or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Science is Real. - Page 6

post #201 of 249

Thanks for sharing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #202 of 249
Thread Starter 

You're welcome.  

 

 

 

Pop quiz!  Roughly how old is the Earth, MJ?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #203 of 249

I don't know.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #204 of 249
Thread Starter 

Stop playing games MJ. Do you have even the slightest inkling of thought or belief on the matter?  Look, if you're a young Earth creationist, have the balls to just admit it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #205 of 249

I really don't have any thought or belief about it. Sorry that frustrates you. Perhaps you need a hobby.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #206 of 249
Thread Starter 

So you were being facetious when thanking me for sharing.  You didn't learn anything from any of the sources I gave you?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #207 of 249

No I wasn't. I have not viewed or read them.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #208 of 249

Peak Farmland

 

 

 

 

Quote:
“Humanity now stands at Peak Farmland, and the 21st century will see release of vast areas of land, hundreds of millions of hectares, more than twice the area of France for nature,”declared Jesse Ausubel, the director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, in a December lecture. Ausubel was outlining the findings in a newstudy he and his collaborators had done in the Population and Development Review. Unlike other alleged resource “peaks,” peak farmland reflects not the exhaustion of resources but the fruits of human intelligence and growing affluence.

 

 

Maybe all that nonorganic farming is actually good for mother earth?

post #209 of 249

So BR, how do you explain the following except by accepting Muhammad was God? 1wink.gif

 

 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #210 of 249

This is an interesting attempt to quantify, in a reasonably defensible and definitive manner, the current state of opinion of within the field of climatology.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

post #211 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This is an interesting attempt to quantify, in a reasonably defensible and definitive manner, the current state of opinion of within the field of climatology.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

Thanks for the link, good balanced rational material. However, its not sexy media fodder, like a handful of leaked emails between frustrated climate scientists regarding the opinions of some of their lay critics.....

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #212 of 249

It's telling, I think, that the two areas of scientific research that conservatives seem to believe are deeply flawed-- evolution and climate change-- happen to coincide with conservative shibboleths: the free market and Christianity.

 

Now we're told that the reason these particular fields of study are built on a house of cards is that they are obliged to rely on "models" and "proxies" and "speculation" and "theory" to fill in the unobservable-- the distant past and, in the case of climate science, the future.

 

But of course a great deal of science works this way.  One wonders why we don't hear a lot of bellyaching about "bad science" when it comes to things like particle physics or cosmology?  Could it be because they don't intersect with any sacred cows on the right?  And that by extending the logic of "can't prove it if you can't make direct observation" such people would be obliged to admit that they don't actually object to the particular practice of science in particular cases, but science itself?  Particularly the science of the very large and very small?

 

Because that's what is happening, over and over again.  The arguments being made against the techniques, practices and conclusions of evolutionary biology and climate science are not, in fact, uniquely applicable to these fields (despite being told, repeatedly, that the skeptics have no problem with "good science", just the debased science that reaches conclusions that run counter to the world view of the skeptic).

 

So what about, say, the Higgs Boson?  It was predicted by a model, has been part of that model for decades without anyone having the experimental apparatus to confirm or deny its existence, indeed arose out of a model comprised of a mathematical framework of incredible complexity that even now has several nagging unanswered questions.  Yet this model has been astoundingly successful in organizing, explaining and predicting phenomena.  The confirmation of the Higgs is just the latest success of what, by the standards being brought to bear on climate science and evolution, is a hopelessly theoretical construct based in speculation and inference and made up ideas about matter and energy with a ton of "gotchas" that could be marshaled to belittle it.  No one has ever "seen" a quark, or a neutrino, or the Higgs boson.  The best we can do is obliterate atoms at increasingly high energies and track the energy signatures of the results. 

 

So nonsense, right?  Some kind of conspiracy?  Yet, strangely, not a source of debate. 

