Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Unless I'm missing something, proof by contradiction is valid.
Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
canndo
Well-Known Member
well not being one to generalise lol, what i fear is that folk will blindly believe something just because a particular group of scientist publish findings about a particular subject they may have been paid to undertake by folk with a vested intrest in a paticular set of results
i do not believe that all science is for the benefit of humankind or to propagate truth
some people like to appear to be right about something so they will read up on subjects and then quote from them, something like a parrot repeating the words of its owner, it is remarkable how many budding scientists i encounter on my internet travels
i remember global warming , now its called climate change, maybe it will have a new name in another decade .. we will have to wait for the clever scientists to work it all out for us
if you blindly have trust in god or the government licensed scientist of the day, i see little difference in this mindset
understanding science ? this is a very general statement to make, do you mean that you personally understand every single scientific notion or conception ever discovered ?
i would never dispute the existence of god, i have never understood the position of the atheist
since god is irrelevant to me, i am not looking to follow or worship anyone, god or scientist
good luck on your quest for truth*
peace
This is a very peculiar and distorted view of science and government. People will believe what they believe, science is self correcting and scientists don't often simply parrot other's work as their own conclusion - if that is what you mean. All of science is the discovery of the truth of the observed. What people, their being people do with that can be questionable but the institution of science is not affected materialy. your description of global warming being renamed as climate change is interesting. Words and descriptons have varying affects upon the human reaction. The term was changed in order to more properly describe the process and try to bring the term out of such a hot political atmosphere (forgive the puns).
Now I don't rightly know what a "government licensed" scientist is. I was unaware that scientists needed government issued licences. The bet thing about science is that you needn't blindly accept anything they say, you can review their methods and results all by yourself and you can compare what they publish with what others publish, anyone is free to attempt to duplicate their efforts - and if you cannot do so, you can take issue with their entire findings - this is a far cry fromaccepting their decree as one would need to do in matters religious.
You say you are unwilling to worship or follow god or science. Many of us, if we worship anything at all, worship truth. I encourage this and it is far easier to accept truth when it comes from the domain of science where each issue of "truth" is reviewed and critiqued over and over again.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
There is that. I may have overinterpreted "refute". cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he's not talking about proof by contradiction. proof by contradiction works. for example, suppose the square root of 2 is rational, this implies that there are two number, a and b, such that a/b = the square root of two. but no two such numbers exist, thus a contradiction has been reached and thus the square root of 2 must be an irrational number.
the bear is talking about proving a negative. for example, prove that X million jobs were NOT lost because of the ARRA. it's downright impossible to prove, you can only point to evidence. there's no way of knowing exactly what would have happened without the ARRA.
canndo
Well-Known Member
No.
Follow the money and you will arrive at the funds spent in order to instill doubt in the lay masses. Why? because there are trillions in the status quo and the church of the status quo has all of the money. I am constantly amused at how so many will take refuge in their own skepticism pointing to the vast sums that scientists stand to make if global warming is accepted. It is this cynical point of view that masquerades as ultimate truth when the application of that ultimate truth ignores reality, the reality that Exon and BP have far more financial incentive in having us believe a certain way than any global warming fanatic might.
canndo
Well-Known Member
What you will find Uncle Buck is that they rely on that ultimate foible - "common sense". Rather than apply reason, do their due diligence, collect data and make astute observations they rather lazily "think" about an issue using their emotions and belief about the nature of man in order to arrive at their "truth". Common sense is usually a waste of what little cerebral resources that may be applied to the issue at hand.
canndo
Well-Known Member
That is not what this is about, it has never been about the actual possibilities of global warming. What it is about is the ability for a concerted self interested few to sway the minds of the many in directions they chose for their own profit. Why is it that so many in other countries are convinced by scientific fact while many in this country are not? are they more intelligent in other countries? are those people privy to information we are not? No, it is as I have been saying about the link between cancer and tobacco - we are observing the effects of money spent inculcating doubt and distrust in the single pursuit that is most trustworthy of all - scientific endeavor. It is this sort of battle for our minds that finally make us foolish and incapable of recognizing reality when it is placed before us. A perfect example is how so many on the right were blindsided by an Obama win - they actually believed their own lies.
canndo
Well-Known Member
And so you don't believe that we can ever rightfully convict a murderer unless there was at least one eye witness, is that correct echelon?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i like how the same guys who were wrong by 12-15 points on the outcome of the election are the same ones screaming loudest about how 99.83% of all peer reviewed scientific research papers on the subject are "just a hoax".
