Page 30 of 41 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 403

Thread: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

  1. #291
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I'm a guy who can read and write English, and can therefore comprehend the words "I do/don't have qualifications in the area of nuclear physics."



    This isn't about opinions. An example of an opinion is "Breaking Bad is terrible" or "Cardinal can dance really well," and while both examples would be really bad opinions, they're still subjective statments and thus legitimately opinions. The comment "nuclear physics isn't real," however, isn't an example of an opinion, but of a terribly uninformed statement by an uneducated person.

    But all of this is a detour from my main point of interest which is this: why are you more interested in the "opinions" of people who have no training in a scientific field than those who do? What makes you think listening to those uneducated people will give you a more informed understanding of the topic? Let's say I'm trying to get my head around the topic of fixing my car. Which method of research is going to leave me more informed on the matter, and which will make me more ignorant?

    1) Reading blogs and comments by art and philosophy majors, or
    2) Going to forums specifically dedicated to car repair or, better yet, just asking a car mechanic directly

    Now, keep in mind, people who are legitimately qualified to repair cars disagree with each other frequently, but which of those options is guaranteed to have me walking away even more of an idiot than I began?
    AS the OP stated, only 20% of Americans believe that the debate is settled...You're in the minority whether you like it or not...
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #292
    Assassin
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,500

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    Yes, one can prove a scientific theory. One has proven scientific theories. It's the 'drive' of scientists to prove or disprove a scientific theory.

    For example, Einstein eventually concocted his general theory of relativity because he didn't accept the concept of ether postulated by other scientists. Einstein's theoretical Theory Of General Relativity had very little empirical evidence (much like how AGW has been postulated to describe increases in global warming). Sidenote: laws weren't enacted as a result of these theoretical general relativity claims made in 1916?, while, conversely, laws have been implemented, today, to reduce the theoretical effects of AGW on global warming.

    General relativity experiments showed light appeared, occasionally, to bend in close proximity to a heavenly object, as general relativity's theories predicted it ALWAYS would bend. It wasn't until 1959 (using an experiment to test the bending of light during a solar eclipse) that light always bent in response to a heavenly object as theorized in Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity. General relativity was on the way to being verified. The scientific community tested Einstein's theories for approximately 45 years before they gave his theories some credence. IMO, biases of the scientific community were as strong in 1916? as they are today. The scientific community wanted, badly, to disprove Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity in 1916? as much as they want to prove AGW's effect on global warming,today.

    For example, why scientists haven't declared the randomness of the creation of the universe. No scientist has isolated that primeval boson particle using, for example, The Hadron Collider.
    You cannot prove something to be true, only that something is false. According to you Newtonian physics were "proved true" until Einstein came along and showed there was more to it than the simple motion and in some ways proved it was false, or incomplete. This is the reason nothing can be proven true. What if 100 years from now relativity is found to be partially false, incomplete, missing a critical factor? Wrong about something that seemed to fit? What was once "proven true" would then be false, that makes no sense. Anything that can be falsified cannot be "proven true" and everything has the potential to be falsified.

    Now, why you are linking relativity to AGW I have no idea. The skeptical scientific community eventually adopted relativity and therefore the AGW deniers are scientific martyrs like Einstein? lol... this is just silly. Yes science evolves over time and there are good fights for decades, even centuries over what ideas are correct and which are false. With AGW there isn't much debate anymore, there are remnants of something but the science so strongly supports AGW it doesn't make a lot of sense to go heavy as a skeptic. This is an apples to bears comparison and really gives little insight into the debate.

  3. #293
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,018

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    AS the OP stated, only 20% of Americans believe that the debate is settled...You're in the minority whether you like it or not...
    And the OP failed to demonstrate that any of the opinions of the people polled were of any worth whatsoever, as I've shown you and your response rather foolishly, and impotently, runs away from. Your position in this thread is obviously an attempt to justify the use of uneducated people as a legitimate source for scientific discussion. You have failed. Badly.
    Last edited by Cardinal; 07-22-14 at 04:15 AM.

  4. #294
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    AS the OP stated, only 20% of Americans believe that the debate is settled...You're in the minority whether you like it or not...
    That's less (23%) than the number of Germans who believe the US was behind 9/11.

  5. #295
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,852
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    Says: The NOAA fudges the data.

    Says: You can tell by looking at the NOAA data.
    Actually, NOAA publicly owned up to the error.

    NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As Hottest Month On Record | The Daily Caller

    NOAA Quietly Reinstates July 1936 As Hottest Month on Record | The Gateway Pundit

    NOAA’s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future – July 1936 now hottest month again | Watts Up With That?

