Trump Consciousness

With respect, Michael, you have no idea what you're talking about re; Taliban and Afghanistan - and why would you? You're not even able to study unbiased open source material given your media's slant and laziness, let alone truly know all of the facts.
Actually Eric, I know precisely what I am talking about. You have to remember I am not a US citizen. I belong to a community of folk who have been watching the US very carefully for a long time, and the idea that we don't know what we are talking about is risible. You may disagree, but please don't make your opposition about who knows what. I could tell you that you don't know what you are talking about too. But I know that is not true.

Efforts to fill our minds with propaganda failed here. We are too suspicious to buy the voluminous BS that rolled forth from the US. We got facts and critical analysis from global experts. I will stake the sources against anything that was pumped out via the standard BS machine in the US and the UK - and here. We debated the matter deeply and extensively. Why invade Iraq on the pretext of 9/11? Turns out that was what your hawkish neo cons wanted to do and suddenly the shock of 9/11 gave them a golden opportunity to misrepresent truth.

What a lot of Americans are unaware of is that the rest of the global community paid deep attention to what was going on - which is why the 'coalition' of the willing comprised idiot obedient puppies like Australia and the UK and a bunch of mostly inconsequential nations who were strong armed into joining. The con the US government was pulling was flagrant. Our war criminal Prime Minister Howard ignored public objection to involving us. He is still despised today.

You want to ague detail and fact? I am up for that. I will be slow in replying because I will have to go find stuff I haven't needed to use for a long time.
 
While I believe the consensus about climate change, I would shy away from using Dr. Novella as your science champion. When he says 'defer', he means treat climate scientists as Royalty in context that they have the power/expertise to be the authority in everything in the above value chain - they do not. Science is the servant of the public trust and not its sovereign.
TES, now and then you write pure gold. This is one of those times.
 
Actually Eric, I know precisely what I am talking about. You have to remember I am not a US citizen. I belong to a community of folk who have been watching the US very carefully for a long time, and the idea that we don't know what we are talking about is risible. You may disagree, but please don't make your opposition about who knows what. I could tell you that you don't know what you are talking about too. But I know that is not true.

Efforts to fill our minds with propaganda failed here. We are too suspicious to buy the voluminous BS that rolled forth from the US. We got facts and critical analysis from global experts. I will stake the sources against anything that was pumped out via the standard BS machine in the US and the UK - and here. We debated the matter deeply and extensively. Why invade Iraq on the pretext of 9/11? Turns out that was what your hawkish neo cons wanted to do and suddenly the shock of 9/11 gave them a golden opportunity to misrepresent truth.

What a lot of Americans are unaware of is that the rest of the global community paid deep attention to what was going on - which is why the 'coalition' of the willing comprised idiot obedient puppies like Australia and the UK and a bunch of mostly inconsequential nations who were strong armed into joining. The con the US government was pulling was flagrant. Our war criminal Prime Minister Howard ignored public objection to involving us. He is still despised today.

You want to ague detail and fact? I am up for that. I will be slow in replying because I will have to go find stuff I haven't needed to use for a long time.
Another case of lack of self-awareness (on you part) = my media source/propaganda is real and your's is fake. I see that is what it always comes down to.

Well I don't get my info from the media at all. You do. You have no way of knowing what is fact and what is spin.
 
The last comment will be first. I call your Wiki Leaks story which was dubbed Climategate a 2009 half truth twisted into a confabulated conspiracy theory by Right wing bloggers, talk radio and Fox News right before an important world conference on climate change in Copenhagen. Was it true? In the ten years that have past, its pretty clear. It was a misinformation campaign with the clear purpose to misinform the public.

Using the argument that science disallows that which it cant physically measure has no merit. When thats precisely what science is doing with the geophysics of climate forecasting. There's nothing in what the climate is doing today which negates what science said ten yrs ago. In fact the hypothesis is correct in what it predicts.

I contend you have no interest in finding whats true. You now have your identity tied to an iconoclast agenda.

Science on the climate is beyond providing proof in the ten years since this smear campaign was initiated.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

Heres what The American Geophysical Union had to say.
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change". They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."[76]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasised that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigour of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations." Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said: "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."[77]
You are arguing this at a totally superficial level - i.e. not engaging with any of the points that Willie Soon made in the video I showed you earlier, so there is no point in discussing the matter further.

David
 
They had to charge McCabe for lying to investigators ... because that's what Mueller did to Flynn and Papadopoulos. If they didn't charge McCabe, it would be a blatant double standard.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/08/john-ratcliffe-andrew-mccabe-indictment/

Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe said Sunday he expects Andrew McCabe, a former FBI deputy director who now works as a CNN analyst, to be indicted on charges of lying to the government.
“Here, you have the inspector general stating that Andrew McCabe did that multiple times, and the magic words, did so intentionally and knowing,” Ratcliffe said in an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”​
“I think the Department of Justice is going to have to indict Andy McCabe, simply because to do otherwise would be to admit that there are separate standards for people doing the same thing for the same conduct.”​
Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor said that the Justice Department, through the special counsel, “made a cottage industry out of charging people like General Flynn and George Papadopoulos for lying to investigators.”​
 
Another case of lack of self-awareness (on you part) = my media source/propaganda is real and your's is fake. I see that is what it always comes down to.

Well I don't get my info from the media at all. You do. You have no way of knowing what is fact and what is spin.
I am not sure what you mean by media as its means of conveying information. I draw my information from a wide variety of sources - news television cable and "print' (both sides), podcasts, radio, the internet and books [print, e form and audio]. I also discuss with friends and family. All in all, I'd say my approach is fairly healthy

I am not suggesting yours is fake and mine is real. I am saying that there are different perspectives. You have a relationship with T as a US citizen within the US. I have a relationship as not a US citizen, but a citizen of a country that is obedient to US bidding, regardless of what its citizen think. These are two equally valid POVs - even if they are polar opposites. That's okay. That's how politics used to work - meet in the middle. Now its armed camps and any meeting in the middle has to a duel. That's bullshit.

I am puzzled that you think I have no way of knowing what is fact and spin. What gives you that idea? The fact that I disagree with you? And you do? How do you know you do? Please do tell me what steps you take to ensure you know what is fact and what is spin.
 
They had to charge McCabe for lying to investigators ... because that's what Mueller did to Flynn and Papadopoulos. If they didn't charge McCabe, it would be a blatant double standard.
Actually Jim, that's not the case. There are apparently numerous instances of lying to the FBI and no charges laid. The issue with McCabe is what he lied about and whether instances of lies of similar character were prosecuted - and there are arguments that they are not. I don't know whether these claims will stand up to closer scrutiny, but on the surface they do seem plausible.

You gotta be careful taking only one side of a highly politicised media on this if what you want is a fair and reasoned assessment.
 
You are arguing this at a totally superficial level - i.e. not engaging with any of the points that Willie Soon made in the video I showed you earlier, so there is no point in discussing the matter further.

David
OK David, Im good with that. I watched the video as you requested to respect your wishes. Now Im dismissed on the pretext I'm superficial? Thats < hilarious, really. Of course Im superficial, Im not a freaking climatologist. I do have a Ph.D in using Google. I accept real climatologists reporting Dr soon made errors in creating his graphs. Here's a counter graph to Dr Soon's contention that global temps do not show a steady rise. https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
Dr Soon attacked CO2 as too weak to cause global warming, but didn't address the whole spectrum of global warming gases and micro pollutants in the atmosphere.
Dr Soon also became a millionaire selling the counter view.

I do appreciate you helped me to look at the counter arguments. I can see the science is extremely complicated. Whats more evident are the real world effects. Which are occurring from a melting Antarctic to world wide death of coral reefs to tropical insects migrating north.
I feel even more strongly now climate change deniers have adopted it from a political viewpoint. Since you and Jim Smith are both unabashed Trump supporters who are also a climate deniers. That seems unlikely coincidence. That sort of supports my contention. Neither of you seriously attempted to consider any political counter arguments. You've become experts at cherry picking to support your innate Conservative bias.

Anyway I said at the start Im biased and Ill add Im superficial too. At least I'm honest. I wear my heart on my sleeve. I want my grandkids and yours to have good quality of life. Thats all.
 
The lack of self-reflection here is stunning.

Your media source is wrong, but mine are right!

Based on what evidence? How would you know that?

I remember my daughter went into the Navy with the usual brainwashed mindset acquired by attending public schools and our general culture. I visited her in Virginia Beach after she has completed her C school at Dam Neck, VA. She was sporting the DIA badge on her dress uniform. She felt the need to apologize for being resistant to what I had try to tell her. She even said, "Fox news is the one news source that is closest to the truth". It's amazing how one's eyes are opened when they actually have access to the facts and complexities. Something yours are not.

I read it in a book. So it must be true! Really? You're being serious?

Is there a president in the last 30 years+ that hasn't had extremely negative books written about him?

