phaZed
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 3,159
- Location
- Richmond, VA
It does, I'll let others comment on what they think the article alludes to, since it seems we aren't going to get any further
Global warming is nothing more than a scam
- Thread starter Galdorf
- Start date
- Status
It does, I'll let others comment on what they think the article alludes to, since it seems we aren't going to get any further
fencepost
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 2,314
- Location
- Schaumburg, IL
Blues
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 538
- Location
- Tennessee, US
No offense to our nay sayer but I am questioning if he is just a troll. I don't know that I see him contribute to any other thread on this board and if so it has been a while or we have occupied all his time on TN with reason, logic, and sound science.
fencepost
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 2,314
- Location
- Schaumburg, IL
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
No, I would never call fencepost a troll.
fencepost
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 2,314
- Location
- Schaumburg, IL
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
I was happy to let the thread die..
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
But wait! There's more!
I used to believe climate change was "up in the air". I used to believe the science was still out on vaccines. I looked into them and did research and it was all so confusing. So much to learn, so many differing opinions. And then I rediscovered "scientific consensus". Scientific consensus is reach when a vast majority of scientists actively researching a thing, I believe the number is 97%, have come to the same conclusion.
I suddenly realized, I don't have to research this! I know how science works. I know that there is absolutely, positively ZERO chance that scientists are going to band together to spread a lie. The idea that scientists are in cahoots on this and that, that's just a stupid idea. You can't get two people on the Internet to agree on something. How are you going to get virtually every scientist in the world in a given field to agree to lie about something? And why would they? Money? Really? At least 97% of climate scientist in the world are more greedy than honest? If that doesn't sound fishy to you it's because you don't want it to.
So I don' research this crap any more. I have been fooled too many times by "clever arguments" which have nothing whatsoever to do with the facts. Oh, those arguments give facts. Sometimes they're even real facts and not made up in the least. But they give you those facts by making you look through a tiny crack in the wall at the very narrow view they want you to see. Besides that, I'm not trained in climatology. For all I know weather is caused by fairy farts. I can't prove it's not. The one thing that I do know about every science with absolute certainty is that if 97% of scientist in a field agree on something then that thing is probably true to the best of our understanding. That's not to say that a new discovery down the road won't make them say, "We were wrong". It happens. Science has been wrong before. And how do we know that? That's the kicker. We know it because they told us. When they learn they are wrong they have a habit of owning up to it. So you can tell me that they're wrong all you like. It doesn't matter. I'll believe they were wrong when they tell me they were wrong because history has shown repeatedly and without exception that as soon as they know they're wrong, I'll know they're wrong.
If you are arguing against any science at all then two things should be true. One, you should be a scientist with credentials in that filed. Two, you should be taking your arguments to your fellow scientists. If BOTH of those things are not true then it is almost certain that there is nothing to your argument. If you're not a scientist in that field then you have no point arguing against that which you don't understand. And if you're not taking your argument to scientists in that field it's probably because you want to take your argument to people who won't know you're wrong instead of smart people who not only know that you're wrong, but why you're wrong. One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that the argument is taken, not to scientists in the field, but straight to the people. That is what climate deniers do, that is what anti vaxxers do, that is what intelligent design proponents do, that is what flat earthers do, that is what bigfoot and chemtrail and UFO enthusiast do, that is what all peddlers of crap science do. If you have a real argument you take it to scientists in the field. If you don't, you put it on the Internet.
I used to believe climate change was "up in the air". I used to believe the science was still out on vaccines. I looked into them and did research and it was all so confusing. So much to learn, so many differing opinions. And then I rediscovered "scientific consensus". Scientific consensus is reach when a vast majority of scientists actively researching a thing, I believe the number is 97%, have come to the same conclusion.
I suddenly realized, I don't have to research this! I know how science works. I know that there is absolutely, positively ZERO chance that scientists are going to band together to spread a lie. The idea that scientists are in cahoots on this and that, that's just a stupid idea. You can't get two people on the Internet to agree on something. How are you going to get virtually every scientist in the world in a given field to agree to lie about something? And why would they? Money? Really? At least 97% of climate scientist in the world are more greedy than honest? If that doesn't sound fishy to you it's because you don't want it to.
So I don' research this crap any more. I have been fooled too many times by "clever arguments" which have nothing whatsoever to do with the facts. Oh, those arguments give facts. Sometimes they're even real facts and not made up in the least. But they give you those facts by making you look through a tiny crack in the wall at the very narrow view they want you to see. Besides that, I'm not trained in climatology. For all I know weather is caused by fairy farts. I can't prove it's not. The one thing that I do know about every science with absolute certainty is that if 97% of scientist in a field agree on something then that thing is probably true to the best of our understanding. That's not to say that a new discovery down the road won't make them say, "We were wrong". It happens. Science has been wrong before. And how do we know that? That's the kicker. We know it because they told us. When they learn they are wrong they have a habit of owning up to it. So you can tell me that they're wrong all you like. It doesn't matter. I'll believe they were wrong when they tell me they were wrong because history has shown repeatedly and without exception that as soon as they know they're wrong, I'll know they're wrong.
If you are arguing against any science at all then two things should be true. One, you should be a scientist with credentials in that filed. Two, you should be taking your arguments to your fellow scientists. If BOTH of those things are not true then it is almost certain that there is nothing to your argument. If you're not a scientist in that field then you have no point arguing against that which you don't understand. And if you're not taking your argument to scientists in that field it's probably because you want to take your argument to people who won't know you're wrong instead of smart people who not only know that you're wrong, but why you're wrong. One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that the argument is taken, not to scientists in the field, but straight to the people. That is what climate deniers do, that is what anti vaxxers do, that is what intelligent design proponents do, that is what flat earthers do, that is what bigfoot and chemtrail and UFO enthusiast do, that is what all peddlers of crap science do. If you have a real argument you take it to scientists in the field. If you don't, you put it on the Internet.
fencepost
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 2,314
- Location
- Schaumburg, IL
Ahem.
Was I not clear?
Was I not clear?
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
Sky-Knight
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 5,661
- Location
- Arizona
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
So now we are repeat posting flawed logic?
- Reaction score
- 1,556
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
This thread has run its course. Closing.
- Status
Similar threads
