Pretty Well Sums It Up

[Gunny]

Man you guys are lame. When did this turn into a anti God thread? Gunny started the God crap. He was just ragging on scientific theory which has nothing to do with God. Please let's drop it.

The second law applies to a closed system. Are we living in a closed system? That is high school physics. You guys are like Jon Snow. You know nothing.

Why accuse me of pointing out the elephant in the room? YOU started ragging on religion and used science as your springboard. I merely pointed it out. From a logical point of view, there is no difference and what I posted stands. Actual science is man's understanding of man. Scientific theory is just guess work. If you think otherwise, welcome to my religion.

If you think we know nothing because we disagree with you, you just answered your own dumbass question.

[pete311]

Scientific theory is just guess work.

This is patently false and shows your elementary misconception of what a scientific theory is. Everything in this world is built from scientific theory and it's completely absurd for you to deny that.

[Drummond]

Science is always refining itself, yes, that is the amazing part of science and why we have the technologies we have today. What is your point? Of course we are scratching the surface of understanding the universe, but you act like we know nothing. Look around you. The world is built from science.

It wasn't many centuries ago that Mankind thought the Earth was flat, and that we were at the centre of the Universe. I'm sure that scholars of that time would've felt themselves very justified indeed in saying the very thing you did, in the above quote. But by today's standards, would they have been right ?

Mankind can be very arrogantly delusional when it comes to a belief in a so-called 'understanding' of the Universe. It wasn't all that long ago that the total mass of the Universe, as we were able to measure it, fell far short of what it needed to be, to account for scientific understanding of its nature. So, 'Dark Matter' was thought of to 'plug the gap'.

By its very nature, nobody has ever observed Dark Matter. We believe it exists. We may be right. But if we're wrong ... it means that most of the Universe cannot be accounted for by the 'Great God' of science .. to this day.

Perhaps in the 25th century, people will look at our own arrogance and laugh, just as we laugh at the primitiveness and delusions of the 15th century. Maybe we don't understand what we think we do. Maybe ... we never fully will, yet will always BELIEVE that we do ?

[Gunny]

This is patently false and shows your elementary misconception of what a scientific theory is. Everything in this world is built from scientific theory and it's completely absurd for you to deny that.

Not even close to false. It's more scientific actually than your misguided beliefs. I understand exactly what a scientific theory is. Guesswork. Gee, I should write a Bible, huh? What is absurd is passing scientific theory off as anything more than another religion.

The Big Bang theory -- something from nothing which defies actual scientific law.

Expanding Universe -- how can something that is infinite expand? And how can you say it's expanding if you don't even know where the damn center is and can't define its borders?

Just brilliant. Apparently you are the one in need of going to logic and science classes. I understand both quite well.

[aboutime]

As much as I hate to admit it here. I actually feel sad, and sorry for people like pete.

What a terribly empty life he must be living as an AL GORE mind, planted upon hypothetical, unprovable theories found in books, and the sheltered minds of the perpetually stupid.

[pete311]

It wasn't many centuries ago that Mankind thought the Earth was flat, and that we were at the centre of the Universe. I'm sure that scholars of that time would've felt themselves very justified indeed in saying the very thing you did, in the above quote. But by today's standards, would they have been right ?

Mankind can be very arrogantly delusional when it comes to a belief in a so-called 'understanding' of the Universe. It wasn't all that long ago that the total mass of the Universe, as we were able to measure it, fell far short of what it needed to be, to account for scientific understanding of its nature. So, 'Dark Matter' was thought of to 'plug the gap'.

By its very nature, nobody has ever observed Dark Matter. We believe it exists. We may be right. But if we're wrong ... it means that most of the Universe cannot be accounted for by the 'Great God' of science .. to this day.

Perhaps in the 25th century, people will look at our own arrogance and laugh, just as we laugh at the primitiveness and delusions of the 15th century. Maybe we don't understand what we think we do. Maybe ... we never fully will, yet will always BELIEVE that we do ?

Nice, cherry pick cutting edge science which we are still very much developing.

If you don't believe in science, don't visit a hospital and throw your computer away, otherwise you trust science.

[pete311]

As much as I hate to admit it here. I actually feel sad, and sorry for people like pete.

What a terribly empty life he must be living as an AL GORE mind, planted upon hypothetical, unprovable theories found in books, and the sheltered minds of the perpetually stupid.

Navy communications... hmmm no science in that right?

[pete311]

Not even close to false. It's more scientific actually than your misguided beliefs. I understand exactly what a scientific theory is. Guesswork. Gee, I should write a Bible, huh? What is absurd is passing scientific theory off as anything more than another religion.

The Big Bang theory -- something from nothing which defies actual scientific law.

Expanding Universe -- how can something that is infinite expand? And how can you say it's expanding if you don't even know where the damn center is and can't define its borders?

Just brilliant. Apparently you are the one in need of going to logic and science classes. I understand both quite well.

ah and we're back to your original obsessed intent of creationism. You as well seem to dwell on a couple cutting edge sciences and ignore the thousands of scientific principles that are used every day. You throw all science out because of a few cutting edge sciences? Seriously, what the hell are you doing on a computer? Hello! That is operating and was built using thousands of scientific principles from theories. Must be all guesswork. Yeah like our theory of gravity. Maybe an apple will fall upwards tomorrow. Seriously, wtf man?

