Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/17/10 04:03 AM, poxpower wrote: Just in case people missed that one: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1 549

A vote for Republicans is a vote against science!
Woohoo

Son, I am disappoint.

But REALLY I think that SOME Republicans want to spend some money on science and that some just don't want to finance science WHICH IMPROVES TECHNOLOGY (in those particular science fields, u know, like, technology research) AND MAKES EVERYTHING BETTER, DUH, or want to spend teh moneh on other stuff, like maybe some good stuff. The Democrats may be somewhat like this too. Ever seen the Gauss curve? (I don't really know if it is appliable, but WATEVAH U GET THE POINT)

I really don't understand why so many Americans think that socialism (very alright, IMO) = communism (sh*t). And I think most peeps in the west (I do live in the West) would say communism is for SH*THEADS (look at China and Nobel's Peace Prize, lulz).

Like, why are Americans against the health care reform? WTF is wrong with free health care? You increase the taxes JUST A LITTLE, and then you get free health care in which you would have to pay maybe $4 000 - $10 000+ if you DID NOT have free health care! And what's wrong with spending a bit money through taxes, and that money which came from you, maybe contributed to saving someone from some possibly serious injury? WOULDN'T YA BE HAPPY TO HELP PEEPS?

Alright, even though you may have nothing in common, have no business whatsoever to the dude/girl you maybe saved through taxes, would you rather have the unlucky person just... be left with no one to even fix him up a bit? That has happened several times in the US, I'm damn sure. Like, what if someone broke his leg, but he had no health assurance and was just left to either pay $20 000 or be left on the spot? Why should you pay to become well again? What if it wasn't even your fault that you got hurt? (I know, u can sue people for almost anything and gain lots of money, except for hilarious/ridiculous stuff like the couple who sued Google and got $1)

Jeez, I think that those Americans who don't want to care about others who may or may not have anything in common with OTHER AMERICANS (even if you're on the East Coast and this random guy is on the West Coast), still should feel that they need to help each other, you know, strengthen each other... ANY CONSCIENCE, PEOPLE, or are you just peeps who care only about ur own lives and don't care about people in need?

Also, how come Americans are almost raised to think that communism is sh*tty crap which is to be accociated with Satan himself? (Not that I'm religious, mind). Also, Satan "freed" humans from our submission to God ande made us free, LOLZ, if you know what I mean.

At 1/14/11 08:07 AM, UnknownOne wrote:

At 12/17/10 04:03 AM, poxpower wrote: Just in case people missed that one: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1 549

A vote for Republicans is a vote against science!
Woohoo

Son, I am disappoint.

But REALLY I think that SOME blahblahblahblahblahblah

Sorry, really went off-topic. Can anyone delete this and my previous post? Tnx.

At 1/14/11 12:46 AM, DragTheWater wrote: If you will just look for a moment.
A fairly recent phenomena with doomsday like implications.
The Scientific community portrays this as a real and present danger.
Massive legislations are put forth.
Companies making billions of dollars off of the save the earth mentality.

Would this really be surprising if it was bullshit?

Yes, it would be very surprising, because the evidence still indicates that global warming is a real concern. I also think you're blowing a few of your points out of proportion to make it look less plausible.

It's also worth noting that the implication of your points, i.e. that it was invented for profit motive, would require the bribing and cooperation of pretty much every climate scientist. Does that seem like a realistic ploy?

I would like to know some other political views that are supported by a census by Republicans. Are most scientists pro-life or pro-choice? While I know that not every scientist specializes in studying things like that, I would think they would know more about that than most people. Are they mostly for the legalization of marijuana or same-sex marriage or prostitution or stuff like that? I seldom hear them talk about that.

At 1/14/11 09:39 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/14/11 12:46 AM, DragTheWater wrote: If you will just look for a moment.
A fairly recent phenomena with doomsday like implications.
The Scientific community portrays this as a real and present danger.
Massive legislations are put forth.
Companies making billions of dollars off of the save the earth mentality.

Would this really be surprising if it was bullshit?

Yes, it would be very surprising, because the evidence still indicates that global warming is a real concern. I also think you're blowing a few of your points out of proportion to make it look less plausible.

It's also worth noting that the implication of your points, i.e. that it was invented for profit motive, would require the bribing and cooperation of pretty much every climate scientist. Does that seem like a realistic ploy?

you act as if this would be the first time people with "the answers" deceived people for their own purposes. There was a scandal im sure you remember with e-mails being intercepted from doubting scientists. churches, corporations, politicians, and the media all lie or steer truth to their own ends. yet there are some people who want to believe science is above all that.

