Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[futurecurrents]

nitro... how important is scientific consensus to you?

micheal crichton...

“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.”[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

So now science fiction writers are climate scientists in jerm's psychotic mind. Amazing.


So Jem...it must really bug you that not a single respected climatologist denies man made global warming. It makes your position seem really really stupid. Worthy of ridicule in fact.

 

[fhl]

So now science fiction writers are climate scientists in jerm's psychotic mind. Amazing.


So Jem...it must really bug you that not a single respected climatologist denies man made global warming. It makes your position seem really really stupid. Worthy of ridicule in fact.

Yeah, here we go. A guy that uses an ex cartoonist and a politician as reputable science sources calls out someone for not using reputable science sources.

It just never ends in this hoax.

 

[fhl]

No, I follow the science, the truth, even when it hurts. There is almost nothing convenient about science. It is in every instance I can think of the road less taken, as witnessed by the 5 BILLION+++ believers in some sort of deity. Explanations and logic are in short demand if anything.

Does that mean I make mistakes and I am gullible? Sure it does. I can be fooled. There is a famous book called, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". I read it I think when I was like 12, and ever since I have been very careful with statistical arguments made to me. It is very easy to obfuscate with sleight of hand and using mathematics to fool people that are not trained in hard subjects. That is why I always leave room for healthy skepticism in anything that is of as deep of importance as this.

There is no question that this is an important issue. Turn off coal and oil and other fossile fuels for no reason, and you hurt lots of people's living. Continue on this path and it turns out that HFGW is true and the costs are far far worse than the economic damage done in the other case.

I already know we have not won this fight. All you have to do is look at SUV sales when gasoline prices take a dive. The only way to change it is to change people's behavior and move away from carbon fuels to renewable energy. Just like everything else, it will eventually happen by economic forces. Very few people are motivated by Philosophy over Religion or certainly not science over religion. Look at how every US President now says "God Bless America" after every speech. Look at the back of the Greenback for "In God We Trust." It should say, "In Reason we trust". The good sign is that I see the acceptance of renewable energy use accelerating all the time, so that is some consolation.

Man's reasoning isn't worth a pot to piss in.

You want proof? Tell me what the anti God for reason crowd says Bruce Jenner is. A man or a woman.

You think I want people who don't know a man from a woman telling me how to run my life?

 

[dbphoenix]

So now science fiction writers are climate scientists in jerm's psychotic mind. Amazing.


So Jem...it must really bug you that not a single respected climatologist denies man made global warming. It makes your position seem really really stupid. Worthy of ridicule in fact.

Jules Verne had some interesting things to say about climate science. Maybe we ought to use his work as a reference.

 

[nitro]

Man's reasoning isn't worth a pot to piss in.

You want proof? Tell me what the anti God for reason crowd says Bruce Jenner is. A man or a woman.

You think I want people who don't know a man from a woman telling me how to run my life?

__Most__ "Man's reasoning isn't worth a pot to piss in", if by that you mean the man on the street. But I disagree that people that spend their lives studying Philosophy, Law, Mathematics, Science, etc, that their reasoning is not flawed. In theory, we study with the wise, and elect the upright. People that have shown a lifelong dedication to truth.

Perhaps you mean morally flawed. Well, that is the argument that I have seen people use when they say something along the lines of, "If we have no God, then won't everything be allowed?" [e.g., "Call me Kaitlin"] I say, where did your God-Given morals come from? From a book written by flawed men, hallucinating they received the MORALS of God.

I think that is a very reasonable thing to say to ask where morals come from if not from God. I think the answer is that Law and Morals as conceived by learned men and women try to intersect, but how this is done is very difficult and often imperfect.

I also believe that Religion does play a useful role in helping us find universal law and in the limit morals. I just think that the few religious people that try to do good with religion are far far outnumbered by those that try do harm by it. Or, perhaps a few spoil it for the many.

 

[jem]

that is one funny troll.
didn't you read the link I gave you regarding the fact Catholics only have to listen to the Pope when he speakes ex cathedra. did you understand that.

You realize as a believer in Jesus you would be be concerned about God's laws not man's. And we got instructions on this subject to be good stewards... not moronic big govt loving drones.

All I am saying is that here is your lider maximo and you are disobeying him jem. You still have time to repent. Or, are you saying you only believe in religion when it suits you? When it is convenient?

Seems like you are being religious about your religion, and not scientific about your religion. As long as you understand the contradiction in which we all live in, its ok. At least I know you are not a chat bot.

 

[nitro]

Sorry, I don't know what ex-cathedra means. In science, we can't decide when to listen to a scientist or not by some random ex-whatever. The paper speaks for itself and a line of argument is either backed by data and logic or it isn't. A single counter-argument, by anybody is enough to disprove a theory.

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

Popes are part of a phony priesthood put in place by the devil to oppress people. They aren't spiritual necessarily, they could be I guess, but for the most part they are power mongering politicians. This one is aligning with the UN's view on GW. The Pope would love to bring everything, the UN included, under the mantle of the Catholic Church so he's going to go along to get along with the Common Wisdom.

 

[jem]

the message is science is about reproducible results.

but his background is stronger than many "climatologists"

he obtained his bachelor's degree in biological anthropology summa cum laude in 1964

He graduated from Harvard, obtaining an M.D. in 1969,[21] and undertook a post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970.[citation needed]

As in Jurassic Park Michael Crichton? Really?

 

[jem]

wow now you are a clown... as that is what I have been telling you about your recent love of consensus science.
you have not produced any evidence that man made co2 is causing warming, yet alone a peer reviewed paper and neither has the pope.

so unless the pope were to speak ex cathedra on the issue not a soul need listen to him. Catholic or not.

Sorry, I don't know what ex-cathedra means. In science, we can't decide when to listen to a scientist or not. The paper speaks for itself and a line of argument is either backed by data and logic or it isn't. A single counter-argument, by anybody is enough to disprove a theory.