[jimnyc]

Let's go full circle here and back to the OP.

What say thou, Pete? Of all of the drastic predictions, predictions of world changing events - and there were many of those predictions - how many panned out?

[Gunny]

ah and we're back to your original obsessed intent of creationism. You as well seem to dwell on a couple cutting edge sciences and ignore the thousands of scientific principles that are used every day. You throw all science out because of a few cutting edge sciences? Seriously, what the hell are you doing on a computer? Hello! That is operating and was built using thousands of scientific principles from theories. Must be all guesswork. Yeah like our theory of gravity. Maybe an apple will fall upwards tomorrow. Seriously, wtf man?

Incorrect. I just see science for what it is. I see scientific theory for what it is as well. Please do note that I differentiate between actual science and scientific theory. The former is man's understanding of man's rules and the world we live in. The latter are fairy tales.

[pete311]

Let's go full circle here and back to the OP.

What say thou, Pete? Of all of the drastic predictions, predictions of world changing events - and there were many of those predictions - how many panned out?

Just about all of these predictions were made by singular scientists interviewed by a journalist. You can make a prediction cartoon for nearly any field of science. There is some bad science and bad scientists, no doubt, but they are the minority. Science is like a wave coming into shore. Some of the wave hits rocks and doesn't make it to shore. What is important is that the bulk of the wave does make it to shore. You don't focus on the parts that didn't make it. You also need to look at the predictions in context. It makes them a little less crazy. Like the no snow, was not about no snow anywhere, but the claim was no snow for great briton. Still wrong, but a little less crazy.

Today there was a story about how 90-100% of climate experts are now in consensus. A conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and institutions across the world is really beyond lunacy.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming

[pete311]

Incorrect. I just see science for what it is. I see scientific theory for what it is as well. Please do note that I differentiate between actual science and scientific theory. The former is man's understanding of man's rules and the world we live in. The latter are fairy tales.

There is no difference between your actual science and theory. Everything we know and used is based off theory. That is not to say all theory is right, of course not. You are an electrician right? You tell me theory of electromagnetism is a fairy tale.

[aboutime]

Just about all of these predictions were made by singular scientists interviewed by a journalist. You can make a prediction cartoon for nearly any field of science. There is some bad science and bad scientists, no doubt, but they are the minority. Science is like a wave coming into shore. Some of the wave hits rocks and doesn't make it to shore. What is important is that the bulk of the wave does make it to shore. You don't focus on the parts that didn't make it. You also need to look at the predictions in context. It makes them a little less crazy. Like the no snow, was not about no snow anywhere, but the claim was no snow for great briton. Still wrong, but a little less crazy.

Today there was a story about how 90-100% of climate experts are now in consensus. A conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and institutions across the world is really beyond lunacy.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming

YOUR LUNACY is in the eye of the BEHOLDER. Want some advice pete? Whether you do, or not. You should listen, and heed this. YOU are not the authority you want the rest of us to believe you THINK you are.
You do have the right to express your opinions, and say whatever you want. But..that does not give you the license, or any authority to always claim everyone else who doesn't agree with you is wrong.
That idea, on it's own...makes YOU wrong every time.

[jimnyc]

Just about all of these predictions were made by singular scientists interviewed by a journalist. You can make a prediction cartoon for nearly any field of science. There is some bad science and bad scientists, no doubt, but they are the minority. Science is like a wave coming into shore. Some of the wave hits rocks and doesn't make it to shore. What is important is that the bulk of the wave does make it to shore. You don't focus on the parts that didn't make it. You also need to look at the predictions in context. It makes them a little less crazy. Like the no snow, was not about no snow anywhere, but the claim was no snow for great briton. Still wrong, but a little less crazy.

Today there was a story about how 90-100% of climate experts are now in consensus. A conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and institutions across the world is really beyond lunacy.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming

Predictions were made, predictions that were made that should have had results already. They didn't pan out.

I'll read what you just tossed out now. But I am skeptical of anything that starts out with "It's settled". And can you save me some time, since there are tons of embedded links in that piece I'm about to read. Can you just link me to the actual scientists and institutions that and such that are all in agreement? Yes, I'm lazy.

[pete311]

Predictions were made, predictions that were made that should have had results already. They didn't pan out.

I'll read what you just tossed out now. But I am skeptical of anything that starts out with "It's settled". And can you save me some time, since there are tons of embedded links in that piece I'm about to read. Can you just link me to the actual scientists and institutions that and such that are all in agreement? Yes, I'm lazy.

Flawed predictions that never should have been made in the first place, true, but again most were off the cuff statements, not born from an actual paper. Doesn't make the overall science wrong.

One thing you must understand is how journalism works. It uses marketing. Scientists didn't write that article. Writers who are under pressure to write catchy titles do. What is important are the details and original data sources. So I and I bet many good scientists aren't thrilled with the title either. That is not their fault.

The study was a survey of climate science papers from I think 2014. Out of 12,000 papers only some 3% either disagreed with AGW or had no opinion.