1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

March for science 2017

Discussion in 'Science' started by SuperSymmetry, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:22 PM.

  1. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    They’re the same when you talk about being concerned by their irrational beliefs. If the Obama administration didn’t keep you up at night, in spite of Obama’s Christian views, then it’s hypocritical to be worried about same from DeVos.

    Ahem. When someone believes that there’s an invisible SUPERBEING all around us who controls our lives, I think that’s pretty odd. I happen to be talking about Obama and DeVos.

    Yes, Obama credulously bought into the social justice scam that is AGW alarmism:

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment”​

    As for creationism, I’m still waiting for you to substantiate your claims that it’s an issue with the Trump administration. And that “race realism” claim is a nothing burger too, given that you haven’t posted a shred of evidence to back it up.

    Would this be the same EPA that has recently poisoned a river, and stood by while the good people of Flint, Michigan were poisoned by their water? Based on the record, I think the EPA is a failed organization that needs drastic pruning.

    Please source this claim.

    Not all research is worthy of funding. Agree? Or do you think it reasonable that all research should get public money?

    Again, some evidence to back up your claims would be appreciated.

    Well I’m glad you admit that it’s dishonest to claim the two administrations are exactly the same, since I never said any such thing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2017 at 12:59 PM
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    54,889
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How stupid is this? What's next, animal sacrifice?
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    54,889
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only one's undermining the science are the idiots that think the science is settled.
     
  4. SuperSymmetry

    SuperSymmetry Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Female
    I've already addressed this.

    Oh dear...

    http://www.awdnews.com/political/mi...ght-in-public-schools-darwin-is-just-a-theory
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaena...volution-heres-why-that-matters/#3e971a1015a7
    https://www.propublica.org/article/...words-for-creationism-offshoot-raise-concerns

    https://thinkprogress.org/steve-ban...-superiority-are-shared-by-trump-243d73866e2d
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thom...racists-like-raymond-wolters-in-the-trump-era

    I agree, but that doesn't mean I agree with anything else you're saying. I believe that the decision whether to fund grant proposals should stay with organizations like the NIH.

    It's certainly not settled, but not at all in the way that science deniers think it is.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2017 at 1:22 PM
  5. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, it’s discouraging to learn how science is being politicized to pursue a social justice agenda.0

    That source quoted Pence saying things that don’t support what the headline says he said. And when I clicked on the video to double-check, I ended up on a malware site.

    Thanks for that. I’ll approach your cites more carefully from now on.

    Ah, so critical thinking is a characteristic of those who disagree with AGW alarmists. That explains so much.

    That cite didn’t quote Bannon saying anything about race realism.
    And that cite didn’t even MENTION Bannon. Why are you promoting fake news?

    It’s nice to have beliefs, but as I said, elections have consequences. Trump has a right to prioritize where the public’s money is spent without being called anti-science by those who opposed his election.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    54,889
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So called 'science deniers' are any scientist that produces inconvenient science not politically approved by the new AGW religion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2017 at 2:09 PM
  7. SuperSymmetry

    SuperSymmetry Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Female
    Jesus Christ.
     
  8. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What is his reasoning exactly?

    Because it's not just scientists that recognize that threat global warming poses, but even the US's own military - including Mattis.

    ???

    Obama was not a creationist. What are you on about?

    No, you see, Obama never pushed for religious education, religion played a very small role in his policies, and the policies of the Democrats in general.

    In contrast, the GOP are far, far more religious, and given that DeVos is the secretary of education, it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of her ability to separate her creationist beliefs from the secular US education system.

    Creationism =/= critical thinking

    The only reason creationism should ever come up in a biology class room is for it to immediately be debunked by evolution.

    Did that have anything to do with his religious beliefs? At most you're drawing a correlation here, but under the assumption that it is causation, then we should see scores fall even further with DeVos at the helm.

    Holy ****, creationism and theism are equally (in)valid in your mind?

