User Tag List

First 122021222324 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 263

  1. #211
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    It's possible that we'll never fully understand the Big Bang and we'll probably never discover any empirical evidence of it.
    I thought Background Radiation was evidence for the Big Bang.

  2. #212
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You are confusing politicization with drama.
    The drama's the reason we're even talking about this. Otherwise, the term "politicization" has practically no meaning - almost anything comes down to a question of distribution of resources

  3. #213
    Senior Member kevrawlings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    137

    Default

    I'm what you'd call a layman, and I'm a political moderate as well. The global warming debate kills me because both sides claim to have the scientific concensus and can pull on a wealth of data to support their claim.

    Truth is, I don't know when the world's gonna end and neither does anyone on this thread. It seems to me that, whether you believe in global warming or not, pollution in general is not up for debate, so is it really such a big deal to take personal responsibility and make a small scale change?

    Whether global warming is real or not, will the issue be solved on a typology central thread?

    And, earlier in this thread, someone said, "blah blah blah science." That was pretty dumb, just sayin.

  4. #214
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevrawlings View Post
    Whether global warming is real or not, will the issue be solved on a typology central thread?
    Of course, you're right.

    And, earlier in this thread, someone said, "blah blah blah science." That was pretty dumb, just sayin.
    Unless, of course, you're a scientist yourself. Unless, of course, you have studied this subject professionally, and gathered a few evidences experimentally.

    You should have noticed in this thread that the consensus is almost at 100% for people who belong to Academia, or who have a real scientific training.

    Weird, isn't it?

    ---

    So telling the two sides are even is either a way to confess your ignorance -something I can forgive: we're all ignorant, somehow-, or plain demagogy -something I cannot forgive-.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  5. #215
    Senior Member Pixelholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevrawlings View Post
    I'm what you'd call a layman, and I'm a political moderate as well. The global warming debate kills me because both sides claim to have the scientific concensus and can pull on a wealth of data to support their claim.
    You should take a look at where those sources come from. I'm not blaming you being a layman though, it's the media's fault and this whole "everything must be equal" bullshit. On one side you have the NAS and other major science organizations that have thousands of researches in dozens of fields. On the other side you have scientists being funded by groups like the Heritage foundation or child companies of big oil/coal.

    The best way to look at any kind of report that comes out about any scientific study or whatever is to look at who's funding the report and who is pushing the report.

  6. #216
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    ^ yes unfortunately when people don't spend a lot of time in academia or science they have a difficult time determining what is and is not a reliable source. You are absolutely right about this issue.

    For those that want to be able to read scientific data for themselves but are not sure where to go for information the best place to find reliable information is independently reviewed scientific journals directly related to or as closely related to the subject as you can find.

    reliable = peer reviewed journals that are not (as mentioned above) privately funded by a specific company or group of companies... most will also have a rigorous review process and articles are subject to retraction upon the discovery of new or contradicting data...

    For those who are not aware of this process in science this is how scientists are kept honest...

    It is important to note that this doesn't mean scientist never make mistakes, of course mistakes happen and sometimes ideas are incorrect, but very large mistakes (like being completely off on an entire concept) are not commonly found in peer reviewed journals since thousands of scientists across the entire international community essentially independently verify the claims of the authors of articles in these journals...

    To give you an example of this.. I will often go to a scientific journal find the experimental in someone's article and utilize their calculations or chemical procedures etc in my work... if there is a problem with their science I will quickly discover it because I am applying their ideas to an entirely different system.. if what they say holds true hundreds or even thousands of times over across the globe in many different science labs then it becomes widely accepted by scientists... if it doesn't then it is rejected by mainstream scientists...

    It is nearly impossible to publish research in a reliable journal that is inaccurate other scientists (even those competing for your research funding) would notice it and call bullshit - thus you would be forced to explain your data with more evidence or your article would be retracted which is another way of saying that your research has been debunked. <--------- retractions are very damaging to the career of a scientists - thus most would not be willing to risk this to take a few dollars from someone in industry to skew their data...

    Those that are willing to do this are typically fringe scientists that are either incompetent (thus making them easy prey for dishonest industries looking to push agendas) or they are crackpots that cannot separate emotion from data.. it's dangerous when you go into something expecting to make the data fit your conclusions rather than drawing your conclusions from your data... Still dishonest organizations with a cause will seek these individuals out and fund their "research" for the sake of discounting issues that go against their corporate policies...

    Mass scale conspiracy on the part of mainstream science is nearly impossible to obtain as research is independently reviewed and discoveries are often utilized across multiple fields so a fraud would easily be discovered when the expected outcomes are not achieved... competitors would be crying for the blood of the fraudulent researchers.. there is no way you could convince the majority of mainstream science to go along with something like global warming if it was not a real issue.

    So again for those who do not believe in global warming I have to ask you why you distrust those that bring you medicine, advanced technology, space travel, particle colliders, computers, etc? The issues are complex they cannot be simply explained in a 5 minute conversation or a thread in an internet forum... Certain advanced knowledge is necessary to accurately interpret the data for yourself...

    If you doctor told you that you were suffering from some disease would you mistrust him simply because you did a google search and found a few websites (some run by fringe "medical doctors" telling you that natural green tea can cure you of your ailments? Or, would you take the advice of your doctor and undergo whatever treatments he/she suggests to save your life?

    On the other hand if you simply cannot trust the word of those who have decided to dedicate their lives to the study of science and the scientific advancement of mankind then why not take the time to understand the issues yourself? This could be undertaken by actually getting appropriate college degrees required, taking continuing ed courses, or reading the appropriate material on your own... either way it will take time to understand these issues..

    Thus all I ask for people to do is either trust the majority opinion of those with the expertise to analyze the data related to this issue or take the time to understand the issue yourself... really understand it - not just read a few opinion articles on google and regurgitate some memorized statements - but really understand...

    Someone here stated that physics isn't asking us to alter the economy on a whim.. well nothing related to the big bang theory is likely to result in mass suffering and extreme damage to our planet. The stakes are much much higher here. We are talking about the future of mankind - thus you owe it to yourself to either become adequately informed prior to forming a strong opinion on this issue or at the very least trust the opinion of the experts the same way you would trust your surgeon with your life if he told you that you required a procedure to save your life.. Even if 2 fringe doctors into natural healing told you that you didn't... I think most people would still trust the panel of 20 doctors that said you did.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  7. #217
    Senior Member kevrawlings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    137

    Default

    No, I mean, they literally said, "blah blah blah science", as a rebuttal to a scientifically based argument - that's why it was in quotes. I thought it was funny.

  8. #218
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevrawlings View Post
    What about the liberal agenda? Just as there's a conservative one, there is a liberal one as well.

    Both sides claim to have the concensus, and both sides are levering for power.
    Well, they can't both be right.

    It would make sense to trust the sources that are closest to the scientists. If you feel that the scientists are themselves biased toward a political position, so much so as to not be trustworthy, what can you do?

    If you can't trust the scientific community with science, then up might as well be down. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying that in such a case, there's no reason to find the people who disagree with the scientists any more trustworthy and you might as well just give up on that whole "truth" thing.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #219
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, they can't both be right.

    It would make sense to trust the sources that are closest to the scientists. If you feel that the scientists are themselves biased toward a political position, so much so as to not be trustworthy, what can you do?

    If you can't trust the scientific community with science, then up might as well be down. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying that in such a case, there's no reason to find the people who disagree with the scientists any more trustworthy and you might as well just give up on that whole "truth" thing.
    +1
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  10. #220
    Senior Member kevrawlings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    137

    Default

    I said *concensus*.

    Is there really an elite group called "the scientists" that you're referring to?

    Both sides have *scientists* with claims and counter-claims, and data that contradicts the other's data.

    I am swayed by what spin said above though, she sounds knowledgable here.

Similar Threads

  1. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Heat Wave Blamed On Global Warming
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 04:57 PM
  4. Current update on Global Warming!
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO