[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]GH, I am sure that you can speak about many things with authority, but I was talking about science literacy.
Diploma in 3rd World & Environment - a humanities qualification, I would imagine.
Year 2000 project - IT presumably?
Living in the 3rd World - erm...means you know about stuff like that, but what's it got to do with science?
I'm sure that the above qualify to talk with expertise on many things, but that was not what I was referring to, as you know. To be scientifically literate, you have to study science. That's just how it is. Some of those on here clearly have and can understand the issues in a scientific context, others simply do not have the background to relate to that. We all choose a walk of life. Some of us chose science, others did something else. That's fine. But what we are debating here is science. I wouldn't presume to tell a lawyer about the law or an accountant how to balance the books and I would not expect them to give two shits what my opinion might be. So, how come everyone is a science expert on here?
And I am no Guardianista, far from it. As far as I can make out, the left lost its way years ago and now appears to have disappeared up its own arse. Perhaps the same void that politics in general appears to have been sucked into.
I'm not quite sure that a self-confessed luddite who doesn't know the first f***ing thing about computers is qualified to make any comment about the potential implications of ignoring the 2-digit date bug either. Just because he 'ran a huge project relating to the Y2K bollox' doesn't qualify him to pass any comment on it either - I have run dozens of projects I didn't have the first bloody clue about technically - doesn't mean I couldn;t run the project itself.
I am always amused that people are very happy to accept scientific evidence and make huge decisions based on the data that science provides and yet in many cases those self same people believe that there is a god where no fricking evidence of any fricking type exists.
There's 'historical evidence' that Djimi Traore was a footballer... yet, in the immortal words of Nice Guy Eddie: "That don't necessarily make it f***in' so!"
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Jesus yes Len but not God which was my point.
You said there was no evidence of any type for the existence of God.
There is however what would nowdays be described as anecdotal evidence of the existence of God from the words of Jesus whom in all probability did exist.
I accept that such an argument could be labelled tenuous but, at the risk of being branded pedantic, it is evidence of a sort.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Jesus yes Len but not God which was my point.
You said there was no evidence of any type for the existence of God.
There is however what would nowdays be described as anecdotal evidence of the existence of God from the words of Jesus whom in all probability did exist.
I accept that such an argument could be labelled tenuous but, at the risk of being branded pedantic, it is evidence of a sort.
Tenuous is far too definate a word for it. It's not evidence of any sort. Just because Keith Baron existed does not mean that The Moomins are real, and that goes for any other fairy story you care to mention.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Jesus yes Len but not God which was my point.
You said there was no evidence of any type for the existence of God.
There is however what would nowdays be described as anecdotal evidence of the existence of God from the words of Jesus whom in all probability did exist.
I accept that such an argument could be labelled tenuous but, at the risk of being branded pedantic, it is evidence of a sort.
Absolute, utter, patent nonsense. There is no such thing as 'anecdotal evidence. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. It isn't 'evidence' any more than pictures of flying saucer-like objects on tapestries is 'evidence' that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrial spacecraft for hundreds of years.
Don't fall into the trap that other people of faith have been doing for the past few years - trying to find 'evidence' that Jesus existed, or that God exists. Faith is just that - 'faith'. Trying to legitimise your belief in God by trumping up 'evidence' is pointless (there isn't any) and devalues the whole raison d'etre for you having 'faith' in the first place!
I have no issue with people believing in 'another' power - as a person of scientific bent I believe there are plenty of things that 'science' can't explain (the concept of a 'soul', the formation of emotional attachments and 'feelings' etc etc). When people try to pass off hearsay, rumour, conjecture and stories as 'evidence' I DO take issue with it.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Jesus yes Len but not God which was my point.
You said there was no evidence of any type for the existence of God.
There is however what would nowdays be described as anecdotal evidence of the existence of God from the words of Jesus whom in all probability did exist.
I accept that such an argument could be labelled tenuous but, at the risk of being branded pedantic, it is evidence of a sort.
Absolute, utter, patent nonsense. There is no such thing as 'anecdotal evidence. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. It isn't 'evidence' any more than pictures of flying saucer-like objects on tapestries is 'evidence' that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrial spacecraft for hundreds of years.
