Fake Science

You can see evolution happening at least as far as species and plants evolving goes (micro) evolution , however macro evolution is a theory however a very very strong theory. There are still many missing links

Maybe in your mind

Again being a Deist Im more agnostic than aesthetic

I never said I didnt believe in evolution. Hell my major was biology I wanted to be a Veterinarian but I quit after a year and joined the Marines. I still wound up being a vet

 

So us humans can do whatever we like because no matter what happens, it's just nature?

 

You mean like typing on the keyboard made from oil products?

 

Nope as part of nature we must respect it like no putting poison and pollutants in our air and water but CO2 is neither of those.

 

So why does poisons and pollutants matter but not CO[SUB]2[/SUB]?

 

Burning oil tends to be worse than making plastic out of it, but I understand what you are saying. Yes, I'm not perfect. My carbon footprint is not as small as it should be, but I do try. However, if we just hide our heads in the sand and ignore the obvious, we are going to wake up to a rude surprise.

 

Its not a poison or pollutant. Im still not even convinced a little more warming wouldnt make things better. If we know how to heat up the earth we better remember because as they say in Game of Thrones,,,,, Winter is coming

 

TOE includes macro. You cannot say you believe in TOE if you do not believe the macro part.

Since you do not believe in macro, how do you account for the presence of humans on Earth?

 

I didnt say I didnt believe in it, Im simply not fully convinced as to all its principles . Is there part of it being a very very strong theory not enough for you ? I have to swear on it ? Micro evolution is easy to see and prove. There is still no pericardial proof as to the theory of marco evolution being a fact

I have a few doubts but I wouldnt say I dont believe, at least to the vast amount of it

How about ancient aliens

We came here to plunder and destroy the earth by filling the atmosphere with CO2 for our own petty uses

 

You won't live long enough to wake up to a rude surprise. Even then warming is good. The real killer is cold.

 

Almost every theory is eventually proven wrong

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/31/most-scientific-theories-are-wrong/http://

 

Usfan was talking about evolution on another thread and he gave it a cut off date as a scientific endeavour of 1967. He's missed a lot.

 

a 'cut off date?' Hardly. I'm not sure which post you refer to, but it is probably one about the courts ruling on evolution being taught in school. It is an interesting sociological study, & the usage of 'Science!' by lawyers & ideologues should make one pause, & realize that 'Fake Science' is nothing new. It has been around a while, & has only increased in the last few decades, as disrespect for Real Science, greed for grants, & propaganda based research has overwhelmed the academic community, & put the scientific method as an inconvenient truth. Lawyers are not scientists. Their specialty is to present a plausible scenario, not scientific facts. But lawyers have been promoting & controlling the origins debate for decades.. nearly a century.

I'm looking forward to a revival of scientific inquiry.. it usually happens, after a period of mandated conformity by the status quo. A few bold heretics will post a controversial study, or make a shocking claim that rocks the Fake Science world. Like Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, & others, the Truth of some sacred cow of the institutional status quo will be examined more critically, & it will eventually crumble under that scrutiny. I'm actually shocked, that something like the ToE and AGW has been going on for so long, in our alleged 'scientific' culture. It just goes to show that science is no more immune from human manipulations than anything else. The ruling elite have been doing it for centuries, if not millennia, & will likely continue into the future. The fantasy belief that we are somehow immune to this, because we are at the pinnacle of human knowledge, is charmingly naive, absurdly arrogant, & dangerously ignorant.

And to answer Chuck.. Science, or scientific methodology, is not tasked with explaining the mysteries of the universe for philosophical comfort. Facts, evidence, & Truth are the goals, not offering alternative explanations for unknown mysteries that are beyond the realm of scientific methodology. Evolution has become a religion.. a belief system, with NO scientific basis. For the true scientist, exposing flaws, & critically examining the claims are the main tasks. Attempting to prop up a worldview, or cater to a belief system has NO PLACE in scientific endeavor. Yet that is what Fake Science is all about. Truth & Facts are not sought, but validation for some hare brained 'theory'.

And also to Chuck: You have heard wrong. At least the voices telling you this have been wrong. They are propagandists.. ideologically driven beliefs are all you have. There is NO EVIDENCE that 'species change over time, in the basic genetic structure. The only 'changes' that occur are on the micro level, or in mere variability. The postulation that organisms can move easily between one genetic structure to another is not possible, from anything we know today. That is 'Fake Science', that indoctrinates this belief system into people as though it were 'settled science'. It is not. It is not even science. It is a religious belief.

I know there are not many scientifically minded people out there. Most people are content to leave that to the 'experts'. So they 'trust' them, believing them to be conflict free, & sincere seekers of scientific truth. But these are human beings, & as such, are subject to the same biases, prejudices, & self interests as anyone else. Anybody involved in the realm of research knows this.

I like this quote, from 1961, about the increasing conflict of govt funding & scientific research. It should be obvious, & how many people have been up in arms over the years over some phony report from 'govt scientists', telling us to chill & trust them, they are the 'smart ones', & have everything under control. DDT? It's safe, they assured us. Nuclear testing? Not a problem.. just rattles the windows, some. Margarine vs butter. Cigarettes. GMOs. Coffee. Sugar. Coal. Nuclear power. Name your controversy, & there was a govt funded study taking whichever side the ruling or moneyed, or academic elite preferred. It is the classic case of mixing politics with science, & it has always been a problem. Whenever you take science away from individual pursuit, or bind it under some institutional directives, you get Fake Science. Oh, they may come up with a few solutions, using technology in some way, but seldom does govt funded research bring anything radical to the knowledge base. They may build on it, some, but they do not do breakthroughs.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

The bolds are mine, & the quote is from Eisenhower, 1961. It is interesting to me how little things change. This could have easily been someone speaking to the current problems with scientific research, & the conflict of money, influence, & agenda.

Fake Science is real. It has been with us forever, & it takes skeptical, keen eyed critics to see through the bluff & arrogance of the elite, to continue the holy curiosity of inquiry.

 

I think it would be foolish to think we knew enough about the climate change to actually try to change it on purpose, much less by accident.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think we really know enough about the climate to make that prediction?

 

Absolutely.

 

Second that.

 

Make that 3

 

Nonsense as circles are just a special case of ellipses and no one, that I am aware of assume from the very beginning that the planets orbits would turn out to be perfect circles.

Kepler's laws date back to 1609.

 

Fake Science is not just annoying and expensive, it's downright dangerous.

Climate Change is “end-time” cultism. California has faced the prospect of a major calamity as three merciless months of near-nonstop rainfall have led to the possibility of a massive failure at the tallest dam in the U.S., in Oroville, near Sacramento. It’s a big deal; 188,000 people have been evacuated. Concerns about how the aging Oroville Dam would fare in the face of record rainfall were raised years ago, but the state and the feds ignored them.

The underlining theory behind the dam inaction was climate-change apocalyptics who had convinced the Silly Putty-brained California powers-that-be that rain was never returning to the state. Quite literally, new dams, and improvements on old ones, were rejected because a doomsday cult had convinced politicians that water was “over,” that the drought that began in 2012 was not a passing thing but an “era,” something that would last decades if not a century. And why build new dams if there’ll be no water for them to hold? Why refurbish old ones if there’s no chance they’ll ever be filled again?

From the L.A. Times, July 2015:

Dams are a relic of the Industrial Age…. They’re particularly ill-suited to the era of extremes—heat waves, floods and droughts—that climate change has brought on.

The New Republic, April 2015:

The Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick said: “Even if we built a couple of dams, we don’t have water to fill them. We’re tapped out. The traditional answer of building more reservoirs won’t solve our problems.” Building additional reservoirs does little when there’s no snow or rain to fill them.

California governor Jerry Brown in August 2015, responding to calls from GOP presidential candidates to build new dams and renovate old ones:

I’ve never heard of such utter ignorance. Building a dam won’t do a damn thing about fires or climate change or the absence of moisture in the air and ground of California. If they want to run for president, they had better do eighth grade science before they made such utterances.

The Sacramento Bee summed it up succinctly:

“Questions loom about the value of such projects in an era of scarcity.”

Because indeed, leftist voodoo practitioners had brainwashed the state into believing this was an “era of scarcity.” We were told that Mother Earth was punishing us for our CO2 sins by withholding her precious water, and rainfall would only return once we submitted to cap and trade and international climate-change treaties. And anyone who dared suggest that the drought was a passing thing, that weather was not permanent but fluctuating, was ridiculed for not knowing “eighth grade science.”

Witch doctors in white coats who study tree stumps like gypsies read tea leaves told The San Jose Mercury News in 2014 that the drought might last over one hundred, maybe even one thousand, years. If you Google “California,” “drought,” and “will last” or “may last,” you’ll see endless links to left-certified “scientific” snake-handlers who claimed, right up until a few months ago, that the drought may last hundreds of years, or thousands of years, or “forever.”

Yet here we are in February 2017, with the drought completely over in Northern Cal and close to being over in the South. The rainfall of the past few months has shattered all records. The last “abnormal” California winter, 1982/1983, saw rainfall that was 88% higher than the 30-year average. Winter 2016/2017? 120% higher. Cities like Long Beach have seen rainfall at levels never before recorded. The end-time apocalyptic cultists were wrong, but you won’t hear any of them admit it. Just as Christian doomsday cultists never apologize when their Rapture clock turns out to be broken, so too do the macumba practitioners of the “IFL(I Fn Love) Science” left feel no need to explain themselves. Because the members of their parish—the smug Rachel Maddow-watching, NPR-listening atheist Democrat soft-skulls—demand no explanation. Again, it’s a matter of faith. If the Rapture doesn’t happen as prophesied, it’s not because Pastor Looneybird was wrong in his calculations. It’s because God changed His mind at the last minute and rescheduled the blessed event, and now we must double our faith in our beloved pastor as he attempts to figure out the time and place of the new Rapture.

And if the tree-ring-circus necromancers of the left got the duration of the California drought wrong, it’s not because their models and methodologies were faulty; it’s because Mother Earth cried tears of sympathy on our state to buy us a little more time to confiscate asthma inhalers so that we may regain her favor.

That last sentence may seem a bit over-the-top, but it isn’t. Never forget that the voodoo priests of the left banned the most effective types of asthma inhalers because they were “killing the earth,” even as leftist billionaires were allowed to continue flying private jets all over the world in order to play golf and screw fashion models and conduct similarly important business. There is no way this is any saner than the faith healing and tongue-speaking of the charismatics and evangelicals. Indeed, it’s worse, because it’s way more invasive, way more intrusive, in the lives of bystanders. No right-wing Christian ever forced me to anoint with oil. But leftist charlatans posing as scientists banned the only type of inhaler that helped my elderly mom’s asthma, because the act of her going “puff puff” so she wouldn’t die was bringing about the end of days, while Al Gore’s totally unnecessary private jet oddly had no effect on the environment.

That’s science? No, that’s an Indian rain dance.

There are so many additional ways in which the left embraces superstition and rejects science as much as, if not more than, conservative Christians. During the election last year, leftists attacked Trump for suggesting that intelligence has a genetic component, even though, according to every legitimate expert on the subject, intelligence has a genetic component. Trump had not claimed that intelligence is determined by race; he had only suggested that genetics play a part. And overnight, the notion of a genetic role in intelligence went from undisputed fact to heresy, all because Pope Huffington issued a papal bull((*)(*)(*)(*)) declaring that Trump’s belief that genes contribute to intelligence “may be the most horrible thing that Donald Trump believes.”

Expect more superstitious nonsense from leftists in the years to come, because if leftists have demon-haunted minds, Trump is the ghost rattling around inside, clouding all judgment and giving rise to visions and fever dreams. Undeservedly famous leftist comedians are seeing signs and wonders. Sarah Silverman’s phantom pavement swastikas were nothing more than the leftist-Jewish version of seeing Jesus in a tortilla.

Silverman’s response after being told that her “swastikas” were simple construction markers boiled down to “I’ve been driven to lunacy by Trump’s anti-Semitism.” In other words, she’s possessed; a demon made her do it.

These days, the left has no moral high ground over the religious right. In fact, I’d take a conservative Christian over a demon-haunted leftist any day, because at least conservative Christians admit that their beliefs are faith-based. They don’t go around screaming “science! science! science!” while drinking sacrificial goats’ blood Santeria-style because the rain gods are angry.

I have nothing against people of faith. But hypocrites? They (*)(*)(*)(*) me off like a sonofa(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).
[/i]
http://takimag.com/article/ghost_inside_your_haunted_head_david_cole/print#ixzz4ZZ6sECr8

 

(emphases mine)

None of the links you posted support your assertion (highlighted in blue above).

Let's look at just one of your links...

