"Anti-science Bills in the South"

[Subduction Zone]

TLDR. Too much silliness, SZ.

Don't make so many ignorant claims and the answers will be shorter. Perhaps if you concentrate you will be able to understand the refutations.

How about we go over the basics of what is and what is not science? Does that sound reasonable to you?

And that was not a very long post either. You do realize that by calling it "silliness" and refusing to deal with it that you just broke the Ninth Commandment, don't you? You bore false witness against another. Not wise to do if you want to claim that you are a Christian.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

See: Global warming - Wikipedia

Right off the bat there's this, "In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded that "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." "

Plug in the right variables and you can get any results you like, only now, after their embarrassing short range predictions, there and elsewhere, proved false, they've learned their lessons and are making the 50-100 years out now.

Still quoting them after the Climategate (IPCC) disgrace.

Oh, so the research scientists are not stupid, just almost all dishonest. Got it.

If you got your news elsewhere, you'd realize the climatologists were pretty evenly divided on man caused global warming--and I think you're loosing more every day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you got your news elsewhere, you'd realize the climatologists were pretty evenly divided on man caused global warming--and I think you're loosing more every day.

Really? The last I heard it was well over 90% that accept the AGW. Do you have a valid source that supports your claim?


Just to save you some time, from my Google searches I find that 97% of climatologists accept AGW, that is far from being "pretty evenly divided":

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Really? The last I heard it was well over 90% that accept the AGW. Do you have a valid source that supports your claim?

The 97 Percent Solution
"When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded."

Just to save you some time, from my Google searches I find that 97% of climatologists accept AGW, that is far from being "pretty evenly divided":

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

The 97% is not only a myth, it's an absurd myth, which proves Goebbels right. Say something loud enough, and long enough.... But as we see, the Truth is always still out there, no matter how deeply it's buried.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 97 Percent Solution
"When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded."




The 97% is not only a myth, it's an absurd myth, which proves Goebbels right. Say something loud enough, and long enough.... But as we see, the Truth is always still out there, no matter how deeply it's buried.

I asked for a valid source, not a biased political source. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, here is an article that gives the lowest number of scientists that put the blame of global warming on people, its figure is still 91%:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e

This article gives the range among several studies that is claimed. Please note, 97% is not the highest figure:

Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I asked for a valid source, not a biased political source. Try again.

At least National Review doesn't make stuff up. But I'll throw this out there so you can dismiss it out-of-hand as well:
Patrick Moore, environmental activist and former president of Greenpeace, left Greenpeace, criticizing the environmental movement for its scare tactics and disinformation. He's said that the environmental movement has "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism". He could have added politically socialist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least National Review doesn't make stuff up. But I'll throw this out there so you can dismiss it out-of-hand as well:
Patrick Moore, environmental activist and former president of Greenpeace, left Greenpeace, criticizing the environmental movement for its scare tactics and disinformation. He's said that the environmental movement has "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism". He could have added politically socialist.

He was never a president of Greenpeace. You don't know how to read your own articles. And so what? He is not an expert in the field. You picked a nonscience based biased source for your first claim and you fail just as badly in your second claim.

If you refer to experts you need to refer to experts in the field. Meanwhile we know that the Earth has been warming. 2014 was the hottest year to date, then 2015 was the hottest year to date, then 2016 was the hottest year to date. Luckily last year was a little bit cooler than 2016.

Once again, find science based sites, not political ones. Until you do you have lost.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

He was never a president of Greenpeace. You don't know how to read your own articles. And so what? He is not an expert in the field. You picked a nonscience based biased source for your first claim and you fail just as badly in your second claim.

If you refer to experts you need to refer to experts in the field. Meanwhile we know that the Earth has been warming. 2014 was the hottest year to date, then 2015 was the hottest year to date, then 2016 was the hottest year to date. Luckily last year was a little bit cooler than 2016.

Once again, find science based sites, not political ones. Until you do you have lost.