these people are really, really bad consumers of information and do delude themselves about reality. for what reason, i will never know. reality may not always be the most fun, but it is the truest.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Short sighted do gooders, oh you mean those folks who see that the way to a reasonable future is blocked by our use of fossil fuels? I can see the same sort of argument being levied against those who claimed that lighting one's home with whale oil is destined to be a failure - why whales are so plentiful and so god Damn BIG that mankind will never ever be able to put a dent in supply. Whales also don't have much to do with the food chain in the ocean so we can't possibly affect that equation either. Only fools and do gooders would propose that we alter our energy model to something more modern right?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't proof by contradiction disprove human climate change? The ice age came despite human intervention, it didn't require human intervention to make the Earth warmer. Climate changed before humans. You can't have humans cause and it happened without humans, then argue humans are causing it. That just makes you stupid.
Humans cause pollution, then after some time, if we stop, the air quality goes,up. So yes, humans have an impact on the environment, but not the doom and gloom Bill Gates spouts. His solution is population control, since humans are the elastic portion upon disposable and limited resource demand.
Humans cause pollution, then after some time, if we stop, the air quality goes,up. So yes, humans have an impact on the environment, but not the doom and gloom Bill Gates spouts. His solution is population control, since humans are the elastic portion upon disposable and limited resource demand.
canndo
Well-Known Member
That trillions in infrastructure, is exactly what the Agenda wants to control. And they want their theory of the future to supplant the status quo.
Many of us feel the status quo is working just fine, is getting cleaner, more efficient, etc. It is REAL. It exists and can be improved. We worry that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater, because the Agenda for "change" seems reckless.
Somehow the Agenda wants us to believe that throwing money into solar power research will create automatic gains. Like the folks with Cancer think some things are being withheld. Science doesn't work by just throwing money. Science doesn't work by voting on consensus.
ALERT: I will pay $1,000,000 virtual rollitup dollars, for anyone that can provide evidence of a Cloud Effect model with current Satellite data that will show an open loop greenhouse effect. Think of it like an X-prize. Or a DARPA challenge. That's how science works.
BTW, this reward will decrease by $100 every year, so get cracking.
If the status quo is "working just fine" then there should be no need to have it grow cleaner. So long as the naysayers claim what I have stated:
There is no global warming
If there is, we didn't do it
If we did, we can't do anything about it
If we can, it is too expensive
So long as this is the course of their attention then we can never get to the REAL situation. You are stuck in that same loop as well. The baby WILL be thrown out with the bath water so long as there is such intractable resistance from the naysayers. Gore and his troops will continue to make the problem ever more ominous and dangerous so long as your side claims that there is no problem at all.
Are you claiming that funding research into alternative energy is a waste? really? I recall that we "threw" money at a manned moon landing and we "threw" money at nuclear weapons and we "threw"money at a national highway system - all to some amount of success and future benefit to us all.
No, science doesn't work by throwing money at it, but neither does it work when it is starved of financial resources and neither does it necessarily work within the confines of a free enterprise economy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes, bill gates wants to wipe out large swaths of the population. every rational person should arrive at this conclusion.
and you wonder why you're a joke. that epic spaz-out after the election was epic.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The ice age came despite what human intervention? cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
You really don't know the reason? They have a need for consistency in world view (even though they many times need to resort to compartmentalization in order to achieve it). This consistency is accomplished in one of two ways, either one alters one's world view to suit reality, or one alter's their perception of reality in order to confirm or at least not upset, their already established view of the world. We find this happens most often in right wing authoritarian types. They cannot manage discrepencies in their viewpoints vs reality and so they simply change the reality around them to suit what they already believe. This makes them poor consumers of information because they are unable to actually digest those nuggets that are contrary to their "gut".
canndo
Well-Known Member
A woman speaking with her friends about her weight gain:
"I tend to gain 3 or 4 pounds every christmas and then by spring they are gone - it is just my cycle - it has nothing to do with what I eat or how much I eat"
"Why then, this summer are you unable to fit into your pants?"
"I don't know"
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower *that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent," Bill Gates.
*CO2 levels reduce as we lower population.
*CO2 levels reduce as we lower population.
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
When and where did he say this?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
That's what I want to know. But that there is about the most extreme climate change. Did man making fire cause the great iceage to end? Did the lack of CO2 industrialism make it cold?
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
When you throw the quote into Google you get four pages of right-wing blogs that reproduce the quote, yet there's no indication that he actually said it. My guess is that it's as phony as your 'spirit guides'.