Page 5 of 52 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 519

Thread: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

  1. #41
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Kind of smug of him. "I believe in science... unlike some people." People whose votes he obviously doesn't care for. I wonder if he's actually been setting the stage for an Independent run? It's not like the GOP is going to nominate him. Frankly, I hope it happens - he could potentially take a lot of votes away from Obama. Huntsman/Crist 2012? Hmm.

    Anyways, as a believer in the former and not the latter, I'm kind of annoyed that he lumped evolution and GW together, like they're the same issue. And the whole "trust scientists" thing is a major cop-out. The structure of the universe is not determined by some sort of opinion poll of Earth's scientists. I came to my opinion by reading about the actual science involved, not by trusting my omniscient elites.
    Ummmm Dav. You kinda in a way prove his point. You don't believe in the science of global warming, so you are one of those "some people".
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Ummmm Dav. You kinda in a way prove his point. You don't believe in the science of global warming, so you are one of those "some people".
    Oh I believe in the science of GW... just not the right science, according to some. The implication of Huntsman's statement was basically that he was pro-science, and anyone who disagreed with him was anti-science in some way.

  3. #43
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Oh I believe in the science of GW... just not the right science, according to some. The implication of Huntsman's statement was basically that he was pro-science, and anyone who disagreed with him was anti-science in some way.
    I would argue this point, but there is a reason I avoid GW threads like the plague. It's like ME threads. So let's just say that I see his point.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #44
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Oh I believe in the science of GW... just not the right science, according to some. The implication of Huntsman's statement was basically that he was pro-science, and anyone who disagreed with him was anti-science in some way.
    By "right science" you presumably mean the science that's accepted by 97% of climatologists? You've determined, based upon your advanced science degrees, that you know better?

  5. #45
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Ummmm Dav. You kinda in a way prove his point. You don't believe in the science of global warming, so you are one of those "some people".
    OK,. to shift gears here. The problem with climate science is that, for the most part, it's not really science, it's computer modeling. What passes for publishable science in the climate science community is often met with rolls of the eyes from other disciplines. I could put up hundreds of papers which were published which amounted to little more than computer projections based on assumptions. That's garbage.

    Now the good parts of climate science are the parts which isolate and understand isolated aspects of climate, of chemistry, of physics. This science stands on it's own. It's reliable and valid. The problem right now is the development of a global climate model. There are a lot, and I mean A LOT, of moving parts in such models. Secondly, the prevalent practice in the climate science community is to validate computer models against other computer models. Oh boy. I have a friend who does computer modeling for the nation's nuclear warhead stockpile. He could never get away with validating his models against other models. The reason that our nuclear test ban is still in effect is because the computer modelers have developed their models to such a sophistication and they've validated the models against ACTUAL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS and the models accurately predict the results that developed from the explosions. Climate models are producing results all over the map. That's not science.

  6. #46
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Intelligence is pretty well defined by the psychometric community, at least to the point where they can measure and predict. It's not deterministic, but it's the best single psychological variable out there in terms of predictive validity.
    Psychometrics are at the squishy end of the soft sciences. In real biology land, there is no overall standard for measuring intelligence in humans.

    Race is a concept with fuzzy boundaries. The fuzziness of the boundaries doesn't invalidate the concept. Computer programs can now sort people into racial groups simply by analyzing their DNA.
    Simple enough to program the computer to look for skin color genes. That hardly makes race an objective genetic definition.

    Not the past tense, please use the present tense. You wouldn't want people to believe that you're exempting humans from evolution now, would you?
    The evolution of physical characteristics localized to a geographic region took place long ago. The incredible mobility of modern societies prevents the same of kind regional selection in humans.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    By "right science" you presumably mean the science that's accepted by 97% of climatologists? You've determined, based upon your advanced science degrees, that you know better?
    97% is a hugely inflated number, unless you only count those who get published, which immensely favors those who have bought into academia's current dogma over those who dare to go against it. Anyways, no matter which position I take, there's guaranteed to be some people with advanced science degrees who disagree, so that's kind of a non-argument.

    Is it so hard to accept that there might possibly be forces pushing most scientists to the wrong conclusion other than actual science? Peer pressure/groupthink, or the fact that academia in general is hugely politically left-leaning, which brings in all sorts of sampling biases, comes to mind. Anyways, to answer your question, yes, I would rather do the actual research and come to my own conclusion than just take a poll of scientists and uninformedly decide whatever they tell me must be right.

  8. #48
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    OK,. to shift gears here. The problem with climate science is that, for the most part, it's not really science, it's computer modeling. What passes for publishable science in the climate science community is often met with rolls of the eyes from other disciplines. I could put up hundreds of papers which were published which amounted to little more than computer projections based on assumptions. That's garbage.

    Now the good parts of climate science are the parts which isolate and understand isolated aspects of climate, of chemistry, of physics. This science stands on it's own. It's reliable and valid. The problem right now is the development of a global climate model. There are a lot, and I mean A LOT, of moving parts in such models. Secondly, the prevalent practice in the climate science community is to validate computer models against other computer models. Oh boy. I have a friend who does computer modeling for the nation's nuclear warhead stockpile. He could never get away with validating his models against other models. The reason that our nuclear test ban is still in effect is because the computer modelers have developed their models to such a sophistication and they've validated the models against ACTUAL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS and the models accurately predict the results that developed from the explosions. Climate models are producing results all over the map. That's not science.
    Do you just make this stuff out of your head? Climate models are always run backwards and forwards to correlate them with historical, known climate patterns. They aren't *just* run against other computer models, although they certainly do compare them. The objective is to continually improve the modeling.

  9. #49
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    OK,. to shift gears here. The problem with climate science is that, for the most part, it's not really science, it's computer modeling. What passes for publishable science in the climate science community is often met with rolls of the eyes from other disciplines. I could put up hundreds of papers which were published which amounted to little more than computer projections based on assumptions. That's garbage.

    Now the good parts of climate science are the parts which isolate and understand isolated aspects of climate, of chemistry, of physics. This science stands on it's own. It's reliable and valid. The problem right now is the development of a global climate model. There are a lot, and I mean A LOT, of moving parts in such models. Secondly, the prevalent practice in the climate science community is to validate computer models against other computer models. Oh boy. I have a friend who does computer modeling for the nation's nuclear warhead stockpile. He could never get away with validating his models against other models. The reason that our nuclear test ban is still in effect is because the computer modelers have developed their models to such a sophistication and they've validated the models against ACTUAL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS and the models accurately predict the results that developed from the explosions. Climate models are producing results all over the map. That's not science.
    A scientific theory is one that accurately predicts experimental results. If the model accurately predicts what happens, and what has happened, then it is a good theory.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #50
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    97% is a hugely inflated number, unless you only count those who get published, which immensely favors those who have bought into academia's current dogma over those who dare to go against it. Anyways, no matter which position I take, there's guaranteed to be some people with advanced science degrees who disagree, so that's kind of a non-argument.

    Is it so hard to accept that there might possibly be forces pushing most scientists to the wrong conclusion other than actual science? Peer pressure/groupthink, or the fact that academia in general is hugely politically left-leaning, which brings in all sorts of sampling biases, comes to mind. Anyways, to answer your question, yes, I would rather do the actual research and come to my own conclusion than just take a poll of scientists and uninformedly decide whatever they tell me must be right.
    Expert credibility in climate change

    97 - 98 % is accurate.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 5 of 52 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •