OK, so that I may take your argument seriously…
Can you please provide me with your credentials as an authority on AGW?
- Status
Can you please provide me with your credentials as an authority on AGW?
B
buffalo
Guest
Hmmmm
Gotta have credentials to get into this exclusive club, and once in you must question, or else. You are not doing much to inspire confidence in the scientists you hang with. Your posts are getting to the point of total dismissal. Not good…
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
Science itself is great knowledge, but some of the scientists may be arrogant.
I’m glad to live in a time like this with great scientific and medical advances and technology.
You should be too.
I’m glad to live in a time like this with great scientific and medical advances and technology.
You should be too.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Just a few notes:
Mr Gore has no science credentials.
Demand accountability - transparency - un-politicized - no soft money activist - NGO ] - science.
Surely, you aren’t saying that I haven’t studied hard… the thus-far offered unproven hypothesis of AGW ?I have held my own, in debate, on AGW - with scientists, as many here can / will testify to.
Actually “my hypothesis” about AGW isn’t a hypothesis at all. It is fact!
My statement is : As we know it, AGW is an unproven hypothesis AND should NOT be treated as FACTUAL… until empirical evidence is provided.
Sorry, I don’t do either
I investigate the ‘claims’ and ‘offered as evidence’ of ‘claims’ made. That is what true scientists are called to do. That is what I expect them to do.
PROTECT the SCIENCE OF SCIENCE
As an educator, you should know - science - has no consensus.
Consensus stifles science - it isn’t a friend to science
K
kimmielittle
Guest
M
ManOnFire
Guest
It’s reasonable to think that certain individuals have a predisposition toward certain behaviors, but the article made too many excuses against free will. It’s obvious that each one of us comes to Moments of Truth every day where we must CHOOSE EITHER to take the EASY road to allow the child in us who wants to partake in our usual vice to feel good, OR to do the strong, virtuous, more responsible thing which does not produce instant gratification. That’s life. Terrorists are laughing and salivating over these types of articles that keep making excuses. If pop culture is too much of a temptation, then we have the free will to minimize our exposure to it. No one is forcing us to go astray as though we have no free will.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Absolutely.
It’s easy to bluster on an Internet forum. Take it to the American Geophysical Union!
No - it’s an hypothesis, as you should know if you understand how science works.
Good.Sorry, I don’t do either
That’s what they do.
What does this mean?PROTECT the SCIENCE OF SCIENCE
No, consensus does not stifle science. Consensus does not make science, but it helps us avoid wasting time demonstrating things again and again. Scientific consensus includes such things as the rough sphericity of the earth, plate tectonics, biological evolution, cell theory, subatomic theory, etc. Each generation doesn’t have to go back and reinvent the wheel on each of these topics – they can build on them, explore them further, develop and test new hypotheses.
StAnastasia
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
To be fair to Einstein, he wrote a letter to the President before the event asking that the bombs not be used. Regardless, he did change his tune.
As regards AGW, it seems to just be a way for big government to make inroads into our private lives: more politics than science.
See- if AGW is real, the the gov steps in and can demand more from us like taxes. Of course it would use those same taxpayer$ to have sold-out scientists create propaganda to ensure us that the government is in fact right. A money-sucking circle indeed.
On the other hand, the fact that it has been much warmer in the distant past and the fact that we went from “global cooling” to “global warming” to “climate change” is just proof of the instability of the the movement and its long-reaching liberal agenda. The movement itself is part of the wider movement towards secularism and European-style socialism, and it had enough capital to buy off some scientists to make these claims. More or less. How many scientists won’t criticize global warming?
“Schmitt contends that scientists “are being intimidated” if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
“They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming,” Schmitt said.” (foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493624,00.html)
AGW is itself artificially anthropogenic. The theory as it stands now has very little basis in fact whatsoever and is another way of the pushing and shoving towards socialism that we as Americans have unfortunately become used to.
Pax,
Sebastiano
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Please provide your evidence of your claim.
What about this statement is a hypotheses?
Absolutely
However, that is not how consensus has been used by the AGW / IPCC to “sell” AGW. It has been used exclusively as a political tool… that the “science is settled”.
In a scientific sense… Absolutely.
However, they haven’t proven their hypothesis - scientific research demands you demonstrate a cause and effect correlation - to prove a hypothesis ].
So, the only “consensus” with AGW’ers is: I have “faith” in this unproven hypothesis - nothing more.
They have failed to demonstrate, with any adroitness, the correlations of cause and effect - but have used “consensus” as if they have.
Until they first do…there is no consensus…Nor is there a redundancy of “demonstrating”…Unless, one counts the redundancy of ‘claims’ without supporting empirical evidence made by AGW / IPCC.
OK, so that I may take your argument seriously…
Can you please provide me with your credentials as an authority on AGW?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I don’t recall having made that claim.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Who says the science is settle?
