• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An example of the consensus in science that AGW is real.

mak2 said:
Facts and scientific data have a liberal bias.
Click to expand...
No, it's the interpretation and data correction that has a liberal bias.

The majority of academia clearly has political bias. I can see liberals being blind to this as they thing they are in the middle.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Well yeah, because Conservatives still argue "evolution is 'just a theory'" and argue for creationism. I guess when you sink that low in the intellectual field(s)...
Click to expand...
Evolution is just a theory that may prove to be wrong. Creationism? In the pure form as believed of in dogma I would say is clearly wrong. However, I'm not going to rule out intelligent design, but because of statistics or bias.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Evolution is just a theory that may prove to be wrong. Creationism? In the pure form as believed of in dogma I would say is clearly wrong. However, I'm not going to rule out intelligent design, but because of statistics or bias.
Click to expand...

Evolution could be wrong but it is highly unlikely given the overwhelming amount of evidence to support it and none yet presented to the contrary. What do statistics / bias have to do with ID?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Evolution could be wrong but it is highly unlikely given the overwhelming amount of evidence to support it and none yet presented to the contrary. What do statistics / bias have to do with ID?
Click to expand...

Just because in our understanding of the unknown, we believe in something, that doesn't make our belief 100% fact.

Today, we would be like Gods to ancient cultures. We are increasingly closer to creating different species in genetics. Rumors of past Gods. What if the myths we have aren't just stories, but based in facts of the past?

Bottom line is, we don't know. A true scientist doesn't rule out other possibilities, but supports his theories by definitively ruling out all other possibilities. Nobody can say Intelligent Design is ruled out, especially the concept the ID might actually be a process of guided evolution.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Just because in our understanding of the unknown, we believe in something, that doesn't make our belief 100% fact.

Today, we would be like Gods to ancient cultures. We are increasingly closer to creating different species in genetics. Rumors of past Gods. What if the myths we have aren't just stories, but based in facts of the past?

Bottom line is, we don't know. A true scientist doesn't rule out other possibilities, but supports his theories by definitively ruling out all other possibilities. Nobody can say Intelligent Design is ruled out, especially the concept the ID might actually be a process of guided evolution.
Click to expand...

Nope, beliefs aren't even close to facts. Glad we agree.

In the same way, a true scientist doesn't assert claims without evidence to support the claim. So, where is the evidence ID might be the process of guided evolution? So far, experimentally, abiogenesis is looking much stronger of hypothesis than ID ever though about being. Should we make a Simon-Ehrlich-like wager?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
So far, experimentally, abiogenesis is looking much stronger of hypothesis than ID ever though about being.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I'm not saying ID is strong. I'm only pointing out it cannot be ruled out.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I agree, and I'm not saying ID is strong. I'm only pointing out it cannot be ruled out.
Click to expand...

It's getting close. The more ground abiogenesis gains, the more ID loses. To my knowledge, ID research is not even being conducted, even by Behe or Dembski.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What world do you live in?
Click to expand...

The one where virtually all climate scientists and papers on climate science agree that AGW is real.

As opposed to the reality you live in, where you just proved those scientists wrong by simple math at your kitchen table.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I agree, and I'm not saying ID is strong. I'm only pointing out it cannot be ruled out.
Click to expand...

OF COURSE it can't be ruled out.

Neither can we rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster being the master designer.

It's not science when you assume the initial origin is magic.
 
Threegoofs said:
Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.
Click to expand...
Really?:lamo

An Open Letter to Dr. Marcia McNutt, new Editor-In-Chief, Science Magazine

Posted on August 4, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
 
Jack Hays said:
Really?:lamo

An Open Letter to Dr. Marcia McNutt, new Editor-In-Chief, Science Magazine

Posted on August 4, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
Click to expand...

You're sure laughing a lot today. Hope the rubber room is treating you well. I guess if you're typing that means they removed the restraints.


I'm sure an open letter from a guy who has no science background berating the editor of the AAAS flagship journal will be noted for what it's worth.

Here's Willies qualifications, BTW.

http://www.desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach
 
Threegoofs said:
You're sure laughing a lot today. Hope the rubber room is treating you well. I guess if you're typing that means they removed the restraints.


I'm sure an open letter from a guy who has no science background berating the editor of the AAAS flagship journal will be noted for what it's worth.

Here's Willies qualifications, BTW.

Willis Eschenbach | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that you can't wish consensus into existence.:peace
 
Threegoofs said:
You're sure laughing a lot today. Hope the rubber room is treating you well. I guess if you're typing that means they removed the restraints.


I'm sure an open letter from a guy who has no science background berating the editor of the AAAS flagship journal will be noted for what it's worth.

Here's Willies qualifications, BTW.

Willis Eschenbach | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...
So?

It's pretty sad when people outside the field can smell the BS in the field...
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Well yeah, because Conservatives still argue "evolution is 'just a theory'" and argue for creationism. I guess when you sink that low in the intellectual field(s)...
Click to expand...



Why do people continually compare real sciences to AGW Science?

It's like comparing a favorite performance of music to a howling pack of dogs.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
It's getting close. The more ground abiogenesis gains, the more ID loses. To my knowledge, ID research is not even being conducted, even by Behe or Dembski.
Click to expand...



Just playing Devil's advocate here, but who is to say that the the Intelligence that made the design did not design in adaptability?
 
Threegoofs said:
OF COURSE it can't be ruled out.

Neither can we rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster being the master designer.

It's not science when you assume the initial origin is magic.
Click to expand...




What caused the Big Bang?
 
Threegoofs said:
When you talk about consensus, it means among scientists, not wannabes.
Click to expand...



A question that is asked in the article posted is wondering why the cooling of the Little Ice Age was followed by warming which in turn was followed by an increase in CO2.

Nobody has answered this using AGW Science.

The article notes the same silence.
 
Threegoofs said:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (its actually the Big Boil Theory).
Click to expand...


This response is everything that all of my experience in discussing topics with you has taught me to expect.
 
code1211 said:
Why do people continually compare real sciences to AGW Science?

It's like comparing a favorite performance of music to a howling pack of dogs.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it's not? As a biologist, the climate scientists go through the same things I have to with grant applications, data collection, analysis of this data, peer-review and publication.

code1211 said:
Just playing Devil's advocate here, but who is to say that the the Intelligence that made the design did not design in adaptability?
Click to expand...

Lack of evidence. Do keep up with the scientific method.

code1211 said:
What caused the Big Bang?
Click to expand...

Begging the question. Why do you fallaciously presuppose a cause? FYI, Threegoofs answer carries as much merit as anything you could hypothesize, too.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Are you saying it's not? As a biologist, the climate scientists go through the same things I have to with grant applications, data collection, analysis of this data, peer-review and publication.



Lack of evidence. Do keep up with the scientific method.



Begging the question. Why do you fallaciously presuppose a cause? FYI, Threegoofs answer carries as much merit as anything you could hypothesize, too.
Click to expand...



As a biologist, you are probably held to a standard which demands that assertions that can be proven or falsified. AGW Scientists have the unique scientific allowance to be able to make predictions that are never checked for accuracy and assigning causes where no such assignment is justified by proof.

The evidence for adaptability existing is that it exists. What the origin of that adaptability might be is not known whether by science or religion. The acceptance of one theory over the other is only done by faith. Are you asserting that you know the exact and certain cause of life? I was not aware that this had been nailed down. How much life have you created in your lab?

So now we are saying that things happen without a cause? What branch of biology asserts magic to be real? Can you please provide an example of something in the real world that has happened without a cause? The flying spaghetti monster and God are not that dissimilar. That is why I asked the question. If there is no hard and fast scientific answer, those who find comfort in a supreme being are justified in finding it.

Does Science choose an answer to be correct because it's as good as anything I could hypothesize? I mean non-AGW Science?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom