Is the scientific community stupid?

I do not believe in a God either, so we agree there

but why do you think (+1) + (-1) does not equal zero?

 

(+1) + (-1) does equal zero

However, I assume you are claiming that there was matter and anti-matter and the combination equals nothing. And therefore nothing could be used to create something. The problem with that argument is that somehow both the anti-matter and matter were both here and just because you assign a negative value to one of them does not mean there was nothing here.. They both got here somehow. It in no way enhances the argument that you can create something from nothing.

 

But we do understand. It is well known, the greenhouse effect. It is well known how energy is transferred from photons to mechanical motion and back again. If the increases in greenhouse gases were not causing global temperature rises, that would be a bigger story.

 

We know man effects the climate. We do not know how much, how much we can change it and we do not have the proven ability to predict it.

 

Perhaps, simply, can we do our own critical thinking? Can we substantiate the variables as real and relevant? With the non accountability of experts, can we even evaluate them?

Which leads to awareness revealing intent, and the relevance of it.

Currently, unconscious use of cognitive distortions has perceptions in chaos.

 

Missed that point completely.

It has to be objective in what sense of the word? Someone who believes in falsification is going to say there is an objective truth. It's how we approach our answers that makes it objective. Other people will say that it's something in of itself that makes it objective.

 

The onus is on you to back up your claim. Would you want to waste your time scouring the internet trying to find every little thing a poster says?

 

There is a lot of Hysteria around climate change but I wouldn't call it science.

The problem is when people quote science improperly for a political agenda.

I have no doubt at all that the temperature is globe is going up, and I do think human activity can be attributed to at least part of it.

That's the science. I don't deny that.

What I do deny is the impending apocalypse, the idea that anybody can do anything about it, what are the idea that the only thing we can do about it is give over control to the government.

So I'm not denying science I'm denying hysteria and stupidity.

The science isn't stupid the people trying to build up this moronic doomsday cult around it are stupid.

 

I did or you did?

 

You did.

 

yes as in the electron and anti-electron, they can be created from nothing given enough time

now they would need to somehow be separated, which could happen outside our universe, who knows

but which is more likely to be created for nothing, a God, or energy that evolves into what we see today over time

 

Scientists are not stupid and the vast majority are honest.

The biggest problem with the people who are "skeptical" of established scientific opinions is that they are not skeptical of their own reasoning. They don't question their sources of information and they don't educate

themselves on the science that they disagree with. They don't understand that there is much processing going on within the mind of a typical individual that is outside the realm of consciousness.

I stand with the scientific majority on all of the questions posed because I have no evidence that the scientists have gotten anything wrong.

I have debated many individuals on the subject of climate change, which I prefer to call human-caused global warming, and close to 100% of the "skeptics" are easily fooled by unscientific claims and

it is obvious to me that their "skepticism' is a one-way street.

 

I am not sure what point I missed. Man affects the weather. No doubt. There are three basic questions beyond that point.

1)How much do we affect the weather?

2) What can we do about it?

3) I have serious doubts about our ability to either forecast how much our change in activity changes the weather and how much we will change the weather. I have seen little to no evidence of such an ability. The problem is basically one of verification. There is no way to know how accurately we can forecast the weather except by verification. Verification will take place a long time in the future. Until that occurs, we really do not know. And by the way, in the few surveys I have seen, scientists have the same concern.

 

What will they be created out of? Writing out (+1) + (-1) = 0 proves nothing.

 

nothing, that was the point, they will be created out of nothing

 

The point I'm making has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is real or not. Rather the point I'm making is the language scientists use isn't the same language that lay people can use. Of course climate change is real. No question about it. The issue is a scientist can't say that it is, only that it's very likely the case. The reason for this is because the language scientists use isn't the same language lay people use. Think about why sometimes a person will say "climate change is just a theory". A theory is the proof, it's what is being discussed. But to a lay person, a theory isn't definitive.

 

that was as pointless as (+1) + (-1) =0

The point I was making had absolutely nothing to do with the language scientists use.

 

I know it wasn't. That's why I was responding to the OP.

 

And I was addressing this part of the OP which also discussed AGW.

 

Right. If my point is it's about a language difference, and you tell me that it's real regardless of language, how does that address what I'm saying? Are you countering what I'm saying, or did you miss the point? I'm not talking about whether or not things are real, I'm saying there is a language barrier between scientists and lay people. Do you see that conceptual difference?

 

Prove it.

 

I simply made a point. Climate change does exist. Period. If you don't like my post ignore it.

 

Prove what? That zero exists?

 

I already did ..

Seriously you would have to pay me if you want me to educate you more.

 

You could use the same equation with the big bang.