Young People Really Are Stupid

[Dittohead not!]

All science is debatable. That is one of the things that makes it science. When all debate has ended it ceases to be science and has become religion instead. Only religion is never debated.

No.

Science is not debatable, but disprovable. You don't disprove a scientific theory by debate, but by showing new facts that disprove that theory. Unsupported opinions have no effect on scientific theories.

 

[marke]

Glitch vs. every scientific organization on Earth.

I think I'll go with the latter.

Correction: Glitch and every reasonable scientific organization on earth which recognizes the many flaws in popular global warming narratives vs. every dummass organization blindly tied to the unscientific foolishness being politically falsely promoted as irrefutable settled science.

 

[Lovebug]

Correction: Glitch and every reasonable scientific organization on earth which recognizes the many flaws in popular global warming narratives vs. every dummass organization blindly tied to the unscientific foolishness being politically falsely promoted as irrefutable settled science.

Scientists have worried about climate change for a long time. They have a reason. Back in the day they argued cooling vs warming. We have made huge strides since then, but part of the world, and it is a global issue, is not where we are, yet. I do wish that our young people would hold actual evil doers accountable, even in nations where gathering in the streets takes more of a heroic effort than here, where it is so convenient.

 

[marke]

Scientists have worried about climate change for a long time. They have a reason. Back in the day they argued cooling vs warming. We have made huge strides since then, but part of the world, and it is a global issue, is not where we are, yet. I do wish that our young people would hold actual evil doers accountable, even in nations where gathering in the streets takes more of a heroic effort than here, where it is so convenient.

Humans did not wreck the weather and humans could not fix it if it had been wrecked.

 

[ataraxia]

All science is debatable. That is one of the things that makes it science. When all debate has ended it ceases to be science and has become religion instead. Only religion is never debated.

Well OK then, on that we agree. But some science, like climate change science, is considered well-established- whereas others, not so much.

What makes the distinction? And do you agree with those who claim that any debate or uncertainty in a particular scientific idea means the idea is not real science?

 

[ataraxia]

Humans did not wreck the weather and humans could not fix it if it had been wrecked.

Says who?

 

[ataraxia]

They are the ones claiming they will not have children until countries get serious about climate change but they don't define what get serious means. What has to be done in order for them to agree to have children? What are their demands?

The "get serious" is going to take a lot of debate, negotiation, and compromise among competing (but equally legitimate) concerns and considerations. It's not going to be easy.

But before that can even happen, we have to stop denying the facts. It's hard to argue when one side thinks the whole thing is just a Chinese hoax or something.

 

[marke]

Says who?

Certainly not a deluded sun worshipper.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Older people support a crook and conman and then make fun of young people. That's hilarious.

 

[Moderate Right]

The "get serious" is going to take a lot of debate, negotiation, and compromise among competing (but equally legitimate) concerns and considerations. It's not going to be easy.

But before that can even happen, we have to stop denying the facts. It's hard to argue when one side thinks the whole thing is just a Chinese hoax or something.

No one denies that global temps are increasing and it is effecting the planet. That is a myth fabricated by the left. Sure, there may be a few wackos out there but 99% of everyone understand that global temps are increasing. We can't have a serious discussion on the topic when the left accuse the right of denying science and then go off talking about crazy stuff like the Green New Deal with a price tag of 93 trillion dollars and wanting to rebuild every home, business, and skyscraper in America, have us quit eating meat, and getting rid of airplanes. You need to quit sniffing the glue and have a serious discussion. And these teens need to quit talking in generalities and list their demands in order to have them agree to have children.

 

[ataraxia]

No one denies that global temps are increasing and it is effecting the planet. That is a myth fabricated by the left. Sure, there may be a few wackos out there but 99% of everyone understand that global temps are increasing. We can't have a serious discussion on the topic when the left accuse the right of denying science and then go off talking about crazy stuff like the Green New Deal with a price tag of 93 trillion dollars and wanting to rebuild every home, business, and skyscraper in America, have us quit eating meat, and getting rid of airplanes. You need to quit sniffing the glue and have a serious discussion. And these teens need to quit talking in generalities and list their demands in order to have them agree to have children.

So what are your thoughts on the claim that global warming is just a Chinese hoax?

 

[Dittohead not!]

No one denies that global temps are increasing and it is effecting the planet. That is a myth fabricated by the left. Sure, there may be a few wackos out there but 99% of everyone understand that global temps are increasing. We can't have a serious discussion on the topic when the left accuse the right of denying science and then go off talking about crazy stuff like the Green New Deal with a price tag of 93 trillion dollars and wanting to rebuild every home, business, and skyscraper in America, have us quit eating meat, and getting rid of airplanes. You need to quit sniffing the glue and have a serious discussion. And these teens need to quit talking in generalities and list their demands in order to have them agree to have children.

Here's someone who denies that global temperatures are increasing:

Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?

Climate change is a myth. We all know this, deep down. Some of you reading this may have been taken in by the fear-mongering governments or corrupt scientists so have been brainwashed into thinking climate change is a real thing that “threatens all of humanity” or some other nonsense, but it’s just that: nonsense. When you look closely at it, the so-called evidence for climate change, or “global warming” or “warmageddon” or “planetary death spiral” or whatever they’re calling it these days, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

The anti science crowd once would have agreed pretty unanimously with the above. Now that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, they've shifted to "Sure, we always knew that global warming was real, but it's not caused by humans."

 

[Glitch]

Well OK then, on that we agree. But some science, like climate change science, is considered well-established- whereas others, not so much.

What makes the distinction? And do you agree with those who claim that any debate or uncertainty in a particular scientific idea means the idea is not real science?

"Climate Change" science is hardly well-established, having never existed more than 40 years ago. There wasn't a single university anywhere on the planet that had a degree program for climate change by 1980. Your so-called "Climate Change" science is also based upon a deliberate lie, that humanity is responsible for the climate. Everything is premised upon that lie, so that when anything happens climate-wise that we don't like we can simply blame it on humanity. As with all deliberate lies, there is no evidence to support this supposition, and lots of evidence to refute it, but as long as leftists find man-made climate change a convenient vehicle for their Marxist redistribution of wealth, the scam will continue.

I do not agree with those who claim that any debate or uncertainty in a particular scientific idea means that it is not real science. Real science is always debated and repeatedly tested. Even Einstein's General and Special theories on Relativity from over a century ago are still being tested today. Einstein's theories have proven to be extremely accurate, thus far, but at what point will they fall apart? Or will they fall apart? Without continual testing and debate those are questions that cannot be answered.

There hasn't even been an established correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. We have periods in our planet's history when atmospheric CO2 was 4 to 5 times higher than today, and mean surface temperatures plummeted 10°C below normal. And periods in history when atmospheric CO2 was below current levels and mean surface temperatures rose to the highest levels recorded in the last 600 million years. Some claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in mean surface temperatures. While others claim that temperature increases lag increases in atmospheric CO2 anywhere from 400 to 800 years.

There is no cohesive theory, just a lot of wild and inaccurate speculation about what 0.00008% (the 0.2% human contribution to the 0.04% CO2) does to the planet. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with this. Science can be very messy and it needs to be sorted out. However, we are massively impacting our economy and being deprived of our liberties over this Marxist scam in the name of science, and that I object to strongly.

You have to ask: Why is the ONLY solution to all their climate change problems solved with massive increases in taxes and massive increases in the size and scope of government?

 

[Glitch]

Older people support a crook and conman and then make fun of young people. That's hilarious.

I know exactly what you mean, but there is no explaining Hillary supporters. They are clearly mentally deranged.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I know exactly what you mean, but there is no explaining Hillary supporters. They are clearly mentally deranged.

As you support a politician, a politician who is bribing another country for his own personal gain.

After cheating on his multiple baby mamas and having to be bailed out financially by his mommy and daddy.

No honor. No integrity.

 

[ataraxia]

"Climate Change" science is hardly well-established, having never existed more than 40 years ago.

So what? Neither did the standard model of particle physics or immunomodulatory biologic agents for the treatment of autoimmune disorders. Science can move pretty fast. Doesn’t mean it’s not solid science.

There wasn't a single university anywhere on the planet that had a degree program for climate change by 1980. Your so-called "Climate Change" science is also based upon a deliberate lie, that humanity is responsible for the climate.

Nope. There are multiple lines of evidence for it. Are you familiar with carbon radioisotope measurements to measure the human impact, for example? Cool stuff.

Where did you hear it’s a lie?

I do not agree with those who claim that any debate or uncertainty in a particular scientific idea means that it is not real science. Real science is always debated and repeatedly tested. Even Einstein's General and Special theories on Relativity from over a century ago are still being tested today.

Sure-by the scientific community. And there is still some debate at the vanguard of the topic among them. But that doesn’t mean laypeople with no formal education or experience can question the science because they are worried it will mean for their taxes.

There is no cohesive theory, just a lot of wild and inaccurate speculation about what 0.00008% (the 0.2% human contribution to the 0.04% CO2) does to the planet

There is SOME uncertainty in the predictions, just like there is some uncertainty in predicting the path of a hurricane. But I wouldn’t ignore the predictions altogether and say hurricanes are just a Chinese hoax. The uncertainty actually seems to lean toward the side of more, not less, caution.

You have to ask: Why is the ONLY solution to all their climate change problems solved with massive increases in taxes and massive increases in the size and scope of government?

No, that has not been the ONLY solution. There have been others, like some very clever free market solutions. What we decide to do with the facts is not at all a settled issue. But we can’t question the facts because we are worried about what we think it will mean for taxes. Would the science be more acceptable to you if you knew it wouldn’t impact your taxes?

 

[Glitch]

As you support a politician, a politician who is bribing another country for his own personal gain.

After cheating on his multiple baby mamas and having to be bailed out financially by his mommy and daddy.

No honor. No integrity.

Wow! Now you are referencing the impeached Slick Willy. You really must be desperate to go back 20 years. ROFL!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well, actually there's more to it than the language. It's the violence and corruption. In much of Latin America, a man can outright rape a woman and get away with it

SDET wet dream in

 

[Glitch]

So what?

You claim the science is well established, I demonstrate that it isn't, and you say "So what?" Seriously?

Nope. There are multiple lines of evidence for it. Are you familiar with carbon radioisotope measurements to measure the human impact, for example? Cool stuff.

Where did you hear it’s a lie?

You just stated the lie, it is always "to measure the human impact." Never to see if there IS a human impact. The lie is that there MUST always be a human impact.

Sure-by the scientific community. And there is still some debate at the vanguard of the topic among them. But that doesn’t mean laypeople with no formal education or experience can question the science because they are worried it will mean for their taxes.

It does actually. Einstein's theories never taxed a single individual or deprived anyone of their liberties. Whenever "science" does that, it needs to be questioned by everyone because that isn't science. That is politics. The IPCC is a government body making political decisions based upon the premise and deliberate lie that humanity is always the culprit and needs to be punished.

There is SOME uncertainty in the predictions, just like there is some uncertainty in predicting the path of a hurricane. But I wouldn’t ignore the predictions altogether and say hurricanes are just a Chinese hoax. The uncertainty actually seems to lean toward the side of more, not less, caution.

When you have 50 years of documented evidence that absolutely every prediction made by these climate change nutjobs has been flat out wrong. Not just by a small margin either, but they weren't even in the ballpark wrong. New York City was suppose to be under 20 feet of water by 2010. We were all suppose to be dead by 1997. How did those "scientific" predictions pan out?

No, that has not been the ONLY solution. There have been others, like some very clever free market solutions. What we decide to do with the facts is not at all a settled issue. But we can’t question the facts because we are worried about what we think it will mean for taxes. Would the science be more acceptable to you if you knew it wouldn’t impact your taxes?

We most certainly can and should question any so-called fact if it deprives us of our liberties. Which has been the sole goal of this climate change scam. There has been no "free-market" solution, because you haven't sold the "free-market" that it is real. The businesses who are into marketing "green energy" products are heavily subsidized by government who gets their money from the taxpayer. Once again proving that climate change is nothing more than a means to scam taxpayers out of their money and further deprive them of their liberties.

