Preaching about global warming while flying around in a CO2 belching jet. Typical liberal.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Like Futurecurrents, the Pope is a hypocrite
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
I stopped getting my scientific knowledge from the pope shortly after they excommunicated Galelio.Preaching about global warming while flying around in a CO2 belching jet. Typical liberal.
and spare me, I know he wasn't technically excommunicated, but the whole idea that man called the pope could excommunicate anybody is about as crazy as calling republicans science deniers
I stopped getting my scientific knowledge from the pope shortly after they excommunicated Galelio.
It's always stupid to get science from a non-scientist. That's why he gets his from scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Are YOU smart enough to also get your science from scientists?
Its always stupid to mistake a fake consensus for science...
Albert von Brunn: Review of ‘100 Authors against Einstein’ [March 13, 1931]
Abstract
In principle it is not astonishing that many have formed an unfavorable prejudice against the theory of relativity after having witnessed the development of only its most outward manifestations. This is the work of over-zealous but less well-informed enthusiasts of this theory, who have made serious tactical errors and gross blunders without its author himself being in any way to blame. [3] Thank goodness knowledgeable supporters of the new concept have stifled in time attempts to let the vox populi decide on the theories. Even individual fanatic scientific advocates of the Einsteinian theory seem to have finally abandoned their tactic of cutting off any discussion about it with the threat that every criticism, even the most moderate and scrupulous ones, must be discredited as an obvious effluence of stupidity and malice. But even if these monstrous products of the ‘(Einstein frenzy’ [Einstein-Taumel] now belong to history and are thus eliminated from consideration, thoroughly respectable reasons for a certain discomfort with relativity theory still do remain: The special theory of relativity already demands certain sacrifccia intellectus: Primarily, ††† renunciating the strictdeterminability of simultaneity—note, by no means the concept of simultaneity itself![4] Nat-urally, for some philosophers, this is equivalent to an unexpiable crime against Kant’s eternal infallibility, because they just do not understand the inevitability of Einstein’s objectives. [5] Scientists will not find this matter so tragic, simply because they know that both relativity theories obviously leave completely untouched ’1st order effects’, like general, planetary and secular aberration, Doppler effect, and the Olaf Romer effect. [6]
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-0348-9008-3_4
Albert von Brunn: Review of ‘100 Authors against Einstein’ [March 13, 1931]
Abstract
In principle it is not astonishing that many have formed an unfavorable prejudice against the theory of relativity after having witnessed the development of only its most outward manifestations. This is the work of over-zealous but less well-informed enthusiasts of this theory, who have made serious tactical errors and gross blunders without its author himself being in any way to blame. [3] Thank goodness knowledgeable supporters of the new concept have stifled in time attempts to let the vox populi decide on the theories. Even individual fanatic scientific advocates of the Einsteinian theory seem to have finally abandoned their tactic of cutting off any discussion about it with the threat that every criticism, even the most moderate and scrupulous ones, must be discredited as an obvious effluence of stupidity and malice. But even if these monstrous products of the ‘(Einstein frenzy’ [Einstein-Taumel] now belong to history and are thus eliminated from consideration, thoroughly respectable reasons for a certain discomfort with relativity theory still do remain: The special theory of relativity already demands certain sacrifccia intellectus: Primarily, ††† renunciating the strictdeterminability of simultaneity—note, by no means the concept of simultaneity itself![4] Nat-urally, for some philosophers, this is equivalent to an unexpiable crime against Kant’s eternal infallibility, because they just do not understand the inevitability of Einstein’s objectives. [5] Scientists will not find this matter so tragic, simply because they know that both relativity theories obviously leave completely untouched ’1st order effects’, like general, planetary and secular aberration, Doppler effect, and the Olaf Romer effect. [6]
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-0348-9008-3_4
I try, but what concerns me is msnbc believes in global warming and FOX doesn't. Isn't it a little odd? I can easily admit that the shallow right wingers on FOX wouldn't know science if it bit them in the ass, but I'm not willing to admit that all the political science majors on msnbc have some kind of superior science knowledge. I get all my science knowledge from ET. And between you and jem I have seen more charts than the average bear (or bull for that matter.)It's always stupid to get science from a non-scientist. That's why he gets his from scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Are YOU smart enough to also get your science from scientists?
Last edited:
I try, but what concerns me is msnbc believes in global warming and FOX doesn't. Isn't it a little odd? I can easily admit that the shallow right wingers on FOX wouldn't know science if it bit them in the ass, but I'm not willing to admit that all the political science majors on msnbc have some kind of superior science knowledge. I get all my science knowledge from ET. And between you and jem I have seen more charts than the average bear (or bull for that matter.)
So you are NOT smart enough to get your science from scientists.
Did you even bother clicking the link?
like a lot of right wingers, I only became interested in climate science when I notced most left wingers were demanding I did something about it and most right wingers denied it. I've clicked a lot of links. Until I figure out why democrats believe and republicans deny I reserve judgement.So you are NOT smart enough to get your science from scientists.
Did you even bother clicking the link?
like a lot of right wingers, I only became interested in climate science when I notced most left wingers were demanding I did something about it and most right wingers denied it. I've clicked a lot of links. Until I figure out why democrats believe and republicans deny I reserve judgement.
Did you click and read this link?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
ok, so it's all humans fault. I've been through this before. I know how the deal works. My walks through the woods and kayaking down my old rivers have already told me something is changing, and in many cases it can be blamed on man's poor husbandry of the land.Did you click and read this link?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
ok, so it's all humans fault. I've been through this before. I know how the deal works. My walks through the woods and kayaking down my old rivers have already told me something is changing, and in many cases it can be blamed on man's poor husbandry of the land.
But every GOP candidate denies or dismisses it. Why vote for someone that denies science? Do we really want the people that control our government to ignore science? Does that seem smart?