Sponsored

Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Threads
102
Messages
10,360
Reaction score
8,495
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,
This response has more explanatory power than you might think.
Read the book, he started out trying to prove it was real and came up with the opposite.
Sponsored

 

sk47

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Threads
27
Messages
4,968
Reaction score
2,334
Location
North Eastern TN
First Name
Jeff
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
False analogy.
Clearly anyone who believed that the Earth was the centre of the solar system, let alone the universe, hadn’t done much (if any) observation. Once proper observation began, the truth was revealed. Note well that religion didn’t like the idea much.

So, it was religious dogma, being spouted by ignorant people, that permeated what was “known”. The worst part is, they’re still doing it (Spouting ignorant nonsense that is).

Actual observation and measurement proved the accepted idea to be wrong.

Guess what all of the relevant scientific fields have been doing for many decades now? That’s right, gathering data and evidence, formulating theories, testing them and then presenting the math that backs the ideas.
They’ve been overturning what the previously ignorant people (all of us) thought to be true.

Is it dogma that gives us graphs like the one below or is it the result of decades of observation, experiments and physics?

Seems to me that if it were dogma, the margin of error surrounding each gas wouldn’t exist.
In fact, if it were dogma, the scientists could just make things up. Just invent numbers out of thin air. No need for research, just fill the voids in our knowledge with whatever you prefer to believe. Right?

17BA2722-FF37-449E-9E61-669EA1AB46B8.jpeg
Hello; Afraid you missed the point or chose to act so. Of course the authorities of that time are not quite the same as today.
Another analogy I like to use is when someone tries to tell me the 2nd amendment of the USA means we should only be allowed single shot muzzle loaders since that was what the founding fathers had. I contend that if modern weapons had been around they would have had them. They had the most high tech available for the time.

My point was that the majority in charge had a view they favored. It just also happened it was a time when religion and government were pretty much the same thing. So yes any authority of the time had a religion component.
I have seen and read of how in todays setups some figure a modification of what is called "science" has become a belief system of sorts, but that was not my point either.

Anyway the point I was making is the truth does not necessarily lie in a consensus. It can if the consensus is about the truth. Truth can also be had by an individual with the correct idea today just as a very few with telescopes many years ago. I am not arrogant enough to think I can personally outdo a slew of paid scientists. I can look thru the literature and published data and see for myself. I use to be a decent shade tree mechanic partly because I could figure out a mechanical system. Not so good at the modern stuff, but I am still learning.
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Read the book, he started out trying to prove it was real and came up with the opposite.
Ok, I can cite a book that shows the opposite. How do we discern the truth?
I can also cite books that make all sorts of outrageous claims, all of it backed by “the evidence”(as far as the author is concerned).

Your inability to understand the scientific method does absolutely nought to cancel it.
 

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Threads
102
Messages
10,360
Reaction score
8,495
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,
Shakes head.

If you would open your mind long enough to read the book you would find all the evidence in reference form along with the sources.
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Hello; Afraid you missed the point or chose to act so. Of course the authorities of that time are not quite the same as today.
Another analogy I like to use is when someone tries to tell me the 2nd amendment of the USA means we should only be allowed single shot muzzle loaders since that was what the founding fathers had. I contend that if modern weapons had been around they would have had them. They had the most high tech available for the time.

My point was that the majority in charge had a view they favored. It just also happened it was a time when religion and government were pretty much the same thing. So yes any authority of the time had a religion component.
I have seen and read of how in todays setups some figure a modification of what is called "science" has become a belief system of sorts, but that was not my point either.

Anyway the point I was making is the truth does not necessarily lie in a consensus. It can if the consensus is about the truth. Truth can also be had by an individual with the correct idea today just as a very few with telescopes many years ago. I am not arrogant enough to think I can personally outdo a slew of paid scientists. I can look thru the literature and published data and see for myself. I use to be a decent shade tree mechanic partly because I could figure out a mechanical system. Not so good at the modern stuff, but I am still learning.
No, I understood your point quite well.
The problem is, you’re doing it backwards. You’re trying to pretend that we’ve always understood the relationship between CO2 and global temp and that the ”geocentrists” are going to overturn the “accepted idea”.

For all but the last fraction of human history, we didn’t have a clue about any of this. The discovery is the same as Galileo’s discovery. It overturns what was assumed (without evidence).

Even when presented with the evidence, you continue to push back against it, just like the church did.

People didn’t understand the truth. Some were content in their ignorance, others asked questions about how the world works, did investigation and revealed answers to the questions that the people before them hadn’t even bothered to ask.

I see one guy here who is particularly averse to asking questions. He also keeps concluding that causes are “natural” (As if to infer that supernatural causes exist?) He would make for a terrible scientist.

”Why is the sky blue?”
”Oh man, that’s just natural”

”Why does it rain?”
”Dude, it’s all just part of the natural cycle”

SMH
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Shakes head.

If you would open your mind long enough to read the book you would find all the evidence in reference form along with the sources.
No, I would find the cherry picked evidence that suits the authors conclusions.
if you’d done your research you’d already be well aware of the objections that have been raised to the book.
Yes, actual climate scientists who understand the premises and the data

 

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Threads
102
Messages
10,360
Reaction score
8,495
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,
Yes, actual climate scientists who understand the premises and the data
You mean the paid by tax payer hacks.

You do know all this was started in the 60's by Al (I invented the internet) Gore.

He took it as his life long political mission.
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
You mean the paid by tax payer hacks.

You do know all this was started in the 60's by Al (I invented the internet) Gore.

He took it as his life long political mission.
Or maybe I meant the scientists who worked for Exxon back in the day?
Strange that they would both reach the same conclusions.
The disinformation campaigns they’ve funded have worked an absolute treat on you.
Money well spent. Results evident right here.
 

Sponsored

shogun32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Threads
89
Messages
14,606
Reaction score
12,094
Location
Northern VA
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
'19 GT/PP, '23 GB Mach1, '12 Audi S5 (v8+6mt)
Vehicle Showcase
2
I think I'm gonna Google how to fly a plane, and then tell the FAA they have absolutely zero idea what they are talking about :captain: You know, cuz "research"
do one better, go call a bunch of flight schools and tell them you want to learn how to fly but not land. With any luck you'll make new friends fast.
 

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Threads
102
Messages
10,360
Reaction score
8,495
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
@sk47
Try this.
It‘s a basic wrap-up of why scientists reached the conclusions they’ve reached.
Papers are cited, you can read them and argue the veracity of the numbers they’re quoting.



Plenty more where that one came from but that’s a fairly succinct version, aimed at the novice.
 

Gregs24

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Threads
23
Messages
4,499
Reaction score
2,831
Location
Wiltshire UK & Charente FR
First Name
Greg
Vehicle(s)
Mustang V8 GT, Ford Kuga PHEV
You mean the paid by tax payer hacks.

You do know all this was started in the 60's by Al (I invented the internet) Gore.

He took it as his life long political mission.
So 'facts' that back up your opinion are 'true facts' and those that don't are a conspiracy funded by 'Al Gore facts'. You do know how incredibly silly you sound :crazy:

It seems you and a certain other well known moron with his 'alternative facts' that change to suit their delusions are pretty similar.

Did it rain or not ? :cwl:
 

Gregs24

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Threads
23
Messages
4,499
Reaction score
2,831
Location
Wiltshire UK & Charente FR
First Name
Greg
Vehicle(s)
Mustang V8 GT, Ford Kuga PHEV
How a plane fly's is proven science, anyone can replicate it.

MMGW not so much.
Completely and utterly incorrect - both are proven, but YOU choose not to accept one of them.

Having said that you do finally seem to be admitting 'MMGW not so much', which is at least acceptance that there is some truth in it. Progress.
Sponsored

 
 




Top