Don't fall into the trap that other people of faith have been doing for the past few years - trying to find 'evidence' that Jesus existed, or that God exists. Faith is just that - 'faith'. Trying to legitimise your belief in God by trumping up 'evidence' is pointless (there isn't any) and devalues the whole raison d'etre for you having 'faith' in the first place!
I have no issue with people believing in 'another' power - as a person of scientific bent I believe there are plenty of things that 'science' can't explain (the concept of a 'soul', the formation of emotional attachments and 'feelings' etc etc). When people try to pass off hearsay, rumour, conjecture and stories as 'evidence' I DO take issue with it.
I'm not passing it off as conclusive evidence at all and said as much.
SHG said there was no evidence of any type to which I responded that there was evidence of Jesus who anecdotally spoke of the existence of God.
As evidence I accept it is about as reliable as Michael Mann's hockey stick which is shaping climate change policy :-)
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Jesus yes Len but not God which was my point.
You said there was no evidence of any type for the existence of God.
There is however what would nowdays be described as anecdotal evidence of the existence of God from the words of Jesus whom in all probability did exist.
I accept that such an argument could be labelled tenuous but, at the risk of being branded pedantic, it is evidence of a sort.
Absolute, utter, patent nonsense. There is no such thing as 'anecdotal evidence. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. It isn't 'evidence' any more than pictures of flying saucer-like objects on tapestries is 'evidence' that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrial spacecraft for hundreds of years.
Don't fall into the trap that other people of faith have been doing for the past few years - trying to find 'evidence' that Jesus existed, or that God exists. Faith is just that - 'faith'. Trying to legitimise your belief in God by trumping up 'evidence' is pointless (there isn't any) and devalues the whole raison d'etre for you having 'faith' in the first place!
I have no issue with people believing in 'another' power - as a person of scientific bent I believe there are plenty of things that 'science' can't explain (the concept of a 'soul', the formation of emotional attachments and 'feelings' etc etc). When people try to pass off hearsay, rumour, conjecture and stories as 'evidence' I DO take issue with it.
I'm not passing it off as conclusive evidence at all and said as much.
SHG said there was no evidence of any type to which I responded that there was evidence of Jesus who anecdotally spoke of the existence of God.
As evidence I accept it is about as reliable as Michael Mann's hockey stick which is shaping climate change policy :-)
Nice try, but you're not having that Len. Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' IS supported by evidence - reams and reams of it, from analysis of ice core samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years, to analysis of sediments going back millions of years, to analysis of carbon particulates in strata going back hundreds of millions of years. Stupid 'tarting up' of the evidence cannot 'gloss over' the fact that, for every one piece of moody data or over-egged statistic, there are hundreds of pieces of empirical evidence which contradict that single piece of the puzzle.
And the last part, as I've said earlier, isn't evidence at all - because 'anecdoctal evidence' is as much an oxymoron as 'military intelligence'. We have 'anecdotal evidence' of the existence of ghosts, UFOs and the wonderful healing powers of Scientology. I'm not suggesting you're trying to pass anecdotal 'evidence' off as conclusive evidence. I'm telling you that it isn't 'evidence' at all! )
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]So jeebuz is true because the good book says so and science is a Guardian(ista?) conspiracy?
I'm don't have the book-smarts of some on here, so it'd be good if someone could confirm that I've got the jist of all this?
Try to keep up Morts. Jeebus might be true - but it doesn't matter whether anyone 'proves' it or not because it's the very faith in his existence that matters. The Guardian is about as left-wing nowadays as Shaun Woodward, so the term 'Guardianista' is an unamusing pun which ceased to have any relevance in... ooooh, around 1997. It's 'science' coverage is also about as informative as my old science teacher in secondary school 'mad' Bob Henderson - who spent nearly every lesson talking about rugby.
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]Are you including the Bad Science bloke in that? Surely he is at least as informative as mad Bob?
Ben Goldacre is only in Le Guardienne getting exposure whilst he formulates his plan to run for Prime Minister on a solo ticket. Goldacre for PM - 2014 - you heard it here first
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn back into this thread but there is somthing which is really troubling me about it. Maybe it's time for a quick quiz, that might help me get things straight? Okay here goes, let see if anyone else can get it, what have the following got in common?
Cape Town
Moscow
Germany
Argentina
Eastern Europe
Iceland
Papua New Guinea
Next season's pick up points for The Valley Express?
