Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Your title is from a very biased non-scientific agenda...
    Calm yourself, Shuny, and check to see who the OP on this was. Then have fun blasting Juvie.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Calm yourself, Shuny, and check to see who the OP on this was. Then have fun blasting Juvie.
      It does not make any difference who the OP was. Actually my objection stands and the OP supports ti. Scientific knowledges changes over time, and drawing conclusions on limited data or old data can lead to false agendas.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-12-2019, 08:00 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        It does not make any difference who the OP was.
        You called it my title, Shuny, and it clearly was not -- and the "very biased non-scientific agenda" was Juvie's, not mine.

        I accept your apology.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Your title is from a very biased non-scientific agenda...
          Did you even read the OP, Shuny? It was an opinion piece in the NYTimes by a guy named Eugene Linden.

          Are you accusing him of having a very biased non-scientific agenda?

          http://eugenelinden.com/

          This web site contains links to Eugene Linden's essays, articles and books on a wide range of topics ranging from environment to social and economic issues. There are articles on the science and dynamics of climate change and the possible social, economic, and environmental effects of global warming (including some of the first national articles on rapid climate change). Other environmental articles deal with endangered animals, the biodiversity crisis, threats to water supplies, global deforestation, and the politics of environment. The site also contains links to Linden's writings on social issues ranging from the plight of indigenous peoples to dynamics of financial markets. Some writings look forward offering future predictions about how such factors as the wage gap, population pressures, migration, and the rise of religious fanaticism might bring increased instability and drastic change.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
            In a word, politics.

            Assuming the conclusion didn't help.


            And we're back to the climate v weather debate, aren't we?
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I think it's interesting that the fact that scientists "got science climate so wrong" is an argument for trusting them now.
              Being married to a scientist and having a scientist as a sibling, I've seen how ruthless scientists are in their natural habitat. It's a cutthroat 'me against the world' backstabbing type business where anyone working on a different theory is their competition for funding and glory. I've seen some crazy temper tantrums and arguments that make politics seem civil and even a fist fight between scientists and a laptop was thrown.

              So when they universally come to a consensus about something I have no trouble trusting it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                Being married to a scientist and having a scientist as a sibling, I've seen how ruthless scientists are in their natural habitat. It's a cutthroat 'me against the world' backstabbing type business where anyone working on a different theory is their competition for funding and glory. I've seen some crazy temper tantrums and arguments that make politics seem civil and even a fist fight between scientists and a laptop was thrown.

                So when they universally come to a consensus about something I have no trouble trusting it.
                It is what it is.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  In a word, politics.

                  Assuming the conclusion didn't help.


                  And we're back to the climate v weather debate, aren't we?
                  From my understanding it involves (please feel free to correct me, my wife explained it to me years ago) the process of energy being gradually built up in a closed system and the conservation of energy. So we have the greenhouse gasses that are building up leading to more energy being retained in the atmosphere leading to more frequent and violent weather events.

                  Why do you think the conclusion was assumed?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                    From my understanding it involves (please feel free to correct me, my wife explained it to me years ago) the process of energy being gradually built up in a closed system and the conservation of energy. So we have the greenhouse gasses that are building up leading to more energy being retained in the atmosphere leading to more frequent and violent weather events.

                    Why do you think the conclusion was assumed?
                    That's the thing that gets me. We know the greenhouse effect exists on Earth and other planets, because we've measured it there. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas both because physics demands it and because we've measured that too. But somehow people seem to think scientists are in some way biased for expecting that adding a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere would actually cause it to behave as a greenhouse gas.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Maybe they should get back to us once they get good working models, instead of this 'oops, we're wrong again, but keep trusting us!!!' we get every few years.
                      Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                        Maybe they should get back to us once they get good working models, instead of this 'oops, we're wrong again, but keep trusting us!!!' we get every few years.
                        They have excellent working models. Your insults of 'oops' only reflects your bias and poor understanding of science.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I think it's interesting that the fact that scientists "got science climate so wrong" is an argument for trusting them now.
                          It's not. Do you not understand that Juvenal's title is a pun, sarcastic?

                          The argument for trusting science is obvious - science is the single most effective process known for understanding the natural world. It has directly demonstrated it's capacity to expose misconception and deliver understanding of the inner workings of nature over and over again going back to before Galileo and his Telescope.

                          The only real problem here is that there are people and groups that are threatened by what science reveals, and those people have devoted a great deal of time and effort in attempts to find some way to obfuscate or convince people ignorant of the actual science and theory that the conclusions that science has reached are incorrect.

                          It is not that science is perfect, or that scientists are perfect, or that scientific findings, especially early in any study, are always correct or never shown to be limited, of even false. It is that the claims of these people and groups are demonstrably false and misguided. And the only thing that keeps them afloat - in a few words - is public ignorance and fear.
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-13-2019, 03:40 PM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Do you not understand that Juvenal's title is a pun, sarcastic?
                            Actually, it wasn't Juvenal's title - it was the title given by Eugene Linden, the author of the opinion piece.

                            got it wrong.jpg
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Actually, it wasn't Juvenal's title - it was the title given by Eugene Linden, the author of the opinion piece.

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]40829[/ATTACH]
                              Doesn't appear to be a pun, either; the author seems to genuinely think its affects have been vastly underestimated by scientists.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Doesn't appear to be a pun, either; the author seems to genuinely think its affects have been vastly underestimated by scientists.
                                It's kinda like saying "OK, so we were wrong - REALLY wrong, but NOW we have it together --- trust us - we're scientists".
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X