Science Denial

[AV1611VET]

QV please: Einstein, A Hunch And Decades Of Work: How Scientists Found Gravitational Waves

The name "Einstein" would be lost in the pages of history, if all he ever had was a "hunch".
Einstein is remembered and celebrated for what he could demonstrate. Not for whatever "hunch" he had about anything.

Einstein wouldn't be remembered and celebrated for nothing either.

So which led to gravitational waves, according to the title of that article: a hunch or nothing?

 

[lesliedellow]

Einstein wouldn't be remembered and celebrated for nothing either.

So which led to gravitational waves, according to the title of that article: a hunch or nothing?

For Einstein, a hunch was his sarting point. It was followed by years of toil to formulate his special and General theories of relativity.

All that Juvenissun has is a hunch based upon little or nothing, and certainly no hard toil to give it substance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So which led to gravitational waves, according to the title of that article: a hunch or nothing?

"decades of work".

 

[AV1611VET]

All that Juvenissun has is a hunch based upon little or nothing, and certainly no hard toil to give it substance.

According to Tag, a hunch isn't better then [sic] nothing. I disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

"decades of work".

Looks to me like it had some help (in the form of a hunch).

 

[juvenissun]

I'm confident no one has ever accused you of such a heinous crime.



What you also said was:

"I am sure that human being can always respond much faster than the pace of climate changes. "
Yet you offered no evidence to support this highly questionable assertion.

"If an island in the ocean is going to be submerged in 10 years, those people live on the island can probably move out in one month."
Here you show a total disregard for the lives of the islands inhabitants, or of the impact they will have on the communities they move to, or how the poorest among them will be able to move. If your house burns down and you were fired from your job, how would you feel if your neighbours, friends and family members told you that finding somewhere to live and how to earn some money was entirely your problem. ("There's work in the next city. Why don't you start walking now?)

"Why should any body worry about anything?"
I try not to worry about things that impact my life negatively. I don't use it as an excuse to ignore the problems of others.

I said, everyone and every generation has their own problem. Dealing with climate change is just one of them. It is no more serious than other problems like drougt, or war. There is no need to predict war. It will happen. We handle it when it happened. Human can always react much faster than climate change.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Looks to me like it had some help (in the form of a hunch).

Nope.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said, everyone and every generation has their own problem. Dealing with climate change is just one of them. It is no more serious than other problems like drougt, or war. There is no need to predict war. It will happen. We handle it when it happened.

Talk about being completely irresponsible....

Human can always react much faster than climate change.

When your habitat gets destroyed, you can be the smartes species in the universe... without a proper place to live, you die.

 

[KWCrazy]

So essentially, the OP is fake. It's not about science denial, but about whether or not people buy into the politicized opinions of climate change shakedown artists. Does anyone else get tired of people calling their opinions science and calling those who don't agree with them "deniers?" It's just more liberal propaganda calling for people to be sheep and follow whatever Big Brother tells them.

Who could forget the previous lie the wackos tried to pass off?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So essentially, the OP is fake. It's not about science denial, but about whether or not people buy into the politicized opinions of climate change shakedown artists.

The change in climate is confirmed by science. The part that man has played in that is confirmed by science. Saying the climate change isn't real, or isn't largely caused by man is science denial.

Doing something about it (e.g. buying into the opinions of climate change shakedown artists) is a separate issue.

If you don't care, and don't want to do anything about it, that's not science denial. But if you are saying the problem doesn't exist, you are denying science.

 

[lesliedellow]

Human can always react much faster than climate change.

Not if they have American conservatives denying that it is even happening they can't.

 

[The Barbarian]

Looks to me like it had some help (in the form of a hunch).

The internet is littered with the bizarre ideas of people with a hunch.

 

[KWCrazy]

The change in climate is confirmed by science.

Climates change. No kidding. They always do.

The part that man has played in that is confirmed by science.

Man's contribution is minimal and there is no consensus as to whether it makes any difference; or whether it is detrimental or beneficial.
If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half. source

The fact is we use the term "climate change" because the earth has been on a cooling trend for 17 years. That's one reason why alarmists had to fabricate data to support their outrageous assertions.

Saying the climate change isn't real, or isn't largely caused by man is science denial.

No, it's disagreeing with the same fools who told us in the 60's that glaciers would cover Michigan in 20 years, that the population bomb was going to cause worldwide starvation and that DDT would kill all the birds. Co2 levels may be increasing, but that's a good thing because the planet is getting greener. That translates to a 14% increase in crop productivity. So maybe it's God's way of making sure we have enough food for the increasing population.

... if you are saying the problem doesn't exist, you are denying science.

There isn't a problem, the fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and changes in the climate on Mars has mirrored our own so you don't have to sell your Suburban. Relax, take a breath and stop buying into the ranting of fools who want to control your lifestyle. God is in charge. The earth is His. It will be here waiting when He returns.

 

[AV1611VET]

The internet is littered with the bizarre ideas of people with a hunch.

Yup.

I even hear (see actually) people talking about evolution!

 

[lesliedellow]

Yup.

I even hear (see actually) people talking about evolution!

Quite an unusual person for a YEC. In fact he must be close to unique:

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

 

[essentialsaltes]

"if you are saying the problem doesn't exist, you are denying science."

There isn't a problem

QED

 

[KWCrazy]

Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.

Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything.

Follow the politicized claims of liars for hire if you want to be a sheep. There is no scientific proof of AGW.

 

[The Barbarian]

Climates change. No kidding. They always do.

It's just been changing remarkably fast, as human-generated carbon dioxide rises.

Man's contribution is minimal

No, that's wrong. The consensus of climate scientists is that human activities are now overriding natural effects. We should be entering a deep cooling trend, but we are seeing record high temperatures.

and there is no consensus as to whether it makes any difference;

That's wrong, too. For example, insurance rates are rising rapidly on the Gulf Coast as the predicted greater storm severity starts to show up.

or whether it is detrimental or beneficial.

Depending, I suppose, on whether or not you think bigger hurricants (among other things) are beneficial.

The fact is we use the term "climate change" because the earth has been on a cooling trend for 17 years.

Well, let's take a look...

NASA GISS global surface temperatures

• 2005 67
• 2006 76
• 2007 84
• 2008 63
• 2009 77
• 2010 91
• 2011 77
• 2012 75
• 2013 80
• 2014 87
• 2015 97
• 2016 122

I'm having a little trouble seeing the "cooling" here. If you care, here are the details:
Best-fit values


Slope 3.077 ± 0.9513
Y-intercept 63.00 ± 7.001
X-intercept -20.48
1/Slope 0.3250

95% Confidence Intervals
Slope 0.9574 to 5.196
Y-intercept 47.40 to 78.60
X-intercept -80.35 to -9.321

Goodness of Fit
R square 0.5113
Sy.x 11.38

Is slope significantly non-zero?
F 10.46
DFn,DFd 1,10
P Value 0.0090
Deviation from horizontal? Significant

Data
Number of XY pairs 12
Equation Y = 3.077*X + 63.00

If you like, I can run the data for 19 years or whatever, but it won't look any better for deniers. Would you like me to do it?

No, it's disagreeing with the same fools who told us in the 60's that glaciers would cover Michigan in 20 years

Show us that. Checkable sources for scientists predicting that.
Prediction: no such evidence will be presented.

that the population bomb was going to cause worldwide starvation

"Widespread starvation." And it's happening now in Africa.

and that DDT would kill all the birds.

Specifically predators and scavengers, such as bald eagles. They were rapidly declining, until DDT was banned. Now, they are increasing, no longer endangered.

Co2 levels may be increasing, but that's a good thing because the planet is getting greener. That translates to a 14% increase in crop productivity.

Nope:
Rising CO2 is reducing nutritional value of food, impacting ecosystems
https://news.mongabay.com/2016/06/r...tritional-value-of-food-impacting-ecosystems/

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no scientific proof of AGW.

There's no scientific proof for gravity either. I'd advise you to avoid jumping off high places, though. Truth is a stronger thing than proof.

 

[rjs330]

The change in climate is confirmed by science. The part that man has played in that is confirmed by science. Saying the climate change isn't real, or isn't largely caused by man is science denial.

Doing something about it (e.g. buying into the opinions of climate change shakedown artists) is a separate issue.

If you don't care, and don't want to do anything about it, that's not science denial. But if you are saying the problem doesn't exist, you are denying science.

It's a denial is the conclusion of science. Data that supports a preconceived idea is accepted and data that does not is rejected. That's what scientists do today with this topic. Scientists that receive money from government find in favor of AGW and scientists that get money from private companies find against it.

There is enough data out Thier to show that the climate is changing. That's not the issue. The issue is why and how much. This is where scientists fail. There are plenty of other options on why it's changing besides human activity. But that data is swept aside by the AGW government funded folks and those that point that out are labeled as deniers and demonized by the community.