Take it up with the professionals. Study, get a degree, do the research, and challenge the consensus.
No, it’s not a matter of faith. Take it up with the American Geophysical Union.
OK, if you click on the little arrow in the quote above, you will be taken directly to the post where the claim is made.
Now surely faced with the evidence of your own post, you will admit to the quote and provide the proper credentials for an authority of AGW. Right?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
If it’s not a matter of “faith” , as you AGW’ers claim…???
Which ones? The 52 of IPCC who support AGW? Or the vast majority, who support that indeed - Climate Changes?
You are starting to sound like a parrot
The AGU has not made a statement - or offered evidence supporting …saying the unproven hypothesis of AGW has been proven.
I await your evidence more than “Faith” ] for the unproven hypothesis of AGW.
D
DPMartin
Guest
ricmat
Amen:
Is Science Insufferably Arrogant? No. but are those who have been given charge thereof Insufferably Arrogant? That is a Big time Yes.
It seems that what we know God has blessed us with, they want you to believe is of them. Technically try to steal God’s Thunder (if you will). In my conversations with such arrogance, their position is it’s not true unless they know it first. And they deny the possibility that something is true whether they know it or not.
It can be believed that creation has no use if there be no man therein. But yet the Earth is God’s foot stool. Therefore since the Creator’s Feet are on the ground, who would think themselves to be higher, but a fool. For the wise man knows that the Way of Life is always higher then himself, And not of the ground.
E
egm85
Guest
Forgive me, but through all the inane chatter on global warming (which really isn’t anywhere, guys–there were 4 pages of posts that said absolutely nothing except “prove your credentials/give me a source”), this is the quote that stood out to me. This makes me shudder as a science-oriented Catholic. We are never better off not knowing something. It makes me sad that there are people out there who want to deny the acquisition of knowledge just so the comfortable bubbles they live in won’t be popped.Kat
*
How is more knowledge a bad thing?*
It isn’t, unless it’s bogus knowledge, or knowledge we are better off without.
Religion serves the purpose of answering questions we can’t truly know the answer to. Science serves the purpose of answering those that we can. Neither are arrogant, but like people said on this forum, both realms feature some pretty prominent, arrogant people.
Cha-Ching! :twocents:
B
BlueSprite
Guest
The stars have always shone from above…but it wasn’t until night fell and removed the veil of sun obscuring our view, that Science declared - “Ah, there are stars! Look at what we have discovered!”
This is my interpretation of science.
Today’s truths are tomorrow’s fiction…
I love science…just wish people would be more creative with their interpretations of the world.
This is my interpretation of science.
Today’s truths are tomorrow’s fiction…
I love science…just wish people would be more creative with their interpretations of the world.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Very true. Religion is not competent to answer questions about the nature and structure of the universe. Science is not competent to answer ultimate questions about meaning, purpose, and value. Recognizing their respective competencies and respecting the integrity of each within its own sphere is key to the complementary functioning of religion and science.
StAnastasia
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Alister McGrath in his book The Twilight of Atheism has an interesting chapter on the rise of modern science as a blooming of scientific egotism, with the conclusion drawn by the Romantics and the Victorians, that since science is so wonderful, who needs religion? T.H. Huxley, a biologist following Darwin’s theory of evolution, first coined the term “agnostic,” and Darwin himself had a hard time deciding whether he was Agnostic or Atheist, though he is supposed to have denied being an atheist.
Any artistic or intellectual discipline, once it comes into its own, is bound to develop a certain arrogance toward all other disciplines. However, hardly any discipline has been so proud of its pre-eminence as to divorce itself so entirely from religion as science has since the time of Darwin. But the sciences have led the way for the rebellion of other disciplines as well. It is now routine for almost all the art forms to scoff at religion one way or another, and this is because many artists have been infected with the diseases of our age.
Some think this collective arrogance is right and proper and long overdue. The error of this logic is transparent. History’s pendulum swings with decisive inevitability. It has swung so mightily in the direction of atheism over the last two centuries, that, as McGrath notes, the present dilemma for atheism is that it is about to confront its own inevitable downswing and the resurgence of interest in religion and the life of the spirit.
Any artistic or intellectual discipline, once it comes into its own, is bound to develop a certain arrogance toward all other disciplines. However, hardly any discipline has been so proud of its pre-eminence as to divorce itself so entirely from religion as science has since the time of Darwin. But the sciences have led the way for the rebellion of other disciplines as well. It is now routine for almost all the art forms to scoff at religion one way or another, and this is because many artists have been infected with the diseases of our age.
Some think this collective arrogance is right and proper and long overdue. The error of this logic is transparent. History’s pendulum swings with decisive inevitability. It has swung so mightily in the direction of atheism over the last two centuries, that, as McGrath notes, the present dilemma for atheism is that it is about to confront its own inevitable downswing and the resurgence of interest in religion and the life of the spirit.
- Status