 

And what of cosmology?  Black holes were predicted by theory before there was ever any observable phenomena to correlate with same.  Even now, we hardly have "direct evidence" that they exist, have never sent a probe to take pictures.  They are simply far too far away.  We have, again, energy signatures.  Powerful streams of particles that closely match the theoretical parameters of what a black hole "should" be doing.  Could be something else, that just happens to match our speculative idea about what's out there.  But that speculation is part of a large framework of theory that has been very successful in describing the universe in ways that are congruent with those observations we can make, even allowing for limitations of what we can observe directly over vast distances.  Just as the Standard Model of subatomic physics is congruent with those phenomena we can observe, even allowing for the limits of our experimental apparatus, which would require energies orders of magnitude greater than the output of the suns of our galaxy to probe down to the Plank length-- the current theoretical "grain size" of the universe.

 

So that's all right out, yes?  Bullshit?  Some kind of mass hallucination?  Soros funded something something not sure why?

 

If not, why not?  Why evolution and climate science, and not the rest of science?  I think people claiming that those two areas are somehow a hotbed of malfeasance and error and corruption should explain why they aren't similarly put-off by everything else that science has to tell us about the world. 

post #213 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

It's telling, I think, that the two areas of scientific research that conservatives seem to believe are deeply flawed-- evolution and climate change-- happen to coincide with conservative shibboleths: the free market and Christianity.

 

Now we're told that the reason these particular fields of study are built on a house of cards is that they are obliged to rely on "models" and "proxies" and "speculation" and "theory" to fill in the unobservable-- the distant past and, in the case of climate science, the future.

 

But of course a great deal of science works this way.  One wonders why we don't hear a lot of bellyaching about "bad science" when it comes to things like particle physics or cosmology?  Could it be because they don't intersect with any sacred cows on the right?  And that by extending the logic of "can't prove it if you can't make direct observation" such people would be obliged to admit that they don't actually object to the particular practice of science in particular cases, but science itself?  Particularly the science of the very large and very small?

 

Because that's what is happening, over and over again.  The arguments being made against the techniques, practices and conclusions of evolutionary biology and climate science are not, in fact, uniquely applicable to these fields (despite being told, repeatedly, that the skeptics have no problem with "good science", just the debased science that reaches conclusions that run counter to the world view of the skeptic).

 

So what about, say, the Higgs Boson?  It was predicted by a model, has been part of that model for decades without anyone having the experimental apparatus to confirm or deny its existence, indeed arose out of a model comprised of a mathematical framework of incredible complexity that even now has several nagging unanswered questions.  Yet this model has been astoundingly successful in organizing, explaining and predicting phenomena.  The confirmation of the Higgs is just the latest success of what, by the standards being brought to bear on climate science and evolution, is a hopelessly theoretical construct based in speculation and inference and made up ideas about matter and energy with a ton of "gotchas" that could be marshaled to belittle it.  No one has ever "seen" a quark, or a neutrino, or the Higgs boson.  The best we can do is obliterate atoms at increasingly high energies and track the energy signatures of the results. 

 

So nonsense, right?  Some kind of conspiracy?  Yet, strangely, not a source of debate. 

 

And what of cosmology?  Black holes were predicted by theory before there was ever any observable phenomena to correlate with same.  Even now, we hardly have "direct evidence" that they exist, have never sent a probe to take pictures.  They are simply far too far away.  We have, again, energy signatures.  Powerful streams of particles that closely match the theoretical parameters of what a black hole "should" be doing.  Could be something else, that just happens to match our speculative idea about what's out there.  But that speculation is part of a large framework of theory that has been very successful in describing the universe in ways that are congruent with those observations we can make, even allowing for limitations of what we can observe directly over vast distances.  Just as the Standard Model of subatomic physics is congruent with those phenomena we can observe, even allowing for the limits of our experimental apparatus, which would require energies orders of magnitude greater than the output of the suns of our galaxy to probe down to the Plank length-- the current theoretical "grain size" of the universe.

 

So that's all right out, yes?  Bullshit?  Some kind of mass hallucination?  Soros funded something something not sure why?

 

If not, why not?  Why evolution and climate science, and not the rest of science?  I think people claiming that those two areas are somehow a hotbed of malfeasance and error and corruption should explain why they aren't similarly put-off by everything else that science has to tell us about the world. 

 

I think that your first observation is close to the truth, but that one could actually extend it more generally beyond science. Any kind of reasoning that leads to a suggestion of action that conflicts with deeply held beliefs, whether religious, political or philosophical, tends to be attacked, and attacked most vociferously by those who understand it least. The debates on various aspects of science in this thread alone illustrate the almost non-existent understanding of the scientific method by most non-scientists, and many posts on this forum are examples of such a reaction. 

 

The other cases that you consider, probably, with varying degrees of irony, do not evoke the same type of response because the implications for those beliefs are seen as insignificant, either through actual irrelevance or, as you also see here frequently, a lack of understanding of the field so complete as to render it totally incomprehensible. No one is offended by that which they entirely fail to comprehend.

post #214 of 249

Right, certainly the lack of outrage at, well, physics is predicated on either a lack of a given discipline's interaction with social constructs or utter obliviousness of that discipline.

 

However, that doesn't change the fact that the science of physics is conducted in precisely the same manner as these so called "junk sciences" that attract the ire of conservative commentators. In fact, in the cases of climate science and evolution, there is in fact far less appeal to esoteric, unprovable theory than in generally accepted models of matter and energy.

 

To dismiss climate science and evolution as deeply flawed paradigms is to dismiss science, or at least any science that rises past a sort of quotidian cataloging of the immediately discernible (which is to say, science).

post #215 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

It's telling, I think, that the two areas of scientific research that conservatives seem to believe are deeply flawed-- evolution and climate change-- happen to coincide with conservative shibboleths: the free market and Christianity.

 

 

Do they really coincide with them or is it the fact that some people try to take aspects of these fields and use them to discredit and attempt to take away the human rights of other groups?

 

See, where I'm going to take issue with you is we do have past attempts to deal with human behavior and human society via "science" and they didn't work out very well. It is estimated over 120 million people have been killed in the name of "science." We have had entire world wars predicated on eugenics as an example.

 

If anything it is proto or pseudo science that we have to be most aware of because when some idiot determines a half finished understanding ought to apply to all of humanity, without humanity having any choice in the matter, that is where the results have been the ugliest.

Quote:
Now we're told that the reason these particular fields of study are built on a house of cards is that they are obliged to rely on "models" and "proxies" and "speculation" and "theory" to fill in the unobservable-- the distant past and, in the case of climate science, the future.

 

Yes but the same people in these fields aren't just declaring a particle will exist, that an object tossed will end up at X location or even that Y element will combine with Z element and exhibit the W properties. They are declaring that the efforts and lifestyles of billions of people must change and conform to their prediction. With such high stakes, skepticism is completely warranted and when the models have failed to be predictive, the tools and theories of the field should be revised, not hardened into dogma to help along the social engineering. There is clearly an ulterior social motive not related to science here.

 

Quote:
But of course a great deal of science works this way.  One wonders why we don't hear a lot of bellyaching about "bad science" when it comes to things like particle physics or cosmology?  Could it be because they don't intersect with any sacred cows on the right?  And that by extending the logic of "can't prove it if you can't make direct observation" such people would be obliged to admit that they don't actually object to the particular practice of science in particular cases, but science itself?  Particularly the science of the very large and very small?

 

I'm sure you would hear plenty of "bellyaching" if someone was using the work within those fields to try to control or determine aspects of your life. If I claimed that because I know how the universe began, and because I believe I know how it will end that I should be able to deny you air conditioning or limit the size of your daily protein intake, or mandate you walk to your job rather than drive, you'd probably suddenly see the matter a bit differently. Many of these areas are pure science and no attempt is being undertaken to apply their understanding to micromanage human behavior or human society.

 

Quote:

Because that's what is happening, over and over again.  The arguments being made against the techniques, practices and conclusions of evolutionary biology and climate science are not, in fact, uniquely applicable to these fields (despite being told, repeatedly, that the skeptics have no problem with "good science", just the debased science that reaches conclusions that run counter to the world view of the skeptic).

 

So what about, say, the Higgs Boson?  It was predicted by a model, has been part of that model for decades without anyone having the experimental apparatus to confirm or deny its existence, indeed arose out of a model comprised of a mathematical framework of incredible complexity that even now has several nagging unanswered questions.  Yet this model has been astoundingly successful in organizing, explaining and predicting phenomena.  The confirmation of the Higgs is just the latest success of what, by the standards being brought to bear on climate science and evolution, is a hopelessly theoretical construct based in speculation and inference and made up ideas about matter and energy with a ton of "gotchas" that could be marshaled to belittle it.  No one has ever "seen" a quark, or a neutrino, or the Higgs boson.  The best we can do is obliterate atoms at increasingly high energies and track the energy signatures of the results. 

 

So nonsense, right?  Some kind of conspiracy?  Yet, strangely, not a source of debate.

 

It isn't a conspiracy. All branches of science have started off as protoscience. The process of moving from that state to an established science involves, as you note the equivalent of sausage making. The argument, especially with climate science, is that it hasn't moved pass the protoscience stage yet, and rather than progressing and improving on it, the advocates of it have hardened the current flawed beliefs into an unquestionable dogma which they are then using to carry out political and social goals rather than improving the science.

 

As an example lets look at James Hansen. I could see your point if we were trying to burn him at a stake or even defund his research and exile him somewhere. However that isn't what has happened. He has given up science to become a political activist. For him, no additional work needs to be done. The answer is here and now society must adopt it.

 

So to flash back to a prior example. Someone can do research in genetics, DNA and evolution. However if they quit science, become an activist and politician and declare that based on the very limited understand that we have in that field that all black people and Jews must be exterminated, people just shouldn't and hopefully aren't going to go there.

 

Does confirmation of Higgs mean you can't take the carpool lane? Does it mean your kid can't have meat with their lunch? Does it mean that if your house is over 800 sq ft you are a climate sinner? No one is attempting to use Higgs to control or determine aspects of your life. That is why no one is attacking or questioning it.

Quote:
If not, why not?  Why evolution and climate science, and not the rest of science?  I think people claiming that those two areas are somehow a hotbed of malfeasance and error and corruption should explain why they aren't similarly put-off by everything else that science has to tell us about the world.

 

I'm skipping a bit since I feel like I've made my point and don't need to hit every example, though thanks for providing them. First there is indeed the concept, even if it is debatable or inexact of hard and soft sciences. Likewise in new fields some folks instantly want their protoscience to be given the exact same level of authority that an established science has been given. Regardless of that though, the issue becomes very different when someone is taking a conclusion and attempting to enforce it on all of humanity and the world. The history there has been terrible. Do some Christians refuse to believe in evolution? Of course. Do some of these same Christians then go buy prize breeding animals to improve the line of their cows, sheep, horses and dogs? Sure they do. Do some people who believe in evolution use it to justify racist, sexist and eugenic beliefs and practices? Yes they do as well. The point is to realize that science is a tool and not the sole answer with regard to determining how humans control their lives and exercise their rights. Indeed a strict scientific model might not even recognize or accord such rights so that is something to ponder as well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #216 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Right, certainly the lack of outrage at, well, physics is predicated on either a lack of a given discipline's interaction with social constructs or utter obliviousness of that discipline.

 

However, that doesn't change the fact that the science of physics is conducted in precisely the same manner as these so called "junk sciences" that attract the ire of conservative commentators. In fact, in the cases of climate science and evolution, there is in fact far less appeal to esoteric, unprovable theory than in generally accepted models of matter and energy.

 

To dismiss climate science and evolution as deeply flawed paradigms is to dismiss science, or at least any science that rises past a sort of quotidian cataloging of the immediately discernible (which is to say, science).

 

Yes - my point was that you are correct - neither the soundness nor rigor of the discipline have any correlation with the criticism. It appears to be entirely dependent on whether they perceive the conclusions to impact negatively their religious or political dogmas.

 

Your comparison of climate and evolution sciences to physics does raise some interesting points. Both the former are strongly empirical and less restricted by a well-defined theoretical framework, by which I mean that candidate theories are generally based on statistical approximations of complex systems, and have many variables to play with. Much of physics, on the other hand, is highly constrained by fundamental laws, and while its more arcane realms may seem somewhat fanciful they are, in fact, very rigorous.

post #217 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Yes - my point was that you are correct - neither the soundness nor rigor of the discipline have any correlation with the criticism. It appears to be entirely dependent on whether they perceive the conclusions to impact negatively their religious or political dogmas.

