Global Warming will kill you!!!

rjt · 22-02-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Britannist wrote:-

You are a 'shallow thinker' for not exploring all the aspects of Climate science and more importantly, what my views of the EU are and the possibility of anything I may have done about it without procaliming it here.

As this is a Democracy Forum here would be a good outlet for you to share what you have done! You could help others that way.

rjt · 22-02-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

Not true.

I am not respond to most of what is in your last posting - I am busy hence my short replies.

But I will ask one thing yet again: why are you spending so much of your time criticising me who backs your aim of cutting carbon emissions rather than criticising those who do not want to cut carbon emissions?

You are indulging in a futile activity Clippo - criticising someone who partly shares your views on this subject. Your attitude should be to encourage and not to be hostile.

I would venture to suggest he does not support you because you suggest there are ways of doing it without taxing people more.

Or possibly there may be a more serious reason. He actually does not care as much as he says he does.

Akria · 22-02-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

What a load of utter utter garbage:

This argument boils down to:

Conjecture ? Possible Explanation.

If Explanation then Prediction
If Prediction then Consequence
If Consequence = false then Explanation = false,

therefore Conjecture = false......... !!!!!!

But as the explanation is only possibly true to start off with, how can it possibly disprove the conjecture that was based on a possible explanation to start off with !

Unbelievable !!!!!

Wikipedia is well known for changing the laws of science to suit it's own agenda:

Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Even if people were foolish enough to believe that wonderland theory, you say:

"there are only two fields in which one may attain a proof of something"

despite the fact that your entire argument is based on the proof that scientific proof doesn't exist !

Most people would agree that science has used proofs as the basis of it's underlying theory throughout history.

But if this isn't a clear example of what people are prepared to do, to twist the truth and change the fundamentals of science, I don't know what is !

If you want me to give YOU a false argument (that's as ridiculous as yours) here's one:

Everybody breathes air.
Everybody dies.
Therefore breathing air causes everybody to die !

You clearly don't understand the scientific method at all.
If experiment disagrees with hypothesis, then the hypothesis is either false - or it has to be modified to account for the disagreement.

And it is not a scientific proof but a logical proof.
A field you obviously have no experience in, given your comparison analogy which is nothing like the scientific method.

And Wiki's explanation is the same as the explanation I was given in my first science lesson at secondary school, given by a biologist with a PHD in a biological subject (he's a world authority on pondslime, if you must know). And it was echoed by my other teachers as well.

I know of children who can grasp the concept - and yet you cannot, apparently, and in your madness you resort to making huge leaps of illogic, attempts to discredit only one of a myriad of sources explaining the concept (neither of those links says anything about Wiki's scientific credibility, by the way, and the second refers to corporate interests changing things in their favour - which corporations have an interest in changing the scientific method, might I ask? And as for the first link, the same question, but change ' which corporations' to ' why does the CIA'), making patently false comparisons and twisting the words of the source.

youcanhandlethetruth · 22-02-2008, 06:31 PM

Talk about the blind leading the blind !

Or could they be telling porkies ?

"(bear in mind he didn't say he invented this procedure)" - no he picked it up from wikipedia which as I have doumented is well known for patching together unrelated pieces of information to create false impressions for those who know no better, or don't have the ability to evaluate a scientific perspective for themselves.

"I am not a scientist nor a mathematician" - indeed but I have a degree in it and Akria is (supposedly) 16 years old, and has been proven by me and countless others to be twisting the truth at every opportunity.
Not to mention the fact that scientific proof has existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years !

Let me explain further to anyone else who didn't get the initial point I made.

There is a BIG difference between:

conjecture i.e. guess or hypothesis(of something that may or may not be true)

and the explanation for that conjecture.(why the conjecture may be true)

If you disprove the explanation, it does not disprove the conjecture, because there may be another explanation for the conjecture to be true.

But what that theory does is to say "2. is disproved" when 2 defines the conjecture and the explanation in one fell swoop !

So Akria, Frith you can talk yourselves up as much as you want - people can see the falsehood in that shabby set of "logic" that you call the new "scientific method".

Even if someone on Wikipedia edited the entry and put a few impressive scientists names next to it, it doesn't alter the fact, that it is a collection of ideas and selctive information rolled into one big untruth...

Notice too how they use the terms like "try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook." - is that scientific ? I don't think so !

I think people are intelligent enough to accept scientific proof(including the laws of physics and mathematics) as the basis of civilization embodied throughout history.

If people need reliable sources they will rely on scientific textbooks from the aforementioned scientists named, not edited garbage on wikipedia.

This is the "scientific revolution" that we are unfortunately facing today from a bunch of un-academics who haven't the reason (or credentials) to argue their supposedly scientific case.

Hartlepool · 22-02-2008, 06:55 PM

YCHTT,take it easy,remember that Akria is another buddy of clippo and only interested in making confrontational statements on here that will consume your time and frustrate your efforts.

Dont let him and them take you off course,which is their goal of course.

youcanhandlethetruth · 22-02-2008, 07:02 PM

Oh sure I already knew that a long time ago....
Just wanted to re-affirm his point as false through scientific logic in case anyone started to believe it.
Keep up the good work people

Hartlepool · 22-02-2008, 07:09 PM

Thanks,we will.

Akria · 22-02-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Talk about the blind leading the blind !

Or could they be telling porkies ?

"(bear in mind he didn't say he invented this procedure)" - no he picked it up from wikipedia which as I have doumented is well known for patching together unrelated pieces of information to create false impressions for those who know no better, or don't have the ability to evaluate a scientific perspective for themselves.

