Why should we believe the science communmity's consensus on climate change?

[durangodawood]

The second one isn't only about condoms.

Unlike the first one, the second one is not reliable due its its utter ideological bias. I'd have to individually chase down all its sources. Its more work than anyone can be expected to do in a discussion forum context.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe because it's mainly republicans that are pushing for less sex education.

Why is it that liberals always try to paint themselves so pretty? They don't like it when we call it pro-abortion, should be pro-choice. Then they try to demonize conservatives. "Less sex education" isn't the right characterization. They want to promote abstinence first, not exclusively. We realize that humans are fallen, but they need to know what to aspire to.

Here's the thing: There need to be condoms as well as the neccessary instruction for them to be effective. If the proper use of condoms isn't taught, they lead to risky behaviour and aren't effective. Condoms aren't a magic pill that you just chuck at teenagers to stop them from getting pregnant, they are a tool that need to be properly employed.

Oh, I agree with you. But even when proper employment is taught, no birth control method works as well as abstinence.

The problem that in places with abstinence only education, it isn't actually tried all that often. Teen girls go to purity balls and wear purity rings and all that virtue signalling, but once their hormones kick in and they find a more or less fitting mate, that all goes out of the (car) window.

Yeah, that is the problem-abstinence isn't tried. Those girls who do wear purity rings actually believe in it, and know what they aspire to-that their bodies aren't just to be used for pleasure. I know. When it is taught in the home, and explained, it works.
Now back to the topic?

 

[Nithavela]

Why is it that liberals always try to paint themselves so pretty? They don't like it when we call it pro-abortion, should be pro-choice. Then they try to demonize conservatives. "Less sex education" isn't the right characterization. They want to promote abstinence first, not exclusively.

That's just plain false.

 

[Kaon]

Well dont forget that enormous efforts went into averting overpopulation, including measures like birth control availability.

Also, the specifics laid out in the book were not part of any sort of scientific consensus. The only real consensus was the general notion that population growth presents a problem. And that was and remains correct.

Genocide and war is also used for population control - as well as biological agents and allergens. You can believe it or not j don't care that isn't my point.

I want to know how people think the world population will decrease to where it allegedly needs to be? What is an acceptable means of genocide population reduction that would ameliorate the alleged overpopulation problem?

Why is overpupolation being calibrated to city living - where resources are slim, humans are stacked and pollution is highly concentrated?

This is historically repetitive under a different name. You are begging for your demise.

 

[durangodawood]

Genocide and war is also used for population control - as well as biological agents and allergens. You can believe it or not j don't care that isn't my point.

I want to know how people think the world population will decrease to where it allegedly needs to be? What is an acceptable means of genocide population reduction that would ameliorate the alleged overpopulation problem?

Why is overpupolation being calibrated to city living - where resources are slim, humans are stacked and pollution is highly concentrated?

This is historically repetitive under a different name. You are begging for your demise.

Thats easy.

The best means of population reduction is the voluntary life choices people naturally make when their standard of living rises.

 

[Nithavela]

Thats easy.

The best means of population reduction is the voluntary life choices people naturally make when their standard of living rises.

I think nukes are better.

 

[durangodawood]

I think nukes are better.

Definitely makes for a more exciting movie.

 

[Nithavela]

Definitely makes for a more exciting movie.

Now that's what I call a controlled population.

 

[Tanj]

Again, you have to look at the lens being used to examine the data. I was in a hurry when I posted that. Of course scientists take data and interpret it. But what is the agenda? That's the question.They still are.

I am a scientist. I know exactly how my chosen profession works, and I do not have an "agenda". People like you seem to think so long as you refer to us as "they", making us out to be some faceless barely human evil, you can assign all kinds of stupid and nasty to us. It's a repugnant attitude.

The rest of your post was, ironically, complaints about what governments do with science. QED.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, I read them. I'm Catholic and LifeSiteNews is a regular reading site for me.

But don't the experts there have an agenda? I thought that immediately allowed you to ignore what they say. Or does that only work for people you disagree with, that you assume have agendas?

Regarding your second point, what schools actually provide counseling to kids to teach them how to use them, and how many children follow instructions in school?

Many many studies have shown that jurisdictions with comprehensive sex education (where they teach you how to use them) reduces teen pregnancy rates more than than 'abstinence only' sex 'education' or states with no requirement for sex ed, like Mississippi, which has the highest rates of teen pregnancy.

 

[Kaon]

Thats easy.

The best means of population reduction is the voluntary life choices people naturally make when their standard of living rises.

What is interesting is the inverse relation between fertility and technological advancement. We know several overt reasons for this: electromagnetic radiation. So, while you make a good point, it speaks to a bigger psychology present and future.

That won't bring the population from 7,500,000,000 - even if the standard of living is increased and reached by 60% of the population. People will continue to voluntarily have sex, and there will always be fertile people, ideally.


How will the population decrease quick enough so that human influence on the world will be at a minimal before we meet our quickly approaching demise? What possible ways will this be reached enough time save genocide, war, or biological weaponry?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe because it's mainly republicans that are pushing for less sex education.



Here's the thing: There need to be condoms as well as the neccessary instruction for them to be effective. If the proper use of condoms isn't taught, they lead to risky behaviour and aren't effective. Condoms aren't a magic pill that you just chuck at teenagers to stop them from getting pregnant, they are a tool that need to be properly employed.


The problem that in places with abstinence only education, it isn't actually tried all that often. Teen girls go to purity balls and wear purity rings and all that virtue signalling, but once their hormones kick in and they find a more or less fitting mate, that all goes out of the (car) window.

DP

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe because it's mainly republicans that are pushing for less sex education.



Here's the thing: There need to be condoms as well as the neccessary instruction for them to be effective. If the proper use of condoms isn't taught, they lead to risky behaviour and aren't effective. Condoms aren't a magic pill that you just chuck at teenagers to stop them from getting pregnant, they are a tool that need to be properly employed.


The problem that in places with abstinence only education, it isn't actually tried all that often. Teen girls go to purity balls and wear purity rings and all that virtue signalling, but once their hormones kick in and they find a more or less fitting mate, that all goes out of the (car) window.

So let's get to the car analogy. We know for a fact that speed limit laws aren't actually tried all that often, either. Does that mean we should get rid of speed limit laws?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Unlike the first one, the second one is not reliable due its its utter ideological bias. I'd have to individually chase down all its sources. Its more work than anyone can be expected to do in a discussion forum context.

That's a riot, because in my OP, I'm stating exactly that the 'scientific consensus is not reliable due to its utter ideological bias.'

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's just plain false.

Prove it.

 

[durangodawood]

That's a riot, because in my OP, I'm stating exactly that the 'scientific consensus is not reliable due to its utter ideological bias.'

Then you know exactly what I'm talking about!

 

[durangodawood]

That's a riot, because in my OP, I'm stating exactly that the 'scientific consensus is not reliable due to its utter ideological bias.'

Then you know exactly what I'm talking about!

 

[durangodawood]

That's a riot, because in my OP, I'm stating exactly that the 'scientific consensus is not reliable due to its utter ideological bias.'

Then you know exactly what I'm talking about!

Scientists ARE really biased toward a particular ideology: that facts about the material world are best uncovered via observation and reason.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am a scientist. I know exactly how my chosen profession works, and I do not have an "agenda". People like you seem to think so long as you refer to us as "they", making us out to be some faceless barely human evil, you can assign all kinds of stupid and nasty to us. It's a repugnant attitude.

The rest of your post was, ironically, complaints about what governments do with science. QED.

You may indeed be a scientist, but I don't believe you don't have an agenda. Everyone has a point of view, or a lens through which they interpret life. ALL reporters have a point of view, and it's important to know what that POV is in order to understand what they say in what they write. It's the same with science.

It is VERY possible that what I'm talking about is what government does with science. And that's where the agenda comes in. The 'climate scientists' know who butters their bread, and report to them in order to maintain the continuation of the butter for their bread. I agree it is repugnant.

 

[durangodawood]

Whats wrong with this site?

Multiposts are showing up everywhere.

 

[Nithavela]

Prove it.

Why? I know you, you're just going to double down when proven wrong.

 

[Nithavela]

dp