02-25-2010, 06:46 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Talk about LDS scientific ignorance. Go on CB and observe attitudes towards climate change. Ignorance on climate change is far more disastrous than ignorance on evolution. Evolution, in spite of its overwhelming evidential support, hasn't yielded much commercial or practical significance.
__________________
太初有道 |
02-25-2010, 08:24 PM | #12 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
My experience shows most non-scientists to be woefully ignorant of the scientific method and process, to have glaring holes in their basic knowledge of scientific principles and observations and to be lacking in an understanding of scientific debates and studies. I include myself in that crowd very often, though, when I slow down and take the time to become informed I can usually follow a debate, even if I lack the requisite skill set to contribute to the debate in a constructive manner.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-25-2010, 08:40 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
Ignorance on climate change, on the other hand...
__________________
太初有道 |
|
02-25-2010, 09:24 PM | #14 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Every scientist accepts evolution, so your silly swipe about the developments is nothing more than trolling. The larger population will have no impact upon climate change, as the evidence seems to suggest. If climate change is anthropogenic, then whatever society at large will impact it. If it has no impact, then tell me how knowledge thereof by a postman matters?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-25-2010, 10:23 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
Almost every scientist accepts evolution. Almost every scientist accepts climate change. Disbelieving evolution is innocuous. It's not that important. Disbelieving climate is potentially disastrous.
__________________
太初有道 |
|
02-25-2010, 10:34 PM | #16 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
if stopping global warming is so important, and the prospects for decreasin energy use are marginal, why aren't environmentalists advocating for other solutions?
Like blocking the sun for example with particles. What if lowering carbon emissions isn't an answer. Then what? |
02-25-2010, 11:47 PM | #17 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Every intelligent scientist accepts evolution. There are significant scientific minds which question whether climate change is anthropogenic. You ignore the most famous one, Richard Lindzen, http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_contrarian/ Spare me the Hollywood histrionics. So far, the evidence is far from persuasive and the recent climategate seems to suggest that those limited few persons in control of the evidence are fudging the numbers in order to control the debate. This scare tactic is beyond your intelligence level. If the odds that climate change is anthropogenic are minuscule, then I don't see any basis for expending large sums at a time when we don't have them. And Mike points out a further flaw. Assuming everything you state might be true for purposes of argument only, what if the proposed solutions really aren't solutions. The fact that the "interested" parties only point to solutions which affect given industries makes me believe in an economic motive, not a scientific motive. Nature is much stronger than man, and sometimes man may be a passing thought for nature.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|