Page 2 of 50 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 739

Thread: Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5,383
    Thanks
    422
    Thanked 1,573 Times in 1,260 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 79 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Are you suggesting that climate science is based on faith, not studies?
    It is all about politics. Biden's war against domestic oil production is proof


    https://www.theepochtimes.com/climat...=BonginoReport

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    I've never seen anyone call scientific consensus a faith. I never knew someone was fool enough to.
    1. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who should just stay over at the children's table
    2. There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus." Science is not determined by consensus. That's how religion is shaped.
    3. I'm sorry that I am the first person to mention to you that consensus applies to religion and has no place in science, but seeing as how you reached adulthood without ever learning this, you should definitely seek out those who were responsible for your education and bitch-slap the fuqq out of them.
    4. I will reiterate, for the time being, just remain at the children's table. I'll have someone bring you something to color.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,919
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Here we have another one of your phony "fallacy!" declarations. Of course you don't support it, because you cannot. All are religions. All are isomorphic (math term) which is why you can't show that any one of them is somehow not a religion. There is nothing stopping you from taking a course in Group Theory and learning about isomorphisms and how they can help bring much-needed clarity to a confusing world.
    I have a degree in mathematics. I know all about the groups and rings.

    I have answered every one of your questions.
    No you have not.

    How do you imagine that Christianity is a religion such that Global Warming is not? If you answer "Because Global Warming is 'thettled thienth!' then I am obviously going to require you to post that 'thettled thienth' here in this thread ... and you know that it won't be science and that I'll pick it apart utterly. If you try to EVADE with the standard "I'm no thientitht" then we'll have come full circle and I will ask you why you, therefore, believe it. Around and around we will go, and everyone will be able to see that you have a WACKY, fanatical religion on your hands, one that has you convinced that it is thettled theinth.
    Your irrational utterances are dismissed.

    Incorrect. Science can be based on anything. What is clear is that you don't know what science is.
    If science is based on faith, then it is not science at all. Again, you are being irrational.

    Also, it doesn't matter how science comes into existence but the norm is for a concept to just come to someone, as an epiphany, that gets written down and ultimately published. Once the null hypothesis has survived the scientific method, it joins the ranks of falsifiable models in the body of science. The bottom line is that science is not research. Science is not data. Science is not a paper. Science is not subjective and is not determined by consensus. Nobody owns science and nobody's permission or approval is required for science to come into existence.
    More irrational ramblings.

    Science is based on observations, researches, evidence and such. Yes you are correct that theories are falsifiable.

    Are you claiming that Newton's law of gravitation is not based on observation?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (02-17-2023)

  5. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Another, "duhhhhh science is dumb duhhhh" thread.
    I have already mentioned how terrified you leftists are of anything related to science and/or logic and/or honesty. So much so that you will feel compelled to derail the discussion if you can.

    Please go ahead and try. I know you want to.

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,159
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    I have already mentioned how terrified you leftists are of anything related to science and/or logic and/or honesty. So much so that you will feel compelled to derail the discussion if you can.

    Please go ahead and try. I know you want to.
    Science is a big stupid poopy head!

  7. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,919
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    It is all about politics. Biden's war against domestic oil production is proof


    https://www.theepochtimes.com/climat...=BonginoReport
    Huh?

  8. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,159
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    2. There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus." Science is not determined by consensus. That's how religion is shaped.
    Science absolutely is about consensus.

  9. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5,383
    Thanks
    422
    Thanked 1,573 Times in 1,260 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 79 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Huh?
    The most environmental safe oil production is here in the US. Biden coming against our oil production means the oil will come from dirty oil production

  10. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    I have a degree in mathematics. I know all about the groups and rings.
    Awesome! ... but wait ... why haven't you explained how those religions are not isomorphic? I mean, shouldn't you be able to prove that I cannot have a one-to-one and onto mapping of Christianity to Global Warming?

    (guess what I have in my hip pocket)

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Your irrational utterances are dismissed.
    As they all should be. Fortunately, I haven't made any. Meanwhile, everything of yours that isn't answering my question is being summarily dismissed, which is everything thus far.

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    If science is based on faith,
    It's not. Your religion, which you are calling "thettled thienth" is based purely on a very WACKY faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Science is based on observations, researches, evidence and such.
    Your style of EVASION involves injecting some totally irrelevant point into the discussion and then stealthily shifting the discussion away from the main topic to your irrelevant point. Consciousness not being needed to not express anything has no bearing on whether living humans should be killed for someone's convenience. Similarly, it not mattering that science isn't "based on" anything does nothing to somehow transmute your WACKY religion into science.

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Yes you are correct that theories are falsifiable.
    All science theories are falsifiable. All religions are unfalsifiable. Let me pull out my pocket one-to-one and onto mapping here and ... yes, it shows quite clearly that Global Warming and Climate Change are completely unfalsifiable, just like their isomorphism Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Are you claiming that Newton's law of gravitation is not based on observation?
    A much better question is how you claim to know on what a science model is based. Let's take a look at it:

    g = [m1 * m2] / d^2

    It looks like math is the only basis you can claim with certainty. I notice that you are attempting to derail the discussion with this irrelevant and inconsequential philosophical point about a model's "basis." If we are going to go down this road, would you mind explaining to me the following:

    1. Why should anyone care what constitute's a model's basis?
    2. How do you assert that the "basis" for any model can be known?
    3. How does knowing this "basis" somehow affect the science in question?
    4. What human activity does not involve "observation" somehow?
    5. Why do you believe that science is somehow a human activity rather than a falsifiable model? (models don't need any observations)

  11. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Science absolutely is about consensus.
    We have already established that you have no business commenting on anything related to science. I'll have someone send over some more crayons.

  12. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,919
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Awesome! ... but wait ... why haven't you explained how those religions are not isomorphic? I mean, shouldn't you be able to prove that I cannot have a one-to-one and onto mapping of Christianity to Global Warming?

    (guess what I have in my hip pocket)


    As they all should be. Fortunately, I haven't made any. Meanwhile, everything of yours that isn't answering my question is being summarily dismissed, which is everything thus far.


    It's not. Your religion, which you are calling "thettled thienth" is based purely on a very WACKY faith.


    Your style of EVASION involves injecting some totally irrelevant point into the discussion and then stealthily shifting the discussion away from the main topic to your irrelevant point. Consciousness not being needed to not express anything has no bearing on whether living humans should be killed for someone's convenience. Similarly, it not mattering that science isn't "based on" anything does nothing to somehow transmute your WACKY religion into science.


    All science theories are falsifiable. All religions are unfalsifiable. Let me pull out my pocket one-to-one and onto mapping here and ... yes, it shows quite clearly that Global Warming and Climate Change are completely unfalsifiable, just like their isomorphism Christianity.


    A much better question is how you claim to know on what a science model is based. Let's take a look at it:

    g = [m1 * m2] / d^2

    It looks like math is the only basis you can claim with certainty. I notice that you are attempting to derail the discussion with this irrelevant and inconsequential philosophical point about a model's "basis." If we are going to go down this road, would you mind explaining to me the following:

    1. Why should anyone care what constitute's a model's basis?
    2. How do you assert that the "basis" for any model can be known?
    3. How does knowing this "basis" somehow affect the science in question?
    4. What human activity does not involve "observation" somehow?
    5. Why do you believe that science is somehow a human activity rather than a falsifiable model? (models don't need any observations)
    Oh my goodness. You are truly insane.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (02-17-2023)

  14. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Science is a big stupid poopy head!
    I really hadn't given you enough credit. This is a drastic improvement over your previous commentary. Maybe, if we keep working at it, we can get you responding in grunts.

  15. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,159
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    We have already established that you have no business commenting on anything related to science. I'll have someone send over some more crayons.
    You are an extremely ignorant person.

  16. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,159
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    I really hadn't given you enough credit. This is a drastic improvement over your previous commentary. Maybe, if we keep working at it, we can get you responding in grunts.
    You are extremely stupid.

  17. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Oh my goodness. You are truly insane.
    Just tipping your king is sufficient.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-18-2023, 07:32 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-28-2018, 01:28 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-27-2014, 09:36 AM
  4. Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-18-2012, 05:38 AM
  5. History prooves global warming is fake science
    By MasterChief in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-06-2006, 08:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •