Boy wrote

I seriously want to know how i can convince you, if you don't accept science what do you accept as proof?

Hi bazzz :

I wish I had more time to chat but I met the most
incredible young woman yesterday and I'm meeting
her at the observatory in a few minutes.

For help on making a proof, see :

Mathematical, Reasoning, Proof

I hope that helps. Oh yeah, one other thing ...

If, upon completion of an undisputable presentation,
you are spurned, maintain your composure, smile at
the fools and thank them for their time. Then thank
your lucky stars that your name isn't Galileo Galilei.

“You cannot teach a man anything; you can only
help him discover it in himself.” - Galileo Galilei

Take care old man and good luck. I can't keep the
heavenly bodies waiting.

Galileo Galilei.

a good point there Rommel. The point being, bazz (since you don't get it) that Galileo prooved modern science was completely wrong. You might also learn from Columbus, or many others.

Science
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

science does not mean "infallible". I accept science for what it is, a study, a process, an ivestigation. For somethign to be scientific, it does not make it automatically true.

A fact is something (that should be) indisputable. A scientific claim is not. CC is disputable, it is a theory, a belief. TO say that it is scientific and therefore automatically true is just stupid.

I explained that the co2 content is an indisputable fact. You disapoint me bazz, you have given me nothing to work with. you fail in all regards.

By what process is CC shown to be prooved? give me step 1 and 2. go on....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 516033.ece
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/pro ... nequivocal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

boy, are you actually suggesting that climate change isnt happening? or are you just not convinced humans have caused it?

Humans don't cause it and cannot stop it. CC is a non issue, no, i do not believe it is happening.

I think science is deeply flawed.

I believe that the law of gravity and gravitational fields, gravitational collapse and pressure, etc... conflict with the first "law" of thermodynamics (conservation of matter and energy)

I believe that the theory of evolution and the 2nd law (closed systems always increase in disorder) cannot both be true.

There is plenty of material on both of these issues. Modern science simply throws out many arguments..... works on certain assumptiosn so that it can keep making "progress"

There are just as many reports of the oposite of global warming, many reports of cooling going on right now. Thickening ice sheets.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Assuming that the oceans warmed half a degree in 40 years, I don't think this is alarming, what is more, I think the world warming up is a good thing. THis very week cold tempeartures are killing citrus crops accross the united states. I like oranges, lets heat up!

I am very skeptical that a computer model could ever be considered accurate to predic ocean temperatures over a period of the last 40 years considering the assumptions, complexity, changes in technology over that time, the data, the manipulation... and all that.... This model is basing all this on 380 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Is water vapor considered? What are the assumptions about solar output, the earths magnetic field.... I think that the model was simply tinkered with until it showed what they wanted it to show. "oh , heehee, LOOK IT MATCHES!"" I have looked at this stuff before... very sketchy stuff. The scientits are usually koolade drinkers....

edit fundamentalist stuff - lets not go there

i get that youre trying to demonstrate some scientific knowledge, but come on - you know im not stupid. please dont insult me! youre not going to enhance your arguments with a few mixed up references to high school science.


that's not worth arguing.


me too


how so and which law of gravity? skip the answer - just assume im not impressed ; )


wow. ok

edit:

this is about religion, isnt it? i did detect that earlier. maybe we should stop the discussion - might get too personal

Funny you say i don't get it and take rommels reference that way. You seem to make the classic fallacy of identifying with historical figures while the situation does not apply.

If you think i am unaware of Galileo Galilei and Columbus you are mistaken. What you are suggesting here is that you are the one thats right and the science is wrong.

Yes i am aware of the definition of science I am not the one who disputes the science tough. I have told you before that this is a complex issue and that i am not going to start pretending i am a scientist who knows everything. I can give you hundreds of arguments tough that you all will reject.

If you want me to convince you we first have to agree on what you take as evidence, you seem to be very picky when it comes to that.

I think i am being clear on where i stand while you are being suggestive at best.