    If you disagree with him on scientific grounds, then what exactly is the issue with this?

    1. His position on who will pay for the wall and how is pretty sketchy.
    2. His foreign policy towards Russia and Syria are hardly in line with campaign promises
    3. His ban on immigration from high threat countries excluded several hotspots

    You are aware it is far, far more irrational to believe in creationism than to simply believe in God, right?

    >quote from one person

    you're going to need a lot more backing to assert that AGW is "muh librul conspiracy"

    I'll go into the article you linked when I'm not on the verge of passing out.

    "Hey guys, this engine won't run"

    "Well sheeeet, why?

    "There's no gasoline"

    "Well don't put any in it, that should fix the problem"

    Do you realize how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy this is?

    Settled on what? Global warming? Because the evidence suggests that it exists.

    One can hope...

    I'm not entirely sure you understand what the scientific method is, so I'll explain it to you:

    Science that largely flies in the face of what is currently understood about the universe is not inconvenient, certainly not from a political standpoint, but anyone who believes in a handful of studies that have been heavily refuted by other studies is essentially denying science.
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    54,889
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, Al Goracle.
     
  10. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    He thinks catastrophic AGW is a hoax. I agree. All the angst about warming is based on feedbacks from a 1°C increase after CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere double from what they were when the Industrial Revolution began.

    So far, climate change has been benign or even positive (we've had the lowest number of major landfalling hurricanes in the US in our history, for example).

    AGW is an engineering problem. If sea levels get too high, we'll build dikes and seawalls. If that's not enough we'll build a solar shield in space to block excess heat from the sun. We've got this, so there's no need to panic.

    People who are experts in one field are not necessarily expert in others.

    Sheesh, I'm an atheist, yet even I know that what I said applies to any Christian.

    No, it's not perfectly reasonable to be skeptical. Where are the quotes from her that would justify your prejudiced opinion?

    Of course. And what evidence do you have that DeVos will change what happens in biology classes?

    I'm pointing out that the Left didn't gather to protest falling education scores when the evidence was right in front of them. But now the Left is concerned about the quality of education because of imagined threats from the Trump administration. It's all political theater and the public realizes it.

    It feels so weird that I know more about religion than you do. Obama's church preaches incredible nonsense that people accept because it's familiar. And please provide evidence that Obama's a "theist", because he's claimed to be a Christian.

    I see that he's increasing funding for Nasa, for example, which is pro-science. So what tool do you use to determine that he's anti-science? Other than politics.

    Obama broke more than 100 promises in 8 years, I think Trump supporters will cut him some slack since he's only been in office 4 months.

    No. Don't be silly. People who believe in god swallow an incredible amount of crap.

    A quote from a government official who simply let slip what's really going on when governments grab more tax money to "alleviate" climate change. Social justice engineering is what it is.

    Yes. Cute story. Shame it didn't apply to what I'm talking about.

    The EPA is a failure. People have been harmed by it. So we should cut it back to the bare bones and strip off the distractions that make it incapable of fulfilling its main functions. Once it's been renovated, Trump will rebuild the EPA into something useful.
     
  11. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    This is pretty much the entire basis for AGW denile: Not understanding the proper scale to view the situation from.

    This is a graph showing a change in global temperature since 1800 (the scale you are viewing the situation from):
    [​IMG]

    This is the change in global temperature over the course of roughly two decades. Notice how there is very little change overall.
    [​IMG]

    This is global temperature change over 1700 years, the largest chunk of time so far. There is a slightly more noticeable uptick in this one, but nothing substantial.
    [​IMG]
    Here's 10000 years. Everything good so far, in fact things are actually a bit cooler:
    [​IMG]

    I can't find a super clean graph for this, so you'll have to take my word on it: Over the course of 100 million years, Earth's history in general really, we're actually in a pretty cool period.

    But here's the kicker, none of these look at temperature changes at the proper scale. This is what graph everyone should be looking at:
    [​IMG]

    If we look to the far right of the graph, we can see that in terms of 1 million yeras, we are in a warm period in Earth's history. Based on historical data, we should be seeing a sharp decline in global temperature right now. However, if we look at the far right of the graph, we can see that Earth's temperature is actually hovering at a warm period when it should be cooling. This trend started right around 10,000 years ago and coincides with the agricultural revolution.

    Many people seem to think that industrialization is the primary reason behind global warming, and while it did certainly play a role, really it was the foundation of human civilization and the cultivation of crops that has kept us in this warm period.

    That's an incredibly western centric view of the situation. Meanwhile, we are seeing foodshortages in Africa, the drying up of rivers (especially the case with the Colorado), even the current revolution in Syria can be linked to global warming in part.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
    no.

    A "solar shield" would effectively be the largest construction project the world has ever seen. Taking into account the amount of resources needed, the amount of capital needed, and the amount of labor needed, constructing this would be essentially impossible. By the time all of the resources necessary would have been gathered, it would be too late.

    Quite simply: this is impractical. Highly impractical.

    No, but they are listening to experts by the look of it.

    http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pr...es-disavow-teaching-intelligent-design-public

    Of course, there has been a growing trend towards centralizing education in the US, so I question how much control local governments will have on this matter.

    False.
    Here's just one example of people protesting education cuts, much like they are trying to do now:
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/03/education.protest/

    Because the Trump administration not only threatens to cut school funding, but now also introduce falsehoods in the American curriculum.

    Was any of that nonsense creationism though? Has Obama ever expressed sympathies towards creationism? Did his administration ever push for creationism to be taught in any capacity?

    Um....

    You know those aren't mutually exclusive, right?

    Who will then produce research that he will immediately dismiss.

    I highly doubt that the increase in funding will go towards projects that would prove him wrong. I highly doubt Trump is a flat earther, so space exploration probably isn't that much of an issue for him.

    Both the NIP and EPA face funding cuts.

    I mean, so far Obama's had more time to break promises. What reason do you have to believe that Trump won't break an equal or greater amount of promises over 4 years? 8 years?

    Yeah, but creationism isn't necessarily one of them, now is it?

    A single government official. I'm going to want more substantial evidence.

    How has it failed, and why isn't that linked to a lack of funds?

    Those distractions being?

    Or cripple it until a new Democrat administration has to clean up the mess.
     
  12. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    <snipped for brevity>

    "denile"? So it is a river in Egypt.

    Pardon me, but it seems you used my post as an excuse to shoehorn in some irrelevant (in terms of what I posted) boilerplate stuff.

    When CO2's concentration is twice what it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution, just the increase in CO2 will bump temps a torrid 1°C.

    Think about that.

    So all the weeping and gnashing of teeth is in fear of the feedbacks from a 1°C increase.

    Excuse my yawn.

    There are always food shortages in Africa, so don't blame AGW. As for the Colorado river, as is usual with examples cited by alarmists, the reason it's drying up isn't because of AGW: "intensive water consumption has dried up the lower 100 miles (160 km) of the river, which has rarely reached the sea since the 1960s."

    I find your ignorance amusing. A space sunshade is within reach of our current tech, so when we need it, we'll have it:

    One proposed such sunshade for use towards that effect would be composed of 16 trillion small disks at the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point, 1.5 million kilometers above Earth. Each disk is proposed to have a 0.6-meter diameter and a thickness of about 5 micrometers. The mass of each disk would be about a gram, adding up to a total of almost 20 million tonnes.[2] Such a group of small sunshades that blocks 2% of the sunlight, deflecting it off into space, would be enough to halt global warming, giving us ample time to cut our emissions back on earth.​

    Sorry to ruin your day by proving that the sky is not falling.

    The experts have a pitiful track record so far.

