It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

page: 4
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Your right, I agree.

Just wanted to clarify a few things.



@VVD

I don't believe you!




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Hmmm. Facts are interpreted wrong quite often, this is a common problem. They are also misapplied a lot on things they have no relevance to.. They can also be applied to something opposite of what they have been applied to. It seems that interpretations are based on personal gain sometimes.

Everybody seems to be doing this, I can't understand how people can misapply information so easily. I can't understand why people repeat these interpretations without actually investigating both sides of the issue on their own with an open mind.

But occasionally they are applied correctly and the evidence match the interpretation and are relevant.

Oh well, that is just the way it is and I guess if everything was applied right and interpreted correctly I wouldn't have much interest in this sort of stuff.

The fact is though, we need to be taking better care of the planet we live on. Carbon footprint is just a small part of the problem
edit on 13-5-2015 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: gspat
Of course I realize this, but wonder why those who create the models don't. Science says that if you test your hypothesis with a model and the results turn out to be wrong, then the hypothesis and the model are wrong. A new hypothesis needs to be made and a corresponding model needs to be developed.

I don't see this happening.

If fact, I see quite the opposite... People still champion the existing hypothesis/models even though the model's results don't reflect real world results.


Are you SURE this is the case and not just the media telling you that it is the case? Have you actually LOOKED at these supposed incorrect models to see how they are incorrect and that they aren't being updated with newer models? Or are you letting some media outlet tell you that is the case?


At first I was. But honestly, lately I haven't had the time, energy or access to data sets that I used to. The results though, show something in the models isn't right.

Even if I still did, and came up with a hypothesis/model that was closer to real world results, I suspect that I would be told to "Get Stuffed" due to not having pertinent qualifications.



If you don't follow the tenets of science, are you really doing science?


No, that is called pseudo-science (electric universe, ghost hunting, ufology, etc).


Don't have a full picture of our past? - ALIENS DID IT!

Don't have a full picture of how our climate works? - HUMANS DID IT!

Both seem to have enough quasi-somewhat-believable information attached.

Unfortunately, that's what I'm leaning towards...



The other issue I see is that, with respect to climate science at least, data has been lost over time (I'm not talking about data being manipulated to create more data points, because I can see why it's been done). This can't be helpful in creating either a hypothesis or a model to test the real world against.


So? Data is lost in all sciences. Look at evolutionary sciences. Scientists are doomed to forever work with an incomplete fossil record because just about all dead organisms decompose to nothing and very few actually fossilize. That doesn't mean that the scientists' conclusions are inherently wrong though.


Right, totally agree! But, we also don't throw away fossils because we need more shelf space either. New hard drives were so hard to come by they couldn't get some IT guy to back it up?

I'm not saying that the conclusions are totally wrong either... But at the same time I can't say they are correct either. So far I'm not sure I would consider the conclusions they have reached to be anywhere close enough to being accurate to base any kind of conclusions on. But that's a conundrum for me to figure out for myself, I suppose.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
It's funny how so many religious folk claim their religion is fact, while projecting the mentality that science is faith based to the rest of us. What a joke. People like this are the reason why the article was written in the first place, and it's just downright comical when dozens flock to this thread and justify the article completely.

Let's step back for a second and look at this. These science deniers log onto the internet (an invention based on scientific knowledge and testing), using a computer system (product of science), that runs on electricity (harnessed via scientific knowledge), and then use it as a platform to discount science as just faith. Is that not hypocrisy? If you wish to deny science and live with your head buried in the sand, I have no issue with that, just stop using products of science to make your life better. It's like eating a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich with extra cheese and butter for breakfast every morning and spending your day preaching about how unhealthy it is.


not denying scence just the FAITH arrogant scientist have in it having all answers. humans are falliable. dont scientist go off on religious people for a book written by a man? so its hypocritical to not do so at theories written by other men. you have faith in the results right? why they could be ultimately wrong.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I haven't lost my faith in science but I have been losing my faith of scientists.
Here's what I look for to believe in a scientific "fact".

- Who payed for the research
- What was the hypothesis
- Who gains from the results at hand
- What answers did the other researches in the same field come to
- As the scientist been proven a liar and by who

I see constant attacks from the media to bash critical thinkers claiming they are anti-science and anti-progress but I will not fall for it. I have my own mind, my own opinions and since I know that the world runs on money, profit, deceit, wars and power I have every rights to not believe whatever "fact" they shove down our throats.
edit on 13-5-2015 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: gspat
At first I was. But honestly, lately I haven't had the time, energy or access to data sets that I used to. The results though, show something in the models isn't right.


There is usually always something wrong with the models. If there wasn't then the science would be finished, and I don't know about you, but I've never heard of any field of science claiming to be finished.


Even if I still did, and came up with a hypothesis/model that was closer to real world results, I suspect that I would be told to "Get Stuffed" due to not having pertinent qualifications.


You can't help elitism, but if your ideas and evidence backing them are sound and you are persistent with getting your message out, then eventually you should be able to get through. There is another poster on these boards, Peter Vlar, who has a story about a similar situation as you just described where he was initially rejected then eventually science came around to accepting his ideas. I'm not going to steal his thunder cause I'm sure he'll be around in this thread eventually, so you should ask him about it.


Don't have a full picture of our past? - ALIENS DID IT!

Don't have a full picture of how our climate works? - HUMANS DID IT!

Both seem to have enough quasi-somewhat-believable information attached.

Unfortunately, that's what I'm leaning towards...


That's not really what scientists are saying though. Scientists admit that the climate DOES change naturally. When it comes to climate change though, scientists are concerned with the changes that are going above and BEYOND the natural changes. These changes are the ones that are attributed to humans (because that is the best guess given what we know about carbon and our production of carbon).


