Notre Dame Football News And Talk  


Come check out the news feed! DD Front Page

Go Back   Notre Dame Football News And Talk > Message Board > Open Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-16-2018, 06:21 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default Bill Gates Recruiting Heads of States to Stir Action Against Climate Change

https://www.newscientist.com/article...arming-planet/
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

  #2  
Old 10-16-2018, 06:45 PM
coltssb coltssb is offline
Member
Domer Domain Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,026
Default

Iím firm believer that the we are having some type of global warming. Not just because of the kooky weather that everyone is receiving now but because of Neil Tyson Degrasse. He spoke about this very thing. Iím paraphrasing because I donít have the quotes, but said we rely on scientist for lots of things. They can even predict a comet to the second of when it will cross your sky, but when we tell you itís happening, itís a hoax. Good point.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:17 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coltssb View Post
I’m firm believer that the we are having some type of global warming. Not just because of the kooky weather that everyone is receiving now but because of Neil Tyson Degrasse. He spoke about this very thing. I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have the quotes, but said we rely on scientist for lots of things. They can even predict a comet to the second of when it will cross your sky, but when we tell you it’s happening, it’s a hoax. Good point.
So just because something may be happening, I'm a hoaxer because I disagree with the causes attributed to it by the "mainstream"? Remember 30-40 years ago when global cooling was a thing? Some things are not understood well enough, such as the natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and how that affects climate in the immediate and long term.

Not trying to insult you coltssb btw. There has been a lot of bad science, corruption, and plain old BS when it comes to this topic and how one agenda, which has been completely politicized, has been forced down people's throats. To question it, even among rational scientists, gets you labeled as a denier and will discredit you from ever being taken seriously. NDT unfortunately has fallen firmly into that crowd.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:42 AM
Synoptico Synoptico is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
So just because something may be happening, I'm a hoaxer because I disagree with the causes attributed to it by the "mainstream"? Remember 30-40 years ago when global cooling was a thing? Some things are not understood well enough, such as the natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and how that affects climate in the immediate and long term.

Not trying to insult you coltssb btw. There has been a lot of bad science, corruption, and plain old BS when it comes to this topic and how one agenda, which has been completely politicized, has been forced down people's throats. To question it, even among rational scientists, gets you labeled as a denier and will discredit you from ever being taken seriously. NDT unfortunately has fallen firmly into that crowd.
What is the downside to becoming more green and limiting greenhouse gases? Even if scientist are wrong as you believe, wouldnt you rather error on the side of them being right?
__________________
Please consider supporting Make A Wish and my fundraising goal.
http://site.wish.org/site/TR/Friends...pwtf1qqgjf0nn1

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-17-2018, 02:42 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synoptico View Post
What is the downside to becoming more green and limiting greenhouse gases? Even if scientist are wrong as you believe, wouldnt you rather error on the side of them being right?
Im all for not leaving the outdoors looking like a dump, wanting clean water and the like. Those ideas should be encouraged. But its a big leap to say those things are affecting the climate in some measurable way hot or cold.

Erring on the side of caution can also cause irreparable harm too. Carban dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases people bring up, yet it is the basic food source for Earths entire ecosystem. Studies from ice cores and the like show that our CO2 level isnt high at all compared to samples taken over a very long period of time. The Earth actually seems to be steadily decreasing those levels for an unknown reason even before the rise of civilization. Is that good or bad? No one seems to know. But we arent really contributing to it. If anything putting CO2 back into the atmosphere in a small way could have benefits.

Again erring on the side of caution means what? Believing cow farts or some other BS is causing something or that the cash grab that is carbon credits will do what they say it will?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-17-2018, 03:14 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,048
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Im all for not leaving the outdoors looking like a dump, wanting clean water and the like. Those ideas should be encouraged. But its a big leap to say those things are affecting the climate in some measurable way hot or cold.

Erring on the side of caution can also cause irreparable harm too. Carban dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases people bring up, yet it is the basic food source for Earths entire ecosystem. Studies from ice cores and the like show that our CO2 level isnt high at all compared to samples taken over a very long period of time. The Earth actually seems to be steadily decreasing those levels for an unknown reason even before the rise of civilization. Is that good or bad? No one seems to know. But we arent really contributing to it. If anything putting CO2 back into the atmosphere in a small way could have benefits.

