Pat Sajak - People concerned about climate change are racists

[92tide]

I think you are missing my point. It's like believing that a toddler can figure out differential equations, but can't add two plus two.

i knew exactly the point you were trying to make. its still not a valid point. you are assuming an equivalence in areas of study, and assuming that "science" is a singular entity

 

[Bamabuzzard]

no it doesn't. link

you are confusing the word theory with wild arse guess

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

Either way, I think the element of subjectivity and room for error is evident.



http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

[G-VilleTider]

i knew exactly the point you were trying to make. its still not a valid point. you are assuming an equivalence in areas of study, and assuming that "science" is a singular entity

Perhaps we are coming at this with different foundations of beliefs. The only assumption I am making is that climate change is infinitely more complex than the collapse of a single insect species. Do you agree with that assumption or not? Serious question. No flame.

 

[92tide]

Either way, I think the element of subjectivity and room for error is evident.



http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

you may want to read the first sentence of your link

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

[92tide]

Perhaps we are coming at this with different foundations of beliefs. The only assumption I am making is that climate change is infinitely more complex than the collapse of a single insect species. Do you agree with that assumption or not? Serious question. No flame.

yes i do, to an extent (species collapse is a fairly complex phenomenon in its own regards). but the two things are independent of each other.

 

[Bamaro]

you need to do some research

GMO means modifying organisms, we've been doing it since we invented farming

in the last 20 years or so our tech has improved to the genome level.

We can now create things like Golden Rice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

I don't see a drop of pesticide there

and by the way, you are thinking of GMO's that include resistance to things like round up. This makes farmers able to spray the fields without hurting their crops. I'm not for that either as I think there is bound to be some danger in ingesting roundup

The term GMO doesn't refer to normal breeding techniques like Mendel/Carver but to genetic engineering through DNA.

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

no it doesn't. link

you are confusing the word theory with wild arse guess

In science, AKA: "Hypotheses", which are often disproven upon the first test.

A "theory" must technically have some degree of tested confirmation to be accepted as such. The theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of AGW all have some degree of tested confirmation. A theory itself evolves as specific aspects of it are confirmed or refuted through predictive and repeatable experimentation.

A theory's scientific acceptance depends on the longevity and comprehensiveness with which it has been tested and remained unrefuted and unaltered. In other words, not all theories are accepted equally. Some "baby theories", though technically accepted as being more than a wild-arse guess, haven't yet built as impressive a comfirmational resume as others.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

you may want to read the first sentence of your link

I did read it. It doesn't mean the theory is absolute truth. There are elements of theory that are subjective (interpretations and observations) and elements of it that are fact. If not, then no theory could be argued and every single theory ever put out by science would be correct. Which we know isn't the case.

 

[twofbyc]

I had a friend in high school who had one of those off-the-charts IQ's; I think it was around 160 or higher. Anyways, he went off to college (I thought at the time it was either RPI or MIT, and I still am not sure) and I didn't see him again until our 10 year reunion. I asked him what he was doing for a living and he was kinda coy and changed the subject; he did mention in our conversation that he never had much free time. This was in 1981. After the reunion, some friends and I were talking and I asked them if they knew what kind of job he had, and one of my friends said that he was working for the government, trying to re-create the ozone layer. At that point in time I never though much about the ozone layer, other than the howling I heard against the SST's because supposedly they were destroying it.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I honestly like Jeopardy much better than Wheel of Fortune anyway, and Alex Trebek is far superior to Pat Sajak as a game show host.

 

[seebell]

I know what it is, but the reason behind it has never been truly publicized. The truth hasn't, but hey, quote a Salon or Huffington Post article for me and make me feel better.

Allow me DBF. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/colony-collapse-disorder-honeybees_n_3203677.html

Here's Think Progress for good measure. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/10/1974281/honey-bees-food-crisis/

Unsurprisingly, the multibillion-dollar chemical industry has fought against a ban on neonicotinoids, rejecting the scientific evidence that the pesticides are contributing to bee deaths. In March, a group of beekeepers and major consumer and environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to protect honey bees and other pollinators from neonicotinoids. The EPA is planning on issuing a review of the pesticides and their effect on bees, but it won’t be completed until 2018.

 

[92tide]

In science, AKA: "Hypotheses", which are often disproven upon the first test.

A "theory" must technically have some degree of tested confirmation to be accepted as such. The theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of AGW all have some degree of tested confirmation. A theory itself evolves as specific aspects of it are confirmed or refuted through predictive and repeatable experimentation.

A theory's scientific acceptance depends on the longevity and comprehensiveness with which it has been tested and remained unrefuted and unaltered. In other words, not all theories are accepted equally. Some "baby theories", though technically accepted as being more than a wild-arse guess, haven't yet built as impressive a comfirmational resume as others.

hypotheses still rise above the level of wags. i get tired of the assertion that scientists are just making crap up for funding. it's an absurd notion.

 

[92tide]

I did read it. It doesn't mean the theory is absolute truth. There are elements of theory that are subjective (interpretations and observations) and elements of it that are fact. If not, then no theory could be argued and every single theory ever put out by science would be correct. Which we know isn't the case.

theories are not held as absolute truth. thats not how science works.

 

[Gr8hope]

theories are not held as absolute truth. thats not how science works.

Unfortunately certain politicians want to force us to accept the theory of man causing climate change as an absolute truth. If we do not we are branded as racists or extremists. I do not believe man can alter climate. I also believe the push to make it so is motivated by greed and a need to control the populace in order to push their tyranny even further.

 

[Bamaro]

Unfortunately certain politicians want to force us to accept the theory of man causing climate change as an absolute truth. If we do not we are branded as racists or extremists. I do not believe man can alter climate. I also believe the push to make it so is motivated by greed and a need to control the populace in order to push their tyranny even further.

Really, racists, or are you just doing a Pat Sajak?:conf3:

 

[gmart74]

I didn't understand the "racist" part of the tweet, either.

bc many of the climate change and carbon credit programs are destroying third world countries. most of those countries are brown/black people.

 

[Bamaro]

bc many of the climate change and carbon credit programs are destroying third world countries. most of those countries are brown/black people.

Which countries are those?

If Sajak posted here he would have used a blue font.

 

[Gr8hope]

Really, racists, or are you just doing a Pat Sajak?:conf3:

The "racist" thing comes from several Dem supporters who have accused anyone who didn't tow the line with their agenda that. Chris Matthews has often done that. Jimmy Carter has said that. I can link the quotes if necessary.

 

[gmart74]

Which countries are those?

If Sajak posted here he would have used a blue font.

take your pick

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/w...-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushedout.html?_r=0

“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”

Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.

“They said if we hesitated they would shoot us,” said William Bakeshisha, adding that he hid in his coffee plantation, watching his house burn down. “Smoke and fire.”

According to a report released by the aid group Oxfam on Wednesday, more than 20,000 people say they were evicted from their homes here in recent years

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...-bank-brutalize-africans-for-“carbon-credits”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...n-credit-eco-companies-causing-pollution.html
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070712155501AAkjP3N
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9176251/let-them-eat-carbon-credits/

 

[crimson fan man]

The problem with over population is the world will make an ajustment. Just like it has in the past when a species become to numerous. It will be terrible when it happens but really has no choice. I hope I not alive to see it because just the amount that goes on now breaks my heart. Just like climate change it is nothing I can do to stop it.