Common Climate Change lies

bubbatentoe said:
LOL @ "real scientists" Ghoti & Porchrat who "grace us with their presence".
Click to expand...
Nope, you still gotta try harder at that trolling, you actually dropped a trollop there. For this you only get 2/10. You really need to put in more effort.
 
ghoti said:
I dig how people like axelblue and big-al come and give us advice on science, when its evident from their posts they dont have the slightest clue about what theyre talking about. /sigh humans.... South Africans have an alarming lack of basic knowledge on the topic. I blame our education system. We are not creating enough information based academics. You got half of china wanting to become scientists.... in SA... they can hardly spell science and clearly have no idea about what they are talking about (though they pretend they do).
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with scientific method. By that I mean reproducing/replicating results. As this is a sure fire way to leave no grounds for dispute.

I do have a problem with the theories people suck out of their arses and have a couple of like minded people agree with them and all of a sudden it's a scientific theory which is right till proven wrong.

Just my take on it.

Science keeps on evolving and I'm happy that theories either gets support from evidence or it is thrown out completely when new evidence comes to light. This helps us understand more and we grow as we learn. But selling theories like Global warming as fact without all the info considered leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And the amounts of money being generated by this makes this taste feel all more like Bullshyte
 
Pitbull said:
Nothing wrong with scientific method. By that I mean reproducing/replicating results. As this is a sure fire way to leave no grounds for dispute.

I do have a problem with the theories people suck out of their arses and have a couple of like minded people agree with them and all of a sudden it's a scientific theory which is right till proven wrong.

Just my take on it.
Click to expand...

Your take on it is incorrect. Please read this wiki article to understand the difference between the scientific use of the word theory and the common use of the word theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Science keeps on evolving and I'm happy that theories either gets support from evidence or it is thrown out completely when new evidence comes to light. This helps us understand more and we grow as we learn. But selling theories like Global warming as fact without all the info considered leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And the amounts of money being generated by this makes this taste feel all more like Bullshyte
Click to expand...
It is fact. Empirical fact. One based on observation/measurement. This was tested by the IPCC and reconfirmed by multiple independent studies. We can measure this. We know global warming is happening.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Your take on it is incorrect. Please read this wiki article to understand the difference between the scientific use of the word theory and the common use of the word theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory


It is fact. Empirical fact. One based on observation/measurement. This was tested by the IPCC and reconfirmed by multiple independent studies. We can measure this. We know global warming is happening.
Click to expand...

There is no dispute what so ever that the earth is warming up. You just need to look at your temp gauge to see that.

Now lets look at this Theory as fact part.
Just a few weeks ago it came to light that traveling faster than light is actually very possible. I'm all for someone making claims and backing them up but don't exclude other inputs just because your mind is clogged as the scientist who came up with the theory. Science is suppose to be open for debate, facts to be disputed and confirmed by reproducing result over and over.

If I say that space is only 1 000 000 million light years squared and I supply reasons as to why I think so and they are all sound. This will be accepted as a theory and will be a so called fact till I'm proven wrong. Correct not so?
 
Pitbull said:
There is no dispute what so ever that the earth is warming up. You just need to look at your temp gauge to see that.

Now lets look at this Theory as fact part.
Just a few weeks ago it came to light that traveling faster than light is actually very possible. I'm all for someone making claims and backing them up but don't exclude other inputs just because your mind is clogged as the scientist who came up with the theory. Science is suppose to be open for debate, facts to be disputed and confirmed by reproducing result over and over.

If I say that space is only 1 000 000 million light years squared and I supply reasons as to why I think so and they are all sound. This will be accepted as a theory and will be a so called fact till I'm proven wrong. Correct not so?
Click to expand...
Its no A scientists... its thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists who all came to the same conclusion based on their own observation and testable experimentation. Their methods are online, you to can go do the experiments and observations they did and say for instance you copy their experimentation and get different results. Well you just proved them all wrong.

Its always open to debate, but you gotta kinda have empirical evidence and testable experiments to support your view..... you know, like they have. Its not impossible to have theory updated. Einstein learnt that in the great Atomic debate. He had an opinion on the structure of the atom that he believed was right. However the scientific method beat him in the end and today we have quantum physics with practical applications :D
 
Last edited:
Looks like ghoti is a troll after reading all the posts. Anything he doesn't agree with, whether it makes 100% sense or not, he points out as trolling. Found this thread amusing.
 
Nicodeamus said:
It is cheaper to go over to greener energy, unless they're regulated! I do not share your optimism believing that the Cop17 conference knows how to make the economy more efficient...Or the Copenhagen one, they kinda all failed.
Click to expand...

Where did I say I approve of Cop17? Any political solution so far has been an abortion.
 
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Click to expand...

Gothi, for me the problem with climate change as a concept is the same problem I have with modern science. Although the scientific method is inherently reliable, the shaping of results by lobbyists & large corporations with deep pockets have turned the results into a joke.

I'm sure that for every 129 pro climate change reasons you'll find 129 cons stating the exact opposite, with supporting data and facts. Problem is due to climate's global scale those results aren't easy so verify or reproduce, but the bigger budgets get to make the loudest noise, leading to it becoming a question of what you choose to believe rather than what can be proven without a doubt.

.. and that's not really how science's supposed to work
 
evilstebunny said:
Gothi, for me the problem with climate change as a concept is the same problem I have with modern science. Although the scientific method is inherently reliable, the shaping of results by lobbyists & large corporations with deep pockets have turned the results into a joke.

I'm sure that for every 129 pro climate change reasons you'll find 129 cons stating the exact opposite, with supporting data and facts. Problem is due to climate's global scale those results aren't easy so verify or reproduce, but the bigger budgets get to make the loudest noise, leading to it becoming a question of what you choose to believe rather than what can be proven without a doubt.

.. and that's not really how science's supposed to work
Click to expand...

this is the full quote

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”
Click to expand...

What Ghoti doesn't get, is that it's OKAY to be skeptical of something, we're not trying to murder babies or take away his socialism by being skeptical
 
A 2 years late reply! Also I see in the older posts the sun was supposed to cool the earth from 2012. Did that happen? Also what does that even mean? The sun is a heat source. It can't cool anything. It can only heat it less.
 
Cius said:
A 2 years late reply! Also I see in the older posts the sun was supposed to cool the earth from 2012. Did that happen? Also what does that even mean? The sun is a heat source. It can't cool anything. It can only heat it less.
Click to expand...

:D

an interesting question would be what are the temperatures on other planets? with the mars rovers driving around, surely they can note noticeable differences if the sun does have an impact?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X