Right, totally agree! But, we also don't throw away fossils because we need more shelf space either. New hard drives were so hard to come by they couldn't get some IT guy to back it up?

I'm not saying that the conclusions are totally wrong either... But at the same time I can't say they are correct either. So far I'm not sure I would consider the conclusions they have reached to be anywhere close enough to being accurate to base any kind of conclusions on. But that's a conundrum for me to figure out for myself, I suppose.


I think the consensus is that humans are doing SOMETHING to the climate due to our carbon output and it isn't good. All the models and predictions that go along with this idea are just scientists' best guesses as to what the result of all this is going to be. But look at our weather prediction ability, sometimes variables that we didn't account for happen and the weather doesn't end up being accurately predicted. Though other times it does (we only tend to complain about the times the weather is incorrectly predicted but ignore all the times that the forecast is correct).

Our best hope is to just collect more data and use it to further refine our models. HOWEVER, people like the ones discussed in the OP are preferring to have this idea that it is completely wrong without actually looking at the science, what is confirmed, what isn't confirmed, and why this things are so and just dismiss it off hand. Then they use this dismissal to pretend like it isn't worth researching and getting a better understanding of. This is ludicrous. If climate science is wrong, then how are you going to prove it if you aren't going to put any money towards funding research for climate science?
edit on 13-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Barcs
It's funny how so many religious folk claim their religion is fact, while projecting the mentality that science is faith based to the rest of us. What a joke. People like this are the reason why the article was written in the first place, and it's just downright comical when dozens flock to this thread and justify the article completely.

Let's step back for a second and look at this. These science deniers log onto the internet (an invention based on scientific knowledge and testing), using a computer system (product of science), that runs on electricity (harnessed via scientific knowledge), and then use it as a platform to discount science as just faith. Is that not hypocrisy? If you wish to deny science and live with your head buried in the sand, I have no issue with that, just stop using products of science to make your life better. It's like eating a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich with extra cheese and butter for breakfast every morning and spending your day preaching about how unhealthy it is.


not denying scence just the FAITH arrogant scientist have in it having all answers. humans are falliable. dont scientist go off on religious people for a book written by a man? so its hypocritical to not do so at theories written by other men. you have faith in the results right? why they could be ultimately wrong.


The only people who say that science supposedly has all the answers are science denialists constructing a strawman to discredit science with. I have not met a SINGLE person who seriously studies science that claims that science has all the answers, because if science DID have all the answers then there would be no more reasons to perform science experiments.
edit on 13-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




not denying scence just the FAITH arrogant scientist have in it having all answers. humans are falliable.


What is the exact definition of faith that ou are using? Here are the definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary can you please indicate which one of the definitions you believe apply?



Full Definition of FAITH

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
— on faith
: without question



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
It's obvious this satire is directed at "global warming deniers" ............ um, I meant "climate change deniers" .......... oh correction, "climate disruption" deniers. There, now that's settled.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Climate Science isn't the only science denied by the ignorant.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

aetheist will tell you that man/science has all the answers.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

B2 and 3 minus the religious peice.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

aetheist will tell you that man/science has all the answers.


I'm not sure what an aetheist is, but if you meant atheist that is ridiculously untrue and another strawman. Though, even if you can find an example of an atheist saying that, who cares? That person is an idiot. All that matters is if scientists say that, and they aren't.

I challenge you to find an example of ONE scientist saying that science has all the answers.
edit on 13-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

If you're going to try and strawman, at least get the terminology right.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bilk22

Climate Science isn't the only science denied by the ignorant.


You mean to say that science thinks it can predict the future by past events. WHen something un expected happens that throws their predictive model in the sink though. COmpare this to weathermen predicting the weather. Hit and miss at best

No one is denying the climate changes,but they do deny the FAULTY DATA fed into a flawed model. WHy is it flawed? could it be that its not a real planet/climate?



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

There are two different B 2s which one of them do you believe applies?

Number 3 is ": something that is believed especially with strong conviction".



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Yes science does try to predict the future using past events, but science also knows that it may not be aware of all the variables that should go into the prediction. So naturally unexpected things happen. The weather is a good example. Though keep in mind, like I told the other poster, the weather is guessed correctly more times than not. We just remember the wrong guesses more than the correct ones.

Stop pretending that science's models are perfect. They aren't and science doesn't claim they are. That's why they want to continue researching, so they can further refine the models and make more accurate predictions.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Stephen hawkings who recently said he is aetheist. Thinks everything can be explained with science.

Does science explain everything

Theres a few example i think of science can explain it all.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: yuppa

There are two different B 2s which one of them do you believe applies?

Number 3 is ": something that is believed especially with strong conviction".


I think you know which one,but its B2(2)

And 3 apparently 97 percent of scientist(if this was a voting poll id say it is a lie btw) strongly believe in the theory and say its settled. Anytime science claims something is settled it is suspicious because they declare it fact by not trying to disprove it even if they dont say specifically its a fact.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


Really, Stephen Hawking is 'aetheist'??


From one of pages from your link....


The Bible is accepted as an inspired chronicle of mankind's search for existence, meaning and moral guidance by virtually all Christian denominations and also by the Jewish faith, whose Bible is the Old Testament. Muslims also read portions of the Old Testament, although these are secondary to the Qur'an. Even among those who believe the Bible to be the word of God, most are willing to accept that the Bible has some imperfections, such as translation errors, copyist errors, omissions and questionable inclusions, and, in any event, the Bible was never intended to be read primarily as a scientific or historical treatise -- see Bible-science and Bible-inerrant. But others disagree, insisting on viewing the Bible as a perfect, complete and "inerrant" repository of God's word. Many such persons view the findings of modern science to be an affront to religion in general and the authority of the Bible in particular.


www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...

I would not look there for science...
edit on 13-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join