 

Your comparison of climate and evolution sciences to physics does raise some interesting points. Both the former are strongly empirical and less restricted by a well-defined theoretical framework, by which I mean that candidate theories are generally based on statistical approximations of complex systems, and have many variables to play with. Much of physics, on the other hand, is highly constrained by fundamental laws, and while its more arcane realms may seem somewhat fanciful they are, in fact, very rigorous.

 

Of course. There are perception issues however, regardless of the inviolate nature of physical laws. For instance - when the findings of even multiple peer reviewed studies or analyses have implications that are too politically controversial or damaging to the status quo to be aired with fair and balanced reportage, even the laws of classical physics, as proven for centuries, are subject to being thrown onto the trash heap of tabloidism and mass psychological comfort-zone driven "ostrichness". The laws of nature survive of course, it is just that our comprehension of them can be distorted or bent a little on occasions when politically or otherwise expedient.  Miracles cannot happen in the real world - a miracle is by definition "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural power", for example "walking on water", turning "water into wine" and "raising the dead", or any other claimed event that is impossible according to these proven laws.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #218 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 I like how "listen to the scientists!!!!" is really "listen to the 3% of experts that sort of loosely agree with me and ignore the 97% of experts that don't!"  You don't get to play the "listen to the scientists" card and then call 97% of them retards.  You're going all in with a 7 high against a straight flush.  I call.  You lose.

 

Science is real, but the 97% consensus figure would seem to be a blatant lie. You lose.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #219 of 249
Thread Starter 

Oh yes, that debunked nonsense again.  The only thing that loses is humanity when science deniers spread this kind of disinformation.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #220 of 249

Nice to see you've crawled out of your hole during the Obama admin disintegration. Is Tonton over there too?

 

Perhaps you could post a link to the "debunking" or perhaps debunk it yourself? Or is that too much to ask in the Science is Real thread?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #221 of 249
Thread Starter 

Disintegration?  You mean the republican fake scandal circle jerk du jour?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #222 of 249
Thread Starter 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/17/global_warming_climate_scientists_overwhelmingly_agree_it_s_real_and_is.html

 

 

Quote:

The study was clever. They found the papers by searching on the terms “global warming” and “global climate change”. Once they compiled the list of papers, they looked at the abstracts (a short summary of the results scientists put at the top of their papers) to see if the paper itself talked about the causes of global warming. About 4000 of the papers did so. That may seem like a smallish fraction, but most papers analyze measurements and climate effects, not the cause of global warming (like most astronomical papers on, say, galaxies don’t discuss how galaxies form, but focus on their structure, content, and so on—also, because there is such a strong consensus on warming, scientists don't generally feel the need to state the obvious in their abstracts).

Examining those 4000 papers, the study authors determined that 97.1 percent of them endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. And here’s where they did the clever bit: They contacted 8500 authors of the papers in question and asked them to self-rate those papers. They got responses from 1200 authors (a nice fraction), and, using the same criteria as the study, it turns out 97.2 percent of the authors endorse the consensus.

That’s a remarkable agreement! And it’s no surprise. There have been several studies showing almost exactly the same thing. This new one is interesting due to the methodology, and the fact that it’s so robust.

So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming. There is essentially no controversy among actual climate scientists about this.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #223 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Disintegration?  You mean the republican fake scandal circle jerk du jour?

 

Excellent. So you think it's no big deal that IRS officials targeted conservative groups while regularly meeting with the White House.

 

Christians forgive. But Libertarians, Tea-partiers and other economic conservatives won't.

 

The next GOP administration will likely be happy to use the new tools the Dems have given them to mess with the political process.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #224 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

Science [...] consensus

 

I'm confused.
Since when was science more about consensus than about data and repeatable experiments?
I always thought consensus was something for religions and politics.

post #225 of 249

 

Let me tell you the fatal flaw in your argument:  We cannot debate a "cause" of something until we know that thing exists.  The climate is not warming.  Any previous warming (say, during the 1990's) was not at all abnormal in terms of recorded history, nor Earth history.  The fact is that so far, the predictions of the mythical "consensus" concerning human activities and warming have been fantastically and even hilariously wrong.  

 

Tell me, BR..how it possible that despite pumping 100 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere over the past decade (1/4 of the total since 1750, according to the link), there has been no warming?  I thought that carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases" caused GAT to rise?  Wouldn't one think that adding that incredible amount of carbon over a decade would result in just a teensy weensy little bit of warming?  Hmmm...I guess that must mean exactly what our long term study of climate has told us:  Greenhouse gasses (particularly C02) are lagging indicators.  Rising levels appear to be the result of warming, not the cause.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #226 of 249

How about some science?

And in neato easy to understand videos? 1biggrin.gif (well, most of them)

Stomata and H2O

 

Stomata and CO2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3054011/

Quote:
During their 400 million year history, land plants have been exposed to large variations in environmental conditions that prompted genetic adaptations toward mechanisms that optimize individual fitness. Over this period, plant adaptation to CO2 is apparent as periods with high CO2 favored species with few relatively large stomata and low gs, whereas periods with low CO2 (as at present) favored species with many relatively small stomata and higher gs. Moreover, decreasing CO2 after ≈100 million years likely triggered the evolutionary development of a more extensive leaf vein network in angiosperms, giving them the advantage of potentially higher gs than gymnosperms with low vein density. At shorter timescales, plants have the ability to adjust their phenotype to optimize gas exchange. In response to short (seconds to hours) perturbations in CO2, plants open and close their stomata, whereas in response to CO2 changes at decadal to centennial timescales, plants adjust leaf stomatal density (D) and/or maximum stomatal dimensions (amax).
This process of epidermal structural adaptation is in part controlled by a signaling mechanism from mature to developing leaves, optimizing stomatal density and size to the changed environmental conditions. These epidermal characteristics determine the anatomical maximum stomatal conductance to water vapor [...] of fully opened stomata.

That is to say, more CO2 makes the pores shrink, which reduces water loss into the air.


H2O and CO2 and Photons



Trees and CO2



IR absorption, H2O, and CO2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6BtI9f0lNU

Yay trees! 1wink.gif

Except...

lol.gif

post #227 of 249
Thread Starter 

 

Evolution is fundamental to all of biology.  Bill Nye made a great analogy:  disregarding the evidence for evolution is akin to a geologist denying plate tectonics.  Doing so in either case is untenable.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #228 of 249

Nice of you to stop by. Are you, Tonton and Jimmac all in the same bunker, or are you in different ones?

 

Since your favoured administration is now spying wholesale on everybody, using the IRS against its political enemies to win elections, raising health care costs that it promised it would lower, and threatening to enter a new mideast war, is Creationism the only topic you feel safe in discussing here?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #229 of 249
Thread Starter 

You lie about science, and you lie about the IRS.  It was a conservative republican IRS agent who searched for the key words "tea party" and "patriot."  

 

Of course, are you harming the world by teaching your kids creationism?  That's the topic in this thread.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #230 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You lie about science, and you lie about the IRS.  It was a conservative republican IRS agent who searched for the key words "tea party" and "patriot."

 

How convenient. Two underlings said to have GOP connections are to blame.

 

So tell me, which GOP underlings targeted the multiple Christian charities that were all selected on the same electoral timeline?

 

Why was the head of the IRS TAX EXEMPT DIVISION going in and out of the White House all the time?

 

Really, I do understand why you guys have gone to ground.

 

Having to parrot non-sensical taking points from a thoroughly corrupt administration is depressing.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #231 of 249
Thread Starter 
Seems like someone here doesn't want to talk about science in the science thread. Shocking that it's the crazy creationist. I really hope you don't poison and abuse your children with your ignorant fairy tales.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #232 of 249

BR says that someone teaching their own kids something different from what he believes is akin to poisoning them and abusing them.

 

And he expects people to take him seriously.

 

That's what's really shocking.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #233 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Seems like someone here doesn't want to talk about science in the science thread. Shocking that it's the crazy creationist. I really hope you don't poison and abuse your children with your ignorant fairy tales.