At 1/14/11 05:36 PM, Ericho wrote: I would like to know some other political views that are supported by a census by Republicans. Are most scientists pro-life or pro-choice? While I know that not every scientist specializes in studying things like that, I would think they would know more about that than most people. Are they mostly for the legalization of marijuana or same-sex marriage or prostitution or stuff like that? I seldom hear them talk about that.

Well yes, because being a scientist does not magically impart you with intelligent opinions on subjects that are most likely completely irrelevant to what they study. They don't talk about those issues because they don't know things about them and they don't work in fields where they get paid to talk about things that they are completely ignorant of. (e.g. politics)

Wouldn't it be a fallacy to say that voting for Republicans is voting against Science or Intelligence (with a capital I) because only 6% of scientists are Republican... Considering the average income of scientists and the fact that most of them probably got out of university with a big debt.

At 1/11/11 09:46 AM, Elfer wrote: No, see, the difference is that there is pretty much an overall consensus opinion in the scientific community about global warming. In the article you linked to, there's a section on what was actually published in journals at the time, and not only does this section show no consensus about global cooling, but early concern about global warming in the long term.

The problem with this is pretty obvious. Virtually anything that causes pollution will release greenhouse gases. Even the worries about aerosols stoke the problem of today. Every aerosol is a greenhouse gas.

Moreover there ISN'T a consensus in global warming, much like there wasn't a consensus in global cooling. Which is odd, because the government is paying people to say there IS global warming.

Global warming may have mixed opinions in the details within the scientific community, but the overall idea is widely accepted. This was not true of global cooling. Global cooling was a brief idea in the scientific community that was turned into a media circus, and is only notable now as an idea that was counter to our current theories about global warming.

Three decades is brief? Ignoring that, the fact that the temperatures have increased something like .2 degrees in 3 decades is proof? Please.

At 1/11/11 10:04 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Wolvenbear, do you consider the following two statements to be equivalent...

Given that there is no consensus, yes, I consider the two statements, which, in their historical context, are completely identical, to be equivalent....yes. I consider the two completely equivalent. Now that we're stating to worry about a cooldown again, we will hear in twenty years how global warming was NEVER a consensus but only a weird idea held by a few people. And the people who lived through it will be saying "HEy, wait a minute. That's not right!"

At 1/11/11 11:28 AM, zephiran wrote: It's only a matter of time before WB drags in the Oregon Petition, so I thought I'd go ahead and sink that ship before it even sails into port.

Well, I had no intentions to. But thanks for pointing out your position is shaky at best.

Indeed, Scientific Consensus is SCIENTIFIC, and it is overwhelmingly so.

There is no such thing as consensus in science. Considering that scientists regularly test gravity and air pressure and other things that everyone agree are absolute fact...science is about tests and proof. Not media pressure (consensus),

Carry along now, let us get back to the topic at hand.

Yes. Let's point out how your argument is wrong. Given previous links, your article is wrong in asserting that temperatures have been rising for 50 years, when everyone was worried about global cooling. (Whether or not this was manmade was irrelevant as scientists realized the world was cooling.)

I think there are so few Republican scientists because the conservative christian base prefer to let their kids go to Sunday School instead of getting an actual academical education.

Or actual scientists don't want to toe the government line and say what the government wants them to? Because science is about truth, not governmental decree?

What do I base this on? My own Social Liberal wishful thinking mostly. That, and a funny gut feeling that may or may not be the Tom Yum noodles I had an hour ago.

Ah, basing something on stupidity is beautiful. Great basis to mock those who actually know what they're talking about.

What it boils down to:

Global Cooling:
1% of scientists for, 99% against
"well no consensus!"

Global Warming:
99% for
1% against
"well, no consensus!"

SO YOU SEE IT'S THE SAME!

At 1/16/11 04:40 AM, poxpower wrote: Global Cooling:
1% of scientists for, 99% against
"well no consensus!"

Noy what it was at the time.

Global Warming:
99% for
1% against
"well, no consensus!"

Certainly not what it is now.

SO YOU SEE IT'S THE SAME!

Stupid people make stupid comparisons?

At 1/16/11 04:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/11/11 10:04 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Wolvenbear, do you consider the following two statements to be equivalent...

Given that there is no consensus, yes, I consider the two statements, which, in their historical context, are completely identical, to be equivalent....yes. I consider the two completely equivalent.

But... There is consensus... Why aren't you listening...

:C

At 1/11/11 11:28 AM, zephiran wrote: It's only a matter of time before WB drags in the Oregon Petition, so I thought I'd go ahead and sink that ship before it even sails into port.

Well, I had no intentions to. But thanks for pointing out your position is shaky at best.

You've relied on it before, don't act like you suddenly don't think it's significant.

Indeed, Scientific Consensus is SCIENTIFIC, and it is overwhelmingly so.

There is no such thing as consensus in science. Considering that scientists regularly test gravity and air pressure and other things that everyone agree are absolute fact...science is about tests and proof. Not media pressure (consensus),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_
consensus

Of course there is such a thing as scientific consensus! We can't ever be sure that we know everything about a given subject, that's why we perform test, new tests and tests again to make sure we got things somewhat right! However, since it's of no use to us to discard theories that adequately explain a phenomenon on the basis that "it can't ever be proven", we use consensus among experts to determine what theory, given the available evidence, explains things in the best way with as few assumptions and errors as possible.

Carry along now, let us get back to the topic at hand.

Yes. Let's point out how your argument is wrong. Given previous links, your article is wrong in asserting that temperatures have been rising for 50 years, when everyone was worried about global cooling. (Whether or not this was manmade was irrelevant as scientists realized the world was cooling.)

But... There was no consensus on cooling whatsoever. And temperaturs have been rising steadily since around the fifties and sixties...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs /Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs /

I think there are so few Republican scientists because the conservative christian base prefer to let their kids go to Sunday School instead of getting an actual academical education.

Or actual scientists don't want to toe the government line and say what the government wants them to? Because science is about truth, not governmental decree?

... You're implying that the American government is suppressing conservative opinions, aren't you?

What do I base this on? My own Social Liberal wishful thinking mostly. That, and a funny gut feeling that may or may not be the Tom Yum noodles I had an hour ago.

Ah, basing something on stupidity is beautiful. Great basis to mock those who actually know what they're talking about.

Speaking of the devil!

At 1/15/11 12:25 AM, DragTheWater wrote: you act as if this would be the first time people with "the answers" deceived people for their own purposes. There was a scandal im sure you remember with e-mails being intercepted from doubting scientists.

I believe you're referring to what people were calling "Climategate"

As I recall, after four days and a cursory review of the information, I predicted that an independent review would show no scientific wrongdoing, but perhaps some irregularities with FOIA requests. The next month, such a review was commissioned, and several months after that the results were published, showing that once again, I was correct all along. Of course, the outcome was ignored.

At 1/16/11 03:55 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Moreover there ISN'T a consensus in global warming, much like there wasn't a consensus in global cooling. Which is odd, because the government is paying people to say there IS global warming.

Since when is there no scientific consensus on global warming? There is no significant body of people in a relevant field that rejects the idea outright. The points of disagreements are in the details, not the big picture.

Three decades is brief?

Yes.

Ignoring that, the fact that the temperatures have increased something like .2 degrees in 3 decades is proof? Please.

There's substantially more evidence than that, and you know it. In any case, this isn't a topic about global warming. In fact, it's mostly a topic about nothing. Perhaps it would be worth starting a new topic on the validity of scientific consensus?

At 1/16/11 04:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Given that there is no consensus

Not sure how that renders the two statements equivalent. If that's your stance then it directly contradicts that there is (was) a consensus.

If you consider the two statements equivalent, then { scientific consensus } is equivalent to { mixed scientific but popular support }, thereby denying both when denying one.

However, I'm pretty sure you're a proponent of the idea that there was { mixed scientific but popular support } while a critic of the idea that there was { scientific consensus }. This however, would render your original remarks about consensus science, citing a consensus as being incorrect, rather dishonest - since you didn't really consider it a consensus.

At 1/17/11 08:45 AM, zephiran wrote: But... There is consensus... Why aren't you listening...

But, there ISN'T consensus. There's significant opposition to GW. And they routinely point to massive lies on the GW side.

So, as I said, no consensus exists. Why aren't you listening?

You've relied on it before, don't act like you suddenly don't think it's significant.

Uh, I haven't. I'd never even looked it up until you mentioned it. While it's possible I linked it in a series of things, I'd never known it's name til now. So either you have me confused with someone else...or you're wrong.

:scientific consensus

"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."

So there is no such thing as scientific consensus. Thanks for linking us to something that admits its not scientific. Kinda like I said.

But... There was no consensus on cooling whatsoever. And temperaturs have been rising steadily since around the fifties and sixties...

