Why is the climate changing. (Page 25) zeffur: re: "ghostgeek: ... Without suitable power storage, renewables are hit and miss." Actually all alternative energy systems are valuable--they just aren't practical in all situations & for all applications (e.g. you wouldn't pay the high cost to put a solar system in a mostly cloudy location nor a wind system in a non windy location.) Alternative energy systems are exactly that--'alternative systems' to conventionally generated electric power (fossil fuel, hydro, or uranium systems)--they are rarely considered 100% replacements for conventional systems, sometimes because they don't provide power 24/7 (like solar & wind) or other times because they aren't economically feasible. Generating electrical power isn't really a problem--using it wisely (efficiently) and storing the excess energy for future use has always been the major challenge. (Edited by zeffur)  theHating: really it doesnt matter what talking heads say because not everyone wears a tin foil hat and denies science, we trust experts. it doesnt matter what policy the federal government chooses to adopt or not. they cant really take much credit for overall emissions reduction when absolutely none of that policy was acted on during the trump admin. it is largely the state governments that are acting on policy. some federal incentives exist thanks to federal environmental pushes during 2008-2016, but in reality, thats why the world laughs at him. and he can say, "no no, they are laughing WITH me" or whatever helps him sleep at night, but we are laughing because he has no control over what we do at the municipal level in state legislatures. and regardless of the oil flowing into state legislature in 2016, they are still losing miserably because the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore. it's hilarious. (Edited by theHating)  AchillesSinatra: In these forums, we hear a lot of talk about "science deniers", and its adjectival close cousin "anti-science"; terms which are thrown around as carelessly as "anti-semite" by fanatics of another feather. I personally do not consider myself a "science-denier", and I suspect Ghostgeek would deny the charge too, if put to him. Rather, quite the reverse: I regard those who point the accusations around as being blind venerators of science, evincing a religious-like faith in the veracity of scientific claims grossly incommensurate with their track record of reliability (or lack thereof). I wonder what it is that those who launch the accusations expect of those of us targeted by them: to believe everything any scientist says about any science-related matter? That, surely, would be as jaw-droppingly stupid as a position of believing NOTHING that scientists say. After all (i) Disagreement among scientists themselves is commonplace. In such cases, the scientists involved do not consider what their rivals are claiming to be worthy of belief. And vice versa. (ii) In many cases, scientists make it clear themselves that a particular conjecture is highly speculative, thus, in their opinion, not (yet) worthy of belief. (iii) The historical record is replete with examples where a consensus, or near consensus, was attained, yet the particular claim or theory -- advanced with the hyper-confidence characteristic of scientists -- turned out to be quite false. In the following video, Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells us, "... the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it" Prof Tyson's comment must rank among the most monumentally stupid and manifestly false remark that this particular poster, at least, has ever heard. Needless to say, it is immediately followed by thunderous applause. So a question for those who would label others a "science denier": Under what circumstances can we be confident that a scientific claim has attained such a degree of epistemic warrant that to not believe it would be an act of irrationality? One tack often taken is to point out that the scientists are the experts; they know more about these matters than a layman like myself does. No doubt this is true, though as an answer to the above question it is clearly inadequate. Supposing, in my capacity as a layman, my claim on some scientific matter, SM, stands a 5% chance of being true. And supposing that a scientific expert, with his superior knowledge, makes an alternative claim on the very same SM which stands, say, a 10% chance of being true. Now, when a certain proposition stands only a 10% chance of being true, the rational response is to disbelieve it and to believe its negation, i.e., a rational person will believe "It is not the case that SM". I await an answer with bad breath.... (Edited by AchillesSinatra) theHating: that just sounds like the long way of saying a lot of people have opinions, but in reality, only very few qualify. but then backtracking and calling into question the qualifications of those people. circular logic, i would expect nothing less from a science denier. i hope you wasted a lot of time thinking your way in circles, son. theHating: "I regard those who point the accusations around as being blind venerators of science, evincing a religious-like faith" blah blah blah "Supposing, in my capacity as a layman, my claim on some scientific matter, SM, stands a 5% chance of being true." circular logic. i understand the question, you misundertand what science is. pure and simple, brother. theHating: so, there goes all my creditibilty you will try to destroy because you fail to comprehend in relevant terms theHating: i know for a fact no one here knows shit about science, so copy and paste is the weapon of choice. i wont hesitate like i do on creationist threads because AGW is much more serious. i will bury this thread with you inside. no one will ever see your denialist shit. The flying Squirrel: I seen a Thingy on Tv about this verry Topic , The other Night Even tho The "emenent" Climate change Scientist said its the CO2 The other Scientits were at Pains to point out , That people even other Scientists Have Doubts , Zeffer thats waht there banking On I think that The Techknolgy gets better its going to take years to change things , Nothing happens over night The flying Squirrel: I thought thats what Science was all about , Having healthy scepissim , In the Claims of other Scientists , Would you Call other Scientists , Tin foil Hat wearers , I mean its Rediculas (Edited by The flying Squirrel) The flying Squirrel: No I dont know Much about Science , my old Man Did tho , he was instrmental in Devolping Xrays in the Olden days Delvolping them for public Use , He was also a Surgon , He would Just Laugh at you for Making such Stupid Claims , Yes He Even Went to the Holy Grail of The Universe , The United States  Where he Taught them AchillesSinatra: "I thought thats what Science was all about , Having healthy scepissim" - TheFlying Squirrel Well, that's the party line ... one which is belied by almost everything they say. In the video below, Richard Dawkins (0:18), tells us: "... so where science is filled with doubt, skepticism, willingness to learn, openness to correction, faith is exactly the opposite". YouTube Try asking Dawkins about his skepticism towards neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, say. You're likely to find more skepticism embodied in pilgrims circling the Kaaba in Mecca. (Edited by AchillesSinatra) theHating: yes, we invite you to promote christian ideologues on a climate change thread under in the name of exposing science as a religion.. smh theHating: before you exclaim, "but im not! read my post idiot". we already know. im just inviting you sarcastically because we already know where this is going The flying Squirrel: What Now What are you On About , Why do People kepp Twisting Things  , I said back there No I dont belive it , Nothing to do with Christian Idologs , I also Said If the Tecknolagy Improves Its the Way to Go Cos Other wise we would be living in Industrial England with Smoke Stacks every where , theHating: if achilles was anything but a denialist, he wouldnt waste so much time promoting fallacies to rescue a creationist argument, instead he probably would invent something, or improve upon a theory, thats how a skeptic operates in the context of understanding the difference in psychology. scientists are the only people that do science. pure and simple. | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |
