Unabated lunacy continues
-
Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm[^] Well, Fat_Boy, not what you were expecting I suspect, so, rant away, you know you want to ...
-
Your comments are based on an article that is based on a summary that is based on a peer-reviewed article. What, was the summary article too difficult for you to understand? You actually need some other blogger to interpret a summary article for you? Hahahaha! That's hilarious. Thank goodness you have people who can tell you how to think about an article that you never read.
- F
Actually I just liked the way this guy worded it. I read this ridiculous bit of 'scicnce' some days ago, but havent seen it so humourously dismissed as this, I thought I would share it with everyone as it is pretty funny. So sorry. Your cheap shot missed by a mile. See if you can come back with some science rather than a personal attack, you might have better luck scoring.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You thought it WOULDNT be a whitewash? Seing Jones fess up to the BBC was good enough, real blood too much to hope for.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You thought it WOULDNT be a whitewash?
Nope. I didn't say that. I just brought it to your attention. Nothing more. Nothing less. That way, you can rant and rave about it 'till your heart's content. Its contents do not trouble me one way or t'other.
-
fat_boy wrote:
More crappy AGW science from a self confessed dramatist and liar. Wow, and I wonder if I think I will take him seriously.
Alright, you're almost there. Now imagine you actually had an interest in science and avoiding potential extinctions of the human race, and someone kept ranting about how it isn't possible, how all off these cherry picked examples where horribly wrong, and no matter what was said to them they continued to pick examples that very few people had any interest in defending. How seriously would you take them? Because really, you're like halfway to actually being able to look at the issue without the hyperbol.
-
Have to agree with fat_boy on this. WTF are you trying to say?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Seems to be a wonderful example of why you shouldn't post before you're awake. But roughly, how seriously would you take someone who rants about every slightest thing that fits their views of what the opposition 'really is'.
Distind wrote:
But roughly, how seriously would you take someone who rants about every slightest thing that fits their views of what the opposition 'really is'.
If you think the writer of the piece is ranting I agree, I also dont care. I amd not going to take hime seriously, but his writing is ammusing. What I DO take seriously is the subject of his rantings.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What you mean as opposed to the 98% of stuff that you post coming from agw sites proving you right?
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Your comments are based on an article that is based on a summary that is based on a peer-reviewed article. What, was the summary article too difficult for you to understand? You actually need some other blogger to interpret a summary article for you? Hahahaha! That's hilarious. Thank goodness you have people who can tell you how to think about an article that you never read.
- F
Still waiting for a comback from you. Whats up, havent got one? Still hiding eh? What a disfunctional little person you must be to insult me then run away rather than discussing the facts. You really are a fool you know. You really are incapable of thinking for yourself. A scientist tells you its warming because of CO2 (after he said it was cooling because of CO2) and you believe him. You just buy in to the whole thing without any critical thought whatsoever. What a pathetic drip you are.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
You thought it WOULDNT be a whitewash?
Nope. I didn't say that. I just brought it to your attention. Nothing more. Nothing less. That way, you can rant and rave about it 'till your heart's content. Its contents do not trouble me one way or t'other.
I just thought you might have done so. To me it was obvious it would be, there is no way they could have seriously damaged GW; too many people have too much invested, but, the whole episode has not gone unnoticed and public support for GW is on the floor, particularly following some cold years.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Still waiting for a comback from you. Whats up, havent got one? Still hiding eh? What a disfunctional little person you must be to insult me then run away rather than discussing the facts. You really are a fool you know. You really are incapable of thinking for yourself. A scientist tells you its warming because of CO2 (after he said it was cooling because of CO2) and you believe him. You just buy in to the whole thing without any critical thought whatsoever. What a pathetic drip you are.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You really are a fool you know. You really are incapable of thinking for yourself. A scientist tells you its warming because of CO2 (after he said it was cooling because of CO2) and you believe him.
