AND, if you dispute my claim that nobody has been able to prove gravity, I'll just turn it around to your own argument and say that what looks like gravity is really just some "creator" fucking with your head.
You can't have it both ways, man. Your "grade school" interpretation is only good for just that... grade school.
And now you're posting this long stream of bullshit to reinforce and prove it. That's great though. The more people are exposed to your unhinged ranting the faster you'll be recognized as a loon to be ignored or mocked.
Excuse me? I'm not the one who confused evidence with proof. They are not the same things. You wrote "there is no evidence", which is 100% false.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It doesn't have to be falsifiable by you right now. A condition simply has to exist in which it could be.
True, but you are still getting your standards of "proof" confused. Nearly all of the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the idea of a young earth is false. There is far more evidence for an old Earth than there is for the Higgs Boson or even the Standard Model.
No, that's not absolute "proof". But it's still a scientific "fact", to the extent that science shows us the existence of facts, which is not absolute. You are simply demonstrating your ignorance of science.
Because NOTHING is ever "proven". Things can only be disproven. This is a fundamental feature of the way science works. Instead, we go by the preponderance of the evidence. When the evidence is overwhelming, we accept it as fact, even though it was never "proved". Nobody has been able to PROVE the existence of gravity, for fuck's sake. It just fits our current understanding and the preponderance of the evidence.
So the best answer on how an astronaut will die is "like the rest of mankind"?
I think the best answer is that the astronaut would die of humiliation, because of all the laughter from the other astronauts for falling into a black hole.
Of course space isn't really black; rather it is completely transparent.
Of course you are correct that it's not black. However, it's also not "completely transparent". It's "mostly transparent". There are stray atoms and molecules wandering around, and even gigantic clouds of gas and other matter, which all scatter light and other radiation.
You cannot demonstrate that the entire Universe (let alone the Earth) was not created exactly as is just ten minutes ago. There is not a single piece of evidence that could falsity that hypothesis.
And you say I am the one who has no clue? Really? Apparently you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.
There is quite a lot of evidence that the Earth was not created 6,000 years (or 10 minutes) ago, which would be accepted by most reasonable people. No proof, to be sure, but there is ample evidence.
Radioactive decay, for instance, is evidence. The fossil record is evidence. Geologic strata are evidence. Plate tectonics is evidence.
Can I prove it wasn't created 10 minutes ago? No. But the idea that some creator put all those things in place just to mess with our heads is rather outrageous, and is not accepted by most reasonable people.
Regardless, your ridiculous conflation of evidence and proof is evidence that you don't know much about evidence.
Both parties seem to be selecting candidates that represent their extremes,
I don't disagree with you, but again you are pointing out problems that seem to be inherent in political parties. To me, that's just more evidence that parties in general are a problem.
And if the study finds conclusions that the legislature doesn't like, that simply means that the study didn't focus on the right cycles, or enough cycles, or the right combination of cycles. And the study will just have to keep going until the data suits the "hypothesis."
Says who? TFA doesn't say that. The article that was TFA's source doesn't say anything that would lead to that conclusion.
I think this whole situation is a gigantic example of "the pot calling the kettle black."
They are PERIODIC. Not cyclic. A cycle restarts from its original location to repeat the cycle again.
You are playing semantic games. I am pretty sure the average reader understood what was meant.
So what would this "study" bring up? That you can do a fourier transform on a dataset vs time and come up with a lot of sin curve frequencies and amplitude? That's 19thC. We already passed that 120 years ago. You, however, seem to be stuck two centuries ago.
So... you would support more study of the anthropogenic component of climate variability, but not the periodic components? Even though currently, separating the AGW signal from the periodic noise is already so difficult that there is debate about whether it even exists?
Why would that be? And do you somehow think that isn't a political stance?
No they should not, because such things do not meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis.
Horseshit. "Young Earth ideology is false" is a perfectly valid, verifiable null hypothesis, quite suitable for study. People can study it scientifically and have done so. Further, reproducing the results of others is a valuable scientific undertaking.
To be clear, I am not against membership in political parties. I am merely against loyalty to a party.
That's fine. But I am. My personal opinion is that people who subscribe to ideology over independent thinking probably have insecurity and daddy issues.
Only through voting for candidates irrespective of party can one make political parties work for your vote.
Doesn't this imply that there was a problem with the party to start with? If you have to use a lever to get it to move, doesn't that prove that it's in your way?
To paraphrase you: you "should be taken out and shot". They're already studying "cyclical" climate events as a normal part of studying climate change. They're not ignoring anything.
Context. Did you read the comment to which I was replying?
And yes, figuratively speaking (anybody who thinks I was being literal is an idiot), I think scientists who choose politics over scientific study should be taken out and shot.
The fact that a legislative body is trying to force them to study something that they're already studying,
So? If instead the bill had called for more study on the anthropogenic component (if any) of climate change, would you still have had this hissy fit?
Somehow I doubt it. Which means you're being political, not scientific.
The problem is, the study they where asked to take had as part of its *premise* that it was caused by non human means.
Um... no, it didn't. TFA doesn't say that, nor does the article that TFA links to.
The ONLY thing even remotely related to that was mention that the word "cyclical" was put in. There is no indication that the study calls for any pre-determined conclusions. It only stipulates that certain parts of the climate equation be studied. Why do you have a problem with that?
I think you've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid.
It is your own argument that is not relevant to what I was saying.
The important part is the purpose for which the organization exists. In one case, the purpose is solely to make money. In the other, it is to achieve a common often political, goal. Non-profit status is unrelated to my point; that was only an example.
,br/>
In one case, the purpose of the organization is shared by only a few at the top. In the latter, the purpose is shared by all the members. The organization represents their common interest.
It is this shared purpose that I was referring to, not technically whether it is for-profit or not.
As nonprofit status is decided by the IRS, and the IRS has clearly shown that it will politically deny nonprofit status (at least in Cincinnati), that can't be the criterion by which you decide what groups may and may not have free speech.
I used non-profits as and example, not "the criterion".
Repeat: other readers do not seem to have had any trouble understanding what I was getting at.
Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point
Um... sorry. But cyclical climate events are KNOWN to exist. This isn't some harebrained theory somebody "pulled out of their ass". They are known and legitimate phenomena that are great subjects for further research.
There are known solar cycles for example. There are known cycles in the Gulf Stream, there is ENSO, etc., etc...
You simply can't properly understand anthropogenic warming (if such truly exists), without understanding these known cycles as well. It isn't possible.
A bit of gas in a small glass container cannot be said to have any direct relationship to the thermodynamics of a global-scale dynamic system, which is subject to rotation, daily heating and cooling, convection, conduction, and other forms of latent heat exchange.
That is a truly foolish thing to do. Voting for a party, being loyal to a party, makes oneself irrelevant. The party you favor can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.
Hmmm...
"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -- George Washington's farewell address, in regard to political parties. 1796.
I don't even know what they mean by "cyclical climate change".
Wow. Really? I have to be honest with you: this is the most disingenuous post I have seen in a long time.
There are a multitude of cyclical climate events that make up part of the models used in AGW theory. You simply can't even begin to have a valid theory if you do not take them into account.
Among those, but by no means an all-inclusive list, are: the short solar cycle (~ 11 years), plus longer term known solar cycles. And then there are the El Nio and La Nia (ENSO) events... which may be a bit more chaotic but still cyclical. And many more.
You can't seriously claim to be studying AGW, and ignore these others, because they are going to effect your results. There is no way around it.
By telling the researchers to "look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion, that climate changes cyclically, instead of studying and understanding the mechanisms that causes change.
Horse balls. You are telling them to study phenomena that are essential to their understanding of AGW, or even whether it exists.
"That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*."
Yes, it is the problem.
Science is science, regardless of any political reasons for doing it. There is ample reason to study cyclical climate change, which unlike AGW we know beyond doubt does happen.
It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.
Ahah! Someone who shows understanding that I can respect!
In the days of the founding of this country, "the press" was anybody who could afford a printing press, or hire enough kids off the street to copy flyers for distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
AND, if you dispute my claim that nobody has been able to prove gravity, I'll just turn it around to your own argument and say that what looks like gravity is really just some "creator" fucking with your head.
You can't have it both ways, man. Your "grade school" interpretation is only good for just that... grade school.
And now you're posting this long stream of bullshit to reinforce and prove it. That's great though. The more people are exposed to your unhinged ranting the faster you'll be recognized as a loon to be ignored or mocked.