More baseless, declarative statements. He is not only a former president of Greenpeace, he's a co-founder. I realize he's an embarrassment to be ignored, like Climategate et al. but that's your problem, not mine. Maybe you're confusing him with Michael Moore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More baseless, declarative statements. He is not only a former president of Greenpeace, he's a co-founder. I realize he's an embarrassment to be ignored, like Climategate et al. but that's your problem, not mine. Maybe you're confusing him with Michael Moore.

Wrong again. You are just drinking the Kool-Aid now. You should have told me that you had no clue.

Patrick Moore was president of Greenpeace Canada, not of Greenpeace itself. Greenpeace was formed in 1970. Moore joined in 1971. It is pretty hard to be a founder after the organization was already in existence. He was promoted within the ranks rapidly, but he is not honest about his claims:

Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia

ETA: And you still have not found any valid sources that support your claims. I can support mine. I will do so gladly.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

According to the NCSE link, Brandon Haught of Florida Citizens for Science writes in the Orlando Sentinel that

Science education in Florida’s public schools is facing an unprecedented assault that started last year and has the high potential to escalate this year. Evolution and climate change are the targets of a coordinated attack as detractors of these concepts seek to balance lessons with some forms of creationism or denial of human-caused climate change.​

Mr. Haught warns of a new law that, incredibly, allows any citizen to challenge instructional materials that they do not like. Another pair of bills would allow school districts to set their own science standards and allow “controversial” theories to be “taught in a factual, objective, and balanced manner.” Balanced treatment; critical thinking. I think we all know what that means.

Perhaps worse, a bill introduced in the Alabama House would

allow teachers to present “the theory of creation as presented in the Bible” in any class discussing evolution, “thereby affording students a choice as to which theory to accept.” The bill would also ensure that creationist students would not be penalized for answering examination questions in a way reflecting their adherence to creationism, “provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.”​

The bill, according to NCSE, is modeled on a Kentucky law that was enacted in 1976, before the Supreme Court killed the balanced-treatment ruse. NCSE calls the Kentucky law unconstitutional.
source


So, bad, bad, bad; good; or who cares?

.

They should repeal the Law of Gravity while they're at it! Think of the dividend to aerospace! Why do scientists hate hard working Americans in the aerospace industry??

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Wrong again. You are just drinking the Kool-Aid now. You should have told me that you had no clue.

Patrick Moore was president of Greenpeace Canada, not of Greenpeace itself. Greenpeace was formed in 1970. Moore joined in 1971. It is pretty hard to be a founder after the organization was already in existence. He was promoted within the ranks rapidly, but he is not honest about his claims:

If you read elsewhere, in the less biased sources using distracting "facts", you'll find that Greenpeace started in Canada, spread to the US, and then split up.

But your points are only distractions in any case. THE point is that he is knowledgeable about Greenpeace, and being a Phd in Ecology is eminently qualified to criticize the global warming, climate change, global warming (sigh), which you continue to ignore along with Climategate, the Sun, past episodes of global warming/ice ages, etc.

In any case, it's obvious that hell could freeze over and you'd find a way unthinkingly continue to blame it on global warming or climate change--depending on the current liberal talking points. So, I did my best, but I'm done here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you read elsewhere, in the less biased sources using distracting "facts", you'll find that Greenpeace started in Canada, spread to the US, and then split up.

LOL! Please I am not the one that has been using biased facts here. You really need to watch the projection. Yes Greenpeace began in Canada, but that was in 1969. Their first action took place in 1971, in case you did not know it an organization usually has to occur first before an organized action can be taken. Moore was not in from the beginning. He was not a a founder. By the time he joined it was an international organization and he was only president of Greenpeace Canada.

But your points are only distractions in any case. THE point is that he is knowledgeable about Greenpeace, and being a Phd in Ecology is eminently qualified to criticize the global warming, climate change, global warming (sigh), which you continue to ignore along with Climategate, the Sun, past episodes of global warming/ice ages, etc.

You are only partially right. He is hardly qualified to criticize AGW. If he could he would do so properly. In the sciences claims are made through the peer review process. And watch the false accusations. I am not ignoring anything. If you have questions about AGW that is fine. But don't take your ignorance as a valid argument against it.

In any case, it's obvious that hell could freeze over and you'd find a way unthinkingly continue to blame it on global warming or climate change--depending on the current liberal talking points. So, I did my best, but I'm done here.

Please, I am not the one that has been dishonest or has ignored science here. Once again, if you have valid questions then ask them. Improper questions will be explained to you and rejected.

The "I did my best" is simply an admission of incompetence on your part. You could not find valid support for your claim and now after making more false claims you are doing what for you is probably the wise thing and running away.

 

[Estro Felino]

Perhaps worse, a bill introduced in the Alabama House would allow teachers to present “the theory of creation as presented in the Bible” in any class discussing evolution, “thereby affording students a choice as to which theory to accept.”



So, bad, bad, bad; good; or who cares?

.

Very, very good idea. So we will have something to laugh about.


https://am21.akamaized.net/tms/cnt/uploads/2010/10/public-acceptance-of-evolution.jpeg
^ As for my country, I think it deals with closeted creationists....u know...to avoid public shaming

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Please, I am not the one that has been dishonest or has ignored science here.

Well, I've give you the benefit of the doubt and say, maybe not intentionally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I've give you the benefit of the doubt and say, maybe not intentionally.

Not in anyway at all. I made a simple request, you were not able to support your claims.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The well indoctrinated never change because they can never see through their indoctrination.

 

[james bond]

Because they don't present evidence.

Include what you want, without evidence it's not science.

Who wants to take it with me? I certainly don't, i thought it was you guys than wanted a warm and comfortable afterlife so similar to rwal life but without all the problems.

Rf accepts apologetics press as a valid source ??? Please provide evidence for your claim.

Last point first. You've been on RF longer than me and I know more.

Certainly, social science is evidence. Without mind/consciousness, you'd be a zombie without the need to feed on brains or living tissue. Just how do you think your brain works? All of your world is in your brain. What makes you conscious is your mind. We may disagree there, but your brain without consciousness would mean you're in a coma. Moreover, your brain sees the world in 2 dimensions. However, it also adds depth because the two eyes and brain works that way. It allows you to see the world in 3D in your mind. Put on an eye patch and walk around your house or outside for a few minutes. It'll take a few minutes for your brain to adjust and see in 3D again.

As for the rest, I'm getting bored of the tired internet atheist request for evidence. It's right in front of your nose, but you're too unconscious to recognize it.

 

[james bond]

That has been explained to you so many times, it's not funny anymore.

It's not funny? To the contrary, it's funny that you do not get that atheists, even atheist neurologists, are usually wrong. I've always known that about you. And recently, you admitted that you have nothing on your brain.

 

[ChristineM]

Last point first. You've been on RF longer than me and I know more.

Certainly, social science is evidence. Without mind/consciousness, you'd be a zombie without the need to feed on brains or living tissue. Just how do you think your brain works? All of your world is in your brain. What makes you conscious is your mind. We may disagree there, but your brain without consciousness would mean you're in a coma. Moreover, your brain sees the world in 2 dimensions. However, it also adds depth because the two eyes and brain works that way. It allows you to see the world in 3D in your mind. Put on an eye patch and walk around your house or outside for a few minutes. It'll take a few minutes for your brain to adjust and see in 3D again.

As for the rest, I'm getting bored of the tired internet atheist request for evidence. It's right in front of your nose, but you're too unconscious to recognize it.

Wrong again, i joined RF on 3 march 2017. Whereas you joined in 2013. And as to the strawman of knowing more, i seriously doubt that.

The clue is in the title "social science" it is debatable whether social science is actually a science because of the makeup of its included subject matter. Although some aspects are studied under scientific conditions.

Without consciousness i would be a lump of inert matter. Consciousness implies life. I would have though that if you knew a little of social science you would understand that.

And then you go into strawman mode, totally irrelevant to the discussion.

BTW, i spent my working life modelling 3D environments, unless you know what you are talking about, don't

No it is not in front of my nose, what i see has a perfectly valid explanation with no godmagic involved.