If I didn't find the argument or the evidence persuasive and I had good contrary evidence or a good rebuttal, it's possible to: 1) contact the author directly for a usually interesting discussion 2) write a good rebuttal editorial to the journal 3) write a counter article presenting my own evidence Science. This is how it works. I'm not surprised you're not familiar with these options because while they're pretty well known to people who have actually spent any time in the scientific community, people who never made it past high school tend to just bluster and whine on the internet, where *everybody* can have a poorly written opinion! Yay! Scientific consensus supports AGW. Period. And before you start with "bias, lying, etc" crap there was absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by the scientists. There is nothing stopping genuine scientific discourse. There is no more evident bias in climate scientists than there are in any other scientific research discipline, so bias applied as selectively as you do is an unconvincing argument, particularly when the real money (oil companies) is on the side of denying AGW and is quite happy to hand out grant money.
fat_boy wrote:
Still waiting for a comback from you.
I'm busy. My call this rotation is one in four. Sorry I can't be here for you 24/7. I had no idea you were so lonely.
- F
-
Seems to be a wonderful example of why you shouldn't post before you're awake. But roughly, how seriously would you take someone who rants about every slightest thing that fits their views of what the opposition 'really is'.
-
fat_boy wrote:
You really are a fool you know. You really are incapable of thinking for yourself. A scientist tells you its warming because of CO2 (after he said it was cooling because of CO2) and you believe him.
If I didn't find the argument or the evidence persuasive and I had good contrary evidence or a good rebuttal, it's possible to: 1) contact the author directly for a usually interesting discussion 2) write a good rebuttal editorial to the journal 3) write a counter article presenting my own evidence Science. This is how it works. I'm not surprised you're not familiar with these options because while they're pretty well known to people who have actually spent any time in the scientific community, people who never made it past high school tend to just bluster and whine on the internet, where *everybody* can have a poorly written opinion! Yay! Scientific consensus supports AGW. Period. And before you start with "bias, lying, etc" crap there was absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by the scientists. There is nothing stopping genuine scientific discourse. There is no more evident bias in climate scientists than there are in any other scientific research discipline, so bias applied as selectively as you do is an unconvincing argument, particularly when the real money (oil companies) is on the side of denying AGW and is quite happy to hand out grant money.
fat_boy wrote:
Still waiting for a comback from you.
I'm busy. My call this rotation is one in four. Sorry I can't be here for you 24/7. I had no idea you were so lonely.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Science. This is how it works.
And there was I thinking it was all about facts.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Scientific consensus supports AGW. Period.
Actually this isnt true. The theory of AGW has not been proved, the IPCC knows this. It states that no human effect on temperature can be detected, and so it remains a theory. And in any case, concensus has never been a substitute for proof. Science has never worked this way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Science. This is how it works.
And there was I thinking it was all about facts.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Scientific consensus supports AGW. Period.
Actually this isnt true. The theory of AGW has not been proved, the IPCC knows this. It states that no human effect on temperature can be detected, and so it remains a theory. And in any case, concensus has never been a substitute for proof. Science has never worked this way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Actually this isnt true. The theory of AGW has not been proved,
Shockingly "scientific consensus strongly supports" and "theory has been proven" are two vastly different things. For the umpteenth time: theories. are. not. proven. by. definition. science. does. not. prove things. I don't know how much clearer to make that so either you're ignoring it on purpose, or you're actually an idiot.
fat_boy wrote:
Science has never worked this way.
Well, you would know, with your education and experience in a scientific discipline, right? Oh... wait... sorry.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Science. This is how it works.
And there was I thinking it was all about facts.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Scientific consensus supports AGW. Period.
