition of 'lying' seems to be at odds with the rest of reality. I didn't lie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
How do I know your not on the left? That you didnt know what a Sith is.

You're a hoot! I think we're done here.


Did I school your ass.....AGAIN? One of these days your actually going to win an argument.....NAY! Science has concluded that for the most part!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/21/2015 2:14:42 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The criterion of truth in science is consensus.

Firstly, science doesn't seek "truth," it seeks facts. So there is no criterion for "truth" in science. Secondly, the history of science includes a laundry list of things about which the "consensus" was wrong. So even if science was a search for truth, "consensus" would be a poor criterion.


Hate to say it tweak, but he is right. Someone did learn something from me :P

I would only add....

Scientists reach consensus by the agreement of facts, yet leave open the possibility that something else could state things in a totally different viewpoint/manner. Which is why God has never been proven or dis proven by science.



Whether one calls it 'scientific truth'* or 'scientific orthodoxy' or 'scientific fact' or 'settled science' or 'facts', the process by which that status is conferred is by those scientists in the relevant discipline agreeing ie arriving at a consensus that the particular item in question deserves the status.

Unless there is a pre-existing consensus on what constitutes proof, no one can prove anything. Therefore all 'facts' or 'truths' are dependent on a process of consensus.

*strictly speaking the notion of 'scientific truth' verges on being an oxymoron.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 2/21/2015 2:16:31 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/22/2015 2:14:43 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline
5 pages and going because a putative intelligence can't grasp that "Global Warming" doesn't mean everywhere is getting warmer by the same amount and at the same time? 'Net'(averaged), 'System' and 'global' must be words yet to learn.
Part of projections of future weather include that disruptive influences unbalancing a number of relatively stable cycles will produce more variability in the process. Global Warming is but one, and typical of disruptive influences. As does basic Chaos Theory. It defines how the conditions necessary for a chaotic system are inherent in global weather. Chaos is by definition variable. The current thinking is tropical cyclonic storms are going to increase in violence and decrease in number. I'd rather have more weak storms, we lost the chance to choose a long time back.

The whole first section of the 'dissenting scientists' listed earlier where NOT dissenting from Global Warming. They were stating current data was not sufficient to establish the published ranges of possible warming, high or low, to the precision claimed by the various computer model workers. Quoting people who directly disagree with your position because they are picking at the finer points of what you are trying to reject has to say real comprehension of the arguments and subject itself are lacking. Or intellectual dishonesty is at work. Pick one?

Continuing claims Polar ice is increasing is disingenuous to an unprecedented degree, even for US Right Wing dittoheads. Antarctic sea ice is increasing. (Largely because of rising eccentric continental winds (Off shore) and the Warming mediated breakup of floating ice shelves!) Antarctic ice total is declining precipitously in totally off the chart amounts. Theory is struggling to explain the amount of melting now being observed, not the reverse.
Arctic ice is somewhat recovered this year, after several unprecedented years of decreasing. Trends, however, are unprecedented in post-glacial (Holocene) history. N. Hemisphere arctic and temperate region ice (glaciers and ice caps) are similarly vanishing, Iceland, the second largest mass of fresh water on Earth after Antarctica, is being found to be melting at rates no one ever predicted or previously understood could even happen. But 'Global Warming' isn't happening because it's cold a few months in part of one of the smaller continents? Which is unseasonably even warmer in other regions?

Either there is a real conspiracy and it's against disrupting certain current business models by allowing new knowledge to be disseminated and understood by the electorate, or:
Even the Gods Struggle Against Stupidity.

Reply to thread, not tweakabelle. Who really should read more Feyerabend, and the criticisms of him.


< Message edited by epiphiny43 -- 2/22/2015 2:27:21 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: The End of Snow? - 2/22/2015 2:43:16 AM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

5 pages and going because a putative intelligence can't grasp that "Global Warming" doesn't mean everywhere is getting warmer by the same amount and at the same time?

You might have missed this, but there are several ungodly fucking stupid people here. Thankfully, they're easy to spot.

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The End of Snow? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.105