Evolution

[notyou2]

I believe in the theory that there is an abundance of flat heads on CC.

[PLAYER57832]

At one point, folks thought the world was flat, too.

Actually that's a total myth. The Greeks knew the earth was a sphere (more or less). The notion of the flast earth was a 19th cenruty invention designed to throw some interesting spice into the story of Coumbus.

Some educated people did realize the Earth was a sphere, but no, not all people did.

Not enough people to matter. As in, the only people today that think electricity is composed of small fairies sending power are people in insane asylums. History won't look back at them and see a significant amount to postulate upon.

Some sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".

http://anadder.com/the-flat-earth-myth-revisited

BMO

OK. Sounds like I was wrong on the flat earth bit, though I also never claimed to be an expert in medieval thinking.

I am not, however, wrong on the climate science and global warming bit.

[rdsrds2120]

OK. Sounds like I was wrong on the flat earth bit, though I also never claimed to be an expert in medieval thinking.

No, but now you know, and can share this information with whoever you'll meet.

I am not, however, wrong on the climate science and global warming bit.

I agree so far.

BMO

[tzor]

Your above post pretty much proves my point. Contrary to what you assert, there are few issues with more consensus than that the Earth's climate is changing, and the ones with patent bias are not the ones saying that climate change IS happening, it is among those saying it is NOT.

The earth climate changes all the time, I don't think even the deniers will argue that it doesn't. The real question is the myriad causes of these changes and whether they are reasonably in control of the human population. It is somewhat strange because at one time I used to hear about a plethora of things that caused real climate change. The best example was the creation of suburban shopping malls with huge asphalt parking lots. When I was growing up, I remember the research as to the impact of wind on the Long Island Sound, where the thermals generated by the island’s malls measurably reduced surface winds along the sound with a result of reduced recreational sailing vessels in the sound. One does not hear about parking lots and global warming these days.

It was not too long ago when people threw all the doomsday scenarios on animal farming and the global warming gas of methane. One does not hear of destroying all the cattle ranches to save the planet.

In addition, if you hear the doomsday scenarios you wonder to yourself, how did we ever survive the Medieval Warming Period when it was so hot they grew grapes in England and Canada was called “Vineland” by the Vikings.

Once again, some scientists selectively spin the data to get research grants. There are some scientists whose data is selectively spun by politicians looking to advance their progressive agendas. To suggest that the bias is only found in the deniers is hogwash. Climategate didn’t involve the deniers. It involved those scientists who were trying to get their data so that they could count on the progressive politicians to continue their funding.

[Symmetry]

Your above post pretty much proves my point. Contrary to what you assert, there are few issues with more consensus than that the Earth's climate is changing, and the ones with patent bias are not the ones saying that climate change IS happening, it is among those saying it is NOT.

The earth climate changes all the time, I don't think even the deniers will argue that it doesn't. The real question is the myriad causes of these changes and whether they are reasonably in control of the human population. It is somewhat strange because at one time I used to hear about a plethora of things that caused real climate change. The best example was the creation of suburban shopping malls with huge asphalt parking lots. When I was growing up, I remember the research as to the impact of wind on the Long Island Sound, where the thermals generated by the island’s malls measurably reduced surface winds along the sound with a result of reduced recreational sailing vessels in the sound. One does not hear about parking lots and global warming these days.

It was not too long ago when people threw all the doomsday scenarios on animal farming and the global warming gas of methane. One does not hear of destroying all the cattle ranches to save the planet.

In addition, if you hear the doomsday scenarios you wonder to yourself, how did we ever survive the Medieval Warming Period when it was so hot they grew grapes in England and Canada was called “Vineland” by the Vikings.

Once again, some scientists selectively spin the data to get research grants. There are some scientists whose data is selectively spun by politicians looking to advance their progressive agendas. To suggest that the bias is only found in the deniers is hogwash. Climategate didn’t involve the deniers. It involved those scientists who were trying to get their data so that they could count on the progressive politicians to continue their funding.

And I think with this you may have gone totally insane. Science is a conspiracy?

Do you have any idea of how many fields, scientifically, would have to be colluding for this to be wrong? Or any clue just how many people are in your conspiracy?

And just how simple it is for other scientists to check data, or repeat analyses?

Paranoia, pure and simple.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wasn't homosexuality deemed a disease for awhile? And didn't that belief enjoy a strong consensus among the legitimate experts?

[Army of GOD]

wait, the earth's not flat?

[oss spy]

Anybody who thinks evolution is wrong should just be ignored. You should never converse with idiots, and people who disagree with science (the very embodiment of fact and knowledge) are wearing their idiocy proudly.

