Global Warming is over.

[Massive Lee]

Don't feed the troll.

[cale]

Posts opinion piece written by a lawyer...."it follows the scientific method". You don't even know what the words you use mean.

[z31maniac]

Don't feed the troll.

This is hysterical given your recent posts.

[marshallnoise]

Posts opinion piece written by a lawyer...."it follows the scientific method". You don't even know what the words you use mean.

So only scientists are able to decide what is legit or not in terms of science? No one else can comment?

Strange.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[Wschnitz]

So only scientists are able to decide what is legit or not in terms of science? No one else can comment?

Strange.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

'So only people who spent years educating themselves in their scientific field are able to decide what is legit or not in that scientific field? People without any knowledge in that field cant comment?

Strange.'

[marshallnoise]

'So only people who spent years educating themselves in their scientific field are able to decide what is legit or not in that scientific field? People without any knowledge in that field cant comment?

Strange.'

Not quite. The same logic though would tell you that you can't comment on the game of football if you weren't a football player, coach, or team owner.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, we created the tyranny of the "expert" who should be obeyed no matter what.

Sorry, I am not willing to believe everything the experts say.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[E30 Wagen]

So only scientists are able to decide what is legit or not in terms of science? No one else can comment?

Strange.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Certainly anybody can comment, but when it comes to actual analysis I think we can grant some authority to the experts who live and breathe it.

Sorry, I am not willing to believe everything the experts say.

Neither is any scientist worth his salt. Again, science is all about challenging what we think we know about natural phenomena. If a scientist decides he wants to prove global warming exists, then he is already failing at his job. I'd say that the term "expert" is applied to scientists who are not necessarily all knowing in a particular field, but are rigorous in the methods of collecting and analyzing data. So far data is showing that the earth is warming. Hypothesis' are that co2 might have something to do with it.

[marshallnoise]

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Certainly anybody can comment, but when it comes to actual analysis I think we can grant some authority to the experts who live and breathe it.


Neither is any scientist worth his salt. Again, science is all about challenging what we think we know about natural phenomena. If a scientist decides he wants to prove global warming exists, then he is already failing at his job. I'd say that the term "expert" is applied to scientists who are not necessarily all knowing in a particular field, but are rigorous in the methods of collecting and analyzing data. So far data is showing that the earth is warming. Hypothesis' are that co2 might have something to do with it.

Fair and reasoned response. The last line is key and in my mind, and in a lot of people too, the science is not settled on that. And a lot of that skepticism is due to the politically motivated remedy.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[Massive Lee]

This is hysterical given your recent posts.

You don't like when I comment about your xenophobic, racist, bullying, misogynistic pig president and church guru? ;-)

[E30 Wagen]

Fair and reasoned response. The last line is key and in my mind, and in a lot of people too, the science is not settled on that. And a lot of that skepticism is due to the politically motivated remedy.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Please elaborate on what political remedies have you skeptical. If you're skepticism is fueled by an emotional response to proposed political solutions then you're not being objective and you need to work on your critical thinking skills, something which scientists are very good at.

[z31maniac]

You don't like when I comment about your xenophobic, racist, bullying, misogynistic pig president and church guru? ;-)

More poor trolling attempts. I didn't vote for Orange Man.

Please look at the other thread because you don't seem to understand international politics.

[marshallnoise]

Please elaborate on what political remedies have you skeptical. If you're skepticism is fueled by an emotional response to proposed political solutions then you're not being objective and you need to work on your critical thinking skills, something which scientists are very good at.

Anything that burdens the economy unnecessarily. When the scientists work with political operatives to develop solutions to man-made climate change, they no longer are scientists. Carbon credits are a fucking farce as they do not curb behavior but enrich the ruling political class. Not holding India and China to the same standards but only burdening western civilization and the continent of Africa (the latter is racist on its face).

There is nothing funny or good about stripping people's livelihood away from them in the name of something that, in my opinion, will have a minuscule effect at best.

Short of wholesale contempt for the environment (dumping in rivers, nuclear war/fallout), there isn't much we can do to destroy the environment. Nature will kill you and not be remorseful about it. Nature is trying to kill you and it doesn't give a fuck about you.

The number one way to improve the environment is to bring economic prosperity to every community in the world. Studies show that as soon as people aren't living hand to mouth, they begin to care about where they live.

You don't give a shit about litter when you can't feed yourself that day. Nor should you.

[cale]

So only scientists are able to decide what is legit or not in terms of science? No one else can comment?

Strange.

Comment =/= provide a resource of scientific merit, it hasn't been reviewed and the commenter is providing his opinion, an uneducated one at that.

Not quite. The same logic though would tell you that you can't comment on the game of football if you weren't a football player, coach, or team owner.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, we created the tyranny of the "expert" who should be obeyed no matter what.

Sorry, I am not willing to believe everything the experts say.

An appeal to authority to a singular entity would be foolish, but it's not singular. Your analogy to a subjective event is ridiculous, the study of science which does in fact require a formal education is not the same as the evaluation of sport. Would you trust an opinion from a random fan who saw a tackle to evaluate head trauma in a tackle, or a neurosurgeon?

"I'm a skeptic, but I'm more skeptical of the experts than the mouthpieces"

[E30 Wagen]

Anything that burdens the economy unnecessarily. When the scientists work with political operatives to develop solutions to man-made climate change, they no longer are scientists. Carbon credits are a fucking farce as they do not curb behavior but enrich the ruling political class. Not holding India and China to the same standards but only burdening western civilization and the continent of Africa (the latter is racist on its face).

So you agree man is responsible for climate change? Also, "political operative," lol, you sound ridiculous. I don't see why a scientist, along with engineers and economists, who advises politicians on actions to prevent damage to the environment disqualifies them or is unethical. Sharing knowledge with the public is usually part of their job...

There is nothing funny or good about stripping people's livelihood away from them in the name of something that, in my opinion, will have a minuscule effect at best.

Agreed, but do you have an example we can actually discuss or is this all just hypothetical?

Short of wholesale contempt for the environment (dumping in rivers, nuclear war/fallout), there isn't much we can do to destroy the environment. Nature will kill you and not be remorseful about it. Nature is trying to kill you and it doesn't give a fuck about you.

I don't really know what your point here is. You admit we can (and we have) destroyed the environment in some cases, but ultimately our impacts are harmless and nature is invincible? I don't even know where to begin with this. And really, nature is consciously trying to kill me? You sound like a paranoid idiot.

The number one way to improve the environment is to bring economic prosperity to every community in the world. Studies show that as soon as people aren't living hand to mouth, they begin to care about where they live.

You don't give a shit about litter when you can't feed yourself that day. Nor should you.

Being poor is an excuse to litter and not care about living in your own shit, got it.

[marshallnoise]

Comment =/= provide a resource of scientific merit, it hasn't been reviewed and the commenter is providing his opinion, an uneducated one at that.

So?

An appeal to authority to a singular entity would be foolish, but it's not singular. Your analogy to a subjective event is ridiculous, the study of science which does in fact require a formal education is not the same as the evaluation of sport. Would you trust an opinion from a random fan who saw a tackle to evaluate head trauma in a tackle, or a neurosurgeon?

"I'm a skeptic, but I'm more skeptical of the experts than the mouthpieces"

I am saying that neurosurgeons and random fans both have assholes and they both use them to shit. Experts have been wrong about lots of things and they will continue to be wrong about many more things in the future, just like non-experts. They aren't made from a finer clay than you or me.



Science is objective, the practitioners of science are not necessarily so. Not acknowledging this is not very bright.