Most science is nonsense. While true, it goes without saying because it's like everything.
Approx. 3-minute video
Most Science is Nonsense
Posts
Total:
21
Only those outside of science think that scientists cant make mistakes.
-->
@RaymondSheen
Science is sometimes published in academic journals, published articles in academic journals aren't by definition "science".
"science" as delivered to you by TV personalities, blogs, consumer tabloids, and bureaucrats is not science.
Carbon dioxide is not a threat nor a source of warming.
Which is a good point. Is "Science" science? As the speaker in the video points out, very often science is "science." In other words very real science is corrupted, like religion was, for profit or whatever. You have to be published, you have to have funding and often you have to keep tenure.
So, this distinction is often made "that isn't actually" or "real" science as if science can't be corrupted, abused or neglected like religion, truth, data, etc. Like gold isn't gold unless it's pure. But that isn't the case. Religion, truth, data, science, theology can't be pure in the sense that (I suppose) gold can be.
Gold and gods.
So scientists can be wrong or corrupted same as everyone else about everything else. Whats the big news?
-->
@RaymondSheen
Which is a good point. Is "Science" science? As the speaker in the video points out, very often science is "science." In other words very real science is corrupted, like religion was, for profit or whatever. You have to be published, you have to have funding and often you have to keep tenure.So, this distinction is often made "that isn't actually" or "real" science as if science can't be corrupted, abused or neglected like religion, truth, data, etc. Like gold isn't gold unless it's pure. But that isn't the case. Religion, truth, data, science, theology can't be pure in the sense that (I suppose) gold can be.Gold and gods.
You mean to say, scientists are human?
-->
@Sidewalker
You mean to say, scientists are human?
I mean to say that people misrepresent science, theology, religion, God, the Bible, and everything else. Freedom, democracy, on and on, and on.
-->
@baggins
The big news? Uh, powerful Iranian people flying in helicopters in a mountainous region during a seriously intense fog.
-->
@RaymondSheen
The person in this video is just making stupid and false claims. Majority of the scientific community agrees there is a climate crisis, and all the other things he mentioned.
-->
@Moozer325
When "the scientific community" agrees on something they have it documented. Show me.
-->
@RaymondSheen
“ "the scientific community" “
-->
@RaymondSheen
Sorry, I had a MASSIVE brain fart. I just cited sources for another debate I've been doing. Sorry about that, here are the real ones
- https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
- https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause
- https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-do-we-know-climate-changing
-->
@RaymondSheen
Science is science.
Hypotheses may or may not be proven to be inaccurate.
With the benefit of hindsight, hypotheses that are proven to be inaccurate, could be referred to as nonsense.
Though if the initial proposition was sincere, then the word nonsense would be a tad disrespectful and inappropriate.
For some reason, science allows us to expedite material evolution.
-->
@Moozer325
You believe what the government tellse you then? You respond with links? I want a scientific study and I want your take on it with a link provided if you wish.
-->
@zedvictor4
Science is science.
No shit! Can't we get you on Mastermind?
Hypotheses may or may not be proven to be inaccurate.
My experience has been that science is almost always wrong. Which is fine, and the same as everything else. We learn and science is investigation not dogma.
With the benefit of hindsight, hypotheses that are proven to be inaccurate, could be referred to as nonsense.
Sometimes, but not always.
Though if the initial proposition was sincere, then the word nonsense would be a tad disrespectful and inappropriate.
I don't think so. Nonsense is nonsense.
Bee lieve it.
Flat earth, wrong but not stupid.
A format experiment.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc[/youtube]
-->
@RaymondSheen
I didn't think it would matter, because all my links cited primary sources at the bottom, so I was really just trying to put the data in a more easily readable format, but if you insist:
- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999GL900070
- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL046583
These studies show there is a direct correlation between the global temperature and CO2 emissions. It is a proven fact that the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere, the hotter our planet will get. This is called the blanket effect. The co2 traps sunlight and heat. There is a thing called the carbon cycle. Plants take carbon dioxide out of the air, and trap it in the ground. Volcanos and other geological events release this carbon into the atmosphere, keeping the balance in check. If there is too little, we freeze, and too much, we cook. Humans have been burning fossil fuels, which releases co2. That combined with deforestation, and there is to much in the air than there should be. This is all backed up in the papers.
-->
@Moozer325
All this is saying is that climate changes and always has.
No fear. Fear is the mind killer.
-->
@Moozer325
Most people really don't care that the climate changes. Greenland was once actually green, and we are coming out of a little ice age period. We are also near the tail end of a balmy El Nino cycle. We are set to have a nice cool El Nina cycle sometime next year.
What's not scientific consensus is whether or not we should revert to pre-industrial standards of living by lowering our global energy production in order to live in a pre-industrial climate. There is yet any compelling scientific evidence that a colder planet is objectively a better climate for all life including humans. Nor is there compelling scientific evidence that lowering global standards of living by lowering energy production is objectively optimal for the progression of the human species.
-->
@RaymondSheen
If at first you don't succeed then try try try again.
Science will only succeed once, but might fail a thousand times getting there.
Such is the nature of data evolution, and the reason why I don't need to endure a lengthy and perilous scurvy beset passage upon a sailing ship to exchange ideas with you.
There also is no scientific consensus that more CO2 means less green life on Earth instead of more green life.