Is global warming bad?
- Thread starter shadeau
- Start date
How come the sky is falling folk, don't push for more trees and greenspace, in that it does assist in scrubbing Co2?
Wouldn't know
I look at the issues and make a decision based entirely on facts... But I realize that if you find a quater on the street you need to turn it over and make sure it is real. This too is one of those issues. One need to look at both sides of the coin to know its value.
I look at the issues and make a decision based entirely on facts... But I realize that if you find a quater on the street you need to turn it over and make sure it is real. This too is one of those issues. One need to look at both sides of the coin to know its value.
It's not odd at all.
The history of science is replete with vigorous debate, in fact the very modus operandi of science demands it. When more and more evidence comes to light, one side almost ivariably peters out. However, be aware that there are still scientists who espouse all kinds of opinions that MOST of the scientific community would denounce as "crackpot".
Does that make those stubborn few wrong? Not always. MOST of the time, however - yep.
But almost all of science is "theory". There really aren't many "facts" in science, just working models.
If you choose to ally yourself against the working model that MOST of the scientific community now indicates is a good one, you do so at your own risk.
One wonders what's to be gained by assuming that everything's rosy and we need not be concerned about the future of the planet.
Hmmmmm .... odd, indeed.
The history of science is replete with vigorous debate, in fact the very modus operandi of science demands it. When more and more evidence comes to light, one side almost ivariably peters out. However, be aware that there are still scientists who espouse all kinds of opinions that MOST of the scientific community would denounce as "crackpot".
Does that make those stubborn few wrong? Not always. MOST of the time, however - yep.
But almost all of science is "theory". There really aren't many "facts" in science, just working models.
If you choose to ally yourself against the working model that MOST of the scientific community now indicates is a good one, you do so at your own risk.
One wonders what's to be gained by assuming that everything's rosy and we need not be concerned about the future of the planet.
Hmmmmm .... odd, indeed.
Basic science is flawed
Take carbon dating for instance. It is based on theory and assumptions. From there they use the unproven theory to apply dates to whatever they choose. But in reality, no one was here several million years ago to doccument things. Yet many will tell you CARBON DATING is an accurate process, yet when pressed on the theory's proof they get angry.
Alot of the same flawed science is being used in the sky is falling theory. Yet some are willing to accept it as fact.
Opinions do vary on this one.
Take carbon dating for instance. It is based on theory and assumptions. From there they use the unproven theory to apply dates to whatever they choose. But in reality, no one was here several million years ago to doccument things. Yet many will tell you CARBON DATING is an accurate process, yet when pressed on the theory's proof they get angry.
Alot of the same flawed science is being used in the sky is falling theory. Yet some are willing to accept it as fact.
Opinions do vary on this one.
LOL
Okay, at least I know where you're coming from.
So, leave science out of defending your side, admit that science agrees with me, and we'll leave it at that.
LOL
No, opinion doesn't vary - basic science is perfectly good.
Oh, mercy.
*wiping a tear*
I could argue with you about carbon dating - like, it's an "unproven" theory - or the fact that "they get angry" when pressed on the details, but there's obviously no point. I suppose you'd just argue that mathematics is a theory, too.
LOL
But, thanks for settling things for everyone.
Okay, at least I know where you're coming from.
So, leave science out of defending your side, admit that science agrees with me, and we'll leave it at that.
LOL
No, opinion doesn't vary - basic science is perfectly good.
Oh, mercy.
*wiping a tear*
I could argue with you about carbon dating - like, it's an "unproven" theory - or the fact that "they get angry" when pressed on the details, but there's obviously no point. I suppose you'd just argue that mathematics is a theory, too.
LOL
But, thanks for settling things for everyone.
No, there's no point. Clearly, you've read about carbon dating, and all I'm going to say is just repeat what you've read about it and disagree.
...... Or, *have* you read anything about carbon dating? Do you even know what it is? LOL What about what you've read bothers you, hmm? I must insist you explain your problem. Otherwise, as I suspect, you know nothing.
...... Or, *have* you read anything about carbon dating? Do you even know what it is? LOL What about what you've read bothers you, hmm? I must insist you explain your problem. Otherwise, as I suspect, you know nothing.
Fact is Ranger,
when using theory to prove theory you have falwed science.
On the reverse a great many discoveries have been made in science by ignoring the fact you need prrof before you proceed with your experiments.
when using theory to prove theory you have falwed science.
On the reverse a great many discoveries have been made in science by ignoring the fact you need prrof before you proceed with your experiments.
There is so much love on these boards. Do you ever wake up and find yourself lonely? I wouldn't be surprised.Ranger68 said:
Sometimes the intellecyual arrogance on this board is mindboggling. I believe everybody is good at something, putting somebody down like this, has absolutely no value.