I accept the science while you are saying they are wrong and probably believe the propaganda from the deniers.

If they have ever had a point they would be able to make it, they even have had people on the IPCC you so despise. they were allowed to make arguments but they never gotten anywhere. They didn't have legs to stand on.

What are your arguments for your claim? You said it was a fake.

Sounds like The Great Left Wing Conspiracy to me.

I am willing to listen but i expect the same from you. If you just see me as being wrong no matter what and come up with new and more unreasonable expectations i have to meet ill just ridicule you.

Am i being unfair? Its not like I am the church who opposes your truth because i want earth to be in the middle of the universe. We are both just schmucks who believe in different things i believe in science and am not interested in what the fringes of science or political institutions suggest.

You seem to make a claim that what science believes is untrue, you have said before that you think its a left wing conspiracy, which is prevalent in the fringes and among the political extremes.

If thats what you claim why don't you argue that? Its not like you are Galileo who opposes the dogma of the church with a great theory.

In my opinion you are merely parroting political talking points of some think tanks that represent big interests and spread misinformation to cast doubt, not to actually get to any reasonable truth. You also seem to be a conspiratorial thinker who doesn't accept authority when it doesn't agree with you beliefs.

Even tough i believe this i wont claim with absolute certainty that you are wrong, it doesn't make your claim very compelling.

Maybe you have a point to make, and my intention was to give you a chance to make that point since you challenged me.thats why i started a new thread and asked you what you accept as truth but you seem to want something absolute again.

Yes science is fallable, even with all the precautions they take but to claim that the majority is wrong put the burden of proof with you- you make extraordinary claims.

You being disappointed? You seem to have hight expectations
of someone who yous arguments you keep rejecting.
I am not disappointed in you- you are behaving like i expected you to behave.

Ok step one, someone makes a claim.
Others don't accept it and attack it. They win the claim is rejected.
they lose its accepted as truth.
this doesn't make it absolute and if someone has a better claim that makes the first claim impossible it is rejected.

step 2 repeat, learn from past mistakes and create systems to prevent repetition over a period of hundreds of years.Make sure you don't exclude galileo because of your superiority and blindness that can create dogmas.

step 3 make sure the truths are communicated in a way non scientists are able to understand so society can benefit of the available knowledge.There are people who will disagree and give them the appropriate room to be skeptical.

step 4 Create a immense conspiracy that is so big it has everyone fooled exept for a few who are smart enough to reject anything you tell them, by then we have taken over the universe.

step 5 PROFIT!!!!!!

God damned all this rambling for nothing, at last a honest post from boy.

Says it all really, You are misunderstood and persecuted and later on when mainstream science is discredited you will be recognized for your vision. Just like Bush and friends, they are right the rest of the world is crazy and wrong.

You know what? You are not Galileo you are the church who believes the earth is the center of the universe.

Hi bazzz :

The problem appears to be that BOY demands that you supply the same type of facts and figures for your position, that you feel he needs to support his.

A Mexican standoff I think they call it.

Instead of trying to convince him of your position, not a wise move, I suggest you fall back to your original charge and then hammer him good (sorry BOY). He made a statement of fact, you made a challange. How did you end up on trial?

Good luck,

Rommel

P.S. - I think you have a winning case but you have to get out of the witness box and back to the bench.

i agree.

i think we should agree to differ. we're very close to bringing religion into this and i dont think that's a good idea. it's going to get way too personal.

Yes i am a fool, and it is about beliefs.

Anyone can believe anything they want, and i don't have a problem with that. If on the other hand someone feels the need to propagate their beliefs i will propagate mine. I don't have problems with the belief in any god or alternative philosophies and won't attack that. What i do attack is the absolute claims that fall way out of any sane paradigm, as i interpret it. If i am wrong attacking it i like to be convinced i am wrong. Even tough i may have very strong opinion i am open to anyone who want to challenge it.

The way i do it may be not perfect and if there are good suggestions how to improve i want to know, even people i don't agree with or trust should be able to change my mind. Even tough i may have been too full on and lost some sympathy from some.

If Boy wants to challenge me thats ok, but since he seemed to reject science as a whole i do need to establish some rules, cant let him use the cheap tricks that are all so common. Even if that is the way to avoid my challenge, i believed i can give enough facts he can deny so the points i made about him rejecting science and instead believing Pseudo-Science would convince as many people reading this as possible.

Since he was very honest about what he believes to be true in his reaction i got more than i hoped for. Anyone can make up his mind about that and its ok for him to believe that.

No need to take it further indeed ,but i will if anyone feels it should. I am a fool after all.

I do have religious beliefs, yes, but I referenced a "world view".

I did not bring religion in. If someone debates evolution as an unproven theory, he's automatically discredited as a religions fanatic. Blablabla. Lappy, my point was not to impress you, it was simply to show I don't easily accept something unless I can understand it to be true for myself.

evolution doesn't make scientific sense, the record is vastly incomplete, there are no intermediate species
global warming is not so convincing, its 6 degrees outside

The solar cycle is everything. The sun vary's up to 0.1 percent. Humans have not added so much as 0.01 percent to the atmosphere. Therefore my conclusion is simple. THe sun is responsible for global warming OMG!! Climate change is simply political scare mongering.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 104AAMYjNq

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... lar-output

No bazzz, I have to disagree.

I tried to stay somewhat aloof and removed but bazzz was correct to challange BOY on stating his "opinion" as a matter of indisputable fact.

If it is, as stated, a fact, it must be able to be proven.

In one of the early posts in the thread that bazzz ejected me from, he stated that his position could not be proven and required trust. Then he requested help to prove his position to BOY. As he had acknowledged earlier, that was not possible. That was my point in the post about providing indisputable evidence. Galileo was handy, nothing more. Both sides took it as a show of support when in fact it was in support of neither.

As much as I like a good debate, a debate wasn't initially requested nor should it be required (sorry again BOY, truely).

Should BOY change his signature, just a little, so that it would not be subject to attack as a factual claim, that discussion would be over. Perhaps then, we can debate our "OPINIONS" in a more forgiving and friendly tone. I hope so.

Best wishes,

Me

[edit] After re-reading your post, boy, I see that the last two sentences in your post are not necessarily in contradiction. Perhaps you could clarify on them.[/edit]


1.Climate change does happen, is happening, and always has happened. Climate change is a vague term that can mean any change in environs, weather, temperature, etc.

2.No, we cannot know for sure whether or not our (humanity's) presence is having a negative impact on weather patterns or the overall climate.

3.Yes, we are having a negative impact on ecosystems worldwide due in part to mass deforestation and atmospheric/aquatic pollutants.

4.It is definitely warmer where I live than it was ten years ago.

These are as close to "factual" as a human being can get. I won't bother to go into the philosophical discussion of whether things can be truly "proven".

Certainly we could prove that if I turn a bucket of water upside over your head, your hair (if you have any) will get wet. Past experience allows most everyone to accept this as a fact without having to see it proven, even if many would like to see it all the same. It is an accepted fact.

Quite simply, it does not appear that BOY has any better chance of proving his "FACT" than bazzz does of proving the theory to which he espouses.

If it can't be proven, at least to a level that is widely acceptable, it can not honestly be declared to be a fact. To do otherwise is (I honestly am sorry BOY and had hoped that bazzz would be the one to say this) a bit less than totally honest and may even go so far as being intentionally misleading.

For what it is worth ...

Having not been provided with a convincing argument from either side, I am undecided about the overall topic of global warming. However, just like most, if not all of you, I can prove without a doubt that our air and water is being poisoned. Worse yet, I can prove that very little is being done to rectify the situation.

Hopefully these are things that all can accept as facts and that all, if properly informed, would be willing to help correct. These are things we can get our brains around and begin correcting, TODAY.