Do you take candy from strangers too? You shouldn't do that, you know.
Eric are you sure your not projecting your views onto me? What news sources am I biased towards? As I wrote previously I want to have my mind changed. I use all news sources. I read Drudge and occasionally look at Breitbart too.
I listened to Hannity and talk radio for years driving home from work.

All in all Im suspicious of any single news source. Some of what I see has been conjured up in someones basement and later circulated on a news program. Pizzagate and the Seth Rich DNC death are two

Anyway, thank you for responding. Please tell me more about my errant views. Try to be more specific though besides the insults. My pointy head didn't quite know what you were referring to.
 
Last edited:
OK David, Im good with that. I watched the video as you requested to respect your wishes. Now Im dismissed on the pretext I'm superficial? Thats < hilarious, really. Of course Im superficial, Im not a freaking climatologist. I do have a Ph.D in using Google. I accept real climatologists reporting Dr soon made errors in creating his graphs.
Well you surely don't need a degree in climatology to realise that plots of weather events should not be cherry picked in order to support one side of the argument. At one point, that was exactly what Soon points out. Now I would believe the mainstream climate scientists more if they specifically addressed the points that Soon (or any other 'climate sceptic' made). In my experience that is the telling thing in a number of these debates between scientists, who may have their interests to feather, and people who really want to get at the truth. Informed climate sceptics would love to debate with conventional climate scientists, but climate scientists generally avoid this by the trick of haughtily stating that he/she doesn't debate with climate deniers, and employing rhetorical tricks.

You don't escape being called a climate denier by being a climatologist. Just as you don't escape being called a statin denier if you have plenty of medical qualifications to debate the relative merits of statin drugs. There are a whole range of subjects like this.

What you do not seem to realise is that huge areas of science have adopted an overly defensive approach to defending their beliefs. I haven't followed the Bigfoot debate much, but you take an interest in it. Do you feel that conventional scientists take a dismissive approach to Bigfoot sightings? I guess you probably do, but don't you see that if you used the same type of arguments that you used against me, you would have to conclude that Bigfoot does not exist.

If a scientist with a Nobel Prize of any type came out in favour of the existence of Bigfoot, would you quibble over exactly which type of science he got his prize for? I think you would realise commonsensically that a man like that would have done some thinking and research before coming out with such a contrarian viewpoint.

The whole raison d'etre of Skeptiko (excluding the side issue of politics) is to explore areas of science dogma that appear to be false - focussing particularly on consciousness issues. If a piece of science is really well established - lets say that the earth is roughly spherical rather than flat, but flat earthers were vigorously asserting the contrary, I think plenty of scientists would be willing to debate the issue in public, and it would probably be the flat earthers that would avoid debate.

There are a long list of topics in which scientists are unwilling to debate - even at scientific conferences - such as the whole question as to whether Evolution by Natural Selection can possibly explain the genesis and diversification of life on this planet. However in this case, someone made an attempt to debate against ID scientists. This is how it turned out:


Interestingly the ID scientists seemed to counter just about everything that was thrown at them.

Here's a counter graph to Dr Soon's contention that global temps do not show a steady rise. https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
Dr Soon attacked CO2 as too weak to cause global warming, but didn't address the whole spectrum of global warming gases and micro pollutants in the atmosphere.
Assuming this is an assertion you have taken from those opposed to Soon, stop and think about it. It doesn't even deny that CO2 is a weak 'greenhouse gas', it tries to muddy the waters by mentioning micro-polutants, and other possible greenhouse gasses - it isn't an argument you could actually deploy in a head to head debate. We aren't spending squillions on removing anything other than CO2.
Dr Soon also became a millionaire selling the counter view.
I have no knowledge of Dr Soon's finances, but suppose he has - if he has done his bit to prevent the world wasting trillions of dollars (literally) on low carbon energy, doesn't he deserve a million or two!
I do appreciate you helped me to look at the counter arguments. I can see the science is extremely complicated. Whats more evident are the real world effects. Which are occurring from a melting Antarctic to world wide death of coral reefs to tropical insects migrating north.
I feel even more strongly now climate change deniers have adopted it from a political viewpoint. Since you and Jim Smith are both unabashed Trump supporters who are also a climate deniers. That seems unlikely coincidence. That sort of supports my contention. Neither of you seriously attempted to consider any political counter arguments. You've become experts at cherry picking to support your innate Conservative bias.

