"People would treat Earth differently if they saw it from space" – ESA astronaut

[Eff Pandas]

Eff Pandas

We'll be fine in the end. Islam is the last religion to be assimilated into the 'modern' world and that won't take more than 100 years. Technology is taking over, we'll have humans in a century that are part bionic - shit we've got that happening now. Curiously, I wonder how religion and technology will get on. Is it the Quakers that refuse blood transfusions?

I think in a thousand years the majority of Earth is secular and balanced. The complexion of most humans will be similar and I hope space exploration is what bonds us together. We could really do with an alien invasion though, that would definitely speed up the bonding process.

LOL but yea you could be right. In 100 years if the earth is 200 degrees with tornados 24/7 you might just need to turn up your cooling mechanism on the robotic avatar of yourself that goes out to scavenge so it doesn't overheat as you are bunkered 500 ft under ground or something so f#ck global warming lol.

The rest of the stuff with humanity basically I think you are more or less right on about to. You'd have to think at some point we decide killing each other over these silly ass beliefs, religious, nationalistic or whatever, is kinda dumb & counterproductive to society as a whole.

Randomly I also think pooping in a hole filled with water in one of the rooms of our houses is gonna be some wacky **** that people 100yrs from now will be like "wtf those people were disgusting savages back then" about & they will probably just take some sorta nanotechnology pill that'll eat your **** from your colon.

[D-MiZe]

Randomly I also think pooping in a hole filled with water in one of the rooms of our houses is gonna be some wacky **** that people 100yrs from now will be like "wtf those people were disgusting savages back then" about & they will probably just take some sorta nanotechnology pill that'll eat your **** from your colon.

'Did they really smear shit all over their arse using this 'toilet paper' stuff, Dad?

'Yes son, the 21st Century was a savage time. I'll tell ya how savage of a time it was laddie. They used to smash piss organs together to make babies, it's a good thing we're more civilized now'

[SterlingStained]

i agree with the scientist, if people can see the beauty of our planet from that perspective, it would cause greater influence and love for our planet more that tea leoni in deep impact or john cusack 2012 or bruce willis in armageddon.

billionaires should be investing their wealth on commercial space travel instead of giving it to bill gates to help africa.

buncha boring tw@ts.

[Weltschmerz]

It is probably true, though. A trip to space must give that extra dimension in terms of world view.

[1bad65]

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

'Consensus' isn't a scientific term, it's a political term. That's actually your side's problem, they've allowed politics (as opposed to data) to guide their thinking.

Michael Crichton said it best in terms of consensus in Science:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

The fact is your side put forward the hypothesis that higher CO2 emissions resulted in higher global temps. But there was a 17 year period of no warming, despite the fact those years saw record CO2 emissions. Thus the hypothesis was disproved. It's simple Science, to those of us educated in the subject and who do not have a political axe to grind.

[1bad65]

Oh you done fucked it now, 1bad.

Cua is a man of science so you better respond accordingly. No bullshit about Jesus speaking to you in the bath or other Judaic space zombies.

As you can see, I'm fine. I may be Christian, but I'm much more knowledgeable and educated in Science than he is.

That's part of the fun of it! He mocks me for being Christian and thus in his mind anti-Science, yet I easily put him in his place even when the topic is Science.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

'Consensus' isn't a scientific term, it's a political term. That's actually your side's problem, they've allowed politics (as opposed to data) to guide their thinking.

Michael Crichton said it best in terms of consensus in Science:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

The fact is your side put forward the hypothesis that higher CO2 emissions resulted in higher global temps. But there was a 17 year period of no warming, despite the fact those years saw record CO2 emissions. Thus the hypothesis was disproved. It's simple Science, to those of us educated in the subject and who do not have a political axe to grind.

Michael Crichton....a science fiction writer who has been debunked in his claims against climate change over and over. Funny how you site a science fiction writer and ignore the mounds of evidence I posted, and the scientific organizations that have done decades of work in this subject.

Once again evidence that you are dishonest and blind to the facts and evidence.

