Originally posted by randye: You're NOT a scientist Ronald.
...even though you like to pretend to be one on the internet.
Ron is a qualified plagiarist.
If you understand the scientific method, you can come to conclusions based on available evidence, that doesn't mean you're an expert because you watch CNN and read some NYT articles.
If you understand the scientific method, you can come to conclusions based on available evidence, that doesn't mean you're an expert because you watch CNN and read some NYT articles.
Cutting & Pasting "sciency" articles on an internet car forum and then adding a few lines of garbled, pointless commentary to them also doesn't make someone a "scientist" and it certainly doesn't make them an "intellectual".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-07-2017).]
Yes, dont give me a line of scientific babble...show it to me. I dont see any shrinking beaches or disappearing cities do you ? Has nothing at all to do with a flat earth. Proof has been there since ships were able to sail in a complete circle that it isnt a flat earth, and backed up by photos of the earth from space. THAT is eyeball proof. Every single day something some scientist says somewhere is proven wrong. Having a PHD does not make everything you say a fact...just means you wasted more money on school.
"Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.
Scientists tracking the effects of the major 1991 eruption of the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo found that the overall effect of the blast was to cool the surface of the Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius a year later, even though rising human greenhouse gas emissions and an El Nino event (a warm water current which periodically flows along the coast of Ecuador and Peru in South America) caused some surface warming during the 1991-1993 study period."
He didn't. People like him don't understand scientific babble.
The science people like threedog claim is a well written fictional story. It's based in enough reality that if you didn't know better you'd believe it.
Science is never settled. What is widely accepted as fact was never actually a fact; it's all theory. Anything backed by science but represented as undeniable truth are really political campaigns.
Currently, we have a lot of biased research into global warming because of politics. The more biased you appear, the more likely you are to be funded. When people decide to research Tetrodotoxin ,as an alternative to opioids, with minimal side effects and no dependencies, you'll struggle to get funded.
A good example of a scientific political farce is the Big Bang Theory and the theory of Evolution. The theories were pushed into schools as a replacement for religous teachings(not a bad thing). The problem is that it changed into theories taught and tested as if they are fact even after one of the theories had been debunked.
We've all been taught the Big Bang theory, yet when it was disproven you didn't hear about it in the news and there was no push to remove it from curriculums. The theory was based on the understanding of Newtonian physics and the observation that the universe was expanding. We now have observed that the universe is accelerating. When you apply Newtonian physics, the new theory states that the expansion of the universe is still expanding due to an unknown outside force that is still pushing the universe apart today which completely invalidates the observation the Big Band theory was based on.
The problem with today's political claims about climate change is that the theories surrounding it aren't backed up with much observable evidence. The scale of the studies is nowhere near near enough to come to conclusions. Evidence contradicting it is ignored in favor of what is politically correct.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 12-09-2017).]
A good example of a scientific political farce is the Big Bang Theory and the theory of Evolution. The theories were pushed into schools as a replacement for religious teachings (not a bad thing). The problem is that it changed into theories taught and tested as if they are fact even after one of the theories had been debunked.
Not a bad thing, ? I do however suppose that you are right. In that religious teachings should not be done in schools.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: We've all been taught the Big Bang theory, yet when it was disproven you didn't hear about it in the news and there was no push to remove it from curriculums. The theory was based on the understanding of Newtonian physics and the observation that the universe was expanding. We now have observed that the universe is accelerating. When you apply Newtonian physics, the new theory states that the expansion of the universe is still expanding due to an unknown outside force that is still pushing the universe apart today which completely invalidates the observation the Big Band theory was based on.
I didn't know the Big Bang theory was disproven. Not that I ever believed in it. I can't see how Newtonian physics disproves it. Unknown outside force ? Expanding the universe ? That would be the Big Bang explosion itself. By definition, an explosion expands.
I reject the Big Bang theory with common sense. They ask that we believe there was nothing and then something exploded, and also believe this particular explosion created the miracles of the universe. Every explosion I have observed destroys.
Now, let me use common sense to debunk evolution. As big of a farce as Global Warming. The missing link, ? Links would be the more appropriate term. But they are not missing. They never existed. If evolution was reality, why did it stop ? Links should be in abundance.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: The problem with today's political claims about climate change is that the theories surrounding it aren't backed up with much observable evidence. The scale of the studies is nowhere near near enough to come to conclusions. Evidence contradicting it is ignored in favor of what is politically correct.
I agree, mostly. I would say instead of politically correct, that it is a political agenda. As always, about money.
I'm glad you got something out of it, I thought it had killed the thread.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Unknown outside force ? Expanding the universe ? That would be the Big Bang explosion itself. By definition, an explosion expands.
The point is that if the universe is accelerating, the force causing it to expand is still there. According to Newtonian physics, the universe would have to be slowing down and eventually pulled back together buy gravity if the "Big Bang" was the cause of the universe expanding.
That force that is causing the acceleration may not be what created the universe but it definitely is contrary to to the theory of the "Big Bang" because it contradicts the observation the theory was based on.
Global warming has a similar issue to the "Big Bang". It's based on very limited observations on a scale too small to draw conclusions from.
We know climate change is real, we know it's a natural process that will happen with or without us. Any conclusions drawn based on the evidence we have are based on anecdotal evidence and anything contradictory to whatever side you're on is accused of being the same.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 12-11-2017).]
Not a bad thing, ? I do however suppose that you are right. In that religious teachings should not be done in schools.
That's pretty much what I meant, I just didn't word it correctly, I don't have a problem with religious teachings being left out of public school curriculums. I'm not in favor of replacing it with a specific subject.
"We are just ignoring the vast majority of scientists now because "we see more with our own two eyes?" by threedog
See how you did that...twisted what I said to mean something completely different. I SAID proof of anything to me is seeing it with my own 2 eyes. Anything I dont personally see I can accept or not accept...my choice. I DID NOT say I see more with my own 2 eyes like you tried to quote.
There once was a scientist who studied frogs. One day, the scientist put the frog on the ground and told it to jump. The frog jumped four feet.
So the scientist wrote in his notebook, "Frog with four feet, jumps four feet."
So the scientist cut off one of one of the frogs legs. The scientist told the frog to jump. Frog jumped three feet. So the scientist wrote in his note book, "Frog with three feet, jumps three feet."
So the scientist cut of another leg. He told the frog to jump. The frog jumped two feet. So the scientist wrote in his notebook "Frog with two feet, jumps two feet."
The scientist cut off one more leg. He told the frog to jump. Frog jumped one foot. So the scientist wrote in his notebook, "Frog with one foot, jumps one foot."
So the scientist cut off his last leg.
"He said, "Frog jump. Frog jump. FROG JUMP!"
So the scientist wrote in his notebook, "Frog with no feet, goes deaf."
It was a grasshopper the first time I heard this one. Ring the bell, grasshopper jumps. Cut off his legs and ring the bell, the grasshopper just sits there. Conclusion: grasshoppers ears are in their legs.
Yeah, I've heard it a few different ways, sometimes with the conclusion that the ears are in it's legs, that's just the first one that popped up when googled.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 12-12-2017).]
"We are just ignoring the vast majority of scientists now because "we see more with our own two eyes?" by threedog
Isn't that odd. That's the SAME reason secular humanists and atheists use to deny the existence of God.
They can't see him or see any evidence of him, therefore he doesn't exist.
However they WILL accept the words of the "priesthood" of "scientists" that something that no one else observes is a fact.
They take their "priest's" word on faith.
They will even use religious terms and call anyone who is skeptical of their faith a "Denier"
They will invoke their all powerful "holy names", such as NASA, as supreme religious authority and to attempt to stop discussion in the same way a muslim might refer to mohammed.
Example: "Well NASA says _________. Are you claiming that you know more than NASA?"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-13-2017).]
Skepticism is healthy but the religion that is atheism is not. I'm not going to bother going into it in this thread but if someone wants to start a new one, I'm there.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 12-12-2017).]
I'm willing to be wrong but I don't accept any court telling me that my beliefs are religious. Agnostic is the absence of believing for me and if that's not right then I'm not agnostic. I don't have a problem with anyone else either believing or not believing.
Originally posted by dratts: I'm willing to be wrong but I don't accept any court telling me that my beliefs are religious. Agnostic is the absence of believing for me and if that's not right then I'm not agnostic. I don't have a problem with anyone else either believing or not believing.
dratts, my good friend, think about what you said. Where to start ?
If a court says you have to pay the fine, you can not, not accept it. If the court says you are going to jail, you are going to jail. Believe it or not.
Agnostic. The absence of believing. Is that code for not giving a damn ?
What do you believe in ? Or, are you agnostic about all life and reality ?
dratts, my good friend, think about what you said. Where to start ?
If a court says you have to pay the fine, you can not, not accept it. If the court says you are going to jail, you are going to jail. Believe it or not.
Agnostic. The absence of believing. Is that code for not giving a damn ?
What do you believe in ? Or, are you agnostic about all life and reality ?
I don't see how any court can tell anyone what to believe or put them in jail for what they believe. Agnostic? I was at one time a born again baptized Christian before I began to have my doubts. I don't see how I can ever have proof that there is a god or that there isn't. That separates me from an atheist that believes there is no god. I just don't know.
Originally posted by dratts: I don't see how any court can tell anyone what to believe or put them in jail for what they believe. Agnostic? I was at one time a born again baptized Christian before I began to have my doubts. I don't see how I can ever have proof that there is a god or that there isn't. That separates me from an atheist that believes there is no god. I just don't know.
Thank you sir !
I have had my doubts too, before. I still want to. Yet I have seen God, and the Devil. I have.
Oh gosh. I don't mean to preach. I am not going to.
Ok dude. There are many people better than me. I think you are but just one of them. I mean that.
I don't think for one second that I am better than you. I was just joking about the 'sir'. You can call me dude though. I actually am an ordained minister of the church of the later day dude.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 12-12-2017).]
I have not updated myself on this thread--all the messages that are here, after the last one from me on Page One. Still on my To Do list.
I do see, among the various off-topic remarks (Off Topic in Off Topic... unusual), that there are a number of On Topic messages here about Sea Levels that have extended and added to the earlier discussion within a discussion inside the "Harvey and Irma" thread.
The "Harvey and Irma" thread was started by drafts, back in September. It started out as a general or catch-all discussion about the two devastating hurricanes. It kind of morphed into a discussion that was more focused on the one topic of Sea Levels.
I added to the "Harvey and Irma" thread on December 1, with more of my thoughts on the topic of Sea Levels.
After I did that, there were two responses. One was civilized, and the other (from "randye"), distinctly against the first of the Posting Rules, "Keep it civilized." But neither one of these Reply To messages was about Sea Levels.
That's when the Light Bulb went on. I said to myself, "There has to be more interest in this topic, but members who are at the Main Page and just see that there's a thread about Harvey and Irma are not going to realize that this is their chance to weigh in again, or possibly for the first time, on the topic of Sea Levels."
So I set this up as a new Topic with links back to the "Harvey and Irma" topic.
I was also hoping, perhaps subconsciously and certainly wishfully, that if "randeye' got involved again, he would be On Topic with Sea Levels and would leave his earlier stupid and idiotic remarks (in the "Harvey and Irma" thread) behind, and not revert to that same Imbecilic and Posting Rules Violating mentality that has so thoroughly characterized him, and even more so during the most recent three or maybe five months.
There was a thread that I started not that long ago, having to do with the Yellowstone volcano, where he managed to set the bar again--the bar for Not Keeping It Civilized. I think he somehow got "radicalized" in some time frame before I created that topic. He went from Large Sized Cretin all the way up to Super Massive Cretin.
It was so rude of me to say **** Off to him, when I could have said "You are a jackwad" or "You are a jackwipe." Those are words that he has used recently here, in reference to me, knowing that they will not be Asterisk-ized by the Swear Filter.
jackwad? jackwipe?
Seriously?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-14-2017).]
You [rinselberg] harp about "posting rules" and not disclosing personal information but YOU were the first one to start using members last names.
I have sometimes addressed "jmbishop" as J M Bishop ... "cliffw" as Cliff W ... "Tony Kania" as Tony Kania. My only purpose is to change it up a little, and to avoid the monotony of always referring to any other forum member with their exact Pennock's screen name.
I have not used any "extracurricular" research to discover otherwise undisclosed information about any other forum member. I have never tried to discover and "weaponize" that kind of information for use against another forum member as part of any Off Topic argument or discussion.
If anyone has a "beef" about how I have addressed or referred to them, please call it to my attention. I want to make my points and provide my thoughts and opinions, and without rubbing anyone the wrong way, as that idiom is generally understood.
This is just another spurious complaint to be disregarded, about my Off Topic Discussion Forum Practices, from randye.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-14-2017).]
If anyone has a "beef" about how I have addressed or referred to them, please call it to my attention. I want to make my points and provide my thoughts and opinions, without rubbing anyone the wrong way, personally speaking.
I've called your attention to it many, many times ( well, two, to be exact ).
To reiterate -
You can call me Raymond, You can call me Ray, You can call me Ray Ray, You can call me Ray Baby, You can call me Rayman but ya doesn't has to call me RottenOtton.
Isn't that odd. That's the SAME reason secular humanists and atheists use to deny the existence of God.
They can't see him or see any evidence of him, therefore he doesn't exist.
However they WILL accept the words of the "priesthood" of "scientists" that something that no one else observes is a fact.
They take their "priest's" word on faith.
They will even use religious terms and call anyone who is skeptical of their faith a "Denier"
They will invoke their all powerful "holy names", such as NASA, as supreme religious authority and to attempt to stop discussion in the same way a muslim might refer to mohammed.
Example: "Well NASA says _________. Are you claiming that you know more than NASA?"
I see nothing at all odd about that. Ive never seen any proof of the existence of a god. However, like I said, I can either accept the premise or not for myself. I choose to accept the idea that their is a singular god...its just not a proven fact to me. No one will ever know until they die and the facts will or will not bear out what they think. Let me know the next time someone dies and sends you a photo of the 'pearly gates or God" himself. Otherwise, my proof will come when I die.
On NASA, I believe anything they say that has irrefutable proof. Otherwise, Ill chose whether I believe them or not.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 12-14-2017).]
Then you whined and cried that someone was breaking the posting rules by addressing you as Inselberg
You always seem to have a boat load of bullcrap excuses for your own behavior while you wag your little leftist rinselberg finger at others.
Here you are AGAIN bellyaching about posting rules being broken while you simultaneously do the same damn thing you're bitching about:
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I was also hoping, perhaps subconsciously and certainly wishfully, that if "randeye' got involved again, he would be On Topic with Sea Levels and would leave his earlier stupid and idiotic remarks (in the "Harvey and Irma" thread) behind, and not revert to that same Imbecilic and Posting Rules Violating mentality that has so thoroughly characterized him,.....
....He went from Large Sized Cretin all the way up to Super Massive Cretin.
You're a HYPOCRITE Ronald and you're still a LIAR......and a jackwipe
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-15-2017).]
I believe my own eyes for physical proof over what ANY scientist says. While it may be higher in some places, Im only familiar with the Caribbean. My house on the beach there has been there for over 100 years (grandparents built it in like 1903). Its about 20 yards from the back door to the ocean, a little closer at high tide. Its been the same the whole time. The house hasnt moved or the beach built up.
I'm sure someone will argue that no change of sea level at your Caribbean house is just a "local" measurement.
I'm sure someone will argue that no change of sea level at your Caribbean house is just a "local" measurement.
I havent seen photos of any of Florida disappear beneath the waves either...or anywhere else on the planet. Wave action gradually knocking down cliffs along with any houses on it dont count as being destroyed by rising water.
? I do however suppose that you are right. In that religious teachings should not be done in schools.
