Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030

[grainfedpraiboy]

You're wrong in that consensus means nothing. Right is right, wrong is wrong. When 99% of people agree on something that's wrong, it's still wrong. The history of science is littered with "consensus" views that were wrong.

Here's the thing. In science there is no such thing as fact, only what is known at the moment. For example, all chickens have black eyes, no chickens have blue eyes. This is a scientific "fact" until a chicken with blue eyes is observed. Politically or religiously, right or left, should the chicken have blue eyes the known observation will not sway the ideologically driven to waver from the belief but the scientific papers are all rewritten..

As such69% of the American people and 27% of their scientists don't believe in evolution and instead believe in creationism. Classic example is the Calgary backhoe operator who helped open a creationist museum purporting the world at 6000 years old accidentally dug up some fossilized fish millions of years old while digging a basement but still refuses to believe it's not a hoax.

Science by consensus is the closest we get to accuracy as it is an evolving discipline.

 

[gerryh]

Here's the thing. In science there is no such thing as fact, only what is known at the moment. For example, all chickens have black eyes, no chickens have blue eyes. This is a scientific "fact" until a chicken with blue eyes is observed. Politically or religiously, right or left, should the chicken have blue eyes the known observation will not sway the ideologically driven to waver from the belief but the scientific papers are all rewritten..

As such69% of the American people and 27% of their scientists don't believe in evolution and instead believe in creationism. Classic example is the Calgary backhoe operator who helped open a creationist museum purporting the world at 6000 years old accidentally dug up some fossilized fish millions of years old while digging a basement but still refuses to believe it's not a hoax.

Science by consensus is the closest we get to accuracy as it is an evolving discipline.

More with the extremes. No middle ground with you these days I see. You fit right in with the backhoe operator, two peas in a pod.

 

[taxslave]

Here's the thing. In science there is no such thing as fact, only what is known at the moment. For example, all chickens have black eyes, no chickens have blue eyes. This is a scientific "fact" until a chicken with blue eyes is observed. Politically or religiously, right or left, should the chicken have blue eyes the known observation will not sway the ideologically driven to waver from the belief but the scientific papers are all rewritten..

As such69% of the American people and 27% of their scientists don't believe in evolution and instead believe in creationism. Classic example is the Calgary backhoe operator who helped open a creationist museum purporting the world at 6000 years old accidentally dug up some fossilized fish millions of years old while digging a basement but still refuses to believe it's not a hoax.

Science by consensus is the closest we get to accuracy as it is an evolving discipline.

Yet you expect governments to make expensive monetary decisions based on evolving science.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Here's the thing. In science there is no such thing as fact, only what is known at the moment. For example, all chickens have black eyes, no chickens have blue eyes. This is a scientific "fact" until a chicken with blue eyes is observed. Politically or religiously, right or left, should the chicken have blue eyes the known observation will not sway the ideologically driven to waver from the belief but the scientific papers are all rewritten..

This is going to sound picky, but distinctions are important. The correct statement of your original "fact" is "All chickens thus far observed have black eyes."

Remembering to state it like that leads to greater accuracy and clarity of thinking. "All chickens have black eyes" is a shorthand for that proposition, and leads to misunderstanding, especially among those who are lazy or insecure enough to reject the notion that what didn't happen yesterday can't happen tomorrow.

As such69% of the American people and 27% of their scientists don't believe in evolution and instead believe in creationism. Classic example is the Calgary backhoe operator who helped open a creationist museum purporting the world at 6000 years old accidentally dug up some fossilized fish millions of years old while digging a basement but still refuses to believe it's not a hoax.

Science by consensus is the closest we get to accuracy as it is an evolving discipline.

I'm in the 69%. I don't believe in evolution. I know that current evolutionary theory best fits the data available. Belief is for god-botherers.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

What I stated earlier was that the peer review bodies that claimed consensus and factual presentations on AGW downplayed and/or heavily discounted the effects of the sun on Earth's climate.... Add to this the political nature of the governing body in addition to the recommendations by the aforementioned body to assess financial penalties; you have a situation in which there is no confidence in anything that they have to say.

There is plenty of truth in what you say and I do not dismiss the fact that some climate scientists have outright lied or falsified research for their own personal gain. This happens in all scientific disciplines I just believe it is harder to maintain and perpetuate a scientific lie than a political or religious one. Using your world is flat example, science has proven otherwise but thousands of years later people still murder the same way they once did for a god there is no evidence for.

