Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Paris Accord 'Was Wrong for Our Planet'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mankind overall maybe, but not most scientists. Just because nobody was around when the Earth was formed doesn't mean there's isn't ways of finding strong evidence for how old it is.
Your statements reminds me of this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Edit:
I see now I misinterpreted what you wrote a bit. But I'm not sure I understand you – just because no one has been around since Earth was formed we can't say anything about it? Well, there sure are traces of the history of Earth and more reasonable conclusions to make than one might think without digging deeper (no pun intended).
You can't be serious...? Is that your view of the scientific community?
Of course science isn't always "right" the first time and mistakes are made, but it sure doesn't always end up being wrong about everything. What do you base that statement on?
One of the good thing about the scientific method it is that it's self-correcting – when things are proven to be in a different way than first thought, the consensus changes. And how does it change Through the scientific method itself.
And I'd like to add there are many areas in which science are correct and where it works. Otherwise we wouldn't (for example) be here having this conversation under these circumstances. It's also not like major fields of science are being thrown upside down on a regular basis. Mostly it's small refinements within each field. Breakthroughs do happen, but it's rare that a field nowadays is totally rejected. For example I think it's quite certain that the theory of evolution is here to stay.
Do you have any suggestion of another method other than the scientific that we can use to make objective conclusions about reality?
I can't believe how people can be so suspicious about science (and scientists) when it has given mankind so many great things.
[doublepost=1502130780][/doublepost]
Why is it cute?
I think it's worth taking seriously.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-debate-climate-change-skeptics-klas-skogmar
Last edited:
Science isn't conducted by consensus. And everything else that you wrote in that post is equally ignorant.
I think it's your posts that are laughable. Or should I say cryable...
AppleFan360 said:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Last edited:
Your comments are well stated but the problem I have comes down to one thing. The human link. I actually agree that the climate is changing but it changes all the time anyway. To even begin to theorize that man has something to do with it is crazy with a pound of arrogance. Your statements above actually prove my point. Yes, science is self correcting but in essence that means its still guess work especially about the climate. Every decade we have new predictions that either never come true, or so far off that we will all be dead before they are proven. How convenient is that! It also reeks of an agenda either political or financial.
These are the main problems I have with the scientific community. There are some great scientists who are genuinely smart but there are also others who think they are smart but in reality are full of sh*t!
Yay! You understand one of the five steps of the scientific method. Hypothesis. That's the guess work. Fortunately, there are four other steps before you reach a conclusion. And then the repetition and analysis of peer review.
With climate science, all of your concerns are actually addressed by the science. We actually have models (predictions) that are coming true. For example:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Guess what, the effects of greenhouse gases consistently align with real world measurements!
I think the people that think we should listen to politicians about the climate rather than the people who study climate science are full of ****.
Saying this indicates you don't understand fully what the scientific process is and does.
It's built to weed out these very people. Science isn't believed because it happened in an experiment once. Any science experimenting that is to be considered legitimate must be reproducible. It's one of the very core fabrics of the scientific model.
you literally cannot be full of **** in science, because once you publish for peer review, you will have other scientists in your field trying to prove/disprove your findings by repeating the experiments with their own independent process.
We don't believe science because it's done once. We believe science because it allows us to predict the nature of our universe, with some remarkable accuracy.
And so far, almost every climate scientist has been able to have their science repeated. And all those experiments point to ones horrific conclusion. Mankind has absolutely led part, if not most of the current global warming trends by changing the overall composition of out planets ecosystem via various different means
And you are going to sit there and tell me NONE of them have a political and/or financial agenda. Now tell me the one about Santa Clause.
And you are going to sit there and tell me NONE of them have a political and/or financial agenda. Now tell me the one about Santa Clause.
Still ulimately irrelevant. Science is unbiased. Results are results based in mathematics. are there parties who have vested interests. Absolutely, and that goes for both ways. There are individuals and groups who would profit and benefit immensily if all regulations were nixxed today. They'd pillage the earth even if it meant 50 years left of humankind.
Bringing in the idea that there's an agenda, therefore the findings are invalid is laughable, Ignorant, and based in pure fallacious mind games.
Here's all the logical fallacies you've just committed with your simple, narrow minded question.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
[doublepost=1502287474][/doublepost]
I love that this site is starting to gain popularity! the more we point out arguments based in fallacy, hopefully the better we can move forward.
I know when I try and write a comment, I think to myself "what fallacies am I potentially committing" and then try to avoid them
If you want to talk about agendas, who has the power, wealth and influence to spearhead a global conspiracy of misinformation about climate science. Climate scientists or the fossil fuel industry?
The one about Santa Claus is just like one about all the rich climate scientists.Now tell me the one about Santa Clause.
Obviously you guys are way too close to the system and seem to believe everything you read on the internet. Sad. Have a nice day.
What the heck does this even mean? "too close to the system".. what system? and how does that suddenly mean that the science and scientific theory is bunk?
I'm going to start having to demand citation for your inanity. Because right now it literally sounds like you're making this up as you go and are pulling this out of your but.
If you're so adamant that theirs a corporate agenda pushing the climate change agenda, I'm going to have to demand Citations or you're violating PRSI debate ettiquette and rules
And before you try calling me out, here some of my citations:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://ec.gc.ca/sc-cs/default.asp?lang=En&n=A5F83C26-1
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q...ved=0ahUKEwiyjfPAwMrVAhUk64MKHUSHB58QgQMIJjAA
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-most-cited-climate-change-papers
Simply put. You are wrong. Dead wrong. And you're attempting to keep defending your wrong position without evidence. Basing it on emotion, and using logical fallacy to defend it.
Last edited:
Seems like you ended it all by committing yet another logical fallacy. Sad.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Still wish you a nice day too.
Last edited:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-channel-john-coleman-prefers-conspiracies-to-science.html
Just watching one and a half minute into that video made my head hurt. America isn't the world! Just because it was a freezing cold during the winter in the USA the year 2013 and 2014 doesn't mean the average temperature globally wasn't high.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm
There's also a difference between meteorology and climate science – like the first article I linked to above says:
”Coleman is apparently considered a credible climate interviewee because he was instrumental in creating The Weather Channel 32 years ago, but he’s woefully misinformed when it comes to climate science.”
Concerning Al Gore:
”It's worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors-intermediate.htm
Last edited: