Which camp are you in?

[wobs]

I'll just leave this here:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...th-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
Some may find it interesting.

 

[ladylola]

What I would like to know, is the "carbon footprint" created by climate change scientists and government bods/hanger on's when they attend global conferences in exotic locations? In this technological day and age, they should practice what they preach and set up internet conferencing for these things. "Save the planet" they preach, then think nothing of travelling half way around the world on jet planes to attend these events. They then wonder why a hell of a lot of people are sceptical of their research/intentions.
Oh I forgot,, they'd rather attend these conferences in person, rather than sit in their offices, saving the planet. Bloody hypocrites.

Seems at least one has read your post-
http://news.yahoo.com/meteorologist...r-seeing-latest-climate-report-134014509.html

I do agree with your sentiments with regard to all this travel. There's very little reason for anyone to go in person be they scientists or company reps.

 

[joe-90]

You can't get your leg over with conference call.

 

[ladylola]

phone sex?

 

[EFLImpudence]

So, until it is definitively explained with absolute certainty then scientists are not much different than creationists except for the fact that scientists will keep looking until the truth is found instead of blindly believing that 'someone' made it one week about six thousand years ago - only thirteen and a half billion out.

This shows your ignorance.

You have taken my remarks out of context.
Likening scientists and creationists was in response to the original question -

"There is one group in here that swears by science. There is no God. The Universe came into being by gravitational forces. We have a group of scientists and their supporters that swear by it.We'll call this group Group A.

The other group says that everything must have come from somewhere, and something must have acted to make the nothing something. We call that something God. We'll call this group group B".


I have nowhere said the climate scientists are wrong, in fact I said they were not wrong but admit they don't yet know.

My arguments were aimed at the posters who think that ninety seven per cent of a particular group thinking something very likely is grounds for considering that something absolutely certain.


Also taken out of context was my reference to Galileo.
I was not comparing myself to him.
He was merely one of my examples of where the perceived wisdom at the time was wrong.

 

[wobs]

So, until it is definitively explained with absolute certainty then scientists are not much different than creationists except for the fact that scientists will keep looking until the truth is found instead of blindly believing that 'someone' made it one week about six thousand years ago - only thirteen and a half billion out.

This shows your ignorance.

You have taken my remarks out of context.
Likening scientists and creationists was in response to the original question -

"There is one group in here that swears by science. There is no God. The Universe came into being by gravitational forces. We have a group of scientists and their supporters that swear by it.We'll call this group Group A.

The other group says that everything must have come from somewhere, and something must have acted to make the nothing something. We call that something God. We'll call this group group B".


I have nowhere said the climate scientists are wrong, in fact I said they were not wrong but admit they don't yet know.

My arguments were aimed at the posters who think that ninety seven per cent of a particular group thinking something very likely is grounds for considering that something absolutely certain.


Also taken out of context was my reference to Galileo.
I was not comparing myself to him.
He was merely one of my examples of where the perceived wisdom at the time was wrong.

Your "until it is definitively explained with absolute certainty then scientists are not much different than creationists " shows you do not understand science.

I didn't take you out of context, you are showing a lack of understanding of science.
The majority of scientific studies (science in general) conclude that they don't know the answer.

The few that bring an answer still have caveats, and are extremely cautious in their approach. You are extremely unlikely to get a "we know with absolute certainty that its THIS". Science does not work this, and if it did, it would be (ironically given what you've said) comparable to creationists.

Climate scientists say with a degree of certainty that AGW is happening. This is the best we can hope for, and the the evidence is building that this is correct. Its a bit like evolution, in that both have mounting evidence, although AGW has had a huge amount of resources to research the subject, as its a big area to study.

New evidence will no doubt come in that pushes factors one way of the other, and aspects of the theory will get adjusted, but it is unlikely in the extreme that AGW will be proved wrong.

Society as a whole needs to act to tackle it, but its a big subject, and many of us have opinions of how we should do it.

I didn't say you were comparing yourself to Galileo, I said the use of Galileo was a cliched fallacy. Galileo is not an argumemt either way for a theory, for it could be the establishment making the claim, or it could be the chaps in the minority who are right.

 

[DiscoDancer]

Edit: deleted

 

[JBR]

A typically valuable contribution from Joe.

 

[pred]

EFL Impudence wrote

It is very gradually being rejected by those who can think for themselves but in its time was just as vicious and barbaric as another religion still is

And pales into insignificance when compared to the atheists records of barbarity and cruelty.

Pray tell what atheist are you referring to, have you got any names please....