Again erring on the side of caution means what? Believing cow farts or some other BS is causing something or that the cash grab that is carbon credits will do what they say it will?
Well cows produce methane which is way worse than co2, reason why mass produced cows produce methane is the type of artificial grass they are fed. So yeah the whole system impacts the environment. If cows were to live off the natural land you wouldn’t have this discussion they would fart like every other species.

Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 10-17-2018 at 03:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:28 AM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synoptico View Post
What is the downside to becoming more green and limiting greenhouse gases? Even if scientist are wrong as you believe, wouldnt you rather error on the side of them being right?
I'm not sold on global warming . years ago, the midwest had tornados, southeast had hurricanes, northeast had blizzards, southwest had droughts and the west had earthquakes. They just wasn't filmed or had 24 hour news trying to kill time.

I have learned over the years that experts aren't always experts. According to some experts in the 80's and early 90's, earth would be uninhabitable by now. Yet here we are.

That said, what harm is erring on the side of caution?

I swear, if the left said people should drink more water, half of the republican party would be hospitalized with dehydration.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-17-2018, 01:08 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
Well cows produce methane which is way worse than co2, reason why mass produced cows produce methane is the type of artificial grass they are fed. So yeah the whole system impacts the environment. If cows were to live off the natural land you wouldnít have this discussion they would fart like every other species.
No argument about cows and the natural feed. Our cows and the extended families livestock were primarily grass fed in pastures, supplemented with some treats like corn or oats. Farm raised beef or really anything is the way to go, big reason I love being where I am.

I still have to disagree with how much impact they have on climate change specifically.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-17-2018, 02:17 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
So just because something may be happening, I'm a hoaxer because I disagree with the causes attributed to it by the "mainstream"?
Alright, let's take this beat by beat:

Quote:
Remember 30-40 years ago when global cooling was a thing?
Nope, that was a Time magazine headline and was mostly spread by the media. Most peer-reviewed scientific papers were firm that the earth is warming, not cooling

Quote:
Some things are not understood well enough, such as the natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and how that affects climate in the immediate and long term.
These things are very well understood, including the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; this has been established for over 120 years

Quote:
Not trying to insult you coltssb btw. There has been a lot of bad science, corruption, and plain old BS when it comes to this topic and how one agenda, which has been completely politicized, has been forced down people's throats. To question it, even among rational scientists, gets you labeled as a denier and will discredit you from ever being taken seriously. NDT unfortunately has fallen firmly into that crowd.
So what bad science is there? Do you have a source?
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-17-2018, 02:24 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Im all for not leaving the outdoors looking like a dump, wanting clean water and the like. Those ideas should be encouraged. But its a big leap to say those things are affecting the climate in some measurable way hot or cold.
No one has said that keeping the water clean will help climate change (although it couldn't hurt)

Quote:
Erring on the side of caution can also cause irreparable harm too. Carban dioxide is one of those greenhouse gases people bring up, yet it is the basic food source for Earths entire ecosystem.
No scientist is refuting this fact either

Quote:
Studies from ice cores and the like show that our CO2 level isnt high at all compared to samples taken over a very long period of time.
Again, no scientist has ever said it wasn't warmer before or that the CO2 levels weren't higher before. The problem is the speed at which things are changing

Quote:
The Earth actually seems to be steadily decreasing those levels for an unknown reason even before the rise of civilization. Is that good or bad? No one seems to know. But we arent really contributing to it.
Which studies are showing this? Please provide a peer-review paper that says CO2 levels are decreasing

Quote:
If anything putting CO2 back into the atmosphere in a small way could have benefits.
What benefits are there?


Quote:
Again erring on the side of caution means what? Believing cow farts or some other BS is causing something or that the cash grab that is carbon credits will do what they say it will?
Methane from cow farts and CO2 have been established as greenhouse gases for 120 years
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"

Last edited by Franco; 10-17-2018 at 02:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-17-2018, 02:28 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
I'm not sold on global warming . years ago, the midwest had tornados, southeast had hurricanes, northeast had blizzards, southwest had droughts and the west had earthquakes. They just wasn't filmed or had 24 hour news trying to kill time.
And?