 

[ataraxia]

I have never heard of feared tax impact being a determinant of what is considered good science. Science gets established regardless of feared tax concerns by the public.

The first climate change model just turned 50, and was almost perfect in its predictions.
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate change science has now reached the statistical certainty of p<0.05, the gold standard of scientific certainty.
It's Official: Human-Caused Climate Change Has Now Reached 'Gold Standard'

Accepting the science does not mean we are going to be communists or that your taxes are going to go up. What we do about it is going to be a long discussion, weighing numerous often competing, but equally legitimate, concerns and interests. But it’s an important discussion to have. And we can’t have it if one side just denies the facts and overwhelming evidence because they think they know what it means for their taxes. That’s just an ostrich with its head in the sand

 

[Glitch]

I have never heard of feared tax impact being a determinant of what is considered good science.

The first climate change model just turned 50, and was almost perfect in its predictions.
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate change science has now reached the statistical certainty of p<0.05, the gold standard of scientific certainty.
It's Official: Human-Caused Climate Change Has Now Reached 'Gold Standard'

Accepting the science does not mean we are going to be communists or that your taxes are going to go up. What we do about it is going to be a long discussion, weighing numerous often competing, but equally legitimate, concerns and interests. But it’s an important discussion to have. And we can’t have it if one side just denies the facts and overwhelming evidence because they think they know what it means for their taxes. That’s just an ostrich with its head in the sand

When you highjack science for political purposes you only hurt both science and your cause. Because of the deliberate lies that you continue to use to indoctrinate children you are raising a generation that will eventually turn on you and science when they discover the depth of your deception. All just to feed your desire for more power. I truly do fear for our future. It will take multiple generations to recover from these deceptions before they will ever consider science to be credible again. Your ilk will be the cause for why humanity ceased technological development for the next several centuries.

In 1920 scientists were 100% certain that the universe was no larger than the Milky Way galaxy. Then in 1922 Edwin Hubble proved them all wrong. Like I said before, when you believe there is no room for debate then it isn't science, it has become your religion.

 

[JustHanging]

I have never heard of feared tax impact being a determinant of what is considered good science. Science gets established regardless of feared tax concerns by the public.

The first climate change model just turned 50, and was almost perfect in its predictions.
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate change science has now reached the statistical certainty of p<0.05, the gold standard of scientific certainty.
It's Official: Human-Caused Climate Change Has Now Reached 'Gold Standard'

Accepting the science does not mean we are going to be communists or that your taxes are going to go up. What we do about it is going to be a long discussion, weighing numerous often competing, but equally legitimate, concerns and interests. But it’s an important discussion to have. And we can’t have it if one side just denies the facts and overwhelming evidence because they think they know what it means for their taxes. That’s just an ostrich with its head in the sand

Good, solid, interesting links. Thank you.

 

[ataraxia]

When you highjack science for political purposes you only hurt both science and your cause. Because of the deliberate lies that you continue to use to indoctrinate children you are raising a generation that will eventually turn on you and science when they discover the depth of your deception. All just to feed your desire for more power. I truly do fear for our future. It will take multiple generations to recover from these deceptions before they will ever consider science to be credible again. Your ilk will be the cause for why humanity ceased technological development for the next several centuries.

In 1920 scientists were 100% certain that the universe was no larger than the Milky Way galaxy. Then in 1922 Edwin Hubble proved them all wrong. Like I said before, when you believe there is no room for debate then it isn't science, it has become your religion.

There is no debate right now in the scientific community that water=H2O. Does that mean it’s a religion? Would water stop being H2O and the science more questionable if the lay public started to worry it might have potential tax consequences for them?

You are confusing scientific certainty and facts with proposals for what to do about it. The first is science. The second is politics. Just because you may not like some of the proposals so far in the latter should not have anything to do with the former.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Wow! Now you are referencing the impeached Slick Willy. You really must be desperate to go back 20 years. ROFL!

No, this is all Donald Trump.

The corrupt and sleazy politician that you protect every day.

No honor. No integrity.

 

[Moderate Right]

So what are your thoughts on the claim that global warming is just a Chinese hoax?

I already answered that question. Please reread my post you quoted.