 

It's perfectly relevant. You've been ducking the hard questions by staying out of threads that discuss the Obama scandals, you've parroted Democratic talking points that non-sensically attempt to pin the prosecution of Democratic political enemies on Republicans. You ignore clear and relevant evidence that certain IRS officials, who have no business being in the White House regularly, are logged as meeting with officials and the President himself hundreds of times, starting almost to the day the IRS actions began.

 

You have no business lecturing anybody on this board about science, following evidence or believing in fairy tales.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #234 of 249
Thread Starter 

Go start another thread to parrot the false Republican talking points.  See, when evidence exists that you are full of shit--like completely, totally, 100% full of shit--you just ignore it and continue to parrot the same nonsense.  You don't live in an evidence-based reality.  When scientific evidence demonstrates that evolution is fundamental to basically all of our understanding of biology, you ignore the mountains of evidence for your crusty old desert-dweller tome.  When confronted with evidence that conflicts your worldview, you ignore that evidence and double down on stupid.    

 

So, go make your own goddamn thread and stop polluting this one with your political nonsense.  Save this thread for you to pollute with your anti-science nonsense instead.  At least that's relevant to the thread topic.


Edited by BR - 6/19/13 at 12:41pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #235 of 249

Ignoring conflicting evidence is usually what religious extremists do. I think what we have here is someone who believes in the almighty state, and unthinkingly follows authority figures & their slogans. This sort of behavior is not what I have come to expect of real scientists and logical thinkers.

 

Statism is a religion, but unlike most religions, it is a religion of hate, envy, and violence.

post #236 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Go start another thread to parrot the false Republican talking points.  See, when evidence exists that you are full of shit--like completely, totally, 100% full of shit--you just ignore it and continue to parrot the same nonsense.  You don't live in an evidence-based reality.  When scientific evidence demonstrates that evolution is fundamental to basically all of our understanding of biology, you ignore the mountains of evidence for your crusty old desert-dweller tome.  When confronted with evidence that conflicts your worldview, you ignore that evidence and double down on stupid.    

 

So, go make your own goddamn thread and stop polluting this one with your political nonsense.  Save this thread for you to pollute with your anti-science nonsense instead.  At least that's relevant to the thread topic.

 

Well I'm not naive enough to believe that the Obama admin would have the IRS head sign in under "persecution of conservative funders and organizers", but I suppose atheists might look for something like that. There really is no accounting for the thought process of people who look at the intricate design of the building blocks of life and claim that it all happened by chance.

 

You still haven't addressed why the head of the Tax Exempt division was regularly at the WH, whether ObamaCare's close affiliation with the IRS was used as cover for these actions, and why conservative Christian ministries were also part of the dragnet you claim was headed by GOP partisans in advance of a U.S. Federal Election.

 

Ignoring mountains of evidence and doubling down on stupid? Indeed.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #237 of 249
Thread Starter 

Make your own thread.  

 

 

Quote:
There really is no accounting for the thought process of people who look at the intricate design of the building blocks of life and claim that it all happened by chance.

 

This statement demonstrates that you have basically no understanding of evolution.  I recommend starting here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #238 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Make your own thread.

 

Why? So you can ignore all the evidence posted in it like you've done with the others?

 

In the light of the revelations of what the Obama administration has done with personal privacy, international affairs and the democratic process, you and your fellow Obamatrons have disappeared from the board. You demonized Bush for eight years on this board, using the foulest language and turning every minor misstep into a full-fledged political scandal.

 

And now when we learn your favoured President is a hundred times more inept and devious than Bush ever was, you run and hide.

 

This thread was devoted to the idea that people were ignoring evidence and cherry picking facts to damage scientific inquiry and progress.

 

I'm just pointing out that this isn't limited to climate change, and the charge is being levelled by people who do the exact same thing in other spheres.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #239 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
There really is no accounting for the thought process of people who look at the intricate design of the building blocks of life and claim that it all happened by chance.

 

This statement demonstrates that you have basically no understanding of evolution.  I recommend starting here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #240 of 249

I'd recommend starting here.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.