You self defined era as "something that would last decades if not a century" but it's synonyms include period, phase, time and span.
In the body of the article the authors use the word "era" once:

"Seven different bills are pending in the Legislature that would use varying amounts of state bond funding to launch a new era of dam construction with the aim of increasing the state’s capacity to store precious mountain snowmelt."​

The authors of the article,Matt Weiser and Jeremy B. White made no comments to justify your assertions. Had you read the 2200+ word article you would have seen that the words "Climate" or "AGW" were never used. There were no references to anything related to AGW.

The article was about the best ways to allocate money to supply adequate water for California in the future.

You posted a link to, and a headline from, an article that in no way supports your argument.

That leaves us with several options to consider:

1. You did not read the article. If you didn't read it, we have to wonder if you just got the link from an anti-AGW website and blindly copy/pasted it.
2. You read the article but did not understand it. If you couldn't understand this article then you don't have the capability to understand the science supporting AGW and your protestations are based on ignorance.
3. You read the article but chose to be disingenuous about its content.

I believe your reading comprehension is OK. Therefore, we are left with just 1 or 3. In either case it does not speak well for your integrity.

 

Well, i liked [MENTION=68680]Zorro[/MENTION] 's link.. it was a very poignant commentary on this 'leftist religion' of fake science. Here is another quote (from the same article) i found particularly inspiring:

Naturally, I heard from a couple of my left-leaning readers, congratulating me for sticking it to those “superstitious religious Neanderthals” on the right. It was not an unexpected response. If today’s leftists pride themselves on anything, it’s their supposed rationalism. Leftists see themselves as enlightened and logical. They “(*)(*)(*)(*)ing love” science and reject religious hokum, in contrast to the superstitious buffoons on the right, who live in, to quote Carl Sagan, a “demon-haunted world” of their own making. With every leftist I know, this is the characteristic about which they are most proud: They are rationalists and skeptics, with shibboleth-shorn minds free of bewitchment. The problem is, leftists who consider themselves rational and non-superstitious are like scrawny nerds who look in the mirror and see a chiseled Adonis in the reflection. One almost feels bad for people so possessed of a delusion.

Since i have made many similar arguments, it is not surprising that i agree with this assessment. I see the SAME jihadist zeal from the pseudo scientists, as they defend & promote their religious beliefs. The only difference is in the terminology.. they believe in 'science!', but they have NO actual science... just assertions, ridicule, & demands of conformity. Irrationality, fallacies, & ad hominem rule in the 'leftist science' world. It is not based in the 'scientific revolution', or any real scientific methodology, but it more closely resembles dark ages practices of mandates & conformity of belief from the ruling elite.

 

Our Declaration of Independence enshrines in our founding document, our right to pursue OUR own dreams and personal aspirations and satisfaction.

We are always pursuing someones, in America, it's our own. Now you can be persuaded to make another's your own, but you cannot be forced to. We have various fanatic elements in our society, some currently quite frantic that do not accept that. At their core, I'm not sure they even perceive free-will as real, so see the foundational concept of our society as so much silly nonsense. They are constantly about harnessing the power of government to the service of their control of others. We are constantly about the task of limiting the power of government to the regulation of interaction between free-willed individuals, in close proximity, with the lightest hand effective for the task.

 

This is the argumentative fallacy known as the False Dilemma.

You only list two choices when there are at least three others. Intelligent design is one.

 

California is a SEMI-ARID desert.

The ecologists need to go look that up. It describes areas that *do* get rain but are coupled with long periods without moisture. The High Plains of the central US are similar. It's why the prairie grass has roots that go down eight feet or more!

The problem with Marxist Democrats is not that they know so much, it's that they know so much that is wrong!

 

Since you've drawn a conclusion about the "success" of the experiment I presume the experiment has reached its conclusion?

Do scientists talk about experiments being a success or failure or do they simply form a hypothesis and then perform the experiment comparing the results against a control group and then forming a new hypothesis based on the results?

Is the USA the only "experiment" in self rule? What about other autonomous countries? Arguably the American revolution had its roots in British political evolution commencing with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. Do none of the commonwealth nations experience self rule?

Would we have considered the Roman Republic to be a successful experiment in self rule up to the foundation of the Empire? Would we have considered Athenian democracy a successful experiment in Democracy up until the oligarchs took over?

How are you defining "success" and "self-rule" anyway?

Your post is enormous. Each numbered point contains numerous unanswered questions. Each numbered point contains conclusions that a reader would have to be the same kind of fool you accuse "the left" or "progressives" of being if the reader just accepted the statements as true.