Climate Change...Earth Orbit?

[SgtSpiderMan]

Science is never wrong, it gets a re-calibration or a revised theory to roll on.

It is ever changing to fit the facts as is known in whatever present day it happens to be.

But is never out and out wrong.

Well, maybe the flat earth thing and the sun revolving around the earth but...

That's exactly my point. Those beliefs were held in the absecence of science.

 

[1sickbastard]

Again, it is. Unless you can find an instance where science was wrong.

Science is never wrong, it gets a re-calibration or a revised theory to roll on.

It is ever changing to fit the facts as is known in whatever present day it happens to be.

But is never out and out wrong.

Well, maybe the flat earth thing and the sun revolving around the earth but...

Horseshit.

Science is a process of being able to know what is known with high degrees of certainty. It does this through applying logic to observation and controlled experimentation.

The real strength of science is that those who do science are intellectually honest enough to admit when they are wrong. Because there is real value in finding out what one knows is wrong.

Any scientist worth his/her salt is always willing to admit he/she is wrong in the face of demonstrable evidence, which results in modifying accepted theory or positing new hypothesis which better explain the preponderance of evidence and provides better predictive power than the old theory.

 

[phrodeau]

Horseshit.

Science is a process of being able to know what is known with high degrees of certainty. It does this through applying logic to observation and controlled experimentation.

The real strength of science is that those who do science are intellectually honest enough to admit when they are wrong. Because there is real value in finding out what one knows is wrong.

Any scientist worth his/her salt is always willing to admit he/she is wrong in the face of demonstrable evidence, which results in modifying accepted theory or positing new hypothesis which better explain the preponderance of evidence and provides better predictive power than the old theory.

Absolutely.

Show me the data.

 

[luvslingerie200]

Because ecology is not climatology.

I'm sure if he were banging the Climate Change drum....his credentials would be without question

 

[phrodeau]

I'm sure if he were banging the Climate Change drum....his credentials would be without question

Doesn't matter either way, if he doesn't show his work.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

BS. The left, especially the environmental community regularly attacks the credentials of political rivals. It's just a fact of life.

That is irrelevant if true; either a claim about climate change is supported by climate science or it is not. Yours are not.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Horseshit.

Science is a process of being able to know what is known with high degrees of certainty. It does this through applying logic to observation and controlled experimentation.

The real strength of science is that those who do science are intellectually honest enough to admit when they are wrong. Because there is real value in finding out what one knows is wrong.

Any scientist worth his/her salt is always willing to admit he/she is wrong in the face of demonstrable evidence, which results in modifying accepted theory or positing new hypothesis which better explain the preponderance of evidence and provides better predictive power than the old theory.

Lying isn't part of science.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Not when that support is fueled by, and slavishly supports, a comically useless "political" agenda visible to all.

I'll bite, what's the political agenda?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I'm sure if he were banging the Climate Change drum....his credentials would be without question

That hasn't happened.

 

[Que]

He didn't say it had.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

He didn't say it had.

You just can't avoid ascribing someone a position.

 

[Que]

Uh, I just corrected your ascription. That is not ascribing.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Uh, I just corrected your ascription. That is not ascribing.

I didn't do any ascribing. You still don't read well.

 

[Que]

Are you able to communicate with humans in your day to day life? Just curious.

 

[phrodeau]

Are you able to communicate with humans in your day to day life? Just curious.

That's a hoot, coming from you.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Are you able to communicate with humans in your day to day life? Just curious.

Very easily. Most humans actually listen/read what I say or write. You struggle immensely with most of the people on this board because you don't read and write well, or you choose not to read what people write and respond anyway.

 

[1sickbastard]

Lying isn't part of science.

Eating doughnuts isn't part of the science either.

What's your point?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Eating doughnuts isn't part of the science either.

What's your point?

It's that lying isn't part of science.

 

[1sickbastard]

It's that lying isn't part of science.

Yeah, you said that.
Who said lying was part of science?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Not when that support is fueled by, and slavishly supports, a comically useless "political" agenda visible to all.

All scientists want research grants, from government or wherever else they can get them. Individual scientists might have their politics, but that is the only common political agenda shared by scientists in any field.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Not when that support is fueled by, and slavishly supports, a comically useless "political" agenda visible to all.

You mean like when oil companies, Koch brothers, coal energy companies fund "climate science" research that predictably releases findings that support their funding sources agenda?

 

[unregistered]