Science is now cancelled?

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
4,140
Reaction score
2,255
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,1965 Sunbeam Tiger (Stolen, Elk Heart Lake)
It only goes back to 1880 and stops at 2000. That is too small of a sample.

Crichton, in his book, explained this.
Advertisement

 

HoosierDaddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
7,612
Location
Winchestertonfieldville (ok, Scottsdale), AZ
First Name
Randy
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT Premium PP
Bogus chart. There are no long-lived greenhouse gases. We'll all be gone in less than 8 years.

I'm sure you'll insist the green house gases live past us. Take it up with the "if a tree falls...." crowd.
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
3,111
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
It only goes back to 1880 and stops at 2000. That is too small of a sample.

Crichton, in his book, explained this.
This response has more explanatory power than you might think.
 

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
4,140
Reaction score
2,255
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,1965 Sunbeam Tiger (Stolen, Elk Heart Lake)
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.
 

sk47

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
1,842
Reaction score
659
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
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
3,111
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
Messages
4,140
Reaction score
2,255
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,1965 Sunbeam Tiger (Stolen, Elk Heart Lake)
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
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
3,111
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
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
3,111
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
Messages
4,140
Reaction score
2,255
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,1965 Sunbeam Tiger (Stolen, Elk Heart Lake)
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
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
3,111
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.
 

shogun32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
9,531
Reaction score
6,207
Location
Northern VA
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
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
Messages
4,140
Reaction score
2,255
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,1965 Sunbeam Tiger (Stolen, Elk Heart Lake)
Advertisement

 
5 - Hypermotive - 1
Advertisement
Top