Actually this isnt true. The theory of AGW has not been proved, the IPCC knows this. It states that no human effect on temperature can be detected, and so it remains a theory. And in any case, concensus has never been a substitute for proof. Science has never worked this way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
It hasn't been proven. Chiropractors love that line because then they can talk about how subluxations cause disease. Hey, maybe you picked up the "it hasn't been proven" thing from your parents? Are they Palmer fans? For your perusal: Have you ever once read this in the ten or so times that i've linked it?[^] The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993). The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue. Consider the example of the white swans discussed earlier. One could search the world and see only white swans, and arrive at the generalization that "all swans are white. " However, the discovery of one black swan has the potential to overturn, or at least result in modifications of, this proposed law of nature. However, whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist's mind to change are issues worth exploring.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
Actually this isnt true. The theory of AGW has not been proved,
Shockingly "scientific consensus strongly supports" and "theory has been proven" are two vastly different things. For the umpteenth time: theories. are. not. proven. by. definition. science. does. not. prove things. I don't know how much clearer to make that so either you're ignoring it on purpose, or you're actually an idiot.
fat_boy wrote:
Science has never worked this way.
Well, you would know, with your education and experience in a scientific discipline, right? Oh... wait... sorry.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
by. definition. science. does. not. prove things
Bullshit. The very essence of science is that it proves things.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, you would know, with your education and experience in a scientific discipline, right? Oh... wait... sorry.
Oh wow, so cute, so childish. Really, grow up if you are going to ever debate this subject properly.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
It hasn't been proven. Chiropractors love that line because then they can talk about how subluxations cause disease. Hey, maybe you picked up the "it hasn't been proven" thing from your parents? Are they Palmer fans? For your perusal: Have you ever once read this in the ten or so times that i've linked it?[^] The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993). The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue. Consider the example of the white swans discussed earlier. One could search the world and see only white swans, and arrive at the generalization that "all swans are white. " However, the discovery of one black swan has the potential to overturn, or at least result in modifications of, this proposed law of nature. However, whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist's mind to change are issues worth exploring.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It hasn't been proven. Chiropractors love that line because then they can talk about how subluxations cause disease. Hey, maybe you picked up the "it hasn't been proven" thing from your parents? Are they Palmer fans?
So again with the personal attacks, and now on my family. What a sad individual you are. -sigh- and for the record chiropractic does work in some situations. If you ever have a bad back, as I have had, you might know that. If not you do not have the basis on which to make an accusation such as that.
Fisticuffs wrote:
but will never prove those laws and theories to be true
I think flying to the moon on Newtonian physics is pretty fucking good proof sunshine. As for the swans, what a stupid argument. If this kind of peurile drivel is the best you can do to support your view of science then you are hoplessly sunk.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It hasn't been proven. Chiropractors love that line because then they can talk about how subluxations cause disease. Hey, maybe you picked up the "it hasn't been proven" thing from your parents? Are they Palmer fans?
So again with the personal attacks, and now on my family. What a sad individual you are. -sigh- and for the record chiropractic does work in some situations. If you ever have a bad back, as I have had, you might know that. If not you do not have the basis on which to make an accusation such as that.
Fisticuffs wrote:
but will never prove those laws and theories to be true
I think flying to the moon on Newtonian physics is pretty fucking good proof sunshine. As for the swans, what a stupid argument. If this kind of peurile drivel is the best you can do to support your view of science then you are hoplessly sunk.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I think flying to the moon on Newtonian physics is pretty f***ing good proof sunshine.
No, it's not proof that the laws are accurate. It's good evidence. Do you understand the difference? The difference is that for proof there is never an alternative explanation, no matter how unlikely, because it's absolutely true. If there are any alternative explanations at all, it's not proven. They made it to the moon because invisible space aliens used their rays to help correct us. Whoops! That's an unlikely alternative explanation! I guess the laws aren't PROVEN after all. *cough* by the way laws and theories are different things laws are observations and theories are explanations but good job screwing that up too.
fat_boy wrote:
If you ever have a bad back, as I have had, you might know that. If not you do not have the basis on which to make an accusation such as that.
Well hell, I guess if you used it, and got better, then it *must* be that spinal manipulation works and it totally wasn't coincidence or anything else you did or spontaneous regression because most back pain fixes itself after 6 weeks or only seeking help when the pain is the worst. Nooooo, it *must* be the chiropractic. In summary, here are your grades for this assignment: Understanding of scientific terminology: F (laws are not theories, laws and theories are never proven) Understanding of scientific thinking: F (correlation is not causation, your personal experience does not demonstrate the efficacy of an intervention) So sorry. Perhaps you can try again some other time?
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
by. definition. science. does. not. prove things
Bullshit. The very essence of science is that it proves things.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, you would know, with your education and experience in a scientific discipline, right? Oh... wait... sorry.
Oh wow, so cute, so childish. Really, grow up if you are going to ever debate this subject properly.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Oh wow, so cute, so childish.
Yes, it's true - I do have a point in that you've been told over and over again by me and other people who have scientific education that science doesn't prove things but you refuse to believe them. So I wonder - what makes you think you're right and all these people who actually do science (and would ostensibly prove things if that's what science did) are wrong about this? Would your world really come crashing down if you realized that science doesn't provide absolute truth?
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
I think flying to the moon on Newtonian physics is pretty f***ing good proof sunshine.
No, it's not proof that the laws are accurate. It's good evidence. Do you understand the difference? The difference is that for proof there is never an alternative explanation, no matter how unlikely, because it's absolutely true. If there are any alternative explanations at all, it's not proven. They made it to the moon because invisible space aliens used their rays to help correct us. Whoops! That's an unlikely alternative explanation! I guess the laws aren't PROVEN after all. *cough* by the way laws and theories are different things laws are observations and theories are explanations but good job screwing that up too.
fat_boy wrote:
If you ever have a bad back, as I have had, you might know that. If not you do not have the basis on which to make an accusation such as that.
Well hell, I guess if you used it, and got better, then it *must* be that spinal manipulation works and it totally wasn't coincidence or anything else you did or spontaneous regression because most back pain fixes itself after 6 weeks or only seeking help when the pain is the worst. Nooooo, it *must* be the chiropractic. In summary, here are your grades for this assignment: Understanding of scientific terminology: F (laws are not theories, laws and theories are never proven) Understanding of scientific thinking: F (correlation is not causation, your personal experience does not demonstrate the efficacy of an intervention) So sorry. Perhaps you can try again some other time?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
No, it's not proof that the laws are accurate. It's good evidence. Do you understand the difference?
This is beoming pointless. All I will say is that proof is based on observable repeatable results from experimentation. That is the corner stone of science. Without that it is all just opinion.
Fisticuffs wrote:
If there are any alternative explanations at all, it's not proven
Utter bollocks. Any other/new explanation would need to be proven by experiementation to disprove, or enhance upon, the originaly proved explanation. Your space alien example is perfect proof that you are talking bollocks.
Fisticuffs wrote:
most back pain fixes itself after 6 weeks or only seeking help when the pain is the worst. Nooooo, it *must* be the chiropractic.
More like 6 years asshole. You really are a deluded fool. You think that science is based upon unproven postulation, becuase nothing can be proved. This is utter infantile twaddle. Thank god alomost no-one else thinks like you. We would still be in the dark ages otherwise.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Oh wow, so cute, so childish.
Yes, it's true - I do have a point in that you've been told over and over again by me and other people who have scientific education that science doesn't prove things but you refuse to believe them. So I wonder - what makes you think you're right and all these people who actually do science (and would ostensibly prove things if that's what science did) are wrong about this? Would your world really come crashing down if you realized that science doesn't provide absolute truth?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Yes, it's true - I do have a point in that you've been told over and over again by me and other people who have scientific education that science doesn't prove things but you refuse to believe them. So I wonder - what makes you think you're right and all these people who actually do science
You and who? Go on, go get them.
Fisticuffs wrote:
absolute truth
Aho, so now its 'absoloute truth'. So, tell me, how do you define this then? Leave philosophy out of this, its irrelevant and pointless.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription