Flat Earthers and other regressions

[Chaka-Z0]

Life tip: when making mac & cheese, use bacon grease as a substitute for butter.

Nice Lifehack

[Chaka-Z0]

I saw that on Friday....Google the corporation may do a lot of evil s**t, but I love that their line programmers are such nerds

Annoyed alert the militias, the Corps got to him. Gondor calls for aid.

[jelgate]

Who is Gonder?

[Chaka-Z0]

Brother of Gouda

[Who Knows]

Who is Gonder?

Not Who (or even whom) but what.
Answer is in Tolkins Lord of the Rings, it is a fortress or castle

[jelgate]

I will eat the Gouda with the bacon. Their are very few things I won't eat

[Xaeden]

It really must be nice to be able to redefine words to suit your liking in this discussion, for the simple reason that we cannot PROVE that climate change is mankind's doing.

Best idea we have yet = Theory, not a proven fact.

Proven fact = fact

A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

https://www.livescience.com/21491-wh...of-theory.html


6.

a. An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts; a statement of one or more laws or principles which are generally held as describing an essential property of something.

Atomic theory, big bang theory, quantum theory, etc.: see the first element.
Theory of evolution, theory of relativity, etc.: see the final element.


-Oxford English Dictionary

I could go on like this all day if you want to talk about redefining things. The fact of the matter is that a theory is a substantiated explanation for a compilation of facts when referring to a scientific theory. If you dispute this you are, at worst, redefining the word, and at best simply not capable of understanding that words have different meanings based on different contexts.

How the hell can they possibly rule out something that has been happening for thousands of years?

It's not really for me to explain all the intricacies of climate change to you within the confines of a board post. I can and will provide you with a short form explanation to this particular question, but if you want in-depth information you will have to do your own research.

First, if you're implying that the Earth has been steadily warming for thousands of years, you are incorrect. Earth underwent a warming period thousands of years ago that marked the end of the last Ice Age. It has not been steadily getting warmer since then. There have been some periods of rapid climate change in one direction or another during human history, but they are attributable to specific causes. Climate change does not just happen, there is always a reason and scientists are capable of looking through ice core samples to see how climate has changed in the past. They can then attempt to determine what was going on then to have caused such a change.

Consequently, we can look at known natural causes for Climate Change and rule out those causes if they remain marginally unchanged. Is the sun putting out more solar energy right now? No. Has Earth's orbit changed? No. And so on.

Once those known causes are ruled out we then have to contend with facts like: It is a fact that carbon creates a greenhouse effect. It is a fact that carbon in the atmosphere has spiked since the 19th century, especially within the last few decades. It is a fact that the recent spike in warming correlates to this spike in carbon. It is a fact that trees help to absorb carbon. It is a fact that global tree cover is on the decline because of humans. And so on.

Never mind all the other inconsistencies to the theory, such as first it's cooling, then the data didn't bear that out, so no it's warming... Oh, no, wait a minute, we can't be sure of that either, so we'll just call it "climate change", that way our arse is covered no matter what.

Are you referring to the "Global Cooling" controversy? That was never a theory, it was conjecture that the media ran with because it made for a good story. They do the same thing with food studies, among other things.

Science works like this: Someone will do a study and publish a paper or simply publish a paper asserting an idea. Other scientists will then do research that supports or disproves that idea. For example, a lot of people say "they" (meaning scientists) don't know anything because now they think eating/drinking eggs/milk/wine/whatever is good for you when X number of years ago they said it was bad for you or the reverse. In reality, what happens is someone does a study that points to a certain food as a possible cause of the good or bad health effects that they're tracking and they publish a paper explaining their study. They will often say in the paper that more research needs to be done because sample sizes and whatnot may mean they're wrong.

What happens next is a failing of the media. They like to latch on to these papers and do news reports that start with, "Scientists now say..." and the important fact that this is a preliminary study/idea is either not repeated, buried at the end, or not understood by the people reporting on the paper. This gives the general public the mistaken conclusion that scientists are just touting ever changing things as facts when in reality science is about about putting forth data, making a hypothesis based on limited data, and then trying to obtain more data so that a claim can be repeated and verified.

People who like to deny Climate Change will point to news reports on Global Cooling on the 1970s without understanding that relying on news reports for what science says is a bad idea. You have to actually be able to look at the work that the news reports are citing and analyze it to determine how far along the science is.

In the case of "Global Cooling," a very small number of scientific papers were putting forth the idea that that we were moving toward a trend of increased cooling. This is based on actual data that showed a brief cooling period in the 20th century that we know to be caused largely by aerosols. Scientists were aware that CO2 was a problem at that time and the majority were putting out papers sounding the alarm that it would lead to increased warming over time, while a minority thought other factors like aerosols would eclipse the CO2 problem in the long run.

