Is Science Insufferably Arrogant?

[StAnastasia]

Anselm33, remember, in StA’s world you cannot apply your brain outside your specific credentials. Only she can. :nope: But you will be attacked and challenged. Sounds like the gnostics.

Sorry buffalo, but you’re incorrect. In challenging Anselm33, I’ m doing neither more nor less than he did yesterday in challenging me. But there is no way the debate about global warming is going to be solved in the Catholic Answers forum. Rather, let it be hashed out in professional meetings. And that’s why it is intriguing to me that I couldn’t find a single session in the meeting of the American Geophysical Union casting systemic doubt on the idea that our global climate is changing.

When I see the scientific consensus concluding that the planet is getting colder, or that nothing much is happening, or that anthropogenic CO2 emission does not map onto rising global mean temperatures, then I will rethink the matter. At present I see only modest groups of retired and disaffected “scientists” - many of them not climatologists – holding meetings at the fringes of the scientific world. Oh, and I see Fox News and talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh leading the anti-AGW cheer. That is not science.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Sorry buffalo, but you’re incorrect. In challenging Anselm33, I’ m doing neither more nor less than he did yesterday in challenging me. But there is no way the debate about global warming is going to be solved in the Catholic Answers forum. Rather, let it be hashed out in professional meetings. And that’s why it is intriguing to me that I couldn’t find a single session in the meeting of the American Geophysical Union casting systemic doubt on the idea that our global climate is changing.

When I see the scientific consensus concluding that the planet is getting colder, or that nothing much is happening, or that anthropogenic CO2 emission does not map onto rising global mean temperatures, then I will rethink the matter. At present I see only modest groups of retired and disaffected “scientists” - many of them not climatologists – holding meetings at the fringes of the scientific world. Oh, and I see Fox News and talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh leading the anti-AGW cheer. That is not science.

StAnastasia

The problem is they are approaching the problem as if the earth is a closed system.

They fail to consider sun cycles, a warmer earth radiating into space at a faster rate and gases boiling off into space.

 

[StAnastasia]

The problem is they are approaching the problem as if the earth is a closed system. They fail to consider sun cycles, a warmer earth radiating into space at a faster rate and gases boiling off into space.

No, all of those factors are being taken into account.

 

[buffalo]

No, all of those factors are being taken into account.

They have ignored the gasses boiling off. Of this there is no doubt. I need a source to believe your claim.

 

[vz71]

And that’s why it is intriguing to me that I couldn’t find a single session in the meeting of the American Geophysical Union casting systemic doubt on the idea that our global climate is changing.

So are you arguing about climate change, or are you arguing man-caused climate change.

These are two different arguments.

Few people will doubt climate change. It changes all the time and has changed throughout history.
Many people will doubt man is the cause of it.

 

[StAnastasia]

So are you arguing about climate change, or are you arguing man-caused climate change. These are two different arguments.

The latter.

Few people will doubt climate change. It changes all the time and has changed throughout history.

 

[StAnastasia]

They have ignored the gasses boiling off. Of this there is no doubt. I need a source to believe your claim.

Buffalo, as I need sources from reputable scientists to believe your claim. I’m out of time on this issue, so it’s back to my day job of teaching about and exploring the implications of the big “E” for Catholic theology. I’m also now directing a doctoral dissertation on “E” and theology, so I have to get my comments sent off to my student (a clergyman).

Prayers and best wishes,
StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

Is Science Insufferably Arrogant?

I’m out of time on this issue, so it’s back to my day job of teaching about and exploring the implications of the big “E” for Catholic theology. I’m also now directing a doctoral dissertation on “E” and theology, so I have to get my comments sent off to my student (a clergyman).

Yes. And thank you for the demonstration.

Oh, you forgot the part about being a charter member of the International Society for Science and Religion and being personal friends with members such as Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, George Ellis, Nancey Murphy, Robert Russell, and the late Arthur Peacocke and having been to and spoken at numerous conferences covering such topics aw the anthropic principle.

But I see you covered that on another thread.

 

[GuardianR4]

Looking forward to reading the posts on this forum.

Please see the topic thread “Descartes, Does he really believe in God”.

Perhaps these two forums have a lot in common given the modern scientific project.

 

[kimmielittle]

No, all of those factors are being taken into account.

IMO, an insufferable claim.

Please offer evidence of this.

How does one ** account ** poorly understood variables?

We can not even **account ** CO2 and Climate - if we could the unproved hypothesis of AGW would be a fact,

Climate is chaos in flux. It always has been and remains so - today.

 

[vz71]

And that’s why it is intriguing to me that I couldn’t find a single session in the meeting of the American Geophysical Union casting systemic doubt on the idea that our global climate is changing.
StAnastasia

So are you arguing about climate change, or are you arguing man-caused climate change.

These are two different arguments.

The latter.

Then it is not logical to attempt to utilize a source to back your point when it does not actually support it.
Please see the quote above…they refer to climate change, not man-made climate change.

You cannot utilize that source to support anything more then the climate is changing.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m out of time on this issue,

This, I agree with.

Ya know, I’m in a different situation than most of you here.
I can not remember, not being spoon fed the AGW hypothesis throughout my education. From pre-school - till present. I was indoctrinated into believing this AGW ] as fact.

When I questioned “claims”, I was / am chastised, even ridiculed by 'teachers" .

Educators are allowed their personal views on such hypothesizes as AGW - but they fail to be educators when they present this hypothesis as factual. Which are you? An educator or a feeder?

When I challenge college courses, I feed the feeder to get my grade - I remember the educator.

I’m not in college yet ]

 

[StAnastasia]

Then it is not logical to attempt to utilize a source to back your point when it does not actually support it. You cannot utilize that source to support anything more then the climate is changing.

Take it up with professional scientists; here you will mainly find fellow AGW deniers. I don’t know why the 2010 American Geophysical Union has no sessions credibly debunking AGW. I asked my neighbor – a planetary physicist who just returned from the AGU conference – why there weren’t any. He said it was because no one had found evidence to dispute the link between planetary warming and the rise of human-caused CO2 levels.

StAnastasia

 

[kimmielittle]

Then it is not logical to attempt to utilize a source to back your point when it does not actually support it.
Please see the quote above…they refer to climate change, not man-made climate change.

You cannot utilize that source to support anything more then the climate is changing.

ABSOLUTELY.

It amazes me that a “teacher” does not know this. So many AGW’ers fall for this ploy…but an educator?

 

[StAnastasia]

ABSOLUTELY. It amazes me that a “teacher” does not know this. So many AGW’ers fall for this ploy…but an educator?

Kimmielittle, I encourage you to take your complaint to the American Geophysical Union. Ask what their reasons are for not scheduling AGW denial in their conference program. You may not accept their answer, but at least you’d get it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

 

[kimmielittle]

. He said it was because no one had found evidence to dispute the link between planetary warming and the rise of human-caused CO2 levels.

Nonsense.

Provide causation and effect evidence. No scientist has yet given such evidence. NOT one!

If presented… it AGW ] would not be an unproven hypothesis - it would be factual.

 

[StAnastasia]

Nonsense. Provide causation and effect evidence. No scientist has yet given such evidence. NOT one! If presented… it AGW ] would not be an unproven hypothesis - it would be factual.

Kimmielittle, I encourage you to take your complaint to the American Geophysical Union. Show them your scientific credentials, present them with your abstract, and ask for a spot on the 2011 AGU conference program. That’s the only way to make change happen!

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmielittle, I encourage you to take your complaint to the American Geophysical Union.

Why?
Some choice words come to mind…with the AGU.

CONTROLLED AGENDA.

RAPID RESPONSE TEAM.

Show them your scientific credentials,

Blatant appeal to authority, fallacy.

I need no scientific credibility… IF they haven’t proven the unproven hypothesis of AGW.

ALL I need do… is point this out.
Check and mate!

 

[kimmielittle]

Ask what their reasons are for not scheduling AGW denial in their conference program.

CONTROLLED AGENDA… comes to mind.

 

[StAnastasia]

I need no scientific credibility… IF they haven’t proven the unproven hypothesis of AGW.

If you don’t earn any scientific credentials you won’t be taken seriously. If you want to change things in the world of climate science, study hard, earn you Ph.D., conduct the research you need to prove your own hypothesis against AGW, publish your research and lecture on it widely. That process – rather than listening to and referring people to Glenn Beck – is the way to challenge and change consensus.

StAnastasia