Is that because it supports your blowhard theories? What training have you outside the theatrics?
As a matter of fact, physical sciences play a large part in the study of engineering.
Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Is that because it supports your blowhard theories? What training have you outside the theatrics?
As a matter of fact, physical sciences play a large part in the study of engineering.
Yeah I see your point and I'm not really going to go and defend the WWF, but all I can say is that funding is funding no matter where it comes from. Companies sponsor organizations that theoretically contradict their bottom line for PR purposes (Shell certainly does plenty of that).
That said, I personally wouldn't accept funding from sources like that as a matter of principle, but then I don't run the WWF. I actually find it galling when "environmentalists" start sounding like the people who they are supposed to be standing up against.
I was really thinking more about people like Suzuki.
Oh come on now. I mean, really. I understand your viewpoint but to say you can't think of better causes? C'mon! Call it pettiness or whatever but to make this event out to be a major force to be fought tooth-and-nail? Considering all the hugely environmentally-destructive acts by people the world over (which WWF is technically opposed to--putting aside its other failings)? Activities that aren't ambiguously self-promoting but just plain profiteering? Protesting Earth Hour is IMO, petty. Deal with all that other $hit first, then talk to me about self-promoting environmentalists.
Yes, you're absolutely right; the biofuels issue is becoming a major problem and has far-reaching ethical implications. But AFAIK WWF, like most environmental protection agencies are against the practise.
I guess one could say that the light show could be justified by the extra business the spectacle brings to your area but yes, that would be an example of the hypocrisy I was talking about before.
It's not the amount, it's the intent.
lol Apparently not. Well, maybe good-natured aliens saw it while passing through and are putting together a plan to clean-up our atmosphere.
Fair enough.
Some form of empiricism (not experimental empiricism) completely different than ours. This in no way makes flat earth ideas or geocentric ideas comparable to today's theories.
There is no equivocation. Try all you might. You're flat out wrong. :lol:
I actually wrote a thread about this a while back. You'll hear people brandy about phrases like "just a theory" as if a theory is no better than a guess. In lay terms sure, scientifically, not even close.
I don't think I need to tell you all that, you seem to grasp the differences in common use and scientific jargon.
Here's the thread if you'd like to add to it:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/s...ng-scientific-naming-convention-theories.html
Some people are confused about the meaning of the word "theory" while others are confused about the meaning of the word "brandy".
And here I thought I was being cute, mea culpa- "brandish" never crossed my mind "bandy" did.
... And in 20, 50 or 500 years, the very same things will be said about today's practices. What remains is that it is the prevailing wisdom of the day that is employed in scientific advancement at that time.
BTW - I made no attempt to equivocate practices in terms of full equality. The point is that it was the best that was available at the time. No different than today.
I never understood why the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) had anything to do with Earth Hour or Global Warming.
They should just stick to bashing each others heads into turnbuckles.
They should just stick to bashing each others heads into turnbuckles.
Conjecture. I doubt very much that in 20, 50 or even 500 years from now that they will be saying the same things about our practices.
Like anthropogenic sources of heat trapping gases.
At which time? That statement is at odds with the history of both of your examples. Better explanations were available long before they became "mainstream".
I'm sure that the above represented the identical sentiment way back then.
Really man! The prevalence of conjecture here is the assumption that 'new and improved' empirical techniques won't evolve and make previous editions obsolete, let alone insulting.
The source of data hasn't changed for millions of years but the data collection has and has corrected the past 5000 years and grown that data base growing exponentially every passing year and will continue to fine tune that data from the micro to the macro.
Face it! The collective mind of science can fire a probe at a comet which is like hitting a hole in one from the Earth way past Mars with the hole on a flat bed rail car travelling 30,000km/h or smash paticles into each other to create mini universes ad black holes but but we have no clue about the effects of man's over consumption of resources?
That is pretty absurd to even try and claim we have no clue why the planet is heating up.
It hasn't changed in 50 years. Hell I still occasionally read papers from 80 years in the past. It still begins with a research question. A hypothesis developed from a literature review. An experimental design to test the hypothesis. Data from that experiment, analyzed and interpreted. New directions thereafter depending on acceptance or refutation of the hypothesis.
I have no doubt that new analytical techniques will evolve. That's not what I'm questioning. I'm questioning your equivocation of widely held notions separated by such wide margins over their methods of reasoning and the definition of truth.
I'm questioning why you think in the near future scientists from today's era will be scorned for running experiments. Today's theories are based on evidence that is measured and observed. Medieval and ancient theories were measured by argument alone, and plenty of rhetoric. Not the same thing. In the future it will still be based on evidence that is observed and measured.
It's certainly possible, but I don't think it's the most plausible outcome. You'll have to do better than that in order to back up such surefire claims.
JLM, in science, we talk about theory of everything. Thus, we have theory of evolution, theory of gravitation, theory of relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of light, theory of sound and so on.
Does that mean that all these concepts are unproven, just pie in the sky speculation? Nothing of the sort. All these theories have substantial evidence supporting them. They are called theories because ultimately, no scientific maxim can be proved, it can only be disproved.
Thus, Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory have been verified time and again by evidence, most scientists, astronomers believe them to be true. However, if tomorrow somebody makes even a single observation that cannot be explained by either of these theories, they are disproved. On the other hand, even if 100 more pieces of evidence are uncovered to support the theories, they still are not proved, just that the probability that they are true increases, approaching 100%, but never becoming 100%.
So no matter how much evidence piles up in their favor, they still remain theories. But that does not mean they are not true, that they are just unfounded speculation on part of somebody.
Scientific theories are based upon solid, proved evidence, and most of them are considered to be true, to be facts.
Because that's what you appeared to be doing. Duh
Of course data can be manipulated. If it is too vague, as in the example you gave, then further investigation should clarify things. What I said stands. Data is simply data and if enough data points to a general conclusion that's what it does, it points to a general conclusion. Further investigation may alter, clarify, or prove that conclusion false. What you posted was ridiculous even if the data is correct.
BTW, I didn't cry, you nitwit. I decided you weren't worth discussing the issue with any longer and moved on to doing something else. Quit ASSuming stuff about me, child.
Besides that, you were hijacking the thread. So, as I said, it appeared that you were trolling.
This event was a part of the biggest threat to the welfare of mankind. If the global warming alarmists have their way the cost to the world economy would be devastating. Emerging economies that are finally providing hope for a better life for their peoples would be supressed. The worlds poorest would be kept in drudgery and hunger for centuries. They could also expect to suffer millions of needless deaths due to diseases, just like they did from malaria when, for environmental concerns, they were required to stop using DDT. Their suffering would be further exacerbated by the fact that the developed nations economies would be greatly supressed, making them much less able to supply aid even half as much as they do now. You consider that a petty concern? Give me an example of something with more potential for harm if you can think of one.
They may be agains the practice but as long as they keep pushing the AGW agenda, that's the kind of result they'll garner.
Well now you've surprised me! Waste and environmental degredation can be justified by being good for business? Or am I reading you wrong.
By the way, the light show in my residential neighborhood brings no extra business to the area.
The intent was to make a statement that would be noticed, to "stand up and be counted" as it were. Hopefully, in time other people will have the courage to do the same, and will have asked enough questions to have educated themselves and join the opposition to this dangerous scam.
Last edited:
