Global warming is real.
-
Nuclear power.
Nuclear power.
Is a very viable option. I agree
Seconded. I'm not sure where we are on the 'clean-ness' of it all though - there's still a large amount of waste to dispose of that afaik hasn't been accounted for yet.
-
I'm pretty sure all that stuff is going to happen. It seems everyone wants to believe history began 10 years ago. It seems to me that over just the last few hundred years there have been a complete 360 turn arounds. That's quite a bit considering how long the planet has been here. What like six thousand years or something?
But in a couple hundred years everything will be completely different than it is today. One thing we could do today is switch every light fixture in every stadium factory School Street business office home etc to.led.
that would take probably 90 percent of the burden of of the coal and nuclear and wind and whatever energy producing plants that exist.
But right now, today, fossil fuel is probably the most efficient and cost effective method available. That will change. Right now, at least in my opinion, global warming and the Doom that it might bring is just an excuse for political posturing and more taxation.
regardless of how it's caused and how much and by whom.
WSS
-
now THATS irony!
now THATS irony!
I don't see it...
So, even though I'm the one with a dissenting opinion to the majority opinion on this board most of the time, I'm the one that cant think for himself?
I'm not the one that posts articles around "Mexicans are bad", or from the same 3 conservative sites/blogs every time.... but I'm totally the one that can't think for themselves, lol . OK.
-
Woody, you don't back up what you "think". That means you emotionally take the lib side of things,
without ever having figured out what all the information on an issue really means.
And nobody is "posting articles around "mexicans are bad"...blah blah blah.
Posting articles about BAD mexicans, is saying we have a serious illegal immigration problem.
I know, you don't get it. BTW, you lol at every consonant and vowel in anybody's post you don't like.
Get a grip.
-
Woody, you don't back up what you "think". That means you emotionally take the lib side of things,
without ever having figured out what all the information on an issue really means.
And nobody is "posting articles around "mexicans are bad"...blah blah blah.
Posting articles about BAD mexicans, is saying we have a serious illegal immigration problem.
I know, you don't get it. BTW, you lol at every consonant and vowel in anybody's post you don't like.
Get a grip.
Woody, you don't back up what you "think". That means you emotionally take the lib side of things,
without ever having figured out what all the information on an issue really means.
And nobody is "posting articles around "mexicans are bad"...blah blah blah.
Posting articles about BAD mexicans, is saying we have a serious illegal immigration problem.
I know, you don't get it. BTW, you lol at every consonant and vowel in anybody's post you don't like.
Get a grip.
You are such a hypocritical idiot... my god. I don't even care if I'll get shit for my normal insulting of you.
My god... it is like you post these things you dislike about people you disagree with, but completely miss those characteristics in yourself. It is such a selective view of things it is astounding.
You act like reading an article on the Blaze, which you already know you'll agree with, is "figuring out what all the information on an issue really means".......... jesus christ
In your mind posting an editorial from a conservative blog = backing up what you think but posting scientific articles from real sources = emotional liberal nonsense
You are fucking unbelievable... Part of me still thinks you are just some character, just some guy trolling us at his keyboard.
-
No, woodypeckerhead ass, I have posted a lot of things. Including a report, directly referring to way over
a hundred scientists who strongly disagree with mmgw as fact.
Simply put, you asscrevice woodypeckerhead, you all claim mmgw is FACT. Therefore, credible
evidence to the contrary defeats that.
You can diss the site it comes from, and diss the author reporting, and referring to the facts on the flip side,
and you can whine and bitch and cry and wet yourself over it, but you don't even support your side of things
much at all.
You want me to post anti mmgw stuff from msnbc or the Communist News Network? I doubt they will print
anything - it doesn't fit their narrative.
So, until you can logically criticize the CONTENT OF THE INFORMATION POSTED, you are a lightweight,
a dipsheet, a slime on the belly of a snail on the bottom of the ocean, and you reek of ignorance.
Grow the freakin up.
-
As usual, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and you resort to personal attacks instead of explaining WHY you think what you think.
For like the millionth time, no one said there aren't scientists that you can find that think man made climate change is fake. You can find "scientists" that think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
You don't throw something out completely because we aren't 100% sure, only 90%. That's basically the same logic creationists use. The data is there. The overwhelming majority of qualified scientists have spoken their minds. To ignore climate change completely be cause there are some dissenters is Retarded.
And for your sources, I'm just talking about something other than what amounts to a right wing blog.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Ah. You think "creationism" has to do with the subject of the thread? Global warming?
A fact doesn't have hundreds, and hundreds ? of scientists who reject mmgw.
Therefore, it's a theory. If a N end of a magnet is only attracted to the S end of another
magnet only 85 percent of the time...
would you say it always happens?
Of course you would, if that was the lib narrative of the day, handed down to you by heck.
-
Ah. You think "creationism" has to do with the subject of the thread? Global warming?
A fact doesn't have hundreds, and hundreds ? of scientists who reject mmgw.
Therefore, it's a theory. If a N end of a magnet is only attracted to the S end of another
magnet only 85 percent of the time...
would you say it always happens?
Of course you would, if that was the lib narrative of the day, handed down to you by heck.
Ah. You think "creationism" has to do with the subject of the thread? Global warming?
A fact doesn't have hundreds, and hundreds ? of scientists who reject mmgw.
Therefore, it's a theory. If a N end of a magnet is only attracted to the S end of another
magnet only 85 percent of the time...
would you say it always happens?
Of course you would, if that was the lib narrative of the day, handed down to you by heck.
The rational behind it is the same as what you are doing now, try to keep up.
Or continue with the insults, which by your own words mean you have nothing productive to say.
-
Ah. You think "creationism" has to do with the subject of the thread? Global warming?
A fact doesn't have hundreds, and hundreds ? of scientists who reject mmgw.
Therefore, it's a theory. If a N end of a magnet is only attracted to the S end of another
magnet only 85 percent of the time...
would you say it always happens?
Of course you would, if that was the lib narrative of the day, handed down to you by heck.
Ah. You think "creationism" has to do with the subject of the thread? Global warming?
No, he's using another example of where something is accepted as common fact but there are people who claim to have proof that it is not, and suggesting that the same principal is applying here.
A fact doesn't have hundreds, and hundreds ? of scientists who reject mmgw.
Hundreds of scientists - I don't doubt it. Thousands, probably. Do you know how many scientists are in the world? Millions. Tens of millions, maybe. How small a fraction of them don't accept some form of human-driven climate change as 'fact', or at the very least something worth investigating?
Therefore, it's a theory.
you need to revisit your dictionary. A theory is something that has been unequivocally proven. Something that is suspected to be true but not yet proven is called conjecture.
If a N end of a magnet is only attracted to the S end of another magnet only 85 percent of the time...would you say it always happens?
OK, let's run with the meaningless metaphor. You'd say that if something happens 85% of the time, there's a high probability that it will happen. If 85% of scientists believe in global warming as fact, chances are it's probably fact. These are the dark ages, scientists don't just blithely accept what looks like the truth, for any conjecture to get traction it needs to be explained by theory and backed up by evidence. There is certainly a possibility that the 15% are right, but it's a relatively small possibility, though equally worth investigating.
Of course you would, if that was the lib narrative of the day, handed down to you by heck.
And where's your conservative narrative of the day handed down from?
Please, cal, I'm not here trying to stick up for Woody, but if you're going to attack him personally, do it right. And no, despite this and the other comment I just made, I'm not trying to attack you. You've always been civil with me, even when we disagree (frequently); but the constant abuse of Woody - and anyone who disagrees with you - and the scaremongering about Obama, liberals and anything that is even remotely out of line with your political/religious beliefs is really beginning to grate.
-
-
-
As usual, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and you resort to personal attacks instead of explaining WHY you think what you think.
For like the millionth time, no one said there aren't scientists that you can find that think man made climate change is fake. You can find "scientists" that think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
You don't throw something out completely because we aren't 100% sure, only 90%. That's basically the same logic creationists use. The data is there. The overwhelming majority of qualified scientists have spoken their minds. To ignore climate change completely be cause there are some dissenters is Retarded.
And for your sources, I'm just talking about something other than what amounts to a right wing blog.
The overwhelming majority of qualified scientists have spoken their minds.
http://grist.org/news/l-a-times-wont-publish-climate-denier-letters/
-
gftChris -
No, a theory IS a conjecture. And, btw, I give woodypeckerhead back what he gives out.
All sorts of folks disagree with me, I'm often full of baloney, and have my opinions
without drawing them from politics. I draw them from my own experiences, and all the reading I do.
Then, someone like woody says the opposite to smart off, and then I simply posts some posts
explaining my side of things. That's all. And, I used "theory" correctly (from Wikipedia I think it was:
***************************************************
theory  
Use Theory in a sentence
A
the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
The word theory and its application in science is different, best summed up here:
"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed"
-
It is funny because we've had this conversation a dozen times too...
In what world is hypothesis a synonym of theory? At least in relation to science
-
for a full explanation, vindicating my use of the word, in science...
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/science.html
Like I said, a theory is not fact. Information that contradicts
a theory proves it to be... a theory. Not fact.
-
I do not agree with the use of the word "theory" in that guys report.
The theories are the explanations proposed in step two of the scientific method. Usually the word "theory" is reserved for more than a first attempt, which might be called a "hypothesis." A theory usually has already survived several falsification attempts, and is pretty well accepted. However, I'll use the word theory to mean any explanation of observations.
That would be my main complaint. He uses the words "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably. That seems like a gross oversimplification. A hypothesis is based off of nothing more than your observations and maybe some data. A theory is developed after multiple runs of the scientific method. Multiple experiments, multiple hypotheses, multiple reviews. Using the words interchangeably does not give enough credibility to what a scientific theory actually is.
Saying man made climate change is not a fact is irrelevant, and plays into the exact point I made earlier about how you logic works (like creationism; at least Osiris got the connection). I think Osiris did a pretty good job of breaking it down for you, so I am not quite sure what else I can tell you.
-
It is funny because we've had this conversation a dozen times too...
In what world is hypothesis a synonym of theory? At least in relation to science
It is funny because we've had this conversation a dozen times too...
In what world is hypothesis a synonym of theory? At least in relation to science
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/theory
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Steve, the point here - that I was initially trying to make, way back when! - is that theory, when used in a scientific sense, such as the theory of relativity, evolution etc., means something that has been rigorously tested and widely accepted to be true. In common parlance, theory certainly does just mean an idea. But it's the scientific version we are using here, so when you talk about a 'theory of global warming' it does mean something that's been proven beyond doubt.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login