Originally Posted By jonvn If you could reason for yourself, you'd understand what science is, and what it is not. You don't.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Notice how jonvn gets really worked up and irate and defensive when people question his scientific beliefs? Sort of like what happens when you try to poke holes in the beliefs of a religious fundamentalist, I'd say. I don't mean to poke fun at you jonvn, but you are just proving my assertion that adherents to some scientific theories or tenets can become every bit as a radically protective of their beliefs as a preacher at a pulpit. It's not about pure, unadulterated science -- the ideal state of which you have accurately described -- it's about the people who practice that science, who are every bit as imperfect as anybody else, because they are only humans in the end. Ergo, the science they practice is subject to the same envy, greed, protectionism, cronyism and conceit as any human endeavor.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> What you resent is the truth, as far as we know it, and that's all there is to it. What a silly statement. There is still debate among scientists on how, exactly, the planet works. The global warming activists quote the scientists who support their views exclusively, ignore the critics, and then go around saying the issue is "settled." That's not science, and that isn't truth. Nowhere have I trashed the theory of global warming. Rather, I affirmed opposition to pollution and support of alternative fuels. I strongly favor improved public transportation, drive an economy car no larger than I need, never litter, recycle, and do all the things we're supposed to be doing. So, if you give it a minute, you might understand why hearing the left pontificate on how the LEFT'S solutions are the only solutions. It doesn't matter that George W. Bush has committed support to alternative, non-polluting fuels, HE'S the bad guy because he doesn't hate and dismantle big oil. In the meantime, high-profile "environmentalists" like Al Gore and Arianna Huffington can be flagrant and wasteful in their own personal lifestyles, and they get a pass because their politics are correct. Try to install a clean windmill within eyeshot of a Kennedy property, and you'll see how much political support environmental responsibility gets. (The east coast, largely left, loves the "cleanliness" of nuclear power ... as long as they can ship their waste to the politically right western region, where I live. Hmmmm.... Interesting....) Environmentalism is awesome. It deserves complete support ... SINCERE environmentalism, that is. Whether or not humans are causing global warming is irrelevant. It's a lot simpler than that, and it goes back to the golden rule of camping: Are we leaving the place better, or worse, than we found it? That doesn't require scientific gymnastics to establish. The left might gain some allies on the right if they'd support conservative environmental supporters (they do exist) instead of ignoring or trashing them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Notice how jonvn gets really worked up and irate and defensive when people question his scientific beliefs?" Notice how you start talking about me personally? Feh. You're not questioning MY scientific beliefs. I have explained to you how this stuff works. It's not my set up. It's how it works. The only thing I'm annoyed about is that there are several people on here who can't figure out very simple and logical processes, and then insist that when they can't understand it, it's a matter of "belief" or "faith." Which, of course, it is not. You're not poking holes in anything, you are simply making really very dumb comments over and over again. If anything does annoy me, it is that. One of the other really stupid things people used to say on here was how the Matterhorn would fall over if the sub lagoon was drained. That was one of the dumbest things ever, and even though that was explained over and over again, the same people kept making the same ignorant and imbecilic comments. "You are just proving my assertion that adherents to some scientific theories or tenets can become every bit as a radically protective " Except that your statements miss the point entirely. While people as individuals can become protective of ideas, that doesn't mean that is how science works. "the science they practice is subject to the same envy, greed, protectionism, cronyism and conceit as any human endeavor." Then they are not doing it right. I described in a very basic manner what the idea is. You have ideas formulated on the rules of physics and what we know to be plausible, based on the evidence available. As more evidence appears, that will either tip in favor or against an idea. At a certain point, the evidence becomes so overwhelming that no other conclusion can be reached. This has been said now several times in a few ways by me. You can either try and understand it, or you can continue to pretend that science is little more than a lab coated version of the Catholic Church. But if you did, you would be quite wrong.