Quote:
I have learned over the years that experts aren't always experts. According to some experts in the 80's and early 90's, earth would be uninhabitable by now. Yet here we are.
Sources?
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-17-2018, 04:33 PM
Pregame's Avatar
Pregame Pregame is offline
Member
Domer Domain Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Corbys
Posts: 4,549
Default

I'll go ahead and say it: You're an *sshole if you do not understand global warming. Similar to being an *sshole if you believe the Earth is flat or that Pepsi is better than Coke.

Happy?
__________________
My current signature has unexpectedly transferred....
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:04 PM
irishwavend's Avatar
irishwavend irishwavend is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Happiest Place on Earth, FL
Posts: 6,402
Default

Great....

1) Empirical evidence says climate change is questionable and not nearly as close to being the great catastrophe the left argues.

2) The models are crap - garbage in = garbage out on the data.

3) There is no scientific method being employed, because any dissent is squashed and not honestly considered...a key element of the scientific method. Instead, liberal professors seeking free money from grants have appropriated the term "science" to continue their crusade.

4) If we can't survive climate change, how do we EVER expect to colonize the solar system?

The hysteria is a joke that is supported by the world's worst hypocrites and a mob of mainly ignorant people who know nothing of the substance behind the issue...just a headline. I have seen numerous colleagues come out of college, grow in their understanding of the world, and then convert from advocating against climate change to becoming ambivalent about the hysteria. Yes, it's good practice to recycle and pick up and use resources wisely, but the hysteria is unnecessary.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:07 PM
irishwavend's Avatar
irishwavend irishwavend is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Happiest Place on Earth, FL
Posts: 6,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pregame View Post
I'll go ahead and say it: You're an *sshole if you do not understand global warming. Similar to being an *sshole if you believe the Earth is flat or that Pepsi is better than Coke.

Happy?
Typical. Understanding global warming is not as simple as a bunch of liberal arts majors make it out to be. Its not more than a political football to be carried around. The only people claiming the world is flat are the global warming advocates who don't understand real science, because, again, they're liberal arts majors meaning they have no real technical skills except the ability to write, which is even questionable...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:11 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishwavend View Post
Great....

1) Empirical evidence says climate change is questionable and not nearly as close to being the great catastrophe the left argues.
Where is this empirical evidence? Can you link us to a credible source?

Quote:
2) The models are crap - garbage in = garbage out on the data.
Again, what models specifically? source?

Quote:
3) There is no scientific method being employed, because any dissent is squashed and not honestly considered...a key element of the scientific method. Instead, liberal professors seeking free money from grants have appropriated the term "science" to continue their crusade.
lol oh great...this argument again...instead of screaming that it's a conspiracy, why not address the facts that are put forth by the world's scientists?

Quote:
4) If we can't survive climate change, how do we EVER expect to colonize the solar system?
I completely agree with you! We need to focus on this planet and not look to colonize others

Quote:
The hysteria is a joke that is supported by the world's worst hypocrites and a mob of mainly ignorant people who know nothing of the substance behind the issue...just a headline. I have seen numerous colleagues come out of college, grow in their understanding of the world, and then convert from advocating against climate change to becoming ambivalent about the hysteria. Yes, it's good practice to recycle and pick up and use resources wisely, but the hysteria is unnecessary.
These aren't headlines. Sure the average person may not have read the thousands of peer-review papers supporting the premise of man-made climate change and its dangers, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:12 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishwavend View Post
Typical. Understanding global warming is not as simple as a bunch of liberal arts majors make it out to be. Its not more than a political football to be carried around. The only people claiming the world is flat are the global warming advocates who don't understand real science, because, again, they're liberal arts majors meaning they have no real technical skills except the ability to write, which is even questionable...
You're absolutely right...climate change is VERY complicated....so shouldn't we leave it to the experts that individually, have dozens of years of experience in the field?
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:24 PM
Pregame's Avatar
Pregame Pregame is offline
Member
Domer Domain Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Corbys
Posts: 4,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishwavend View Post
Typical. Understanding global warming is not as simple as a bunch of liberal arts majors make it out to be. Its not more than a political football to be carried around. The only people claiming the world is flat are the global warming advocates who don't understand real science, because, again, they're liberal arts majors meaning they have no real technical skills except the ability to write, which is even questionable...
Listen sweetheart, I think you meant to say It's*. If you're going to question anyone's ability to write, take a look at your own work first. You're a lawyer, you know not to hand in the first draft of anything.

