3 ms·
"The whole "science has been wrong before" angle has been answered very well by lots of scientists. The answer basically boils down to, "Yes, but it's usually w
by KevinMS 17y ago
"The whole "science has been wrong before" angle has been answered very well by lots of scientists. The answer basically boils down to, "Yes, but it's usually wrong in a continuous cycle of refinement, not wrong in a 180-degree direction kind of way"."
Well I'm talking about scientific revolutions, which are 180's
"If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community, then you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data, and you have to get it peer-reviewed."
This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are against the scientific consensus.
Also, funding is 1000 times higher for pro-warming than against. If you want funding to study the blue-footed-boobie get in line, but if you want to study the effects of global warming on the blue-footed-boobie they throw money at you.
That's how it works.
- twp 17y ago> > "If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community, then you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data, and you have to get it peer-reviewed." > This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are against the scientific consensus Supporting evidence please? Please give some examples that "happen all the time" but "we haven't heard about". Frankly, you sound like a conspiracy nutter. Please provide some counter-examples to support your case.
- KevinMS 17y agoI'm not going to play that game. If I gave you a list of papers to counter man made global warming, you'd say "they are sponsored by big oil" or "those scientists are shunned by the scientific community". How about this, I think the burden of evidence should be for proving man made global warming. Has it been done? No, it hasn't, despite all the "consensus" noise. Buried under all the "concensus" you'll simply find computer models. Computer models that don't even agree with each other, of impossibly complicated systems.
- klegend 17y agoExamples of times science have been wrong: Almost all scientists once thought the Earth was flat... WRONG. Scientists once thought the sun revolved around the Earth... WRONG. Scientists once thought that illness was caused by possession by demons... WRONG. After that was the humoral theory... WRONG. Body-Mind Dualism, anatomical theory, cellular theory, germ theory... ALL WRONG. What about Pluto?! Can you think of any more?