"I am not a scientist nor a mathematician" - indeed but I have a degree in it and Akria is (supposedly) 16 years old, and has been proven by me and countless others to be twisting the truth at every opportunity.
Not to mention the fact that scientific proof has existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years !

Let me explain further to anyone else who didn't get the initial point I made.

There is a BIG difference between:

conjecture i.e. guess or hypothesis(of something that may or may not be true)

and the explanation for that conjecture.(why the conjecture may be true)

If you disprove the explanation, it does not disprove the conjecture, because there may be another explanation for the conjecture to be true.

But what that theory does is to say "2. is disproved" when 2 defines the conjecture and the explanation in one fell swoop !

So Akria, Frith you can talk yourselves up as much as you want - people can see the falsehood in that shabby set of "logic" that you call the new "scientific method".

Even if someone on Wikipedia edited the entry and put a few impressive scientists names next to it, it doesn't alter the fact, that it is a collection of ideas and selctive information rolled into one big untruth...

Notice too how they use the terms like "try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook." - is that scientific ? I don't think so !

I think people are intelligent enough to accept scientific proof(including the laws of physics and mathematics) as the basis of civilization embodied throughout history.

If people need reliable sources they will rely on scientific textbooks from the aforementioned scientists named, not edited garbage on wikipedia.

This is the "scientific revolution" that we are unfortunately facing today from a bunch of un-academics who haven't the reason (or credentials) to argue their supposedly scientific case.

Scientific proof has never existed, for the reasons I have already explained and linked to. The 'laws of science' are widely accepted theories, nothing more - gravity, as an example, is not proven. Flip a coin for as long as you want, and each time it comes down again there is just that little bit more evidence for the theory - but you never know, next time it might not come down, and if that were to happen it would instantly disprove the theory, whereupon you would have to modify it to explain why such a thing happened.

And mathematics is not science. Mathematics is a considerably higher subject, one in which there can be proofs as long as several basic axioms are accepted. That is why mathematics has theorems, which are proven, and science has theories at best.

And if people need reliable sources I am sure they will rely on Einstein and Huygens.

I picked it up from my science teachers and sheer logical thought first, and it is the same scientific method used throughout the world - you can argue as much as you want, although so far you have merely made huge leaps of illogic and presented massive strawmen, but it remains that there is no such thing as a scientific proof. If you think you have an example of a scientific proof then do please tell me and the world's scientific community; we're dying to know how you have somehow overturned the most fundamental of scientific principles!

And what a strawman - the 'scientific revolution'!

If the conjecture is false then so too is the explanation until modified to fit the observations - it is nothing more than logic!

Hartlepool · 22-02-2008, 07:32 PM

It's quite frightening now,Akria is starting to talk exactly like Smidgey does,anyone else noticed that lately?

Westcountryman · 22-02-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartlepool

It's quite frightening now,Akria is starting to talk exactly like Smidgey does,anyone else noticed that lately?

Smidgey and Akria are very different. Smidgey is a committed libertarian, Akria is a Liberal.

22-02-2008, 06:31 PM	#154 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,379	Debunked part 2 Talk about the blind leading the blind ! Or could they be telling porkies ? "(bear in mind he didn't say he invented this procedure)" - no he picked it up from wikipedia which as I have doumented is well known for patching together unrelated pieces of information to create false impressions for those who know no better, or don't have the ability to evaluate a scientific perspective for themselves. "I am not a scientist nor a mathematician" - indeed but I have a degree in it and Akria is (supposedly) 16 years old, and has been proven by me and countless others to be twisting the truth at every opportunity. Not to mention the fact that scientific proof has existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years ! Let me explain further to anyone else who didn't get the initial point I made. There is a BIG difference between: conjecture i.e. guess or hypothesis(of something that may or may not be true) and the explanation for that conjecture.(why the conjecture may be true) If you disprove the explanation, it does not disprove the conjecture, because there may be another explanation for the conjecture to be true. But what that theory does is to say "2. is disproved" when 2 defines the conjecture and the explanation in one fell swoop ! So Akria, Frith you can talk yourselves up as much as you want - people can see the falsehood in that shabby set of "logic" that you call the new "scientific method". Even if someone on Wikipedia edited the entry and put a few impressive scientists names next to it, it doesn't alter the fact, that it is a collection of ideas and selctive information rolled into one big untruth... Notice too how they use the terms like "try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook." - is that scientific ? I don't think so ! I think people are intelligent enough to accept scientific proof(including the laws of physics and mathematics) as the basis of civilization embodied throughout history. If people need reliable sources they will rely on scientific textbooks from the aforementioned scientists named, not edited garbage on wikipedia. This is the "scientific revolution" that we are unfortunately facing today from a bunch of un-academics who haven't the reason (or credentials) to argue their supposedly scientific case.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

22-02-2008, 06:55 PM	#155 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,785 Party: Free England Party	YCHTT,take it easy,remember that Akria is another buddy of clippo and only interested in making confrontational statements on here that will consume your time and frustrate your efforts. Dont let him and them take you off course,which is their goal of course.

22-02-2008, 07:02 PM	#156 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,379	Oh sure I already knew that a long time ago.... Just wanted to re-affirm his point as false through scientific logic in case anyone started to believe it. Keep up the good work people

22-02-2008, 07:09 PM	#157 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,785 Party: Free England Party	Thanks,we will.

22-02-2008, 07:32 PM	#159 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,785 Party: Free England Party	It's quite frightening now,Akria is starting to talk exactly like Smidgey does,anyone else noticed that lately?