|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two types of science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: Is there a unified, working model that humans cause global warming? You have got to be kidding!!! marc9000 writes: "NO WORKING MODEL, NO SCIENCE", No, I'm not kidding. Are you saying that when lots of "people spend their entire careers learning and studying an issue", that that is the ONE TIME that a working model is not required? Climate change HAS a working model. Why didn't you answer that way the FIRST time I asked?
What is it that doesn't work? Do you not understand what a model is? Do you not understand what working means? I'm not familiar with a working model that proves global warming to be man-made. I realize that I've already been told this by someone else here;
quote: But I'll ask you anyway, just in case this forum is for something more than simply mocking and chasing non-atheists away, give me some basics about this "model". Is it one model in one laboratory, or is it diagrams and figures that can be found on the net? Tell you what, pretend it's not me asking the question, lets say it's someone else whose not interested in religion and politics and all of these things we're discussing. Let's say it's someone in the eastern half of the U.S. who just paid several hundred dollars to have repaired some frozen and broken water pipes in his house from the deep freeze that swept the U.S. two weeks ago. He's a non scientist, and as he's commanded to surrender more tax dollars, and higher prices on everything he buys so the planet can be cooled, he's going to need those questions answered in a reasonable way, or there could be more trouble than the scientific community bargains for. They don't have the market cornered on anger, people that witness record cold are not going be all smiles about being stripped of their liberties so the planet can be cooled by government.
marc9000 writes: It can be equally frustrating to spend a bunch of time explaining a political scandal involved with global warming, complete with news media omissions and cover-ups, and have a half dozen opponents not acknowledge that it could be a serious problem. Is your problem with politics or with science? In this case neither, only with a handful of people who appear to be trying to represent science.
So this "cash cow" would be more profitable than the oil and coal industry? Yes, far more. Al Gore has already made close to a billion dollars in trading "carbon credits". And of course, nothing was accomplished that free markets were willing to pay for. The oil and coal industries actually accomplish something, that the public IS willing to pay for.
Is your problem with political bureaucracies or science? Both, when the 10th amendment is trashed.
marc9000 writes: Woodburning stove control is now happening in parts of California How totalitarian of them! Here is a list of around 600 other substances that the dictatorship of California has banned, totally unnecessarily since "we don't need government, or scientific community elites, to tell us how dirty things are." And here is a link clearly showing you how well this is all working out for California. Should we get rid of California environmentalists, before it's economically too late?
marc9000 writes: ("give me liberty or give me death") what do you think inspired someone to be that passionate about liberty? Domineering religious corruption and control. So its religious control that gives people a desire for freedom?
Frankly, your objections are misguided, misdirected, uninformed, and just plain stupid. That's what the scientific community seems to think about most all of U.S. tradition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
If you really want to discuss science, knock off the "atheist" crap and try again. This is the free-for-all forum, and I'm responding to other posters comments about atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
But I care when they start claiming James Madison was an atheist. Do you believe ... ? quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Since there is nothing to be known of the man except through his writings I think it fair to say that Madison was not an especially religious man and had great contempt for the christian churches and their leadership. I don't know, and neither do you, if Madison was actually an atheist in the sense that we mean that term here or not. He may well have been since his writings lean that direction. But one thing we do know - he sure weren't no christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If you really want to discuss science, knock off the "atheist" crap and try again. This is the free-for-all forum, and I'm responding to other posters comments about atheism. You are peddling a standard creationist line of nonsense, which claims any science they agree with is "real" science, while any science which disproves some of their religious beliefs is "atheist" science. That's nonsense from start to finish.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
But I care when they start claiming ... that the constitution guarantees universal healthcare. Do you believe ... ? The Constitution does not mention healthcare in any manner. What is does say, however, is that the congress of the people will provide for the common welfare of the United States. The congress can establish a universal healthcare system if it damn well wants to and can tax the people to support it. See Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... and provide for the general Welfare of the United States.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
marc9000 writes: ("give me liberty or give me death") what do you think inspired someone to be that passionate about liberty? Domineering religious corruption and control. So its religious control that gives people a desire for freedom? History is full of examples where religious corruption and mind control inspired many to be passionate, even violent, in regaining their personal liberty, freedom and right to their own conscience from the priests. Especially from the fundamentalist Biblicans. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Marc is responding to an imaginary statement made by a fictional person in The Onion. It hardly seems worth engaging him on this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The Onion, the Bible, hell the The National Enquirer, they're all the same to him. If they comply with his fantasies he believes them. It hardly seems worth engaging him on any point. Where's the fun in that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2880 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Much of your response seems to center around the founding of our country, limited government, and freedom. This is a forum for debating evolution vs creationism.
the ever increasing scientific whims about global warming and other environmentalist hysteria.
The SHTF when we are forced to deal with the reality of overpopulation, eh?
By asking for some balance in atheist science
Not censor it, balance it.
OK, gotcha. So which items from this list are we to use to balance science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From your lack of response to Message 77 I am going to assume that your response is similar to your previous responses:
7060 years? Not a problem, you’re two for two. But you've only made a progression of 2000 years, ... And we are now at a point where the earth is at least 8,714 years old this year (2014), another small step in the overall process . The next step is to look at other dendrochronologies, now that we have established the valid scientific basis for this process of scientific information gathering and determination from the evidence available. For instance there is an oak dendrochronology from Ireland that extends back to 7980 BCE, or 9930 BP (before 1950), slightly longer than the Bristlecone Pine chronology. And there is a second oak dendrochronology from Germany that extends back to 10,429 BP (before 1950) or 8489 BCE. Again, a modest increase in the overall age for the earth to accommodate such growth and history documented in the tree rings. Note that at 8489 BCE we are 10,502 years into the past (there is no year zero) from 2014 CE.
How could the tree rings tell you if those trees (alive or dead) were simply surrounded by water for a period of 40 days? Again, we see a continuous record from dead and living samples of wood, from three different locations on the earth. The period of submersion would have been much longer than just the 40 days and nights, as there were some 150 days after the end of the rain ceased before the purported flood dissipated to the point where the purported ark found land. Trees don't live underwater for long.
Repeatable and testable, but are they falsifiable Repeatable, testable and falsifiable. It is science after all. Again, based on this objective empirical evidence, I conclude that the earth is at least 10,502 years old this year (2014) . If you don't reply, that's fine, but it may indicate that you have no answer to this set of questions - or that you concur with them. Again I await your reply. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Why didn't you answer that way the FIRST time I asked? Because you really don't care about the actual science behind the issue. If you did you would have done a little research on the subject.
quote: Exactly. What are the problems you have with global warming models?
I'm not familiar with a working model that proves global warming to be man-made. Well, it hasn't been "proven", that's just not how it works. There is a strong, practically undeniable correlation between human activity and global warming.
Let's say it's someone in the eastern half of the U.S. who just paid several hundred dollars to have repaired some frozen and broken water pipes in his house from the deep freeze that swept the U.S. two weeks ago. He's a non scientist, and as he's commanded to surrender more tax dollars, and higher prices on everything he buys so the planet can be cooled, he's going to need those questions answered in a reasonable way Well, this hypothetical person is mistaking weather for climate. Weather is what happens over the short term, like days or weeks. Climate is what happens over longer periods of time, like decades or centuries. That the climate is warming (over decades) is a FACT. That fact can be measured and documented; there is no denying that the climate is warming. The CAUSE of the change is what we need models for and is what is debated. If you really feel there is problems with models that suggest human caused global warming, why don't you present the arguments that support your feelings.
Yes, far more. Al Gore has already made close to a billion dollars in trading "carbon credits". Where do you get your information from? Gore's net worth is reportedly $200 million, far less than your supposed $1 billion. Most of that appears to come from the sale of a network he had ownership in and was sold to Al-Jezeera and his options in Apple stock. It doesn't appear that trading carbon credits made him any where near a $billion.
How Al Gore's Net Worth Caught Up With Mitt Romney's The oil and coal industries actually accomplish something, that the public IS willing to pay for. One thing you have to consider in what the "public is willing to pay for" is what costs are being externalized. For instance, if you pay $5 for a tee shirt it is because workers in India are being exploited in the making of that shirt. Were all involved in the production of the tee shirt receiving a fair and equitable compensation, the same tee shirt would cost more like $25. Hows that for what the "public is willing to pay for?" ... exploitation of human labor! How much do you think oil and coal would actually cost if the industry paid for all the environmental damage they do?
So its religious control that gives people a desire for freedom? Especially when coupled with corruption and political power. Our founding fathers were determined to prevent the new government of the US from exerting that type of control. Contrary to what some may imagine, our founding fathers were not trying to establish a Christian nation, nor were they trying to establish a nation free from religion. They wanted to ensure that this nation would not become a country dominated by any particular religion, such as they had left in England.
That's what the scientific community seems to think about most all of U.S. tradition. Tradition is over rated. We need to live in the day. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Since there is nothing to be known of the man except through his writings I think it fair to say that Madison was not an especially religious man and had great contempt for the christian churches and their leadership. A few cherry picked quotes aren't the only method of knowing the beliefs of U.S. founders.
quote: and;
quote: James Madison and Religious Liberty | The Heritage Foundation
But one thing we do know - he sure weren't no christian. I hope you're better with science than you are with history. Have you ever heard of John Witherspoon?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
The Constitution does not mention healthcare in any manner. What is does say, however, is that the congress of the people will provide for the common welfare of the United States. The congress can establish a universal healthcare system if it damn well wants to and can tax the people to support it. Have you ever heard of the 10th amendment? (Madison was one of main authors of the Bill of Rights)
See Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... and provide for the general Welfare of the United States. quote: Walter Williams On The General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Much of your response seems to center around the founding of our country, limited government, and freedom. This is a forum for debating evolution vs creationism. Again, this is the free-for-all forum, not the science forums. The scientific community is often very politically active, it can be difficult to discuss their actions and motives without referring to politics, especially since the scientific community is so one-sided politically.
The SHTF when we are forced to deal with the reality of overpopulation, eh? I don't know what "SHTF" means, but there was scientific hysteria about overpopulation back in the late 1960's, predictions of "mass starvation worldwide by the year 2000" etc. - it all turned out to be bogus.
OK, gotcha. So which items from this list are we to use to balance science? Nothing from that list. And science doesn't need to be balanced, just its atheism and liberalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
From your lack of response to Message 77 I am going to assume that your response is similar to your previous responses: Not really, the following from message 77 caused me to lose interest;
quote: You went from standing trees to "dead wood lying on the ground". I've seen dead wood on the ground completely disintegrate in only a few years. I'm not interested in scientific guesses about it thousands of years later.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024