- This topic has 5 voices and 29 replies.
-
Posts
-
Ok, so this really doesn't have anything to do with history (ok maybe tangentially) but this is good for people to know, especially in regard to contemporary discussions:
"Everything we thought we knew about X-ray images of the Sun is now out of date," says Leon Golub from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US. "We've seen many new and unexpected things. For that reason alone, the mission is already a success."
http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11432&feedId=online-news_rss20This was from an article I saw linked from Drudge where amazing new things were discovered about the sun's magnetic field based on recent photos from a Japanese telescope. The article discusses how the corona of the sun appears to be hotter than layers of the sun closer to the core. Interesting stuff.The point from this is that science is constantly evolving; it is based on observations from which new principles are formed. These new principles are formed and used until new data is gained which shows the current principles are not entirely correct; new principles are therefore developed to help explain the new observations. At least this is basically how science works. The problem, of course, is when a group says it has the infallible truth as to causation with regard to a complex system. They may have evidence which points in a particular direction, but I really do not see how anyone could claim a monopoly on the truth of a scientific hypothesis which cannot be accurately tested. I thought about posting this at NJO but didn't want to get into another drawn out argument with you-know-who. He had claimed something to the effect that Theory X as it relates to the sun had been hashed out completely and been rejected; that's why I thought it was interesting reading the story I linked to here regarding something totally unexpected in regard to the sun. I'm writing it here merely to illustrate how science - particularly the science married to politics in today's time - hardly has the complete answers some may like to claim it has.
Oh go on you know you want to. 😀 The problem with you-know-who, is that he tries to direct the debate according to the rules he follows on the Syracuse debate team. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but he uses these tactics disingenously. He doesn't want to face dissenting scientific opinions about his holy grail….which he apparently does not see how he defends science as if it were his religion, and we all know it is by default since he cast his true religion aside long ago….but I digress. ::) Anyhow, you shouldn't let your patience run out when engaging him…..why? because when you debate him others are watching. You can at least persuade them. 😉
And don't be like me. Try to remain civil.
(OK, I admit, I lost it with him yesterday…his insulting was getting to me)And don't be like me. Try to remain civil.
(OK, I admit, I lost it with him yesterday...his insulting was getting to me)Yes he does that to deflect from the issues at hand. It is a tactic that would not win him many real debates.
I find one of my great pet peeves in life is patronizing people. To his credit, he did apologize to me via pm for some of his comments the last time we clashed. That was cool.But I don't like the process of engaging in patronizing debate because I don't want to be insulted like that....and I don't want to feel the need to insult people back. Not all arguments are worthy of participating in, don't you think?
Not all arguments are worthy of participating in, don't you think?
To a degree, which is why I usually stay out of religious debates. BUT, and I know it's just a concern, this global warming thing has me quite scared.He can say whatever he wants about the Bible or God, it's just when he calls me stupid for believing it..that's when I get back. Maybe I have, but I don't beleive I ever made fun of him personally for believing in science. If he takes offense to what I say about global warming or evolution, too bad.
I saw these over at Drudge. Use for ammunition:Scientist: Warming not caused by humansClimate change skeptics say it's hard to get heardBased on my reading of the first article the title is misleading; I don't see where he said GL is not man-made, but rather that we don't really know why at this point.
I saw these over at Drudge. Use for ammunition:Scientist: Warming not caused by humansClimate change skeptics say it's hard to get heardBased on my reading of the first article the title is misleading; I don't see where he said GL is not man-made, but rather that we don't really know why at this point.
I can tell you right now he will dismiss these articles because they are not experts in the field. Economists and professors who are not climatologists have no say so in this matter according to him.
Man seems to change their mind every other day on various subjects and cant agree on anything thats why this world is headed for calamity.
I can tell you right now he will dismiss these articles because they are not experts in the field. Economists and professors who are not climatologists have no say so in this matter according to him.
Unless, of course, they are economists who wrote anythng in the IPCC reports. 😐
Here's another one. Also from Drudge:Impact of global warming looms on the horizonThis time it's from Glen Shaw, "an atmospheric scientist specializing in global environmental feedback mechanisms" according to the article.
Things have changed. Global warming is now being noted, and I in the meantime have become a little skeptical about some of the claims being put forth. I?m skeptical despite the fact that ?everybody knows that the science is in.? The science isn?t even close to being in.
In other words, don't believe their claim to "truth". I find it rather outrageous for one side of an issue to claim that the issue is "settled" and up for no further dispute. It just boggles my mind.
I'm watching a special on The Weather Channel. Forecast Earth with Dr Heidi Cullen. It's hard to watch because they are just completely convinced, and convincing, global warming is man-made. They can play to the emotions, and anyone who doesn't hold to their doctrine is called a skeptic instead of what he should be called, a scientist or expert who disagrees.
Here's another great read that I saw linked from Drudge:http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.htmlThe scientist is called "the father of the science of modern climatology" in the article. Take note of what he has to say about water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbtion of heat. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide" he says. Interesting to read about.
(OK, I admit, I lost it with him yesterday…his insulting was getting to me)