He is wrong and right though in his claim about scientific consensus. Yes, the scientific evidence is not necessarily correct if there is consensus. Science has no hierarchy, has no authority.

Saying that, science has to go where the evidence goes. In other words, in the case of climate change, the overwhelming evidence is that we (humans) are doing damage to the climate through pollution and other methods.

So he's misrepresenting scientific consensus in a way, and even though science isn't based on certainty, it is based on probability. And you have to go where the overwhelming evidence points, that is the logical, scientific way to look at things.

As you can see, I'm fine. I may be Christian, but I'm much more knowledgeable and educated in Science than he is.

That's part of the fun of it! He mocks me for being Christian and thus in his mind anti-Science, yet I easily put him in his place even when the topic is Science.

I don't mock you for being a Christian, STRAWMAN!!!!!!

I mock you for being a young earth creationist, and a denier of climate change. You say you understand science better than me, yet you deny evolution (as you have in previous conversations we have had) and you deny the scientific evidence that points to climate change. Thousands of Christians are scientists, and accept the fact of evolution and climate change.

Hate to break this to you, but you are not on the side of science.

[BostonGuy]

I don't get the global warming deniers. Even if they're right, and there's no global warming, moving to cleaner society and economy is not a disadvantageous prospect. Is it too much to ask that people are conscientious about how their actions affect the environment? Is not idling your diesel truck or recycling going to affect you negatively?

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

I don't get the global warming deniers. Even if they're right, and there's no global warming, moving to cleaner society and economy is not a disadvantageous prospect. Is it too much to ask that people are conscientious about how their actions affect the environment? Is not idling your diesel truck or recycling going to affect you negatively?

Because it's political for them and they claim it's the left that is turning this into a political issue.

Sure, politics are involved, but if you come from purely a scientific evidence point of view, it's not a debate.

Does that mean we will explode in 2 years? No, but like you said, how can polluting and not being clean be good for us? For fuks sake....

[1bad65]

Michael Crichton....a science fiction writer who has been debunked in his claims against climate change over and over.

Where was he debunked?

Funny how you site a science fiction writer and ignore the mounds of evidence I posted, and the scientific organizations that have done decades of work in this subject.

Wrong again. I actually produced data (and will source it if asked) that proves my side is correct on this.

Once again evidence that you are dishonest and blind to the facts and evidence.

Not at all. I provided evidence. I'm still waiting on you to do the same. Remember, political talking points are not data....

Saying that, science has to go where the evidence goes.

Correct. The problem is your side did just the opposite, and had to resort to actually altering and deleting the data.

In other words, in the case of climate change, the overwhelming evidence is that we (humans) are doing damage to the climate through pollution and other methods.

False. Again, I showed you how the data actually disproved your side's hypothesis.

I mock you for being a young earth creationist, and a denier of climate change.

Two strawmen arguments.

Now as I said before, prove it.

You will need to quote me where I said I was a "young earth creationist", and that I've denied climate change in it's entirety. On that second one, be sure to read carefully. I've never denied climate change, as the earth's climate has changed since Day 1. I deny the now-disproved claim of man-made climate change. Huge difference, as you will soon find out when you can't find quotes of me saying what you just claimed I have said.

You say you understand science better than me, yet you deny evolution (as you have in previous conversations we have had) and you deny the scientific evidence that points to climate change.

More strawmen, as I said neither of those either. Again, I believe in creation AND evolution. It's not an 'either-or' scenario, and if you were educated in Science you'd already know this.

Hate to break this to you, but you are not on the side of science.

Actually I am. Like I said, the 17 year span of no warming despite record CO2 emissions proved which side was correct on this topic. Sorry, but your side was on the wrong side of the data. I guess that's why they altered and deleted the data.

Sorry bud, but you got 'Grubered' again. Maybe one day you'll finally figure out they play you people for being "stupid". Remember, they openly admitted to it!

Now, let's see if you can provide those quotes of mine you were asked to. I say you can't. And I'm all but certain I'll be correct. Good luck!