    So they made an error, and since the error was published (I'm assuming), the correct was just as public (I'm also assuming).

    I'm seeing no malicious intent here.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  6. #296
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,852
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    Yes, one can prove a scientific theory. One has proven scientific theories. It's the 'drive' of scientists to prove or disprove a scientific theory.

    For example, Einstein eventually concocted his general theory of relativity because he didn't accept the concept of ether postulated by other scientists. Einstein's theoretical Theory Of General Relativity had very little empirical evidence (much like how AGW has been postulated to describe increases in global warming). Sidenote: laws weren't enacted as a result of these theoretical general relativity claims made in 1916?, while, conversely, laws have been implemented, today, to reduce the theoretical effects of AGW on global warming.

    General relativity experiments showed light appeared, occasionally, to bend in close proximity to a heavenly object, as general relativity's theories predicted it ALWAYS would bend. It wasn't until 1959 (using an experiment to test the bending of light during a solar eclipse) that light always bent in response to a heavenly object as theorized in Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity. General relativity was on the way to being verified. The scientific community tested Einstein's theories for approximately 45 years before they gave his theories some credence. IMO, biases of the scientific community were as strong in 1916? as they are today. The scientific community wanted, badly, to disprove Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity in 1916? as much as they want to prove AGW's effect on global warming,today.

    For example, why scientists haven't declared the randomness of the creation of the universe. No scientist has isolated that primeval boson particle using, for example, The Hadron Collider.
    What we are talking about here is the scientific method.

    The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

    The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
    Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Step by step:

    1. Formulation of a question
    2. Hypothesis
    3. Prediction
    4. Testing
    5. Analysis



    If the hypothesis passes peer review, and the results duplicated in a number of instances, it becomes a scientific theory or law and is generally accepted, until someone comes up with an instance where it fails, and the whole process starts all over again.

    Constant refinement, testing and challenging.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  7. #297
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,852
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    And the OP failed to demonstrate that any of the opinions of the people polled were of any worth whatsoever, as I've shown you and your response rather foolishly, and impotently, runs away from. Your position in this thread is obviously an attempt to justify the use of uneducated people as a legitimate source for scientific discussion. You have failed. Badly.
    Yeah, so any opinion or position that you disagree with are 'opinions not of any worth whatsoever'? Hmm. Let me ponder that for awhile.

    Besides, if only 20% of the people believe the matter to be settled, how do you expect to effect legislation and policy with such a minority position? Isn't that the real question besides impugning those that disagree with you?
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  8. #298
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanUNC View Post
    Wait, so you don't accept the scientific fact of evolution bro?
    No, I believe in mutation. Evolution implies matter evolved to a complex state from nothing... and this hasn't been proven.

  9. #299
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,852
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    No, I believe in mutation. Evolution implies matter evolved to a complex state from nothing... and this hasn't been proven.
    How does Evolution imply matter evolving into a complex state?

    From my understanding, Evolution is the result of selective reproduction, in that those with genetic variances that have a positive survival impact propagate those genetic variances to a greater extent than those without it. Accumulated long enough, a new species comes to rise.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  10. #300
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    You cannot prove something to be true, only that something is false. According to you Newtonian physics were "proved true" until Einstein came along and showed there was more to it than the simple motion and in some ways proved it was false, or incomplete. This is the reason nothing can be proven true. What if 100 years from now relativity is found to be partially false, incomplete, missing a critical factor? Wrong about something that seemed to fit? What was once "proven true" would then be false, that makes no sense. Anything that can be falsified cannot be "proven true" and everything has the potential to be falsified.

    Now, why you are linking relativity to AGW I have no idea. The skeptical scientific community eventually adopted relativity and therefore the AGW deniers are scientific martyrs like Einstein? lol... this is just silly. Yes science evolves over time and there are good fights for decades, even centuries over what ideas are correct and which are false. With AGW there isn't much debate anymore, there are remnants of something but the science so strongly supports AGW it doesn't make a lot of sense to go heavy as a skeptic. This is an apples to bears comparison and really gives little insight into the debate.
    You kinda explained my point for me, thanks. That the scientific community has strong biases as a theory is first introduced... even though they call themselves 'scientists'. However, as the data and consequent testing helps to prove (if no other qualified scientist can find major errors in testing results or interpretation) or disprove a theory, scientists finally come around to accepting or not accepting the validity of a theory, unless the theory has a HUGE amount of ideology to overcome sometimes scientists like, for example, Galileo are disproved even though they have no errors in their logic or findings. Or theories like AGW are 'proved' without any evidence.

Page 30 of 41 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •