Massive Global Warming Protest

[!! Shawn]

So much science gets proven wrong over time.. I love science.. and when it's absolute.. Its FUCKING absolute..

But the moment words like "Could be" "most Likely" "our projections" are involved.. It ceases to be absolute .. and once it isn't absolute.. it's speculation..
and once it's speculation.. It is no more scientific than religion..

"Does" "without a doubt" "conclusive" Until these words are used.. it's all smoke and Mirrors.

The Climate change "Industry" is rife with words like from the former group..

Every time people bring up the "science" and point to climate models and computer simulations, I think of every time I have watched Huricane Coverage, and the magical changing predictions of where it will make landfall.

Will it be Florida? MEXICO? OR somewhere in-between?!? Stay tuned and find out, next at 5!

[squealpiggy]

They sure do.. when the Green taxes world wide passed 700 billion dollars last year..

OK firstly where did you get this number? Secondly how is it broken down? What constitutes a "green tax"? Where is it going? How is it collected? Is this "green tax" additional revenues collected by governments or is it taken from existing revenues and put into other projects? Which projects?

Just repeating a figure sounds an awful lot like conservative (ie partisan) talking points.

If they are organised enough to hijack the media.. Then I imagine they have people in government too

But now you're suggesting an unlikely conspiracy involving many thousands of people with absolutely not basis or evidence.

No, I said that the current theories are unprovable. Unprovable theories crush science. You support unprovable theories, therefore you = anti-science knowledge crushing liberal.

If you want to get technical there is nothing "provable" in science' You can have proof in mathematics. You can't have proof in science.

But the moment words like "Could be" "most Likely" "our projections" are involved.. It ceases to be absolute .. and once it isn't absolute.. it's speculation..
and once it's speculation.. It is no more scientific than religion..

If you want to get technical all science is speculation to one degree or another. Predictions are made on the basis of prior observations, that is what science is all about. It's not about a bunch of boffins saying "right, that's gravity sorted. now if only we could prove evolution".

If anything is in common with religion it's the partisan "global warming is a myth" crew who begin with a conclusion (liberals have a vested interest in promoting climate change theory) and assume that everything they encounter is evidence of that. You know you're on to a winner when even the evidence against your position is accused of being evidence of a conspiracy.

Every time people bring up the "science" and point to climate models and computer simulations, I think of every time I have watched Huricane Coverage, and the magical changing predictions of where it will make landfall.

Predicting the path of one element in a vastly complex system is not easy and not terribly reliable. What would be more reliable is predicting the extremes of the aggregate paths of hurricanes over the course of several years. That way you get a very reliable hurricane pathway which details at-risk areas. And there are models that predict at-risk areas for hurricanes to a high degree of accuracy. It isn't going to predict that the next one will hit New Orleans but it will certainly let you know in advance that New Orleans is at risk.

[Welter_Skelter]

OK firstly where did you get this number? Secondly how is it broken down? What constitutes a "green tax"? Where is it going? How is it collected? Is this "green tax" additional revenues collected by governments or is it taken from existing revenues and put into other projects? Which projects?

Just repeating a figure sounds an awful lot like conservative (ie partisan) talking points.



But now you're suggesting an unlikely conspiracy involving many thousands of people with absolutely not basis or evidence.



If you want to get technical there is nothing "provable" in science' You can have proof in mathematics. You can't have proof in science.



If you want to get technical all science is speculation to one degree or another. Predictions are made on the basis of prior observations, that is what science is all about. It's not about a bunch of boffins saying "right, that's gravity sorted. now if only we could prove evolution".

If anything is in common with religion it's the partisan "global warming is a myth" crew who begin with a conclusion (liberals have a vested interest in promoting climate change theory) and assume that everything they encounter is evidence of that. You know you're on to a winner when even the evidence against your position is accused of being evidence of a conspiracy.



Predicting the path of one element in a vastly complex system is not easy and not terribly reliable. What would be more reliable is predicting the extremes of the aggregate paths of hurricanes over the course of several years. That way you get a very reliable hurricane pathway which details at-risk areas. And there are models that predict at-risk areas for hurricanes to a high degree of accuracy. It isn't going to predict that the next one will hit New Orleans but it will certainly let you know in advance that New Orleans is at risk.

No evidence???!!! 2 words my friend.. political correctness.. If that isn't proof enough of severe leftist policies infiltrating everyday life .. I don't know what is..

