Global Warming, Evolution And The Big Bang - Staggering Number Of Americans Doubt Accepted Science.

originally posted by: incoserv
a reply to: theantediluvian
(I meant i]ad hominem above, not straw man. Sorry, it's late.)

And.... Yet another ad hominem. They seem plentiful here tonight.

The real pity is that an amazing number of Americans accept as fact scientific ideas that are only THEORIES.

None of these ideas - global warming, evolution, or the big bang - are, in fact, fact. They are all THEORIES.

How about EQUIVOCATION since you're doing a run down of logical fallacies. The word "theory" in everyday speech does not have the same meaning as it does in science and is more akin to a hypothesis. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: charlyv
Most people who deny mainstream science, never studied it in the first place. That makes it all the easier to believe in controversial theories because you have nothing to measure them against. If you really think that science has been lying to you, you might consider learning enough about it in order to be able to argue against it. That would be rather scientific... don't you think?

I understand what you're getting at, someone once told me that dog crap taste great and I should try it, so I decided to make of study of dogs to be sure I wouldn't be making a mistake. My scientific study concluded if it didn't pass the smell test I wasn't going to put it in my mouth.

I just can't allow scientist to overcome my common sense without a credible amount of evidence, of which Global Warming/Climate Change has little. It has never passed the smell test.

originally posted by: incoserv
a reply to: charlyv

And that is what is known as an AD HOMINEM ATTACK. It is employed by people who have no factual leg on which to stand in a discussion. The idea is to draw attention away from the weakness of your argument by launching a personal attack on those who oppose your point of view. Won't work on me. You have just proven that you cannot make a valid argument to defend your point of view.

Ok then. That is fair. Tell you what, I will play the scientist here, and you both come up with a plausible argument that would make the following CO2 percentages chart be something not to be concerned about.




It really does not take much observation to understand that this scenario is non-sustainable, from the standpoint of what known greenhouse gasses are capable of, if left unchecked. Worst of all, if this ratio gets much higher, do you know how much frozen methane is in the ocean sediments, as well as the tundra's of the Earth? All it takes is a few more degrees F, and CO2 will not be the biggest threat anymore....

a reply to: charlyv

Ok so I am going to play the unscientific part and use the commonsense part, performing the smell test.

Taken From CDIAC:
Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods.

If I assume your chart is accurate then I don't see a crisis yet. Where is it the weather has been correlated in conjunction with C02 levels in the thousands of years past?

Secondly They are guessing in my uneducated opinion as to the reason levels have risen. Nowhere does it take in account the effect of volcanic activity, of which there have been quite a bit as of late with an increasing eruptive outlook. How much gas has been measured from volcanic activity from the ocean floor, wonder what the effect of MT Saint Helens had on CO2. Did anyone measure that? Didn't think so, we will then discuss cow farts at a government level as a condition of methane production and it's effect on climate. Has anyone determined the effects of nuke testing in the atmosphere?

Again for some reason we as the United States are being asked as 5% of the worlds population to make adjustments when someone like China does nothing and in some areas their air isn't even considered breathable. They want to stop wood burning in the US, smog controls on motorcycles and lawn mowers, has anyone looked at India? Do you think the UN can stop the poor people of Africa burning wood for heat and food preparation?

Is the rise in CO2 caused only from the people in the US or is the entire world responsible? How much money do they want from us in taxes to "fix this"? Scientist can't even come to agreement on the cause. How do you explain over 30K scientist have signed a petition saying there is no scientific evidence with 9K having PHD's? We continue to beat this to death based on what a completely untrustworthy government tells us is our fault, and their only answer is regulation and tax increases. When you can regulate a volcano and tax the world equally then I will take into consideration 30K scientist are wrong and your scientific opinion worthy.

So we all should believe in "accepted science," huh? What exactly is "accepted science." Just a little over 100 years ago it was "accepted science" that to treat disease, it was required to "bleed" the "bad humors" from a person by opening a vein in their arm to drain the blood. It was "accepted science" that the theory of tectonic movement of continental plates was completely crazy. It was "accepted science" in the 1700s that if you moved at more than 35mph, all the oxygen would be sucked from around you and you would die of asphixiation. Indeed, as late as the 1970s "scientists" warned us of the inevitability of "global cooling."

Now throw in government funding for science. Have you actually read the grant requirement to obtain funding to study "climate change."? It reads like this, "Successful candidates will first prove global warming, then proceed to show its harmful effects." But look here:



Oops! Hmm. Maybe we ought to reconsider, huh? And hey1 Remember "Hide the decline"? What was THAT all about?



Scientists lying to us because if we actually saw the green line, we "might get confused." After all, the green line represents dendrochronology, the analysis of tree-rings, and it is the basics of telling us temperature has "increased" but if tree rings don't show an increase when temperature actually HAS increased, what does that say about their "veracity" in the past? Do you think they're really reliable?

The point here is that "accepted science" is what the government and those with an agenda SAY it is, and it isn't always as "accepted" as they would have you believe. It's just as likely to be political in nature. And here we have caught them in lies and they're still sticking to their stories, but THIS time they have begun to call everyone names, say they ought to be in jail, etc.

They are engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of "arguing the science," but then, they've been caught lying so many times that it is no wonder the public disbelieves them.

And as for the Big Bang, you've got to admit that "The Universe came from nothing" is a bit of a stretch for most people, especially when it us used to counter religion. One has to wonder how long THIS theory will remain at the top of the heap before something else comes along and relegates it to the trash-bin.

The larger issue is, I think, the amazing amount of hubris exhibited by people who cling to their science as if that makes them superior human beings.

I believe in science and the scientific method, too. It's just that it isn't used all that much when addressing the big questions of the day. Instead, politicians use "science" to scare the population into submission.