The consensus on cooling was identical to the warming of today. A vocal minority predicted it on crappy data, while real scientists said "whoa buddy..."

... You're implying that the American government is suppressing conservative opinions, aren't you?

The government funds certain fields. And defunds them. If you don't believe government funding is political...well, you're an imbecile. There's not a single other person on the planet who doesn't believe government funding shapes scientific views. Which is why hundreds of thousands of books have been written about it on both sides.

Speaking of the devil!

Gotcha. Good one...oh but wait. You have shown you don't know what you're talking about. Damn. Foiled again...

At 1/17/11 10:15 AM, Elfer wrote: As I recall, after four days and a cursory review of the information, I predicted that an independent review would show no scientific wrongdoing, but perhaps some irregularities with FOIA requests. The next month, such a review was commissioned, and several months after that the results were published, showing that once again, I was correct all along. Of course, the outcome was ignored.

Yawn. What a boring review. Insiders determined insiders didn't do wrong. Statis quo. In fact, it's hard NOT to bank on that.

Since when is there no scientific consensus on global warming? There is no significant body of people in a relevant field that rejects the idea outright. The points of disagreements are in the details, not the big picture.

Um, there's significant rejection of global warming.

There's substantially more evidence than that, and you know it. In any case, this isn't a topic about global warming. In fact, it's mostly a topic about nothing. Perhaps it would be worth starting a new topic on the validity of scientific consensus?

That was the topic to begin with fool.

At 1/18/11 01:10 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/16/11 04:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Not sure how that renders the two statements equivalent. If that's your stance then it directly contradicts that there is (was) a consensus.

Because the two circumstances are identical. It's cool. Not everyone gets it. It takes research and learning and looking into decades of research. No one wants to do that. It's all good.

At 1/21/11 03:30 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Yawn. What a boring review. Insiders determined insiders didn't do wrong. Statis quo. In fact, it's hard NOT to bank on that.

What insiders?
?
Who do you think should conduct reviews on scientific misconduct?

At 1/21/11 03:30 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Yawn. What a boring review. Insiders determined insiders didn't do wrong. Statis quo. In fact, it's hard NOT to bank on that.

It was an external review. Who, in your opinion, should have conducted it?

Um, there's significant rejection of global warming.

Amongst the general public, yes. Amongst people who actually do research in relevant fields, not so much.

That was the topic to begin with fool.

No, the topic was on whether or not it was somehow relevant that scientists are not republicans. My opinion on the actual topic was "not really"

At 1/21/11 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/17/11 08:45 AM, zephiran wrote: But... There is consensus... Why aren't you listening...

But, there ISN'T consensus. There's significant opposition to GW. And they routinely point to massive lies on the GW side.

Read Oreskes again.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/57 02/1686.full

Emphasis:

"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear."

So, as I said, no consensus exists. Why aren't you listening?

Because I think you are wrong, approaching silly amounts of it in fact. Oreskes' study proves that among the entire scientific field, there isn't a single major institution rejecting Global Warming. It HAS caught flak, but mostly from "concerned" citizens, laymen and pseudo-scientists like Christopher Monckton.

The few notable critics who have specialised in a related field of study, like atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, tend to not even attempt arguing against the principle - Lindzen for example doesn't reject that the globe's been warming, but rather argues that the overall climate sensitivity is low and there will be a negative feedback that kicks in place at some point.

Lindzens IR Iris hypothesis that suggests negative feedback is however, kind of wrong.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature s/Iris/iris2.php

You've relied on it before, don't act like you suddenly don't think it's significant.

Uh, I haven't. I'd never even looked it up until you mentioned it. While it's possible I linked it in a series of things, I'd never known it's name til now. So either you have me confused with someone else...or you're wrong.

Hunh, funny thing that. Oh well.

scientific consensus

"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."

So there is no such thing as scientific consensus. Thanks for linking us to something that admits its not scientific. Kinda like I said.

No, it means that consensus is separated from the Scientific Method. The Meth describes how one is to go about collecting data and forming a good hypothesis - it deals with the formulation of new theories. The scientific consensus however deals with establishing if theories, after they've been formed and adjusted to evidence, are to be accepted as valid.

If there really was no such thing as Scientific Consensus, then...

... Well, Gravity's just a theory, right?

But... There was no consensus on cooling whatsoever. And temperatures have been rising steadily since around the fifties and sixties...

The consensus on cooling was identical to the warming of today. A vocal minority predicted it on crappy data, while real scientists said "whoa buddy..."

... With the exception here being that there isn't a single major scientific institution in opposition, most of them instead supporting it, that there is ample evidence both for warming and that the warming is induced by an increase in greenhouse gases.

See Scientific Opinion of Climate Change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_
opinion_on_climate_change

... You're implying that the American government is suppressing conservative opinions, aren't you?

The government funds certain fields. And defunds them. If you don't believe government funding is political...well, you're an imbecile. There's not a single other person on the planet who doesn't believe government funding shapes scientific views. Which is why hundreds of thousands of books have been written about it on both sides.

Grantedly. But to believe that the entire body of climate science is fundamentally dishonest and funded by a statist-leftist government goes right past healthy skepticism and starts approaching tinfoil-hat-levels of silly.

Speaking of the devil!

Gotcha. Good one...oh but wait. You have shown you don't know what you're talking about. Damn. Foiled again...

I can go on all night long brudda, but it has been suggested this discussion be moveds0rz'd. Perhaps we should make a new thread about it?

At 1/23/11 01:32 PM, zephiran wrote: Read Oreskes again.

So, in short, the IPCC agrees. So, no other science matters?

In and of itself that's head hurting...

Sorry, but it bores me whn people object to the very relevant questions people pose by saying "But the IPCC..."

Because I think you are wrong, approaching silly amounts of it in fact. Oreskes' study proves that among the entire scientific field, there isn't a single major institution rejecting Global Warming. It HAS caught flak, but mostly from "concerned" citizens, laymen and pseudo-scientists like Christopher Monckton.

Or among people who point out that the temperature rising less than a degree in a century is irrelevant? Consensus is a neat way to steamroll legitimate questions.

So yea. Fun stuff...

Environmentalism is basically another religion, just like the other liberalist philosophies. Why is this crap being discussed anyway?

Moreover, why should any of us care what scientists -- for the most part -- think?

At 2/3/11 03:25 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/23/11 01:32 PM, zephiran wrote: Read Oreskes again.

So, in short, the IPCC agrees. So, no other science matters?

In and of itself that's head hurting...

Sorry, but it bores me whn people object to the very relevant questions people pose by saying "But the IPCC..."

No. Read it again and maybe you will understand. Oreskes divided 928 papers published between the time 1993-2003 on issues related to climate change into six categories: "explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position". Out of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, where climate change was either implicitly or explicitly supported. The other 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no discernible position. What is notable is that not a single paper rejected climate change.

Furthermore, from the study:

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise". The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue". "

Because I think you are wrong, approaching silly amounts of it in fact. Oreskes' study proves that among the entire scientific field, there isn't a single major institution rejecting Global Warming. It HAS caught flak, but mostly from "concerned" citizens, laymen and pseudo-scientists like Christopher Monckton.

Or among people who point out that the temperature rising less than a degree in a century is irrelevant? Consensus is a neat way to steamroll legitimate questions.

But that kind of temperature rise indicates a trend, does it not? In an unstable climate system temperature fluctuations of around one centigrade might be expected, but the clean upwards-moving trend that can be perfectly well observed for the last century cannot be anything other than a trend.

So yea. Fun stuff...

*tinfoil hat for you*

:3

At 2/3/11 07:58 AM, zephiran wrote: Out of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories,

There's two very real problems with this:

1. If climate change is happening, that doesn't mean man is involved.
2. Implicit and explicit endorcement are not the same thing.

2 needs more expounding. This is done on both sides. Implicit endorcement arguments usually annoy me because they are inherently dishonest. If people sort of argee...they are TOTALLY on board.

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions.

Yet, the IPCC conclusio is that the earth will warm .25 degrees in the next century.

Even ingoring truth and logic...if they're right, who cares? A quarter of a degree in a century? Statistically insignificant.

But that kind of temperature rise indicates a trend, does it not? In an unstable climate system temperature fluctuations of around one centigrade might be expected, but the clean upwards-moving trend that can be perfectly well observed for the last century cannot be anything other than a trend.

Except that no one is indicanting a fluctuation of over one centigrade. Hell, most would murder babies to show a 1F incrrease. It simply hasn't happened.

Even if we contribute the .1 degree wave on the past 20 years to the century, it doesn't help the cause.

At 12/17/10 04:03 AM, poxpower wrote: Just in case people missed that one: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1 549

A vote for Republicans is a vote against science!
Woohoo

AMEN

IF scientist population = repuplican population

6% of repuplicans are scientists