Anyway I said at the start Im biased and Ill add Im superficial too. At least I'm honest. I wear my heart on my sleeve. I want my grandkids and yours to have good quality of life. Thats all.
I certainly have not adopted my position on climate change because I am pro Trump, though one reason I support Trump, is that he has seen through the climate hysteria. I don't have any kids, but that doesn't stop me wanting the best for my nephew and niece and their kids. I don't want them to live in an era that has become dependent on a very unreliable source of energy, because in Britain that could endanger people's lives in a cold winter.

Getting back to science, glaciers have melted and grown throughout geological time. Greenland was called that because the explorers that first discovered it, found a green land. A few centuries back back, Britain was in the grip of a cold period when the river Thames famously froze so hard that people could run markets and fares on its surface (with fires to stay warm). What happened when that ended - the climate changed - for reasons that area little unclear. It was warmer before that period, and became warmer afterwards (obviously). The fact is that the climate is extremely complicated and its variation is governed by a whole series of cycles of different frequency.

I am very glad we seem to be moving on from the sterility of our initial debate.

I'll opt you into the PM debate I have had with several other forum members - please read that thread before responding - it contains a lot of information. As you read it, you will discover why I put the phrase "greenhouse gas" in quotes!

David
 
Last edited:
Well you surely don't need a degree in climatology to realise that plots of weather events should not be cherry picked in order to support one side of the argument. At one point, that was exactly what Soon points out. Now I would believe the mainstream climate scientists more if they specifically addressed the points that Soon (or any other 'climate sceptic' made). In my experience that is the telling thing in a number of these debates between scientists, who may have their interests to feather, and people who really want to get at the truth. Informed climate sceptics would love to debate with conventional climate scientists, but climate scientists generally avoid this by the trick of haughtily stating that he/she doesn't debate with climate deniers, and employing rhetorical tricks.

You don't escape being called a climate denier by being a climatologist. Just as you don't escape being called a statin denier if you have plenty of medical qualifications to debate the relative merits of statin drugs. There are a whole range of subjects like this.

What you do not seem to realise is that huge areas of science have adopted an overly defensive approach to defending their beliefs. I haven't followed the Bigfoot debate much, but you take an interest in it. Do you feel that conventional scientists take a dismissive approach to Bigfoot sightings? I guess you probably do, but don't you see that if you used the same type of arguments that you used against me, you would have to conclude that Bigfoot does not exist.

If a scientist with a Nobel Prize of any type came out in favour of the existence of Bigfoot, would you quibble over exactly which type of science he got his prize for? I think you would realise commonsensically that a man like that would have done some thinking and research before coming out with such a contrarian viewpoint.

The whole raison d'etre of Skeptiko (excluding the side issue of politics) is to explore areas of science dogma that appear to be false - focussing particularly on consciousness issues. If a piece of science is really well established - lets say that the earth is roughly spherical rather than flat, but flat earthers were vigorously asserting the contrary, I think plenty of scientists would be willing to debate the issue in public, and it would probably be the flat earthers that would avoid debate.

There are a long list of topics in which scientists are unwilling to debate - even at scientific conferences - such as the whole question as to whether Evolution by Natural Selection can possibly explain the genesis and diversification of life on this planet. However in this case, someone made an attempt to debate against ID scientists. This is how it turned out:


Interestingly the ID scientists seemed to counter just about everything that was thrown at them.


Assuming this is an assertion you have taken from those opposed to Soon, stop and think about it. It doesn't even deny that CO2 is a weak 'greenhouse gas', it tries to muddy the waters by mentioning micro-polutants, and other possible greenhouse gasses - it isn't an argument you could actually deploy in a head to head debate. We aren't spending squillions on removing anything other than CO2.

I have no knowledge of Dr Soon's finances, but suppose he has - if he has done his bit to prevent the world wasting trillions of dollars (literally) on low carbon energy, doesn't he deserve a million or two!

I certainly have not adopted my position on climate change because I am pro Trump, though one reason I support Trump, is that he has seen through the climate hysteria. I don't have any kids, but that doesn't stop me wanting the best for my nephew and niece and their kids. I don't want them to live in an era that has become dependent on a very unreliable source of energy, because in Britain that could endanger people's lives in a cold winter.

Getting back to science, glaciers have melted and grown throughout geological time. Greenland was called that because the explorers that first discovered it, found a green land. A few centuries back back, Britain was in the grip of a cold period when the river Thames famously froze so hard that people could run markets and fares on its surface (with fires to stay warm). What happened when that ended - the climate changed - for reasons that area little unclear. It was warmer before that period, and became warmer afterwards (obviously). The fact is that the climate is extremely complicated and its variation is governed by a whole series of cycles of different frequency.

I am very glad we seem to be moving on from the sterility of our initial debate.

I'll opt you into the PM debate I have had with several other forum members - please read that thread before responding - it contains a lot of information. As you read it, you will discover why I put the phrase "greenhouse gas" in quotes!

David
Thanks for the nice reply. I'm not going to pursue this particular debate anymore. I shot my wad, so to speak.
I stand by my prior posts and in the coming years. I believe it will become much more evident.

By the way, I believe in Bigfoot because I experienced its existence when I lived in Southern Oregon in my very early twenties, but thats another story. Thats completely subjective but directly observational. I have no no idea how or why such an experience could occur. I would be totally skeptical otherwise. Its an anomaly that only a conspiracy theory can explain, but we have the UFO/UAP coverup and slowly the true story is being uncovered. So I'm with Dr Meldrum on that (bigfoot) story.
 
The details you mention are plausible and consistent with what I remember from the time. I do think we had the justification to go in because Iraq was continually violating the cease fire agreement by not allowing full unhindered spontaneous inspections. Whether it was wise to do so is a different question. As for the admin lying about WMDs in Iraq, do you think they were actually lying as opposed to misinformed or engaging in wishful thinking?
Hi Andy

I am no sure what 'cease fire agreement' you are talking about. If you mean the WMD allegations, you would have to appreciate that Iraq rightly saw them as ludicrous fabrications concocted by the US and the UK. I recall this event very clearly. It was of sufficient concern that the Australian ABC show, Late Night Live had almost nightly discussion from independent global experts - as well as advocates for invasion.

Now we pretty much know that a gang of Hawkish Neo-Cons used 9/11 as a pretext for Invading Iraq as part of a larger game plan. There was no misinformation or mistake. It was a deliberate fabrication to support a pre-determined course of action that had nothing to do with 9/11.

There are a bunch of justly negating things to be said of Iraq, so I am not trying to defend it. However the same, or worse, can be said about other countries which were not invaded. The US likes to pretend it invades on moral grounds, rather than geopolitical grounds as defined by whatever hawks hold sway in a US administration at any given time. Its all BS.
 
Hi Andy

I am no sure what 'cease fire agreement' you are talking about. If you mean the WMD allegations, you would have to appreciate that Iraq rightly saw them as ludicrous fabrications concocted by the US and the UK. I recall this event very clearly. It was of sufficient concern that the Australian ABC show, Late Night Live had almost nightly discussion from independent global experts - as well as advocates for invasion.

Now we pretty much know that a gang of Hawkish Neo-Cons used 9/11 as a pretext for Invading Iraq as part of a larger game plan. There was no misinformation or mistake. It was a deliberate fabrication to support a pre-determined course of action that had nothing to do with 9/11.

There are a bunch of justly negating things to be said of Iraq, so I am not trying to defend it. However the same, or worse, can be said about other countries which were not invaded. The US likes to pretend it invades on moral grounds, rather than geopolitical grounds as defined by whatever hawks hold sway in a US administration at any given time. Its all BS.
Michael,
Your problem is that you perpetually want to assign sinister motives to the US.

Of course military action is going to be sold to the populace on moral grounds. That is how you activate young men (and now women) to endure the sacrifices of war and for the rest of the citizens to support it generally and to pay for it. Other than a few adventure seeks, not many can wrap their heads around long term geopolitical strategies; much less get excited enough about them to fight for them. However, that doesn't make the whole thing immoral. If people with access to more facts and analysis and a deeper understanding of situations see a need for military intervention, it just might be the right thing to do.

My opinion is that the Iraq invasion was, in the balance, wrong. It is also my opinion that the people who planned it are idiots. A serious mistake was made in that event. That doesn't make all other actions wrong (as you want them to be).

Now, what of the recent attack by the Yemeni Houthis on Saudi oil production facilities? They just destroyed a site that providing 5% of the world's oil. They apparently used drones - and they used drones far beyond what was believed the capability of those drones could be. The US has been assisting the Saudis in their effort to crush the Iranian backed Houthis. Should the Houthis be crushed? They are clearly bad actors. You will personally begin to feel the impact of this latest attack as global markets react to the uncertainty and instability that it creates. You want to cave in to the Houthis? Ok. Who/where is the next group of hostile camel jockies that will figure out or receive the tech for creating long range areal attacks? What will they do with that capability? My guess is nothing good. You want to believe that these people would leave us a lone if we left them alone. History says you are dead wrong. Observe the invasions and occupations of Spain and Eastern Europe. Islam hasn't changed a bit since then.

These are tough questions that must be addressed daily by people sworn to protect their societies. A group of people commonly known as "neocons" came up with an answer. It was a pipe dream, but it was answer that was attractive to those in power after 9/11. In a globally connected world, bad actors can't be ignored. Conflicts have a way now of spilling over far beyond the immediate region. Many things in your life that you take for granted are dependent on countless agreements and other arrangements. You might say that you don't care about oil prices and global, but your neighbors do. The people you want to help through your social work depend on the economy and the tax money it generates.
 
Thanks for the nice reply. I'm not going to pursue this particular debate anymore. I shot my wad, so to speak.
I stand by my prior posts and in the coming years. I believe it will become much more evident.

By the way, I believe in Bigfoot because I experienced its existence when I lived in Southern Oregon in my very early twenties, but thats another story. Thats completely subjective but directly observational. I have no no idea how or why such an experience could occur. I would be totally skeptical otherwise. Its an anomaly that only a conspiracy theory can explain, but we have the UFO/UAP coverup and slowly the true story is being uncovered. So I'm with Dr Meldrum on that (bigfoot) story.
Well likewise I don't believe in Global Warming aka Climate Change because I looked at some of the issues after that email release (as I already said).

The fact remains, that if you raised the subject of Bigfoot (or ID) in a conventional biology forum, you would get shouted down.

This is meant to point out that quoting what various well established people in science say about any contentious topic is almost meaningless. Those who act as whistle-blowers and back another view, are at least somewhat more likely to be right because they pay a penalty in many ways for crossing swords with the establishment.

However, many issues in dispute are not that complex, and people here are best debating such topics by examining actual scientific arguments. Climate change is a very messy subject (noisy and possibly distorted data, tunable computer models, and a physical system - the atmosphere - which is enormously complex), but ID is a much clearer case where the combinatorial issues really aren't that complicated and anyone with a modicum of biological knowledge can grasp the issues involved. I'd advise anyone who wants to see what is wrong with modern science to explore that topic!

I am amused by your orgasmic approach to debating

David
 
Well likewise I don't believe in Global Warming aka Climate Change because I looked at some of the issues after that email release (as I already said).

The fact remains, that if you raised the subject of Bigfoot (or ID) in a conventional biology forum, you would get shouted down.

This is meant to point out that quoting what various well established people in science say about any contentious topic is almost meaningless. Those who act as whistle-blowers and back another view, are at least somewhat more likely to be right because they pay a penalty in many ways for crossing swords with the establishment.

However, many issues in dispute are not that complex, and people here are best debating such topics by examining actual scientific arguments. Climate change is a very messy subject (noisy and possibly distorted data, tunable computer models, and a physical system - the atmosphere - which is enormously complex), but ID is a much clearer case where the combinatorial issues really aren't that complicated and anyone with a modicum of biological knowledge can grasp the issues involved. I'd advise anyone who wants to see what is wrong with modern science to explore that topic!

I am amused by your orgasmic approach to debating

David
Not just Bigfoot. 99% of "scientists" will tell you there's no life after death or psi.

I guess we should all just pack it in and get back to reality because 99% of scientists!
 
Not just Bigfoot. 99% of "scientists" will tell you there's no life after death or psi.

I guess we should all just pack it in and get back to reality because 99% of scientists!
I think I'd covered all the rest in an earlier post - but yes, science has simply pushed outside the boundaries of what it knows, but you wouldn't think it without pushing a bit.

Of course, none of that means in itself that the other side is right, and few of us are experts in the exact scientific niche that we are questioning. However, there are a variety of general indicators of probable science that seem to follow a pattern.

1) Research establishments are getting serious money to research a problem - so it is super-hard for them to come to the conclusion no problem exists.

2) Colleagues in the same field or a related one who still come to a different conclusion are attacked as 'Climate Deniers', 'Woo woo', HIV deniers, etc. Not only that, but they are usually prevented from speaking at conferences, and find it harder to get papers accepted for publication.

3) The science itself seems bedevilled by extremely noisy data, and alternative explanations for the data that does exist.

4) There is an excessive reliance on computer models. These can involve literally hundreds of components that get simulated in some way to come to a conclusion. The problem is, that nobody but the authors of a paper know what is in the programs - they act like a total black box. See for example this criticism of climate models:

https://notrickszone.com/2016/04/20...-hardly-trustworthy-says-top-climate-modeler/

David
 
Last edited:
Top