Also, this isn't a political issue. Nor did I make it a political issue. It is a fact that the Earth is experiencing increasing average temperatures (See: NASA- https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/). It's (see how that works?) FoxNews fed lap dogs, like yourself, who claim there's political motive, liberal bias, and George Soros sponsored boogeymen feeding this false narrative of Global Warming. Seriously, what does creating a fake Global Warming issue accomplish? Cui bono.

It is not a political issue. It is not a debatable issue. The environment is something that needs to be monitored, addressed, and hopefully, altered before it is too late.

Not that me typing anything on my keyboard is going to change opinions, but please, go to unbiased sources, look at the raw data, and try to see the numbers for what they are; not what the Koch Brothers want you to see. As mentioned, what is the harm in trying?
__________________
My current signature has unexpectedly transferred....
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:27 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
And?
And things are sensationalized for ratings. I can't say for certain whats true or not but I have recently seen the cable media hype 2 hurricanes (faking strong winds and all) but seem as though they couldn't care less about the people devastated in the aftermath. They know what gets the ratings


Sources?[/quote]

Source is I saw an old politically incorrect show on youtube where some weather expert claimed disaster by 2010. It's easy to project into the distant future.

I used to work outdoors as a youngster and would rely on the weather man to let me know if I needed an umbrella. I got wet many a days. Now I know weather and climate are 2 different things but if you can't tell if it's gonna rain in 2 days, don't tell me you can predict climate 30 years down the line.

I have a really old set of encyclopedias and it's fascinating to read what "expert" knew in those days compared to today. Like Gorillas cannot live in captivity for example.

I remember watching the OJ trial and they presented a "glove expert". Really? He just happen to work in sales.

As a kid I grew up being taught in school that boys and girls act differently because boys are taught to play sports and be tough while girls are given dolls. Today we know that you can raise a boy as a girl or vice versa but they still may identify with the gender they are born into.

is Pluto a planet or not? My old encyclopedias says "what is a Pluto?"

Like I said, it may all be true but I'm not jumping in with both feet just yet.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:31 PM
corysold's Avatar
corysold corysold is offline
Tenured
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cortland, IL
Posts: 13,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
Sure the average person may not have read the thousands of peer-review papers supporting the premise of man-made climate change and its dangers, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening
Just because it is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it is right.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/edi...of-peer-review

The peer-review system for academic papers is badly in need of repair
http://theconversation.com/the-peer-...f-repair-72669

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Reviewís Big Problems
https://newrepublic.com/article/1359...s-big-problems

Modern Scientists Are Wrong Far More Than You Think
https://psmag.com/education/scientists-are-wrong-a-lot

The "ether" where light traveled was science fact, until it wasn't.

The Earth being flat was science fact, until it wasn't.

Pluto was a planet, until it wasn't.

The Universe's expansion couldn't be speeding up, until it was.

Flies were thought to be spontaneously created, until they weren't.

Smoking was good for you, until it wasn't.

That isn't to say that Global Warming might not be exactly what current science says it is. But "Peer reviewed papers say it is true" doesn't exactly mean it is true.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:38 PM
Pregame's Avatar
Pregame Pregame is offline
Member
Domer Domain Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Corbys
Posts: 4,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corysold View Post
Just because it is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it is right.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/edi...of-peer-review

The peer-review system for academic papers is badly in need of repair
http://theconversation.com/the-peer-...f-repair-72669

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Reviewís Big Problems
https://newrepublic.com/article/1359...s-big-problems

Modern Scientists Are Wrong Far More Than You Think
https://psmag.com/education/scientists-are-wrong-a-lot

The "ether" where light traveled was science fact, until it wasn't.