[BigBallinStalin]

How can idiocy be worn? Has there been some technological development which allows the weaving of idiocy into cotton and other clothing fabrics?

[notyou2]

How can idiocy be worn? Has there been some technological development which allows the weaving of idiocy into cotton and other clothing fabrics?

Not quite, they have given them computers and the internet so they can wear their idiocy worldwide on the interwebz, forever.

[tzor]

And I think with this you may have gone totally insane. Science is a conspiracy?

Science is not a conspiracy. There are, however conspiracies in science. You might not know this, but research money doesn't grow on trees. (Apparently tickets grow on oaks, but not research dollars.)

True scientists, especially those who are involved in getting research grants are often working as volunteers or at below scale because they want the research to continue.

Then there are others who will do anything to keep the funds flowing.

And there are a lot of people inbetween.

Do you have any idea of how many fields, scientifically, would have to be colluding for this to be wrong? Or any clue just how many people are in your conspiracy?

Now just what is "this" you are talking about? That's the big key thing here. Climate Change is a conclusion, an explanation of "why" and "how" not "what." Many things are happening. Many scientists put in their own data into the equations. If "this" is the assertion that manmade CO2 is the most significant cause of all variations in climate, then it is you who are wrong. Only when you filter all the results can you claim that. As to who are in the conspiracy, they generally are closely associated with the United Nations, one of the biggest aggrigators of breaucrats who otherwise contirbite no worth to the society at large.

And just how simple it is for other scientists to check data, or repeat analyses?

They do. By the way, did I mention that in addition to having to find grant money, research is useless unless you can publish it? There is a greater conspiracy in the publishing of data than there is of research grants.

Paranoia, pure and simple.

It's not parinoia. It's just fact. There are no active investigative branch into scientific research. Never has been. That's why it takes a long time for real theories to stand the test of time.

[notyou2]

Do you think before you spew?

[oss spy]

How can idiocy be worn? Has there been some technological development which allows the weaving of idiocy into cotton and other clothing fabrics?

Somebody, somewhere, owns a YOLO tee-shirt.

[Symmetry]

And I think with this you may have gone totally insane. Science is a conspiracy?

Science is not a conspiracy. There are, however conspiracies in science. You might not know this, but research money doesn't grow on trees. (Apparently tickets grow on oaks, but not research dollars.)

True scientists, especially those who are involved in getting research grants are often working as volunteers or at below scale because they want the research to continue.

Then there are others who will do anything to keep the funds flowing.

And there are a lot of people inbetween.

Do you have any idea of how many fields, scientifically, would have to be colluding for this to be wrong? Or any clue just how many people are in your conspiracy?

Now just what is "this" you are talking about? That's the big key thing here. Climate Change is a conclusion, an explanation of "why" and "how" not "what." Many things are happening. Many scientists put in their own data into the equations. If "this" is the assertion that manmade CO2 is the most significant cause of all variations in climate, then it is you who are wrong. Only when you filter all the results can you claim that. As to who are in the conspiracy, they generally are closely associated with the United Nations, one of the biggest aggrigators of breaucrats who otherwise contirbite no worth to the society at large.

And just how simple it is for other scientists to check data, or repeat analyses?

They do. By the way, did I mention that in addition to having to find grant money, research is useless unless you can publish it? There is a greater conspiracy in the publishing of data than there is of research grants.

Paranoia, pure and simple.

It's not parinoia. It's just fact. There are no active investigative branch into scientific research. Never has been. That's why it takes a long time for real theories to stand the test of time.

I kind of need to know if you were drunk when you typed that.

[PLAYER57832]

Your above post pretty much proves my point. Contrary to what you assert, there are few issues with more consensus than that the Earth's climate is changing, and the ones with patent bias are not the ones saying that climate change IS happening, it is among those saying it is NOT.

The earth climate changes all the time, I don't think even the deniers will argue that it doesn't.

Should take you less than 15 seconds (depending on the speed of your computer) to find roughly 500 examples that show your statement to be false. However, it will take me a good deal more than that to post even a few of those links.

Stop being lazily contrary, stop posting things you have not even bothered to check FIRST!

The real question is the myriad causes of these changes and whether they are reasonably in control of the human population.

Half correct. We know there are MANY things we cannot control, but things like weather balances can be altered by even small changes. (look into the butterfly theory, just as an example..). We know, right now, that the Earth is changing in ways that will harm humanity. The only question is whether we can do anything to mitigate those disasters even slightly. Sience is pretty conclusive that the answer is "yes". However, a lot of what people mistake for science is politics.. and politics put MAJOR kinks in any ability to act. Also, within that there is some debate over exactly what will be most effective. Still, the biggest debate is over what is possible in any given political scenario.. not as much on what we need to do.
(please note qualifier there).