So it's ok for the scientists to make theories based on "observations" and call it "science" But if I make an observation.. It's a conspiracy theory with no HARD evidence..???

Come on Squeal it's one or the other.. Either science is flawless or it isn't.. It can't only be when it suits your argument..

[Mizzou]

I've never heard squealpiggy say science is flawless.

I have seen him turn in to ziggypiggy.

[Welter_Skelter]

I've never heard squealpiggy say science is flawless.

I have seen him turn in to ziggypiggy.

he says this in the same post

"But now you're suggesting an unlikely conspiracy involving many thousands of people with absolutely not basis or evidence."

except of course My observations and prior experiences and education..

Followed by..

"If you want to get technical there is nothing "provable" in science"

And..

"If you want to get technical all science is speculation to one degree or another. Predictions are made on the basis of prior observations"

And then he uses Science as irrefutable proof .. so long as it back's up what he is saying.. Now If someone else makes an observation and a prediction.. They are dealing in conspiracy theories.. Unless they can back it up.. with... (drum roll please ) Science..

If Squealpiggy had 3 more degrees of self awareness and 1 more ounce of humility .. he would be the greatest poster this site has EVER seen..

[squealpiggy]

"But now you're suggesting an unlikely conspiracy involving many thousands of people with absolutely not basis or evidence."

except of course My observations and prior experiences and education..

OK let's examine your actual claim:

No evidence???!!! 2 words my friend.. political correctness.. If that isn't proof enough of severe leftist policies infiltrating everyday life .. I don't know what is..

So your "evidence" is this: There is political correctness. Therefore there is a huge global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists who are paid by anti-capitalist environmental groups to produce results that concur with their cause.

Does that sound about right?

So it's ok for the scientists to make theories based on "observations" and call it "science" But if I make an observation.. It's a conspiracy theory with no HARD evidence..???

In this case it is very much a non-sequitur.

Come on Squeal it's one or the other.. Either science is flawless or it isn't.. It can't only be when it suits your argument..

Science isn't flawless and I don't think I have ever pretended that it is. I'm not an environmentalist, I don't approach my position on global warming based on some prior political or ideological position, at one time I was sceptical of climate change. But sceptics ask questions and listen to the answers and that's what I did and while political environmental activists tend to be absolutely clueless about climate change (after all they are pushing a political agenda first and foremost) that doesn't mean that there isn't some actual science behind it.

"If you want to get technical there is nothing "provable" in science"

And..

"If you want to get technical all science is speculation to one degree or another. Predictions are made on the basis of prior observations"

And then he uses Science as irrefutable proof ..

Science is not "irrefutable proof" and in fact its strength is in its refutability. Scientific theory gets stronger as it is tested, as the old explanations get falsified and new and better ones take their place. The strength of science is not in being right, it's in admitting that it is wrong.

[squealpiggy]

This video is well balanced.

[tyson]

OK let's examine your actual claim:
So your "evidence" is this: There is political correctness. Therefore there is a huge global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists who are paid by anti-capitalist environmental groups to produce results that concur with their cause.

Does that sound about right?

Science is not "irrefutable proof" and in fact its strength is in its refutability. Scientific theory gets stronger as it is tested, as the old explanations get falsified and new and better ones take their place. The strength of science is not in being right, it's in admitting that it is wrong.

Those scientists that comes up with a big and expansive theory, don't they spend a huge amount of time trying to prove themselves wrong?

If a scientific theory isn't proven wrong it's considered true, at least that's what a teacher once said to me.

[squealpiggy]

Those scientists that comes up with a big and expansive theory, don't they spend a huge amount of time trying to prove themselves wrong?

If a scientific theory isn't proven wrong it's considered true, at least that's what a teacher once said to me.

It's more considered to be possible, until it is supported by further and further evidence and further observations at which point it can be considered pretty much fact.

Re: Climate change - anthropogenic global warning is considered (by scientists) to be pretty much fact as temperatures are increasing at a faster rate that historically recorded with an absence of other causes. An example of this is that at one point it was thought that solar activity could be causing the rise, and there appeared to be some correlation there. The problem is that when that work was replicated it was found that the current increase actually doesn't correspond with the right amount of solar activity.

All this does not mean that the world is about to end if we don't buy hybrid cars.