Originally Posted By jonvn "here is still debate among scientists on how" No. It's not a silly statement, and there is not really any debate among scientists regarding global warming issues. You are either lying or so far removed from reality, you don't know what it is. There is no cadre of scientists trying to demonstrate a political view on this. Every single scientific organization that does this sort of work and who peer reviews their data agree. You keep talking about the "left." Another stupidity. It's not a left or right issue. It's a set of data that shows a certain thing, as best we know it to be. Even the federal government, and people in your lovely Bush Administration all understand what is the truth. You, on the other hand, seem to not be able to grasp it. That is your failing. "HE'S the bad guy because he doesn't hate and dismantle big oil." No, he's the bad guy because he's an inept disaster. You want to talk about Huffington and Gore as if that somehow has anything to do with this. That if they don't turn off the light when they walk out of the bathroom then it's all some game. It's not. The scientific community and the conclusions that have been reached repeatedly and all over the world all same about the same thing. The only debate now is how much, how bad, and what needs to be done. "Whether or not humans are causing global warming is irrelevant" Well, no. Its relevancy is completely the point. If we are causing it, we need to do what we can to try and either stop or mitigate the damages. "The left might gain some allies on the right" When they start actually engaging their brain. When it happens for you, drop us a line.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "While people as individuals can become protective of ideas, that doesn't mean that is how science works." Bingo. That's what I have been saying all along. "Science" is not a tangible, living thing. It is set up to be a logical, near perfect system, I agree. I have been talking all along about those people who operate within the realm of science and sometimes become like adherents to a religion in their zealous attempts to spread the word of their theory and to discount anybody else's theories which don't agree with theirs. It is recorded history - it has happened with Agassiz' origional theory of ice ages, with Wegener's continiental drift theories and with Bretz's channeled scabland theory, to mention a few cases. People afraid of an outrageous theory eating away at and destroying the foundation of their scientific beliefs have acted like religious zealots proclaiming blasphemy by fellow scientists and labeling independent thinkers as heretics. That's all I meant to say here, and I wholeheartedly agree that (without the scientists) science would be a near perfect system.
Originally Posted By jonvn There are idiots in every field. This is why you do peer review and do multiple studies, so that such things are taken into account. Einstein is one of these people. He came up with his genius early in life, but in his later years, refused to accept other theories that he did not agree with, despite mathematical evidence to the contrary. He was basically shunted aside as the real science in the field of physics was advanced. "labeling independent thinkers as heretics." You are not a 'heretic' if you can show reasoning and evidence for what you say. If you have a dissenting opinion, that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence, you need to produce reasoning, though. If you can't produce sufficient reasoning as to why, then your ideas aren't accepted.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Every single scientific organization that does this sort of work and who peer reviews their data agree. No, they don't. Only people who get their news filtered through a couple news organizations believe that. >>>You keep talking about the "left." Another stupidity. It's not a left or right issue. Oh, how grown-up of you! Using big words like "stupidity" to disarm those who disagree. It SHOULDN'T be a left or right issue. But it is, because the left labels anyone who doesn't subscribe to THEIR brand of environmentalism a forest-burning, earth-trashing slob. There are earth-trashing slobs on BOTH sides of the aisle. It's just that one side has adopted environmentalism as a fashion statement. But ask them to make personal sacrifices to save the planet (the kind they ask everyone else to make), and most of them will balk every time. >>> You want to talk about Huffington and Gore as if that somehow has anything to do with this. That if they don't turn off the light when they walk out of the bathroom then it's all some game. Oh, Mr. Al "Nobel Peace Prize for Saving the Planet" Gore has nothing to do with this? That's rich. Tell me, please, what exactly has he DONE to advance responsible stewardship of the earth? What did he do as vice president? Beyond lecturing other people on what THEY should be doing? There is a choice little piece on USA Today's Web site that reveals Gore's 'conservationist' lifestyle. Find it at: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/o pinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</a> Here's a piece: "For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.) Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself. " >>> Well, no. Its relevancy is completely the point. If we are causing it, we need to do what we can to try and either stop or mitigate the damages. "Global warming" is relevant for those who wait for catastrophe to be responsible. For those of us (and you'll find them in conservative and liberal circles) who think it's likewise irresponsible to drop a cigarette butt, or dump toxins into a pond, or other smaller acts of trashy behavior, pollution and waste is wrong because it's wrong, not because the media, or Al Gore, or hand-picked scientists say it's wrong. There is plenty of room for cooperation and agreement on the obvious. But Gore and company poison hope for bipartisan cooperation when they lay blame on others while absolving themselves of responsibility.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By planodisney Dude this guy is completely out of control. How many times can he call people stupid and idiots without being called on the carpet. Do you talk to people like this in front of their face? I doubt it!
Originally Posted By jonvn I called statements stupid. And they are. This is not a political issue. It's about the science.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "You are not a 'heretic' if you can show reasoning and evidence for what you say. If you have a dissenting opinion, that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence, you need to produce reasoning, though. If you can't produce sufficient reasoning as to why, then your ideas aren't accepted." Yes - this is the ideal way that science SHOULD work. But it hasn't always worked in such a way. J Harlen Bretz is a prime example. He had a dissenting opinion. He supplied volumes of evidence and reasoning. The majority who were against him were the ones who presented absurd alternatives which had no reasoning, so fearful were they of his theory upsetting their apple cart. Let's just hope that not much of this goes on these days, but history has a way of repeating itself.
