Shiva.Nikolce said: »
No matter what side of the issue you are on, this is still funny.
Edit: paged, so have a Crystal Pepsi.
.JPG)
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
That guy leaning against the mail box isn't praying, he is staring at that girl's ***.... Edit: paged, so have a Crystal Pepsi.
[+]
Then your comment makes even less sense.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Then your comment makes even less sense. Or maybe you should figure that not everything is about you. That Crystal Pepsi post on the top of the page was not about you. So don't bother turning it into you. The posts I make on other threads today are also not about you. But since you automatically assumed that what I'm saying is about you, you had to jump on my "goodies" like a good..whatever you are..does. And no, you cannot sleep with me, as much as you want to. So if you're not talking about the participants of the conversation immediately preceding your post, then who are these climate science advocates who are demonizing religion?
Jassik and Jet.
They were not "immediately preceding my post" but they were on the same page. But don't worry, still not about you, as hard as you try to make it so. Do you know what demonizing means?
yeah...so breaking news.... obama is still president and the republicans are all upset about it... fox news is shocked cnn didn't bother to report on it and nobody watched msnbc to see how they felt... they are still trying to string up tubby by his heels on the GWB over bridgegate....
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Jassik and Jet. They were not "immediately preceding my post" but they were on the same page. But don't worry, still not about you, as hard as you try to make it so. Edit: not to mention I barely say anything about climate science, mostly because I don't need to, the only people denying it are delusional right wing nut jobs who suck on faux's ***. ***, it's like denying gravity or the theory of magnetism, or evolution, without actual proof, but hey. No. No it's not. Look, I'm not going to question your opinion that climate change deniers are delusional, but saying that it's the same as denying gravity or magnetism or evolution is just stupid. They're not even close to being in the same ballpark yet.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » No. No it's not. Look, I'm not going to question your opinion that climate change deniers are delusional, but saying that it's the same as denying gravity or magnetism or evolution is just stupid. They're not even close to being in the same ballpark yet. The evidence is pretty clear. Yes there are unknowns, but there has yet to be any real evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter unless you're talking about climate change in general, which I'm assuming Jet wasn't because that's been going on for billions of years. Man-made climate change and gravity don't belong in the same category of "proven science".
Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » No. No it's not. Look, I'm not going to question your opinion that climate change deniers are delusional, but saying that it's the same as denying gravity or magnetism or evolution is just stupid. They're not even close to being in the same ballpark yet. The evidence is pretty clear. Yes there are unknowns, but there has yet to be any real evidence to the contrary. I think what he is saying is that in one case one is denying very fundamental principles in science.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » It doesn't matter unless you're talking about climate change in general, which I'm assuming Jet wasn't because that's been going on for billions of years. Man-made climate change and gravity don't belong in the same category of "proven science". Which is why I bolded "yet". Sadly, that's one subject that we probably won't ever prove, as by the time it's obvious to the general populous, it'll be too late for us anyway. Odin.Jassik said: » The evidence is pretty clear. Yes there are unknowns, but there has yet to be any real evidence to the contrary. Bahamut.Ravael said: » It doesn't matter unless you're talking about climate change in general, which I'm assuming Jet wasn't because that's been going on for billions of years. Man-made climate change and gravity don't belong in the same category of "proven science". People are probably more comfortable with something like gravity because they can drop their pencil and see it work therefore it "clicks" easier and is less controversial, but the evidence is what matters and what qualifies it as "proven science". Cerberus.Pleebo said: » They all have unknowns. I'd say climate science is most akin to evolution in that the underlying principles are well understood but the working complexity of all the items working together can create larger amounts of uncertainty (although this is probably true of gravity and its relationships with pretty much everything but I'm more familiar with climate science/evolution). Either way, they're all well-substantiated theories with, like you said, little refutation. Man-made climate change isn't a dynamic process. Furthermore it isn't a principle that drives an entire genre of science. Evolution is a dynamic process. Evolution is a driving principle which is the backbone of biology. You cannot compare evolution to man-made climate change. That's not really the comparison I was making. I wasn't advocating the field as a fundamental principle like evolution. Climate science boils down to basic physics and chemistry so, yes, denying man-made climate change is denying very fundamental principles in science.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I wasn't advocating the field as a fundamental principle like evolution. Climate science boils down to basic physics and chemistry so, yes, denying man-made climate change is denying very fundamental principles in science. Climate science doesn't dictate the fields of physics or chemistry. Atomic structure, periodicity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. these are principles which dictate the fields of physicics and chemistry. Man-made climate change again is NOT a dynamic process. The others are dynamic processes. Man-made climate change is on par to man-caused extinction of a particular species. e.g. me denying that man caused the extinction of species Sea Mink doesn't deny the entire field of biology. EDIT: btw i'm not denying that man has induced a climate change. just like I'm not that man caused the extinction of the Sea Mink Again, I never said it did that. Where are you getting these words from?
