Watch Before The Flood Here -- National Geographic (FULL MOVIE)

[Crick]

Why don't you go to good old Wikipedia and look up the article here: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia and then you will know about those people.

 

[Boss]

Why don't you go to good old Wikipedia and look up the article here: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia and then you will know about those people.

Amazing.... AGAIN, Crick.... Popularity of an idea is NOT Science! It's no different than someone saying... Hey, Galileo... shut the fuck up! You don't know what you're talking about... everyone in the world KNOWS the universe revolves around the Earth! That is the very same exact argument ad populum. Just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn't mean it's true. That's not how Science works and it never has been.

YES... there ARE a LOT of scientists who are getting huge government research grants to study this... they're concerned about feeding their families, so what do you suppose they are going to say publicly? Well, turns out, MOST of them are saying "we need to study this more!" DUH!

 

[Crick]

Tell you what, Boss Wad, when we hear the term "accepted science" or "widely accepted science", who do you believe that term is understood to be doing the accepting?

 

[Boss]

Tell you what, Boss Wad, when we hear the term "accepted science" or "widely accepted science", who do you believe that term is understood to be doing the accepting?

i don't know but when you say "accepted science" it is a testament to the fact that you have stopped practicing the principles of the scientific method and have adopted a faith-based belief in your conclusions. Science doesn't draw conclusion, it continues to ask questions and explore possibilities. MAN draws conclusions and adopts faith-based beliefs in those conclusions.

 

[OldPoop]

Somehow I landed on page 12 of this pissing contest, and had to respond. I am convinced that the concept of common sense has been lost to the world. For all you science deniers out there, on both sides of the issue, let me interject some common sense, based on very basic, known science. Not conjecture, not some theory from a PhD. funded by the Government or Big Oil, and not from hand selected data chosen from specific points in time to support a preconceived agenda.

There have been 5 Ice Ages that scientists know about. Since mile+ thick glaciers pretty much destroy everything in their path, there is the possibility there could have been more Ice Ages that have yet to be discovered. But sticking to the 5 that scientists do know about, I am sure that you all are aware that during these periods much of the earth was covered with 1 to 2 mile thick sheets of ice, and in between these cold periods there were warming periods. During at least one of these warm periods the moss covered frozen tundra was warm enough to grow trees. This is real climate change, supported by real science. No one like Algore and his rich cronies tried to make million$ off of these changes in climate with a scam like The Chicago Carbon Exchange, and no sociopath politicians tried to use these temperature changes to gain more power over their unsuspecting subjects. Real science also shows that the sea level has risen almost 400 feet since the most recent Ice Age began its melting, and will have to rise another 15 feet to match the level that it reached in between the last two Ice Ages. If the sea level does get back to this level or higher, that means we have a lot more icebergs that will have to melt. Poor polar bears. Unfortunately for us, we do not have the technology to prevent this. I know that this is An Inconvenient Truth, supported by real science, but what can you do? It is what it is. I know that man made global warming is now "settled science", and only idiots would question it, but I'm still trying to figure out how pre-humans were able to affect the climate so much. They must have been driving gigantic big rigs with zero emission controls. Shame on them!

And how about that CO2 problem? If CO2 is so bad now, why do hot house plants perk up and grow better when they are exposed to even higher levels? Is it possible that millions of years ago they originated during a period of higher co2 levels, and are struggling now in these low levels? Or do you think that co2 levels have remained the same for millions of years and throughout who really knows how many Ice Ages? Do you "know" this just like so many people (that are way smarter than a stupid "science denier" like me), "know" that temperatures and sea levels have remained the same for millions of years and throughout the Ice Ages, until evil modern man started affecting them?

I just realized that I can show proof that co2 levels are okay. Because it they weren't, then corrupt, ignorant, rich jackasses like Algore and Leonardo Dicrapo wouldn't have carbon footprints 100+ times larger than mine. They love the earth would never harm it, so obviously my carbon footprint is not a problem.
You just gotta use some common sense.

 

[Crick]

Tell you what, Boss Wad, when we hear the term "accepted science" or "widely accepted science", who do you believe that term is understood to be doing the accepting?

i don't know

That's what I thought. The answer is that experts in a given field accept or reject a given theory based on their knowledge base and the testing, experimentation or falsification that theory has undergone. That is the fucking PURPOSE of testing a theory: to demonstrate to others that it has survived or failed testing.

but when you say "accepted science" it is a testament to the fact that you have stopped practicing the principles of the scientific method and have adopted a faith-based belief in your conclusions. Science doesn't draw conclusion, it continues to ask questions and explore possibilities. MAN draws conclusions and adopts faith-based beliefs in those conclusions.

Wrong. Do a search for published science articles. At the end of each one of them you will find "CONCLUSIONS". I fucking guarantee it. And since you thought otherwise, the only conclusion I can draw is that you've never actually read a published scientific study.

That a publishing scientist or scientists should reach a conclusion, however, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not other scientists, now or in the future, may reject that conclusion and replace it - with cause - with a different conclusion. THAT is how the scientific method works.

 

[Boss]

That's what I thought. The answer is that experts in a given field accept or reject a given theory based on their knowledge base and the testing, experimentation or falsification that theory has undergone. That is the fucking PURPOSE of testing a theory: to demonstrate to others that it has survived or failed testing.

Again, I am going to make the same point.. If a scientist has accepted a theory then they have ceased to be applying the scientific method and are now adopting a faith-based belief.

 

[Crick]

So, no scientists accept any theories and all of science is based on faith.

For my part, I say again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And you don't have the balls, it seems to admit an error.

 

[Boss]

So, no scientists accept any theories and all of science is based on faith.

For my part, I say again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And you don't have the balls, it seems to admit an error.

Sorry you don't know what I'm talking about but practicing faith is not practicing science. A true scientist doesn't "accept" theories as immutable truths... if they did, we wouldn't have scientific discovery. If no one questioned theories, we would never know the theories were wrong. This is important because it's why scientists call them "theories" and not "facts."

All of science is not based on faith... that's my whole point. When you adopt a belief in anything without absolute proof, it's faith. Science can't prove absolutely, it can only predict probability of possibility. Man can adopt faiths in what science predicts but that's not practicing science and it's important to know the distinction.

For over 2,000 years, every university taught it's students that things "levitate" because they long to be in the heavens and things fall to the ground because they long to be near the earth. This was Aristotle's explanation of "levity and gravity" which was prevailing intellectual thought. It wasn't until Isaac Newton dared to challenge Aristotle's theory that we discovered the nature of gravity. And for another 500 years, we presumed Newton was correct until Einstein challenged Newton.

I think I mentioned before, until recently, every physics textbook in America was wrong. They all said the universe was comprised mostly of atoms. This has been the prevailing wisdom of science for years but it's not true. We've discovered the universe is mostly comprised of dark matter and dark energy... not atoms. So you can see by the examples I've presented, having faith in what science predicts is not practicing science.

 

[Wuwei]

That is the very same exact argument ad populum. Just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn't mean it's true. That's not how Science works and it never has been.

Expert consensus isn’t a fallacy. However using argumentum ad populum when expert consensus is involved actually is a popular fallacy.