cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2010, 06:46 PM   #11
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Talk about LDS scientific ignorance. Go on CB and observe attitudes towards climate change. Ignorance on climate change is far more disastrous than ignorance on evolution. Evolution, in spite of its overwhelming evidential support, hasn't yielded much commercial or practical significance.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 08:24 PM   #12
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinoCoug View Post
Talk about LDS scientific ignorance. Go on CB and observe attitudes towards climate change. Ignorance on climate change is far more disastrous than ignorance on evolution. Evolution, in spite of its overwhelming evidential support, hasn't yielded much commercial or practical significance.
I don't have any intention of spending time reading CB regarding climate change. How does having a knowledge of the debate impact one's income and salary? Do you believe one will be able to predict investment opportunities and changes in the market as a result of knowledge of the debate?

My experience shows most non-scientists to be woefully ignorant of the scientific method and process, to have glaring holes in their basic knowledge of scientific principles and observations and to be lacking in an understanding of scientific debates and studies. I include myself in that crowd very often, though, when I slow down and take the time to become informed I can usually follow a debate, even if I lack the requisite skill set to contribute to the debate in a constructive manner.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 08:40 PM   #13
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
I don't have any intention of spending time reading CB regarding climate change. How does having a knowledge of the debate impact one's income and salary? Do you believe one will be able to predict investment opportunities and changes in the market as a result of knowledge of the debate?

My experience shows most non-scientists to be woefully ignorant of the scientific method and process, to have glaring holes in their basic knowledge of scientific principles and observations and to be lacking in an understanding of scientific debates and studies. I include myself in that crowd very often, though, when I slow down and take the time to become informed I can usually follow a debate, even if I lack the requisite skill set to contribute to the debate in a constructive manner.
Good question. No pharmaceutical innovations have resulted from a knowledge of evolution. 90-95% of biology publications don't even mention evolution. Nobody dies or gets sick because they don't believe in evolution.

Ignorance on climate change, on the other hand...
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 09:24 PM   #14
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinoCoug View Post
Good question. No pharmaceutical innovations have resulted from a knowledge of evolution. 90-95% of biology publications don't even mention evolution. Nobody dies or gets sick because they don't believe in evolution.

Ignorance on climate change, on the other hand...
You're being very obtuse.

Every scientist accepts evolution, so your silly swipe about the developments is nothing more than trolling.

The larger population will have no impact upon climate change, as the evidence seems to suggest. If climate change is anthropogenic, then whatever society at large will impact it. If it has no impact, then tell me how knowledge thereof by a postman matters?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 10:23 PM   #15
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
You're being very obtuse.

Every scientist accepts evolution, so your silly swipe about the developments is nothing more than trolling.

The larger population will have no impact upon climate change, as the evidence seems to suggest. If climate change is anthropogenic, then whatever society at large will impact it. If it has no impact, then tell me how knowledge thereof by a postman matters?
You are fudging what I'm saying.

Almost every scientist accepts evolution.
Almost every scientist accepts climate change.

Disbelieving evolution is innocuous. It's not that important.
Disbelieving climate is potentially disastrous.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 10:34 PM   #16
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

if stopping global warming is so important, and the prospects for decreasin energy use are marginal, why aren't environmentalists advocating for other solutions?

Like blocking the sun for example with particles.

What if lowering carbon emissions isn't an answer. Then what?
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2010, 11:47 PM   #17
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinoCoug View Post
You are fudging what I'm saying.

Almost every scientist accepts evolution.
Almost every scientist accepts climate change.

Disbelieving evolution is innocuous. It's not that important.
Disbelieving climate is potentially disastrous.
Here's the calculus.

Every intelligent scientist accepts evolution.

There are significant scientific minds which question whether climate change is anthropogenic. You ignore the most famous one, Richard Lindzen, http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_contrarian/

Spare me the Hollywood histrionics.

So far, the evidence is far from persuasive and the recent climategate seems to suggest that those limited few persons in control of the evidence are fudging the numbers in order to control the debate.

This scare tactic is beyond your intelligence level.

If the odds that climate change is anthropogenic are minuscule, then I don't see any basis for expending large sums at a time when we don't have them.


And Mike points out a further flaw. Assuming everything you state might be true for purposes of argument only, what if the proposed solutions really aren't solutions. The fact that the "interested" parties only point to solutions which affect given industries makes me believe in an economic motive, not a scientific motive.

Nature is much stronger than man, and sometimes man may be a passing thought for nature.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.