Discussion in 'Economics' started by triggertrader, Jan 17, 2018.
And you know how the Berlin Wall ended.
Reject scientific method?? Lol. Which one? The one supporting the notion that humans cause global warming or the one stating its a hoax? I can quote you many scientific scholars in a broad range of scientific fields relating to global warming that dispute it. This may make easier for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
You are clearly the one "rejecting scientific method."
There are what if's out there if America would have stayed under the British empire and the revolution never have been fought. As you can see in this video it explains the problems that led to America's fall. It really is a must watch
The high flown statements of The Constitution were soon forgotten in the stampede for greed and selfishness that now rule. Whoever thought things like torture would be given official sanction.
Anyway probably those moral values are not practical.
Was America ever GREAT ?
Not really, just another country struggling to exist. Talking of existence, the rather nasty Soviet Empire did in my opinion get very little right or commendable except for one thing. And that was the idea of coexistence. A pity they didn't try harder.
The people of the world live in fear of total annihilation by the leaders of the big powers. The bosses all see moral values as a handicap and continue to waste shedloads of hard earned money on more weapons.
I m still waiting for Humphrey Bogart to come along towing the African Queen.
Perhaps we should first thank this subtle thread for its hidden agenda like the followings.
I'm sorry, I swear you said scientists had come to a "consensus", your word, not mine although it is accurate. And then you quote a Wikipedia article (seriously!) with a very typical title a scientist or engineer would use, The Great Global Warming Swindle (that's sarcasm, btw). Let's just say your version of the scientific method wouldn't have led to any of the technology you used to type that post.
But let's talk about what the scientific method really is because it’s increasingly clear to me that the vast majority of people who dismiss climate change as a “swindle” or “hoax” do so from a position of profound ignorance on how the scientific method works. Science isn’t religion, there is no one right, unchanging answer written by God on a stone tablet. There are a large number of scientists proposing hypothesis and testing them and everyone else in the field reviews those results, attempts to replicate them, extends them, and tries to poke holes in them. Unlike religion, a hero in the scientific world is someone who finds an error in a dominant theory like gravity (yes, that is indeed a theory) at which point the rest of the scientific community coalesces around the new results. What they don’t do is reject the entire theory because someone found an error in it. What they don’t do is call the entire theory a “swindle”, because first off that’s an internet troll word not a scientist word, and more importantly it’s expected that every theory is simply the best explanation we currently have for a phenomenon and we’ll continue to refine it. And this generally has worked to give us everything from the internet to modern medicine.
We’ve seen this movie before. For decades the consensus of scientists who studied smoking was that it caused lung cancer. However politicians, smokers, and even a decent number of scientists questioned that result long after it was established as almost certainly true. And you can still find scientists who question it, both wholesale and at the margins. Eventually, we as the public mostly came to the consensus that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to smoking caused by cancer. There’s a chance we may be wrong, smoking may not cause cancer after all just like humans increasing CO2 levels from 280ppm to 400ppm may have no impact on climate. However most of us have decided that the consequences of the scientific consensus being mostly correct or even partially correct are so dire and the cost of treating those results as if they are mostly correct so minor that we’re going to go with the consensus, ignore the “swindle” and “hoax” people and even the PhDs who reject the entire concept based on a potential flaw in one area, and treat smoking as if it indeed does cause cancer while keeping an open mind to an eventual discovery or discoveries that prove otherwise.
Climate change is exactly that. There is no question we’ve burned trillions of tons of fossil fuels and that has increased CO2 concentrations by over 40% in the past 150 years. There’s no question that global temperatures have risen about 1.8 degrees F in the past 120 years. There’s no question that global sea levels have risen 4-8 inches in the past 100 years. There’s no question that there’s enough ice in the Greenland ice cap to raise sea level by 6 meters, and enough in Antarctica to raise sea levels by 76 meters. There’s no question that increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases acidity of the ocean, it’s a chemistry equation. There’s no question that burning fossil fuels creates a rash of unpleasant consequences from air pollution to fly ash ponds to volatility in prices and wars in the middle east. There’s no question that we could dramatically decrease our use of fossil fuels with far less impact to the economy than if oil was still at 2007 prices.
There is a question as to the extent and rate of future climate change, the impact CO2 has in that, and how fast ice caps will melt and ocean currents will change. The broad consensus of climate science could be a little wrong, it could be significantly wrong, and yet still the consequences would be disastrous and the cost of taking action now to prevent it minimal. If you believe in climate science you say that all signs point to a potential disaster, let’s do what we can to avert that and we benefit even if it turns out we’re wrong. Unless you’re 100% certain that increased CO2 does not cause climate change, and no scientist can be, the only prudent thing to do is to act as if it is a strong possibility, in which case you stop subsidizing fossil fuels and attempt to move to a carbon free economy. Anything else just isn’t rational.
Hello Drew. Back at it again eh? Certainly would expect such an explanation from a landscaper who designs so called “green” jobs.
Sure has been a cold winter. ROFLMAO
PS do you drive a car...truck...or bicycle.
PPSS do use use a fossil fuel truck to haul your landscaping materials around?
What a bunch of nonsense. This has nothing to do with Wiki. It's referencing a documentary. In the documentary there are many respected scientists that are scholars and professors from universities and institutions around the world stating that human emitted C02 is too infinitesimal to cause any change in climate. More importantly they map out a timeline that shows the planet actually cooling during periods of high output of C02 and warming with lower outputs. There was also ice core data showing the exact opposite of what you alarmists and politicians are claiming. So you are no scientist. You need to weigh the evidence as a taxpayer and see if one side of the argument requires people to pay fortunes in "carbon taxes" and destroy jobs. While the other side supports jobs without these taxes and silly horrible waste like "cash for clunkers" or "Solyndra." Those were real winners weren't they?
Listen guy, I have been around. When there is a scientific dispute and one side wants to use their narrative to tax, regulate, destroy jobs and waste resources, I will consider the other side of the argument thank you very much. Oh and lastly keep your grimy dirty fingers out of my pockets. I would really suggest you watch the rise and fall of America .
You might learn something.
America was great. This video brilliantly explains how great it was and why it fell. A must watch.
Separate names with a comma.