But the beauty is that endless peer review weeds this out. These cases are rare exceptions but touted by opponents of as the rule. In fact, there is far more dishonesty in the quasi science trying to prove that climate change, GMO, vaccines etc isn't occurring/harmful/killing but no one takes these "proofs" with anything more than a grain of salt because few if any of these "researchers" are credible.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

There is plenty of truth in what you say and I do not dismiss the fact that some climate scientists have outright lied or falsified research for their own personal gain. This happens in all scientific disciplines I just believe it is harder to maintain and perpetuate a scientific lie than a political or religious one. Using your world is flat example, science has proven otherwise but thousands of years later people still murder the same way they once did for a god there is no evidence for.

But the beauty is that endless peer review weeds this out. These cases are rare exceptions but touted by opponents of as the rule. In fact, there is far more dishonesty in the quasi science trying to prove that climate change, GMO, vaccines etc isn't occurring/harmful/killing but no one takes these "proofs" with anything more than a grain of salt because few if any of these "researchers" are credible.

So you fully support the "scientitsts" who are promoting AGW but believe scientists who say vaccines are safe are not credible? I think to me this says all that needs to be said about your position.

 

[pgs]

Here's the thing. In science there is no such thing as fact, only what is known at the moment. For example, all chickens have black eyes, no chickens have blue eyes. This is a scientific "fact" until a chicken with blue eyes is observed. Politically or religiously, right or left, should the chicken have blue eyes the known observation will not sway the ideologically driven to waver from the belief but the scientific papers are all rewritten..

As such69% of the American people and 27% of their scientists don't believe in evolution and instead believe in creationism. Classic example is the Calgary backhoe operator who helped open a creationist museum purporting the world at 6000 years old accidentally dug up some fossilized fish millions of years old while digging a basement but still refuses to believe it's not a hoax.

Science by consensus is the closest we get to accuracy as it is an evolving discipline.

So you want to crash and burn our economy and give boat loads of money to third world countries all to staunch an unproven evolving theory . Makes sense to me .

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

So you fully support the "scientitsts" who are promoting AGW but believe scientists who say vaccines are safe are not credible? I think to me this says all that needs to be said about your position.

Um....I've always stated vaccines are safe. I also state GMO food is safe. I don't believe medical or food scientists are liars and if I take that position........how can I say climatologists are the exception? This is my point.

So you want to crash and burn our economy and give boat loads of money to third world countries all to staunch an unproven evolving theory . Makes sense to me .

Where did I every say that ever?

I staunchly oppose giving the third world a dime for anything. **** them. Let them starve, fight each other what ever I don't care as long as it stays over there. I have stated repeatedly that I oppose carbon taxes. What are you talking about?

 

[pgs]

Um....I've always stated vaccines are safe. I also state GMO food is safe. I don't believe medical or food scientists are liars and if I take that position........how can I say climatologists are the exception? This is my point.



Where did I every say that ever?

I staunchly oppose giving the third world a dime for anything. **** them. Let them starve, fight each other what ever I don't care as long as it stays over there. I have stated repeatedly that I oppose carbon taxes. What are you talking about?

That is exactly what they are discussing at climate summits .

 

[DaSleeper]

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

79 does not thousands of scientists make

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ

 

[Sons of Liberty]

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

Nothing a couple of rolls in the hay a day can't fix.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

That is exactly what they are discussing at climate summits .

What does that have to do with anything?

Why can't I believe climatologists regarding science and disagree with liberal politicians regarding the solution?

 

[pgs]

What does that have to do with anything?

Why can't I believe climatologists regarding science and disagree with liberal politicians regarding the solution?

Because that's were all the solutions lie . Best just to enjoy your live and hope the weather is nice because you really can't change it .
With or without a carbon tax the weather will always do what it wants where it wants to .

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Because that's were all the solutions lie .

No it's not. First off we could stop subsidizing everything (and I mean everything) and start letting market forces dictate. I think people should be allowed to burn all the fossil fuel, flush all the water, throw out all the garbage they want etc....provided they paid the full and true cost to our environment, healthcare and infrastructure in the process. Let market forces dictate.

Best just to enjoy your live and hope the weather is nice because you really can't change it .

I agree we are screwed and there is too much to change in too little time. Even so called conservatives are addicted to tax subsidized tap water as an example.

With or without a carbon tax the weather will always do what it wants where it wants to .

Incorrect. The term for manipulating the weather is called geoengineering and covers everything from cloud seeding for rain to using rockets to disperse clouds to prevent it from raining like the Chinese did for the opening of the Beijing Olympics.

 

[petros]

My religion of science beats your religion of invisible man in the sky every which way.

F-cking zealot.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

F-cking zealot.

F-cking Islamist.

 

[petros]

You're high.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

You're high.

You're a retard.

 

[petros]

Are you holding me back?

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Are you holding me back?

I'm helping you along.

You suffer from FPD (Flaming Personality Disorder). I'm being sensitive to your condition.