Home » Forums » General Forums » General Conversation

how a Gloabal warming debate turmed into a god debate

Posted on: November 7, 2008 - 6:45am
Jello
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
how a Gloabal warming debate turmed into a god debate

Discussion about David Bellamy (global warming opponent) on some other message board, I pop in to give my 2 cents (I might be wrong but hey)

I wrote:
Unless you're a climatologist, stfu

Seriously. Climatologist A believes global warming is a fraud or it's real but not man-made. Climatologist B takes the opposing stance. How does your average douche who doesn't know shit analyse the information these two scientists have to determine who's right and who's wrong? These two boffins have lived and breathed this area of expertise for years, and yet they have opposing views. Is it actually possible for someone with a far less adequite understanding of this science to make a judgement call?

If anyone here thinks "yes", I call bullshit. You look for a majority consensus among the scientific community in the field of climatology, and the chances of them being right are logically higher than the minority being wrong, and for people who are not experts in the field, that's the closest you can get to knowing the truth.

someone else wrote:
Of course it has and nobody denies that and Bellamy is a biologist, not an expert on climatology.

You know like the biologist Richard Dawkins is an expert on God

 

I wrote:
Dude, being an expert on God is like being an expert on tooth fairies. Being an expert in a field that involves the scientific method is entirely different.

I don't have to be an expert in astrology or palm reading or the theraputic effects of magnets to say that those fields are baloney. They aren't falsifiable. They don't have self correcting mechanisms in place to ensure that individual experts aren't fooled by their own bias and wishful thinking.

Consensus among the flat earth community means nothing, because they're flat earthers. Therefore Richard Dawkins and Jeremy Dickwad across the road who doesn't know shit about anything are both fully qualified to weigh in on God, because there is no science involved, and no expertise either.

Am I right or am I in way over my puny head?

 

Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.

‹ Am I a bad atheist? What can be done about a teacher who teaches the bible as fact? ›

Posted on: November 7, 2008 - 9:19am #1
MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Good answer if you ask me. 

Good answer if you ask me.  Any further response from them?

 

M


Posted on: November 7, 2008 - 9:57am #2
Jello
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Yeah. timeandahalf

Yeah.

timeandahalf wrote:
There are two problems with the scientific community.
1) They are human and are subject to the same issues as any other group. Fear for careeer, greed, desire for status etc. Since the Bellamy incident how many would now challenge the status quo, regardless of 'evidence. Is this not the modern humanist cry of 'burn the heretic?'

2)Consistent refusal to aknowledge the influence of belief system and politics etc as an influence in the interpretation of evidence. My issue with global warming is not the event if it exists. It is the politics and the laws etc it is justifying. My suspicions are only increased by the effective muzzling of non believers.

All i will say of the event is i live in chch and we have had snow in Halswell for the first time ever, 2 frosts and are looking at a third in november. After a careful consideration of known history, a unbias,rational and logical assesment of available evidence and after conducting practical demonstrable experimentation on my bike, on the way to work my conclusion is global warming my ass.

I told him about the peer review process and the self correcting method that is in place within the method, and got this in return

timeandahalf wrote:
I hear what you are saying
Self correcting to me still has the obvious susceptibility to political interferance. I do see it as similar to an internal police investigation. Internal investigation, self correcting = dodgy. valid to a point but a bit suss with sensitive issues. The politics surrounding the international, or more to the point one world agendas are enormous. While i do not have the knowledge to challenge what you say directly, Events such as the bellamy thing and the one world politics and wealth redistribution leave it all with a decidedly suspect flavour in my mouth..

I'm gonna give up now. In the  same thread another chump told me that scientists believe that man walked on the moon, so they.. oh, i'll just quote it. here:

diddleface wrote:
I wonder how many of the so called learned members of the scientific community subscribe to the view that man landed on the moon?

Most I suspect...which goes to show how majority opinion does not neccesarilty support the truth

That's why I love this place, no-one here is mental.

 

Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.