Excuse me? I'm not the one who confused evidence with proof. They are not the same things. You wrote "there is no evidence", which is 100% false.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It doesn't have to be falsifiable by you right now. A condition simply has to exist in which it could be.
True, but you are still getting your standards of "proof" confused. Nearly all of the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the idea of a young earth is false. There is far more evidence for an old Earth than there is for the Higgs Boson or even the Standard Model.
No, that's not absolute "proof". But it's still a scientific "fact", to the extent that science shows us the existence of facts, which is not absolute. You are simply demonstrating your ignorance of science.
Because NOTHING is ever "proven". Things can only be disproven. This is a fundamental feature of the way science works. Instead, we go by the preponderance of the evidence. When the evidence is overwhelming, we accept it as fact, even though it was never "proved". Nobody has been able to PROVE the existence of gravity, for fuck's sake. It just fits our current understanding and the preponderance of the evidence.
So the best answer on how an astronaut will die is "like the rest of mankind"?
I think the best answer is that the astronaut would die of humiliation, because of all the laughter from the other astronauts for falling into a black hole.
Of course space isn't really black; rather it is completely transparent.
Of course you are correct that it's not black. However, it's also not "completely transparent". It's "mostly transparent". There are stray atoms and molecules wandering around, and even gigantic clouds of gas and other matter, which all scatter light and other radiation.
If we're going to be real, then let's be real.
Much like the homeless guy ranting incoherently on the street corner, you're the only one who understands or cares about what comes out of your mouth.
At least I'm not going around spouting insults at people over something I didn't understand to begin with.
You cannot demonstrate that the entire Universe (let alone the Earth) was not created exactly as is just ten minutes ago. There is not a single piece of evidence that could falsity that hypothesis.
And you say I am the one who has no clue? Really? Apparently you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.
There is quite a lot of evidence that the Earth was not created 6,000 years (or 10 minutes) ago, which would be accepted by most reasonable people. No proof, to be sure, but there is ample evidence.
Radioactive decay, for instance, is evidence. The fossil record is evidence. Geologic strata are evidence. Plate tectonics is evidence.
Can I prove it wasn't created 10 minutes ago? No. But the idea that some creator put all those things in place just to mess with our heads is rather outrageous, and is not accepted by most reasonable people.
Regardless, your ridiculous conflation of evidence and proof is evidence that you don't know much about evidence.
Both parties seem to be selecting candidates that represent their extremes,
I don't disagree with you, but again you are pointing out problems that seem to be inherent in political parties. To me, that's just more evidence that parties in general are a problem.
And if the study finds conclusions that the legislature doesn't like, that simply means that the study didn't focus on the right cycles, or enough cycles, or the right combination of cycles. And the study will just have to keep going until the data suits the "hypothesis."
Says who? TFA doesn't say that. The article that was TFA's source doesn't say anything that would lead to that conclusion.
I think this whole situation is a gigantic example of "the pot calling the kettle black."
They are PERIODIC. Not cyclic. A cycle restarts from its original location to repeat the cycle again.
You are playing semantic games. I am pretty sure the average reader understood what was meant.
So what would this "study" bring up? That you can do a fourier transform on a dataset vs time and come up with a lot of sin curve frequencies and amplitude? That's 19thC. We already passed that 120 years ago. You, however, seem to be stuck two centuries ago.
So... you would support more study of the anthropogenic component of climate variability, but not the periodic components? Even though currently, separating the AGW signal from the periodic noise is already so difficult that there is debate about whether it even exists?
Why would that be? And do you somehow think that isn't a political stance?
Are you retarded or just incredibly naive?
Well, I can't be certain, but at least I understood what I was writing about, while you apparently did not.
No they should not, because such things do not meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis.
Horseshit. "Young Earth ideology is false" is a perfectly valid, verifiable null hypothesis, quite suitable for study. People can study it scientifically and have done so. Further, reproducing the results of others is a valuable scientific undertaking.
To be clear, I am not against membership in political parties. I am merely against loyalty to a party.
That's fine. But I am. My personal opinion is that people who subscribe to ideology over independent thinking probably have insecurity and daddy issues.
Only through voting for candidates irrespective of party can one make political parties work for your vote.
Doesn't this imply that there was a problem with the party to start with? If you have to use a lever to get it to move, doesn't that prove that it's in your way?
To paraphrase you: you "should be taken out and shot". They're already studying "cyclical" climate events as a normal part of studying climate change. They're not ignoring anything.
Context. Did you read the comment to which I was replying?
And yes, figuratively speaking (anybody who thinks I was being literal is an idiot), I think scientists who choose politics over scientific study should be taken out and shot.
The fact that a legislative body is trying to force them to study something that they're already studying,
So? If instead the bill had called for more study on the anthropogenic component (if any) of climate change, would you still have had this hissy fit?
Somehow I doubt it. Which means you're being political, not scientific.
The problem is, the study they where asked to take had as part of its *premise* that it was caused by non human means.
Um... no, it didn't. TFA doesn't say that, nor does the article that TFA links to.
The ONLY thing even remotely related to that was mention that the word "cyclical" was put in. There is no indication that the study calls for any pre-determined conclusions. It only stipulates that certain parts of the climate equation be studied. Why do you have a problem with that?
I think you've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid.
No. Not relevant.
It is your own argument that is not relevant to what I was saying.
/>
In one case, the purpose of the organization is shared by only a few at the top. In the latter, the purpose is shared by all the members. The organization represents their common interest.
The important part is the purpose for which the organization exists. In one case, the purpose is solely to make money. In the other, it is to achieve a common often political, goal. Non-profit status is unrelated to my point; that was only an example.
,br
It is this shared purpose that I was referring to, not technically whether it is for-profit or not.
As nonprofit status is decided by the IRS, and the IRS has clearly shown that it will politically deny nonprofit status (at least in Cincinnati), that can't be the criterion by which you decide what groups may and may not have free speech.
I used non-profits as and example, not "the criterion".
Repeat: other readers do not seem to have had any trouble understanding what I was getting at.
Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point
Um... sorry. But cyclical climate events are KNOWN to exist. This isn't some harebrained theory somebody "pulled out of their ass". They are known and legitimate phenomena that are great subjects for further research.
There are known solar cycles for example. There are known cycles in the Gulf Stream, there is ENSO, etc., etc...
You simply can't properly understand anthropogenic warming (if such truly exists), without understanding these known cycles as well. It isn't possible.
So should government fund Young Earth Creationism "Research" / Intelligent Design research?
If it would actually serve to prove them wrong, then yes, they probably should. I don't see why some people have such trouble with this concept.
go ahead, falsify.
Well, since you asked me...
A bit of gas in a small glass container cannot be said to have any direct relationship to the thermodynamics of a global-scale dynamic system, which is subject to rotation, daily heating and cooling, convection, conduction, and other forms of latent heat exchange.
There. Falsified. Have a nice day.
That is a truly foolish thing to do. Voting for a party, being loyal to a party, makes oneself irrelevant. The party you favor can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.
Hmmm...
"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -- George Washington's farewell address, in regard to political parties. 1796.
That's "El Nino" and "La Nina". Slashdot still does not properly support some characters, it seems.
I don't even know what they mean by "cyclical climate change".
Wow. Really? I have to be honest with you: this is the most disingenuous post I have seen in a long time.
There are a multitude of cyclical climate events that make up part of the models used in AGW theory. You simply can't even begin to have a valid theory if you do not take them into account.
Among those, but by no means an all-inclusive list, are: the short solar cycle (~ 11 years), plus longer term known solar cycles. And then there are the El Nio and La Nia (ENSO) events... which may be a bit more chaotic but still cyclical. And many more.
You can't seriously claim to be studying AGW, and ignore these others, because they are going to effect your results. There is no way around it.
By telling the researchers to "look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion, that climate changes cyclically, instead of studying and understanding the mechanisms that causes change.
Horse balls. You are telling them to study phenomena that are essential to their understanding of AGW, or even whether it exists.
"That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*."
Yes, it is the problem.
Science is science, regardless of any political reasons for doing it. There is ample reason to study cyclical climate change, which unlike AGW we know beyond doubt does happen.
It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.
WHOOSH!!! ==========
NO. Not the "motivation" of employees. The representation of employees.
Not even remotely the same thing.
Ahah! Someone who shows understanding that I can respect!
In the days of the founding of this country, "the press" was anybody who could afford a printing press, or hire enough kids off the street to copy flyers for distribution.
NOTHING has changed.