Nice try Oakster but not the answer I'm afraid. Now come on people, I'm certain that at least some of you know the answer...
I don't think anyone can dispute that climate changes - it has done since the earth first came into existence. What is in dispute is whether it is man made or not.
I fear that it suits governments to use climate change as an excuse for higher taxes. We were told that in this country we could expect hotter, drier summers and milder winters. We've certainly seen none of that the past two years.
If Met Office computers can't accurately predict weather a few weeks in advance, then how can we believe all these computer models which predict global warming many years in advance? We've had warmer and cooler periods throughout the earth's history and will probably continue to do so.
The trouble with this natural v man made argument is that it detracts from what should be the main argument (and that is precisely why people use it). Irrespective of whether climate change is a natural phenomenon or a man made situation, the approach we ought to be taking is to consider what we can do about it. Instead, there's a whole section of society using this spurious argument as an excuse to do nothing - not even to think about it: "Oh these things happen, so we'll just carry on an ignore it". The stupidity of this position comes to light if you consider a danger a little closer to home: Supposing you arrived home to find a venemous snake in your house, I expect you want to do something about it. Perhaps you'd remove it yourself, perhaps you'd call an expert, or perhaps you'd run around in a big flap hoping that the handsome hunk next door would come and rescue you. What I'd bet no sane person would do would be to sit down in the same room whilst the snake comes ever closer pondering whether it came in by itself or whether someone put it there. Well the situation we face is a lot graver than a single snake, but lots of people are somehow so confused in their thinking that they believe if we didn't start the problem then we don't have any responsibility for dealing with it.
Why are we so impotent?
A lot of the possible solutions that are being discussed by technicians now concern our ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere regardless of how it got there.
[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]The trouble with this natural v man made argument is that it detracts from what should be the main argument (and that is precisely why people use it). Irrespective of whether climate change is a natural phenomenon or a man made situation, the approach we ought to be taking is to consider what we can do about it. Instead, there's a whole section of society using this spurious argument as an excuse to do nothing - not even to think about it: "Oh these things happen, so we'll just carry on an ignore it". The stupidity of this position comes to light if you consider a danger a little closer to home: Supposing you arrived home to find a venemous snake in your house, I expect you want to do something about it. Perhaps you'd remove it yourself, perhaps you'd call an expert, or perhaps you'd run around in a big flap hoping that the handsome hunk next door would come and rescue you. What I'd bet no sane person would do would be to sit down in the same room whilst the snake comes ever closer pondering whether it came in by itself or whether someone put it there. Well the situation we face is a lot graver than a single snake, but lots of people are somehow so confused in their thinking that they believe if we didn't start the problem then we don't have any responsibility for dealing with it.
I'm not sure it's that simple Stig. If we could prove that global warming wasn't man made and carbon emissions weren't a concern, then transfer to new sources of energy would likely be smoother, as we've not got another restriction to worry about. Either way there's a ticking clock as fossil fuels will run out, but we wouldn't be under threat right now and we wouldn't have to tackle another layer of complexity.
The question whether it's man-made isn't simply academic, it has implications in how we deal with the problem.
Imagine there were certain things that make the snake much more dangerous and likely to strike. Wouldn't you want to work out those things and prevent them as part of taking on the snake?
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Jesus yes Len but not God which was my point.
You said there was no evidence of any type for the existence of God.
There is however what would nowdays be described as anecdotal evidence of the existence of God from the words of Jesus whom in all probability did exist.
I accept that such an argument could be labelled tenuous but, at the risk of being branded pedantic, it is evidence of a sort.
Kinda ironic that you are whining about "social control" and global warming and yet you subscribe to a religion that has done far more harm in trying to "socially control" the world than anyone who wants to pump less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]The trouble with this natural v man made argument is that it detracts from what should be the main argument (and that is precisely why people use it). Irrespective of whether climate change is a natural phenomenon or a man made situation, the approach we ought to be taking is to consider what we can do about it. Instead, there's a whole section of society using this spurious argument as an excuse to do nothing - not even to think about it: "Oh these things happen, so we'll just carry on an ignore it". The stupidity of this position comes to light if you consider a danger a little closer to home: Supposing you arrived home to find a venemous snake in your house, I expect you want to do something about it. Perhaps you'd remove it yourself, perhaps you'd call an expert, or perhaps you'd run around in a big flap hoping that the handsome hunk next door would come and rescue you. What I'd bet no sane person would do would be to sit down in the same room whilst the snake comes ever closer pondering whether it came in by itself or whether someone put it there. Well the situation we face is a lot graver than a single snake, but lots of people are somehow so confused in their thinking that they believe if we didn't start the problem then we don't have any responsibility for dealing with it.