It is somewhat strange because at one time I used to hear about a plethora of things that caused real climate change. The best example was the creation of suburban shopping malls with huge asphalt parking lots. When I was growing up, I remember the research as to the impact of wind on the Long Island Sound, where the thermals generated by the island’s malls measurably reduced surface winds along the sound with a result of reduced recreational sailing vessels in the sound. One does not hear about parking lots and global warming these days.

LOL
YOu cannot be serious! There is NO dispute over the impact of things like shopping malls, tall buildings, etc. You don't hear about them in reference to climate change because the impacts are localized... and well, no one is going to seriously knock down Manhatten so PA will be cooler. I can testify first hand that the climate in the Central vally of CA has changed a LOT. When I was young, it was a common joke at the state fair that you could tell who the locals were because they walked around in 100 degree heat (F, of course) with heavy jackets on their arms or in their stroller baskets. It would get quite hot, but you could count on an evening breeze coming up the Delta. That does not happen and the reason is absolutely the development in between Sacto and SF. Does that have a global impact? Hard to say, but again, looking at knocking down those buildings is not a realistic solution except maybe in small areas (revising building to some extent IS, but of course, the building boom in many of the areas that would be impacted has halted). Some people have discussed taking down or modifying some CA development, but from what I have seen (remotely, only occasionally...have not kept up on the issue more than very casually), no one with any kind of "pull" or impact is seriously advocating anything other than relatively minor changes (though even "minor" in this context could still be involved and expensive)

It was not too long ago when people threw all the doomsday scenarios on animal farming and the global warming gas of methane. One does not hear of destroying all the cattle ranches to save the planet.

Well, no, farming = doomsday was not really what the science said, its what some folks tried to proclaim from reading a few blips without context. In reality, when creating some extensive and complext models, they realized that the methane produced from cows was enough to warrrent consideration. HOWEVER, methane is a big consideration being actively mentioned in regards to Natural gas drilling (and note, I live in the heart of Marcellus shale "frackingland", so this is a hot topic here), swamps, etc.

In addition, if you hear the doomsday scenarios you wonder to yourself, how did we ever survive the Medieval Warming Period when it was so hot they grew grapes in England and Canada was called “Vineland” by the Vikings.

A. a LOT of people did not.
B. Conditions today are a LOT more involved.

The above argument is actually one of the most ridiculous. The point is not whether humanity will find a way to survive. Likely, some humanity will survive all but the most significant disaster of any kind. However, a LOT of people will suffer, economies and political systems will be seriously damaged or collapse. Good to see you are not talking about Global warming, though. The correct term is "climate change" becuase its not all about warming (even though the Earth is warming overall).

Once again, some scientists selectively spin the data to get research grants.

Yes, as I mentioned EVERY "scientist" opposing the idea of Global climate change pretty much fits that bill. Though, to be honest, a lot are not even scientists.. or not scientists in climate or any related field. (as noted before, see the old "Global warming" threads for a decent rundown).

There are some scientists whose data is selectively spun by politicians looking to advance their progressive agendas. To suggest that the bias is only found in the deniers is hogwash.

Again, look at the EVIDENCE, before making such bald assertions. You are wrong.

Climategate didn’t involve the deniers. It involved those scientists who were trying to get their data so that they could count on the progressive politicians to continue their funding.

We tackled a lot of that argument in the global warming thread I mentioned above, in discussion with Nightstrike, a few others. I don't remember you being there in that thread then, but maybe you were.

You can protest all you wish, but should you bother to do the research, you will absolutely find you are wrong... as long as you look outside of sources like "conservapedia" and so forth.

Feel free to present opposing data, though. I think several of us would be happy to analyze it.

However, let's put it in another thread, so as not to drive this one off further.

[PLAYER57832]

Wasn't homosexuality deemed a disease for awhile? And didn't that belief enjoy a strong consensus among the legitimate experts?

Science makes mistakes, no doubt. However, WHY did that bias exist? It existed because homosexuality was considered so aborrant that few really seriously considered alternatives. At the time, homosexuality and, actually anything sexual other than the "missionary position" between married heterosexuals was flat out illegal. That continued up through the middles of last centry. In fact, at some points, even suggesting such could have not only seen a professional losing their licenses and being censored, but having them wind up in jail, even.. not to mention a risk of being labled a communist, etc.

No such environment exists today. At least not among those saying climate change is real. There is, sadly a move to punish teachers and others who teach that global warming exists as anything other than a very controversial subject, not really worthy of science teaching.