This was science at work. The data available at the time led to a debate that was quashed as more data came in, which verified that CO2 would lead to a warming trend of global temperatures.

Sensationalism of the news media inserted itself into this debate and helped to convince uninformed viewers that what was happening then is the same as what's happening now. It's not. We had a debate then, more facts came in, ideas based on limited data were ruled out, and now we have an overwhelming consensus and a codification of facts into a theory, which is, to use a term you might understand, top shelf in the world of science.

And then of course is most reliable way of figuring out if some one or some people are full of shiznit or not. Follow the money.

Curious argument considering there's more money in denying Climate Change than there is in promoting it. Also, you're promoting a conspiracy that the majority of the world's scientists in this field are compromising their principles to spew "shiznit" and have somehow managed to convince all these people outside their field with backgrounds that allow them to look at and analyze the same data.

Even if Climate Change was not a current problem, we still need climate scientists, so the entire field is not going to suddenly be out of work if it was debunked. For all the many people in the field who easily would get grants and other funding to do work outside of Climate Change and for all the people in the field who do not actually get paid to do work based on Climate Change and have looked at the data anyway, why exactly are they maintaining this supposed mass fiction?

And what's up with studies funded by oil companies coming to the conclusion that Climate Change is real and man made:

They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time. Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/c...nce-study.html

I followed the money in this case and it came from people who had an interest Climate Change not being their fault. What now?

[Gatefan1976]

Xaeden, you are arguing with a wall of ignorance. All of this has been pointed out before (but you did it beutifully).
Annoyed has feels, no facts. He has attacks, but no responsibility to back it up.
He's a TEA party republican, it's all everyone else's fault.
Lincoln would puke listening to his crap.

[Xaeden]

I assumed as much. I actually don't mind because I mine forums for writing prompts and opportunities to keep my research skills sharp, so I find these conversations to be personally beneficial even if they don't lead anywhere. I recognize, though, that doing so can be annoying to third parties, especially if a thread gets hijacked in the process, so I'll stop since you guys prefer not to engage.

[Gatefan1976]

I assumed as much. I actually don't mind because I use forums as opportunities for writing prompts and to keep my research skills sharp, so I find these conversations to be personally beneficial even if they don't lead anywhere. I recognize, though, that doing so can be annoying to third parties, especially if a thread gets hijacked in the process, so I'll stop since you guys prefer not to engage.

No no, don't stop.
I use forums the same way.
Forums are a sounding board and they should be used as such.
Annoyed is simply holding on to stupid, or irrelevant things.

[P-90_177]

Gatefan is right in that it's probably wasted on Annoyed but that was still very brilliantly written Xaeden.

[Annoyed]

None of which answers Xaeden's argument. Just more denial and conspiracy theories because you can't dispute facts that have been in place for centuries.

Who wants conspiracy theory bacon?

Centuries???? Environmental concerns have only existed for the past 70 years or so. Hell, we didn't invent the thermometer till about 500 years ago.

What has been going on for centuries is climate change. That's been going on since before man existed. Kinda hard to pin it on us.

[jelgate]

Centuries???? Environmental concerns have only existed for the past 70 years or so. Hell, we didn't invent the thermometer till about 500 years ago.

What has been going on for centuries is climate change. That's been going on since before man existed. Kinda hard to pin it on us.

I'll take P90's facedesk now

[mad_gater]

A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

https://www.livescience.com/21491-wh...of-theory.html


6.

a. An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts; a statement of one or more laws or principles which are generally held as describing an essential property of something.

Atomic theory, big bang theory, quantum theory, etc.: see the first element.
Theory of evolution, theory of relativity, etc.: see the final element.


-Oxford English Dictionary

I could go on like this all day if you want to talk about redefining things. The fact of the matter is that a theory is a substantiated explanation for a compilation of facts when referring to a scientific theory. If you dispute this you are, at worst, redefining the word, and at best simply not capable of understanding that words have different meanings based on different contexts.



It's not really for me to explain all the intricacies of climate change to you within the confines of a board post. I can and will provide you with a short form explanation to this particular question, but if you want in-depth information you will have to do your own research.

First, if you're implying that the Earth has been steadily warming for thousands of years, you are incorrect. Earth underwent a warming period thousands of years ago that marked the end of the last Ice Age. It has not been steadily getting warmer since then. There have been some periods of rapid climate change in one direction or another during human history, but they are attributable to specific causes. Climate change does not just happen, there is always a reason and scientists are capable of looking through ice core samples to see how climate has changed in the past. They can then attempt to determine what was going on then to have caused such a change.