I'm not sure it's that simple Stig. If we could prove that global warming wasn't man made and carbon emissions weren't a concern, then transfer to new sources of energy would likely be smoother, as we've not got another restriction to worry about. Either way there's a ticking clock as fossil fuels will run out, but we wouldn't be under threat right now and we wouldn't have to tackle another layer of complexity.
The question whether it's man-made isn't simply academic, it has implications in how we deal with the problem.
Imagine there were certain things that make the snake much more dangerous and likely to strike. Wouldn't you want to work out those things and prevent them as part of taking on the snake?
Fair enough Sussex, sure this is a simplified view and I accept what you say about the implications. My argument that people are using the nature nurture debate as an excuse to do nothing still stands though. Also, to carry the snake analogy a step further I don't disagree that the wise thing to do would be to consider the likelihood of certain actions provoking a strike, but I still think it might be worth backing off to a safe distance before contemplating too much.
Gooner Your random wind-up nonsense still amuses, but really, I've checked the OU and they havent mentioned ''third world'' development in any of their course titles for two decades. Care to tell us what major bollox project you were on? You ran?
These schoolboy errors, combined with your claimed links to a MN Oil company. are undermining your credentials to have your wind-ups taken seriously. Buck your ideas up
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Jesus yes Len but not God which was my point.
You said there was no evidence of any type for the existence of God.
There is however what would nowdays be described as anecdotal evidence of the existence of God from the words of Jesus whom in all probability did exist.
I accept that such an argument could be labelled tenuous but, at the risk of being branded pedantic, it is evidence of a sort.
Kinda ironic that you are whining about "social control" and global warming and yet you subscribe to a religion that has done far more harm in trying to "socially control" the world than anyone who wants to pump less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
One, properly observed, advocates civillised living "love thy neighbour as thyself" for example.
The leaders of the other are a group of jetsetting hypocrites, whom try to guilt trip and ruthlessly tax decent ordinary people into not driving or flying whilst themselves flying round the world from climate junket to climate junket at the taxpayer's expense whilst extorting money to feather their own nests through "carbon trading." Dr RK Pachauri being a prime example.
There have been bad people in positions of power in Churches, Mosques and other religious buildings whom have abused religion but the motives of religion are essentially good.
Can the same be said for those whom seek to blame man for climate change when climate has changed long before man started driving a car and flying? There was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the Middle Ages than there is now.
And before you ask no I did not read the above in the Daily Mail!:-)
Climate changes over the P{leistocene era have shown cold and wamr periods of between 8 and about 15 000 years. We are in the zone for a 4 degree cooling to a new ice age. That is what past climate change tells us may happen. But far from this natural cycle we are warming up. It is clearly linked to CO2 output, which has been more rapid through fossil fuel burning, plus the methane output of cows and rice fields, as well as the more persistent pollutants which dont occur in nature.
But even if those flat-earthers who choose to ignore or dis believ the scientific data want to deny the problem is man made, its still a problem. So what do you want to do about it.
You really are arguing about where you want to put the deck chairs on the Titanic after someone has told you its hit an iceberg.
The bird who organises all the climate change riots drinks down my local. Honestly, if you sexist pigs saw how large her breasts are you'd believe every word she says, science or no science.
Comments
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm
or
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
You said there was no evidence of any type for the existence of God.
There is however what would nowdays be described as anecdotal evidence of the existence of God from the words of Jesus whom in all probability did exist.
I accept that such an argument could be labelled tenuous but, at the risk of being branded pedantic, it is evidence of a sort.
One more link re the existence of Jesus.
Tenuous is far too definate a word for it. It's not evidence of any sort. Just because Keith Baron existed does not mean that The Moomins are real, and that goes for any other fairy story you care to mention.
Don't fall into the trap that other people of faith have been doing for the past few years - trying to find 'evidence' that Jesus existed, or that God exists. Faith is just that - 'faith'. Trying to legitimise your belief in God by trumping up 'evidence' is pointless (there isn't any) and devalues the whole raison d'etre for you having 'faith' in the first place!