[PLAYER57832]

Anybody who thinks evolution is wrong should just be ignored. You should never converse with idiots, and people who disagree with science (the very embodiment of fact and knowledge) are wearing their idiocy proudly.

Sorry, but this is EXACTLY what they want.

That you think this is a small splinter group is ALSO their intent. Meanwhile, they are impacting the formation of textbooks, science standards and just wreaking havoc with young children's minds across the country. My own son goes to a school with several creationist teachers.. they will deny they are that, but also send out such wonderful "information" as saying that fossils are created by bones (fine).. and that is why there are no early bird fossils, because feathers are not preserved as easily. Note how carefully they mix truth (fossils are formed by bone primarily, feathers preserved much less) with flat lies (there are no bird fossils). This is not an insignificant isolated bit, it is a full and full fledged pattern.

If you have an interest in the future of science in the US, in our continuation as a leader in any biological related field (a few possible, but only possible exceptions in medicine and a couple of other areas), then it behooves you to take an interest.

I have posted the links, information many times, so I won't clog up this thread with more. I will pm you with some data if you ask.

[PLAYER57832]

There is nothing complex about the lack of solid evidence; as the Facebook profile option goes "it's complicated."

Missed this, somehow earlier.

EVERYTHING to do with nature is complicated. That is not a "fictional creation" or "cop out" it is reality. Sadly, it is a reality that far too many folks with serious global business agendas
(and yep.. they are very identifiable and not even hard to figure out, though you have to do a little digging to get proof) use to claim there is nothing really known, when there actually is.

That doesn't mean that there isn't an impact; it does mean that we didn't all die from hurricanes in the 2012 season as was predicted or that Key West Florida would mostly be underwater by now. Our weather patterns are more impacted by boy and girl babies (or their more commonly known spanish names) than by surface and even water temperatures.

It means that you need to pay attention to science, not science fiction and politics to understand this issue, because those were not true expected "predictions".

[tzor]

Do you think before you spew?

I think all the time. Sometimes I use the editor, but sometimes I don't. That's the difference between posting here and writing a column for a major metropolitan newspaper.

Be thankful. I used to think Andy Rooney was a great writer.

[tzor]

I kind of need to know if you were drunk when you typed that.

I don't think so. I may have been tired. Let's see ... Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:57 pm

Hmmm, I had just come from a hour and a half singing rehearsal for my chamber choir. New Music.
Like "Santa's got a tummy tuck."
It's going to be a fun Christmas
But definitely no on that drunk part.

[tzor]

EVERYTHING to do with nature is complicated. That is not a "fictional creation" or "cop out" it is reality. Sadly, it is a reality that far too many folks with serious global business agendas
(and yep.. they are very identifiable and not even hard to figure out, though you have to do a little digging to get proof) use to claim there is nothing really known, when there actually is.

The problem is that you refuse too see this on the other side. Since you refuse to see this we can't even get to reasonable discussion. I have never argued to do nothing. I didn't buy a Prius in 2001 because I was a tech nerd (as I didn't buy an Andriod phone until this year). But the steps have to be reasonable and proven to get the most economic bang for the economic buck.

[BigBallinStalin]

How can idiocy be worn? Has there been some technological development which allows the weaving of idiocy into cotton and other clothing fabrics?

Somebody, somewhere, owns a YOLO tee-shirt.

haha, go easy on those kids!

[oss spy]

How can idiocy be worn? Has there been some technological development which allows the weaving of idiocy into cotton and other clothing fabrics?

Somebody, somewhere, owns a YOLO tee-shirt.

haha, go easy on those kids!

Hey, they're the one's taking it easy. I'm just sticking my leg out so they trip.

[PLAYER57832]

next few posts moved to new thread, here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=178259

[PLAYER57832]

EVERYTHING to do with nature is complicated. That is not a "fictional creation" or "cop out" it is reality. Sadly, it is a reality that far too many folks with serious global business agendas
(and yep.. they are very identifiable and not even hard to figure out, though you have to do a little digging to get proof) use to claim there is nothing really known, when there actually is.

The problem is that you refuse too see this on the other side. Since you refuse to see this we can't even get to reasonable discussion. I have never argued to do nothing. I didn't buy a Prius in 2001 because I was a tech nerd (as I didn't buy an Andriod phone until this year). But the steps have to be reasonable and proven to get the most economic bang for the economic buck.

Fine, then... I have begun a new thread where you can post all this "hidden" information you seem to have access to that none of the rest of us do.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=178259&p=3892974#p3892974

(I have tried to find anything credible, but with no success... oh, and DO go look at the old CC thread, just to be sure you are not simply reposting old information)