    I found that quote disturbing. Why would you cite what Dick DeVos says about anything when it's Betsy's opinions we're discussing? Please explain the apparent sexism.

    Local protests of budget cuts? Do you understand that we're discussing protests regarding the quality of education? Therefore, Leftists choosing now to protest imagined changes in science education ring hypocritical after they failed to protest falling national test scores.

    Since you've failed to produce a single example of said falsehoods, I call bullshit.

    You seem to have difficulty with the concept that all religious dogma is ridiculous.There is no super being controlling your life, nor was the universe created in seven days, nor are there spirits living in trees, etc. etc.


    Actually, I've run across people who have a bias against Christians, so they'll claim a famous person (Thomas Jefferson, for instance) wasn't Christian but instead was a theist.

    People are often foolish, so I like to set the record straight early on.

    Doubt all you want, but you don't have the gravitas for your opinion to matter much. I've tried to find out why you people are protesting Trump's anti-science administration, but what I've learned is that you're just political hacks who don't have the truth on your side, just an axe to grind.

    National Institute of Physics? I thought that was in the Philippines.

    As has been stated already, I'm in favor of cutting the EPA as part of restructuring it so it can do its job properly.


    Given that Obama presided over the destruction of the Democratic party as a national force, it's reasonable to speculate that much of the reason why Dems have been so badly beaten is because Obama failed to keep his promises. Many people have learned from his mistake (almost all of them Republicans).

    Are you kidding?! I thought you disagreed with creationism. You don't really believe in that nonsense do you?

    You won't accept any evidence. What I said makes sense. Regardless, I'm all for gutting AGW science and putting the money to where it can be used properly. Like preparing for building a space sunshade/solar power system.

    I've already mentioned the Flint, Michigan and Animas River disasters. Those were EPA failures.

    Wasting time and money on climate change while letting rivers get poisoned. Working to end the use of coal.

    A Democrat was in charge of the EPA when it committed some of its worst failures.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017 at 10:54 PM
  13. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    [​IMG]

    Your point was that because CO2 emissions have only caused a slight increase in global temperature over the course of 200 years, that humans have no involvement in global warming.

    This is false given the data showing the flat lining of temperature around the start of early civilization. So, while we are seeing a slight increase in temperature, the fact that the Earth is not cooling when previous records show that it should is what we should be worried about.

    Saying that humans have no role in what we're seeing right now is quite simply wrong.

    Do you have any reason to believe that the number of food shortages have remained constant over time. Because what you're basically saying is that guns have played no role in murder rates because murder has existed before guns.

    There are multiple causes. Pinning it one just global warming or just water consumption is simply false:
    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/24/colorado-river-global-warming/

    Wikipedia says nothing about this being possible in the near future, in fact:
    While I don't doubt we have the _knowledge_ of how to create such a structure, creating it and implementing it would be remarkably difficult.

    You are suggesting that we would somehow be able to move 20 million tons 1.5 million km into space with ease. The cost to go to the moon in 1969 was 25 billion dollars (not factoring in inflation), and that was only around 3000 tons. And the distance between the moon and earth is far shorter than the distance between the earth and the sunshade you're suggesting. It simply isn't practical, nor is it an end all solution.

    Lolwut?

    So, what evidence do you have that would suggest that the experts are wrong? And don't repeat yourself about CO2 emissions since the 1800s, I've already refuted that.

    Given the religiousity of them both and their previous donations to religious groups advocating creationism, it seems to me like it's a safe assumption that Betsy DeVos's views on this matter would be incredibly similar to her husband's.

    You're an idiot if you don't think that funding does not have a direct correlation with the quality of education.

    Protesting budget cuts would imply that they are worried such budget cuts would have a negative impact on test scores. Teaching false information would also have a negative impact on test scores.

    Therefore: Being worried about budget cuts and what is being taught are closely related enough to be considered protesting the damaging effects public policy is having on test scores.

    Yeah, but saying that all religious dogma is equally ridiculous is also false.

    So you're saying a person as arrogant as Trump would actively support people telling him he's wrong?

    If so, then you certainly did not come in good faith:
    You see, this statement means nothing since you came here to argue rather than to learn (not inherently a bad thing).

    National Institute of Health, no clue why I typed NIP.

    Saying this is like saying Bush destroyed the Republican party. Any damage done is largely short term unless there is a prolonged shift left spearheaded by Sanders.

    I would argue it had more to do with the perception that his policies simply did not work. And then there's the adamant opposition coming from the Republican party during his time in office that effectively prevented him from implementing several measures - similar to what we are seeing now with the Democrats and Trump.

    No. What I meant to say was, creationism is certainly a more irrational belief than many other ideas stemming from religion.

    Translation: I have no other evidence to support my claim

    No it doesn't. At all.

    Translation: I'm being beaten into the ground, but I refuse to admit I'm wrong

    You're an even bigger idiot if you think that a sunshade wouldn't require the mobilization of the entire world's economy towards producing it.

    Perhaps these could have been avoided if the GOP didn't block Obama increasing funding:
    [​IMG]

    Climate change poses a much larger threat than a single river being damaged.

    Nuclear energy > coal

    I see no reason to believe that Flint and Animas were directly caused by the head of the EPA.
     
  14. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Remarkable. I was just searching for that graphic after I read your response.

    How did you possibly reach your conclusion based on what I wrote?

    Let me break it down for you in easier to swallow chunks:

    1. At some point down the road (probably around 2100), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be double what it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution.
    2. By the time #1 occurs, the resulting increase in temperatures that's possible from the doubling of CO2 alone will be 1°C.
    3. Any additional warming that occurs will be caused by feedbacks from the 1°C of warming caused by #1.

    As you should be able to see, my point was not "that because CO2 emissions have only caused a slight increase in global temperature over the course of 200 years, that humans have no involvement in global warming".

    My point is that a 1°C increase is tiny. Resulting feedbacks won't be dire.

    Since you're so mixed up on this, I'm going to hold off fisking the rest of your post until we get this straightened out, m'kay?
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017 at 12:42 AM
  15. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yeah, and who's to say that the 1°C increase won't have huge effects on the environment? We're already supposed to be in a cooling period; prolonged heating of the Earth, even if maintained at a constant temperature, is certainly not good for life right now. An increase in temperature, even by 1°C would be very dangerous.

    Let's look at the graph again:
    [​IMG]

    Heating by 1°C over the course of 100 years is incredibly fast, even for periods coming out of an ice age. And if such increases remain constant, the Earth will pretty much become uninhabitable within a few hundred years (assuming nuclear war doesn't kill us all first).

    It's massive once you see how quick this is actually happening. We see a fluctuation of roughly 12°C over the course of Earth's history for the last 800,000 years. Usually, when leaving an Ice Age, the Earth may take 1000 years to see a 1°C increase in temperature. We're expecting to see it in just 100 years, so the Earth is heating up at 10x the normal rate at a point in time when it should in fact be cooling.

    So while a 1°C increase may sound tiny, it is actually remarkably big when looked at in the proper context.

    Fair enough, given how the rest of your arguments are heavily based on this.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017 at 12:56 AM
  16. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    We've already experienced 0.8°C of warming since the Industrial Revolution, and there's been a drastic drop in the number of landfalling hurricanes hitting the US. So far, so good.

    As for us going into a cooling period, more lives are lost from cold weather than hot, so we should look at the untimely warming as saving lives.
     
  17. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    20,129
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Every science agency on the planet disagrees with you
     
  18. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    I love the smell of an argument from authority in the morning.
     
  19. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    20,129
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I love the guy who thinks he figured out something no one else has. LOL
     
  20. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm uncomfortable with your adulation. Kindly keep it private.
     

Share This Page