Originally Posted By jonvn "this is the ideal way that science SHOULD work." This is also how it generally works, too. This is how we are able to fly in airplanes, use computers, and build working nuclear bombs. "He supplied volumes of evidence and reasoning." IT needs to be peer reviewed and it has to be either in line with what is already known, or be very persuasive when it is not. This does not mean that the process is impossible to mess up, as people are human, because if it didn't work, or generally worked as you suggest, we'd have no advances in science.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <There are earth-trashing slobs on BOTH sides of the aisle. It's just that one side has adopted environmentalism as a fashion statement. But ask them to make personal sacrifices to save the planet (the kind they ask everyone else to make), and most of them will balk every time.> That's a blanket statement based on nothing but bias. Let's see... first the attempt to appear even-handed by saying there are slobs on both sides. But then saying that, as always with you, left-wingers are worse, because in this case they're almost all hypocrites who don't practice what they preach. That isn't the case with any of the environmentally conscious people I know, save one. Except for him, everyone I know that I'd describe that way really does make sacrifices or has altered their practices to try to conserve resources.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By hopemax Exxon is changing it's tune <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4539329.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/stor y.mpl/front/4539329.html</a> "Big Oil behemoth Exxon Mobil Corp. has dropped any pretense of questioning whether global warming is real. Now the company is seeking to position itself as an active player in efforts to lower greenhouse gases. "The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it," Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public affairs, told reporters on a conference call Thursday." "When pressed, Cohen said "there is no question that human activity is the source of carbon dioxide emissions," and emphasized that Exxon is working with various policy groups and universities to find ways to produce energy while lowering greenhouse gases."
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009648" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ best/?id=110009648</a> >>The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman starts off a column about global warming on a loopy note: On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb. Wow, Ellen, thanks for sharing! But a few paragraphs later she tries to make a serious point and ends up making a serious moral and intellectual error: I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. No, Ellen. Let's not "just say" it. Before we make a truly invidious comparison, let's think a bit, shall we? On our shelf sits a book called "The House That Hitler Built." It is a 380-page study of Nazi Germany, written by Stephen H. Roberts, a professor of modern history at the University of Sydney. Roberts spent 16 months in Germany and neighboring countries between 1935 and 1937. "My main aim," he explains in the preface, "was to sum up the New Germany without any prejudice (except that my general approach was that of a democratic individualist)." The substance of the book is alarming, although the tone is calm and detached--so much so that it is eerie to read with the knowledge of what happened in the years after October 1937, when it was published. One 10-page chapter is devoted to "The Present Place of the Jews." At the time Roberts wrote, the persecution of Jewish Germans was well under way: At present, the German Jew has no civil rights. He is not a citizen; he cannot vote or attend any political meeting; he has no liberty of speech and cannot defend himself in print; he cannot become a civil servant or a judge; he cannot be a writer or a publisher or a journalist; he cannot speak over the radio; he cannot become a screen actor or an actor before Aryan audiences; he cannot teach in any educational institution; he cannot enter the service of the railway, the Reichsbank, and many other banks; he cannot exhibit paintings or give concerts; he cannot work in any public hospital; he cannot enter the Labour Front or any of the professional organizations, although membership of many callings is restricted to members of these groups; he cannot even sell books or antiques. . . . In addition to these, there are many other restrictions applying in certain localities. The upshot of them all is that the Jew is deprived of all opportunity for advancement and is lucky if he contrives to scrape a bare living unmolested by Black Guards or Gestapo. It is a campaign of annihilation--a pogrom of the crudest form, supported by every State instrument. When Roberts published his book, Kristallnacht was more than a year away; the ghettoes and death camps were further still in the future. Roberts described what he witnessed as "a campaign of annihilation," but he did not foretell the multiplication of its brutality in the ensuing years. Had he somehow managed to do so, he would be a prophet today, but he might well have looked like a crank at the time. Which brings us back to Ellen Goodman. Imagine if someone in 1937 had foreknowledge of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms, describing in detail what was going to happen just a few years later. Most people probably wouldn't believe him. They would be, to use Goodman's phrase, denying the future. But would they be "on par" with people who deny the Holocaust after it has happened? That seems a stretch. There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes. This columnist is skeptical of global warming. We don't have enough scientific knowledge to have anything like an authoritative opinion--but neither does Ellen Goodman, who bases her entire argument on an appeal to authority, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We lack the time, the inclination and possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. No doubt the same is true of Goodman. Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last criticism.) Above all, we can't stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?<< Here is a link to Ms. Goodman's editoral... <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/glo be/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/</a>