Consequently, we can look at known natural causes for Climate Change and rule out those causes if they remain marginally unchanged. Is the sun putting out more solar energy right now? No. Has Earth's orbit changed? No. And so on.

Once those known causes are ruled out we then have to contend with facts like: It is a fact that carbon creates a greenhouse effect. It is a fact that carbon in the atmosphere has spiked since the 19th century, especially within the last few decades. It is a fact that the recent spike in warming correlates to this spike in carbon. It is a fact that trees help to absorb carbon. It is a fact that global tree cover is on the decline because of humans. And so on.



Are you referring to the "Global Cooling" controversy? That was never a theory, it was conjecture that the media ran with because it made for a good story. They do the same thing with food studies, among other things.

Science works like this: Someone will do a study and publish a paper or simply publish a paper asserting an idea. Other scientists will then do research that supports or disproves that idea. For example, a lot of people say "they" (meaning scientists) don't know anything because now they think eating/drinking eggs/milk/wine/whatever is good for you when X number of years ago they said it was bad for you or the reverse. In reality, what happens is someone does a study that points to a certain food as a possible cause of the good or bad health effects that they're tracking and they publish a paper explaining their study. They will often say in the paper that more research needs to be done because sample sizes and whatnot may mean they're wrong.

What happens next is a failing of the media. They like to latch on to these papers and do news reports that start with, "Scientists now say..." and the important fact that this is a preliminary study/idea is either not repeated, buried at the end, or not understood by the people reporting on the paper. This gives the general public the mistaken conclusion that scientists are just touting ever changing things as facts when in reality science is about about putting forth data, making a hypothesis based on limited data, and then trying to obtain more data so that a claim can be repeated and verified.

People who like to deny Climate Change will point to news reports on Global Cooling on the 1970s without understanding that relying on news reports for what science says is a bad idea. You have to actually be able to look at the work that the news reports are citing and analyze it to determine how far along the science is.

In the case of "Global Cooling," a very small number of scientific papers were putting forth the idea that that we were moving toward a trend of increased cooling. This is based on actual data that showed a brief cooling period in the 20th century that we know to be caused largely by aerosols. Scientists were aware that CO2 was a problem at that time and the majority were putting out papers sounding the alarm that it would lead to increased warming over time, while a minority thought other factors like aerosols would eclipse the CO2 problem in the long run.

This was science at work. The data available at the time led to a debate that was quashed as more data came in, which verified that CO2 would lead to a warming trend of global temperatures.

Sensationalism of the news media inserted itself into this debate and helped to convince uninformed viewers that what was happening then is the same as what's happening now. It's not. We had a debate then, more facts came in, ideas based on limited data were ruled out, and now we have an overwhelming consensus and a codification of facts into a theory, which is, to use a term you might understand, top shelf in the world of science.



Curious argument considering there's more money in denying Climate Change than there is in promoting it. Also, you're promoting a conspiracy that the majority of the world's scientists in this field are compromising their principles to spew "shiznit" and have somehow managed to convince all these people outside their field with backgrounds that allow them to look at and analyze the same data.

Even if Climate Change was not a current problem, we still need climate scientists, so the entire field is not going to suddenly be out of work if it was debunked. For all the many people in the field who easily would get grants and other funding to do work outside of Climate Change and for all the people in the field who do not actually get paid to do work based on Climate Change and have looked at the data anyway, why exactly are they maintaining this supposed mass fiction?

And what's up with studies funded by oil companies coming to the conclusion that Climate Change is real and man made:

They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time. Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/c...nce-study.html

I followed the money in this case and it came from people who had an interest Climate Change not being their fault. What now?

You'll get no argument from me that we could be better stewards of our environment. Although an argument could be made that changes to the climate are far more likely from Plinian and ultra-Plinian volcanic eruptions (such as the kind produced by Mt. Tambora which resulted in the "Year without a Summer" in the early 1800's) than from mankind's industrial output. My beef is the fact that most of the ways bandied about so far amount to yet another tax on the citizenry, a citizenry that pays quite enough in taxes already. We need ways that don't involve increasing the already large amount of government control over our lives to authoritarian levels and which will create meaningful and lasting jobs.

[Chaka-Z0]

"A" claims CC can't be pinned on us
"B" gives substantial proof and pins it on us
"A": see it can't be pinned on us because of absofukentely no reason

Where's the line for p90's desk? Oh I see GF's dead body, I must be close.