Climate is a dynamic process. Climate change science is the study of Earth's climate. Go figure. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Climate is a dynamic process. Climate change science is the study of Earth's climate. Go figure. I was very specific in my wording of those sentences. Read them again. Quote: Man-made climate change isn't a dynamic process. Unless your essentially saying human caused extinctions too are a dynamic process? Because that is the logic you are running right now. How does one differentiate the two then? Climate change vs man-made climate change, that is.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Climate is a dynamic process. Climate change science is the study of Earth's climate. Go figure. I was very specific in my wording of those sentences. Read them again. Quote: Man-made climate change isn't a dynamic process. Unless your essentially saying human caused extinctions too are a dynamic process? Because that is the logic you are running right now. What, exactly, makes it not a dynamic process? I'm assuming we're using the terms differently. Pleebo's just trying to make something of this and defend a topic that wasn't even being attacked. When you get offended because someone says your developing science isn't as verifiable as gravity, then you're way too emotionally charged on the subject to be rational.
I gave a rational response to your statement that climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise, it doesn't matter) isn't a verifiable science. Don't even act like this is a personal matter unless that's all you have as a rebuttal.
Odin.Jassik said: » What, exactly, makes it not a dynamic process? I'm assuming we're using the terms differently. Man-made climate change is not a dynamic process simply because of the fact that it is dependent on the existence of man. Just as human caused extinctions are not a dynamic process, because they are dependent on existence of man. Gravity is not dependent on man, it will occur regardless if man exists. Evolution is not dependent on man, it will occur regardless if man exists. Man-made climate change(caused by emissions etc) is dependent on man, it will not occur if man does not exist. Bahamut.Ravael said: » When you get offended because someone says your developing science isn't as verifiable as gravity, then you're way too emotionally charged on the subject to be rational. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I gave a rational response to your statement that climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise, it doesn't matter) isn't a verifiable science. Don't even act like this is a personal matter unless that's all you have as a rebuttal. I didn't say it wasn't a verifiable science, but there are a myriad of factors to take into account, which could easily screw with the statistical viability of any data. Correlation is not causation, and climate change does not have the robustness of statistical proof that many other sciences have. I would venture to say that causation is impossible to prove under the current circumstances. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Odin.Jassik said: » What, exactly, makes it not a dynamic process? I'm assuming we're using the terms differently. Man-made climate change is not a dynamic process simply because of the fact that it is dependent on the existence of man. Just as human caused extinctions are not a dynamic process, because they are dependent on existence of man. Gravity is not dependent on man, it will occur regardless if man exists. Evolution is not dependent on man, it will occur regardless if man exists. Man-made climate change(caused by emissions etc) is dependent on man, it will not occur if man does not exist. I think you're misunderstanding the way AGC works. It may have required us as a catalyst, but at a certain point it becomes a runaway train. On the same token, it's not as if AGC doesn't impact us as well. The distinction doesn't make the conclusion any different, the oceans are warming, weather patterns and climates changing, and evidence shows we're AT LEAST accelerating it. It follows the same chemistry as any other natural process. @Bacon
k What does that have to do with what I said. Here is my exact analogy as stated in my first response: Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I'd say climate science is most akin to evolution in that the underlying principles are well understood but the working complexity of all the items working together can create larger amounts of uncertainty Odin.Jassik said: » I think you're misunderstanding the way AGC works. It may have required us as a catalyst, but at a certain point it becomes a runaway train. On the same token, it's not as if AGC doesn't impact us as well. The distinction doesn't make the conclusion any different, the oceans are warming, weather patterns and climates changing, and evidence shows we're AT LEAST accelerating it. It follows the same chemistry as any other natural process. I understand what you are saying. It's the same when discussing extinction. Again man-caused extinctions are not an ongoing process. extinctions are. Things are always going to go extinct. Things aren't always going to go extinct because of man. Bahamut.Ravael said: » I didn't say it wasn't a verifiable science, but there are a myriad of factors to take into account, which could easily screw with the statistical viability of any data. Correlation is not causation, and climate change does not have the robustness of statistical proof that many other sciences have. I would venture to say that causation is impossible to prove under the current circumstances.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » I didn't say it wasn't a verifiable science, but there are a myriad of factors to take into account, which could easily screw with the statistical viability of any data. Correlation is not causation, and climate change does not have the robustness of statistical proof that many other sciences have. I would venture to say that causation is impossible to prove under the current circumstances. There's a huge difference between understanding basic statistics and having professional statisticians on board to being able to say, without a doubt, that you have proven causation. I've gone looking for it, and I've not found any source showing me that proof aside from your own "uh huh, we totes have proof". Edit: On the other hand, if you would just say "The correlation is strong enough to at least support the idea at this time," then I would reply, "Cool." At that point we could at least move the conversation to the policies and not the science. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.