The Earth being flat was science fact, until it wasn't.

Pluto was a planet, until it wasn't.

The Universe's expansion couldn't be speeding up, until it was.

Flies were thought to be spontaneously created, until they weren't.

Smoking was good for you, until it wasn't.

That isn't to say that Global Warming might not be exactly what current science says it is. But "Peer reviewed papers say it is true" doesn't exactly mean it is true.
The knowledge that the Earth is a sphere predates the invention of paper, so it is very unlikely that "the Earth is flat" was in any peer-reviewed paper of note.
__________________
My current signature has unexpectedly transferred....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:48 PM
corysold's Avatar
corysold corysold is offline
Tenured
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cortland, IL
Posts: 13,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pregame View Post
The knowledge that the Earth is a sphere predates the invention of paper, so it is very unlikely that "the Earth is flat" was in any peer-reviewed paper of note.
I didn't say that was peer reviewed. But it was science fact at the time.

Again, I'm not saying Global warming doesn't exist, I don't know, the evidence seems to be it is without definitive proof of why. But I also know that scientists aren't dumb and they know how to follow the money. The US government spent 32 BILLION dollars on global warming research between 1989 and 2009. If the first few results were, "Nope, not happening", that is a lot of money that wouldn't have gone into the pockets of the scientists.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-17-2018, 06:21 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
And things are sensationalized for ratings. I can't say for certain whats true or not but I have recently seen the cable media hype 2 hurricanes (faking strong winds and all) but seem as though they couldn't care less about the people devastated in the aftermath. They know what gets the ratings

Source is I saw an old politically incorrect show on youtube where some weather expert claimed disaster by 2010. It's easy to project into the distant future.
You're absolutely right...things are sensationalized for ratings...but I noticed your sources aren't actually scientific papers...I'm agree with you that we should take what the media says with a grain of salt. But I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about the actual scientists doing the research and publishing the papers

Quote:
I used to work outdoors as a youngster and would rely on the weather man to let me know if I needed an umbrella. I got wet many a days. Now I know weather and climate are 2 different things but if you can't tell if it's gonna rain in 2 days, don't tell me you can predict climate 30 years down the line.
You're absolutely right. We can't predict what the weather will be like in two days (super annoying), but it's actually easier to predict with longer timeframes. I like to use this analogy. We're unable to predict next week's weather right? But we are able to know for certain that it will get colder in two-three months...and then get warmer again 3 months after that

Quote:
I have a really old set of encyclopedias and it's fascinating to read what "expert" knew in those days compared to today. Like Gorillas cannot live in captivity for example.

I remember watching the OJ trial and they presented a "glove expert". Really? He just happen to work in sales.

As a kid I grew up being taught in school that boys and girls act differently because boys are taught to play sports and be tough while girls are given dolls. Today we know that you can raise a boy as a girl or vice versa but they still may identify with the gender they are born into.

is Pluto a planet or not? My old encyclopedias says "what is a Pluto?"

Like I said, it may all be true but I'm not jumping in with both feet just yet.
I assume these anecdotes are meant to argue that we shouldn't believe everything scientists say. On some level, that is true, but when it's the scientific method that proves things wrong that were once thought of as fact, that argument really goes out the window.

Scientists can change their mind based on new evidence. However, when it comes to climate change, it first started with the link between CO2 and temperature back in the 1800s. Then in the 1920s-30s, Scientists then say that the CO2 that man is dumping into the atmosphere may cause the earth to warm. And since then, there have been thousands of papers that confirm that premise
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-17-2018, 06:48 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corysold View Post
Just because it is peer reviewed, doesn't mean it is right.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/


When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/edi...of-peer-review


The peer-review system for academic papers is badly in need of repair
http://theconversation.com/the-peer-...f-repair-72669

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems
https://newrepublic.com/article/1359...s-big-problems
Sure, peer-review isn't perfect, but again, when thousands of papers support the premise of man-made climate change and its dangers, this argument is invalid in this instance

And just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean we shouldn't use and trust it. All of those examples that these articles point out were exposed by other scientists; so that's the peer-review process actually working

Quote:
Modern Scientists Are Wrong Far More Than You Think
https://psmag.com/education/scientists-are-wrong-a-lot
Ok...Every scientist says this. It's not a secret lol. In the very same article, it states the following: "However imperfect and error-prone science is, it remains our best tool at getting to the truth. The thing is, scientists are wrong so often not because they are clumsy, lying, or stupid. Scientists are wrong so often because the questions they ask are difficult ones—scientists seek truth, and truth is rare and elusive."

Quote:
The "ether" where light traveled was science fact, until it wasn't.

The Earth being flat was science fact, until it wasn't.

Pluto was a planet, until it wasn't.

The Universe's expansion couldn't be speeding up, until it was.

Flies were thought to be spontaneously created, until they weren't.

Smoking was good for you, until it wasn't.

That isn't to say that Global Warming might not be exactly what current science says it is. But "Peer reviewed papers say it is true" doesn't exactly mean it is true.
Really quick...how did we prove those once facts, into falsehoods? I'm fairly certain it was the scientific method and peer-review that proved those things wrong

To rebut a specific example:
Quote:
The Earth being flat was science fact, until it wasn't.
Actually, it was religion that stated the earth was flat, and people blindly followed it until someone used the scientific method to prove it wrong
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-17-2018, 06:50 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,453
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corysold View Post
I didn't say that was peer reviewed. But it was science fact at the time.

Again, I'm not saying Global warming doesn't exist, I don't know, the evidence seems to be it is without definitive proof of why. But I also know that scientists aren't dumb and they know how to follow the money. The US government spent 32 BILLION dollars on global warming research between 1989 and 2009. If the first few results were, "Nope, not happening", that is a lot of money that wouldn't have gone into the pockets of the scientists.
The evidence absolutely shows definitive proof that climate change is real and manmade

Also, in terms of money...how much money has the US government spent subsidizing the oil industry. You can't just pull the conspiracy card...address the evidence
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:01 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
You're absolutely right...things are sensationalized for ratings...but I noticed your sources aren't actually scientific papers...I'm agree with you that we should take what the media says with a grain of salt. But I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about the actual scientists doing the research and publishing the papers
I don't have any published papers. I'm just a message board guy with an opinion. If we're just going to our corners citing "experts" that share our views then the discussion is pointless. I assume you can provide published papers and peer reviewed article but if I can't ask them questions, it does me no good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
You're absolutely right. We can't predict what the weather will be like in two days (super annoying), but it's actually easier to predict with longer timeframes. I like to use this analogy. We're unable to predict next week's weather right? But we are able to know for certain that it will get colder in two-three months...and then get warmer again 3 months after that
it's not that simple. We learned about the earth rotating on it's axis and revolving around the sun in grade school. We all can see and understand seasons. But I guess your scientist are telling us that seasons as we know it will change due to climate change. If predicting longer time frames were easier then we should know when our last day will be or thereabouts. Like I said earlier, I say a guy with a fancy title say by 2010 we were gonna be wiped out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
I assume these anecdotes are meant to argue that we shouldn't believe everything scientists say. On some level, that is true, but when it's the scientific method that proves things wrong that were once thought of as fact, that argument really goes out the window.

Scientists can change their mind based on new evidence. However, when it comes to climate change, it first started with the link between CO2 and temperature back in the 1800s. Then in the 1920s-30s, Scientists then say that the CO2 that man is dumping into the atmosphere may cause the earth to warm. And since then, there have been thousands of papers that confirm that premise
So what you are saying is there is a chance that scientist may change their mind?.

I get it. But I think you are talking as if you are lecturing in a classroom, I'm talking like we're in a bar. From an everyday standpoint, I see wine is good for you and then bad, same with red meat. My older relatives lived without being gluten free, they drank from a creek and could shake hands without purel and many of them lived a long life.

I respect the hell out of what you are saying and i'm not saying we shouldn't do better but this planet is pretty tough and I don't know if our actions are just a drop in a bucket.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Also visit IrishEnvy, our Notre Dame Football partner site

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:48 AM.

Last Updated: June 26, 2019

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.