Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Just a reminder!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AE 87" data-source="post: 209857" data-attributes="member: 195"><p>[USER=1640]@Northeast Stinger[/USER] , your analogies at the end again seem to disclose a lack of understanding of what I mean by a faith position. Getting on a plane, driving a car, using a computer etc are examples of activities which repeated experience makes trustworthy, regardless of what you think about any underlying theory of how they work. </p><p></p><p></p><p>So, let’s go back to the “climate change” example. My position is, and has been, that coming to any scientific conclusion on climate change is made difficult because the competing scientific claims on the matter debate not only the interpretation of the data but the data itself. So, I conclude that any firm stand on this issue by laymen must come down to faith, who am I going to believe.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, I do tend to be most skeptical of the so-called climate experts who support the position that human contribution to climate change is dangerous. I do that because global temperatures have not risen as they predicted and because published data sets show temperatures from over a hundred years ago becoming significantly cooler. Moreover, the peer-reviewed analysis of Mann’s influential hockey stick graph has shown that it was based on faulty data. Also, the climate-gate emails suggest that climate scientists discussed this as a “trick” to fix the data. Finally, the “warmest year” announcements and the popularizing of the bogus 97% number suggest that they don’t care as much about truth as the billions of dollars of government funding.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, @Northeast Jacket, why don’t you explain the data and reasoning which has made you confident that AGW is real and dangerous, including why you used the 97% number which has been called into question.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Also, your position on a “majority of bible scholars” similarly seems to reflect a faith position in what you’ve been told rather than knowledge of the data.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AE 87, post: 209857, member: 195"] [USER=1640]@Northeast Stinger[/USER] , your analogies at the end again seem to disclose a lack of understanding of what I mean by a faith position. Getting on a plane, driving a car, using a computer etc are examples of activities which repeated experience makes trustworthy, regardless of what you think about any underlying theory of how they work. So, let’s go back to the “climate change” example. My position is, and has been, that coming to any scientific conclusion on climate change is made difficult because the competing scientific claims on the matter debate not only the interpretation of the data but the data itself. So, I conclude that any firm stand on this issue by laymen must come down to faith, who am I going to believe. Now, I do tend to be most skeptical of the so-called climate experts who support the position that human contribution to climate change is dangerous. I do that because global temperatures have not risen as they predicted and because published data sets show temperatures from over a hundred years ago becoming significantly cooler. Moreover, the peer-reviewed analysis of Mann’s influential hockey stick graph has shown that it was based on faulty data. Also, the climate-gate emails suggest that climate scientists discussed this as a “trick” to fix the data. Finally, the “warmest year” announcements and the popularizing of the bogus 97% number suggest that they don’t care as much about truth as the billions of dollars of government funding. So, @Northeast Jacket, why don’t you explain the data and reasoning which has made you confident that AGW is real and dangerous, including why you used the 97% number which has been called into question. Also, your position on a “majority of bible scholars” similarly seems to reflect a faith position in what you’ve been told rather than knowledge of the data. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Just a reminder!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top