I have no issue with people believing in 'another' power - as a person of scientific bent I believe there are plenty of things that 'science' can't explain (the concept of a 'soul', the formation of emotional attachments and 'feelings' etc etc). When people try to pass off hearsay, rumour, conjecture and stories as 'evidence' I DO take issue with it.
I'm not passing it off as conclusive evidence at all and said as much.
SHG said there was no evidence of any type to which I responded that there was evidence of Jesus who anecdotally spoke of the existence of God.
As evidence I accept it is about as reliable as Michael Mann's hockey stick which is shaping climate change policy :-)
And the last part, as I've said earlier, isn't evidence at all - because 'anecdoctal evidence' is as much an oxymoron as 'military intelligence'. We have 'anecdotal evidence' of the existence of ghosts, UFOs and the wonderful healing powers of Scientology. I'm not suggesting you're trying to pass anecdotal 'evidence' off as conclusive evidence. I'm telling you that it isn't 'evidence' at all!
I'm don't have the book-smarts of some on here, so it'd be good if someone could confirm that I've got the jist of all this?
HTH
Nice try Oakster but not the answer I'm afraid. Now come on people, I'm certain that at least some of you know the answer...
I fear that it suits governments to use climate change as an excuse for higher taxes. We were told that in this country we could expect hotter, drier summers and milder winters. We've certainly seen none of that the past two years.
If Met Office computers can't accurately predict weather a few weeks in advance, then how can we believe all these computer models which predict global warming many years in advance? We've had warmer and cooler periods throughout the earth's history and will probably continue to do so.
A lot of the possible solutions that are being discussed by technicians now concern our ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere regardless of how it got there.
I'm not sure it's that simple Stig. If we could prove that global warming wasn't man made and carbon emissions weren't a concern, then transfer to new sources of energy would likely be smoother, as we've not got another restriction to worry about. Either way there's a ticking clock as fossil fuels will run out, but we wouldn't be under threat right now and we wouldn't have to tackle another layer of complexity.
The question whether it's man-made isn't simply academic, it has implications in how we deal with the problem.
Imagine there were certain things that make the snake much more dangerous and likely to strike. Wouldn't you want to work out those things and prevent them as part of taking on the snake?
Kinda ironic that you are whining about "social control" and global warming and yet you subscribe to a religion that has done far more harm in trying to "socially control" the world than anyone who wants to pump less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Fair enough Sussex, sure this is a simplified view and I accept what you say about the implications. My argument that people are using the nature nurture debate as an excuse to do nothing still stands though. Also, to carry the snake analogy a step further I don't disagree that the wise thing to do would be to consider the likelihood of certain actions provoking a strike, but I still think it might be worth backing off to a safe distance before contemplating too much.
Your random wind-up nonsense still amuses, but really, I've checked the OU and they havent mentioned ''third world'' development in any of their course titles for two decades.
Care to tell us what major bollox project you were on? You ran?
These schoolboy errors, combined with your claimed links to a MN Oil company. are undermining your credentials to have your wind-ups taken seriously.
Buck your ideas up
One, properly observed, advocates civillised living "love thy neighbour as thyself" for example.
The leaders of the other are a group of jetsetting hypocrites, whom try to guilt trip and ruthlessly tax decent ordinary people into not driving or flying whilst themselves flying round the world from climate junket to climate junket at the taxpayer's expense whilst extorting money to feather their own nests through "carbon trading." Dr RK Pachauri being a prime example.
There have been bad people in positions of power in Churches, Mosques and other religious buildings whom have abused religion but the motives of religion are essentially good.
Can the same be said for those whom seek to blame man for climate change when climate has changed long before man started driving a car and flying? There was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the Middle Ages than there is now.
And before you ask no I did not read the above in the Daily Mail!:-)
But far from this natural cycle we are warming up.
It is clearly linked to CO2 output, which has been more rapid through fossil fuel burning, plus the methane output of cows and rice fields, as well as the more persistent pollutants which dont occur in nature.
But even if those flat-earthers who choose to ignore or dis believ the scientific data want to deny the problem is man made, its still a problem. So what do you want to do about it.
You really are arguing about where you want to put the deck chairs on the Titanic after someone has told you its hit an iceberg.
Whens the next march ??