"Unscientific"

[odinn7]

Holy Crap!

Bill Gates is host of Adventure Theater!

Scott, I expected you to have some Bigfoot monster come out of the woods and chase you...

I liked the part where your dog picked up on the peculiar smell...LOL!

Karma for that.

[trekgeezer]

At last Sco....er Conan, you finally reran the bigfoot movie!! At last I can get some decent sleep!

I hope you know we're only kidding Scott.

[Captain Tars Tarkas]

I don't know ANYTHING about science.  it just seems like if one were predisposed to believe something it is really easy to use thescientific method to prove it.

Not really.  It could make them blind to alternatives, but that would be exposed during the peer review process, repeated trials, or just plain alternative theories.  That's assuming their hypothesis works in the first place, and not all hypotheses work.

You should have seen these guys looking in wonderment at "Bigfoot".  same with the area 51 stuff. 

So you aren't the least bit skeptical they handpicked random kooks to be scientists who are into bigfoot, but you're all ready to dismiss global warming because some guy talked about bigfoot on tv.  And people wonder why no one listens to libertarians.

[flackbait]

Oh and, Lester the sun isn't due to expand to the earths orbit for a billion years or so.

I'm the one who actually said it but I was being facetious.  I'm interested in learning more about this junk science.  Maybe Lester will enlighten us.

I'm amazed that you actually picked that up because i deleted that 20 seconds later. Anyways sorry lester for that mistake. And I was curious what lester was going to say

[lester1/2jr]

tars-  so there is no debate allowed regarding global warming?

how about acid rain? 


anyone remember acid rain?  do you know how many times they've said the world was running out of oil?

scientific consensus can be criticized.

[clockworkcanary]

"tars-  so there is no debate allowed regarding global warming?"

I fail to see where Tars said or indicated anything of the kind.  Most studies done worldwide indicate a great likelihood of it happening; you are free to challenge it but be prepared for your notion to be scrutinized without solid support.  Just because a few hand-picked ultra conservative so-called scientists paid by industrialists deny it doesn't make it so. 

What's in more heavy debate is whether man is accelerating it and if we can do anything about it...and if it's too late (or the question is, when will it be too late).  I'm not sure how much you know about Astronomy, but Venus is a good example of greenhouse gases and global warming gone wild in the long term.  Not what I want for my home ...it's where I keep all my stuff!

"scientific consensus can be criticized."

Indeed.  Science is the observation of natural phenomena.  That's it.  It's self correcting and always self-testing and updating based on new information.  Same cannot be said about dogma (in fact, many were killed for challenging said dogma ...you know, that one particular guy who was executed by the Church for suggesting the Earth revolves around the Sun).  Dogma is fixed; you're not allowed to change it and it can never be challeneged; science and scientific theories should always be under constant scrutiny and self correction (as should dogma).

So a side question, are you as hostile towards dogma since it's not allowed to be questioned or scrutinized at all?  Might be a question you should ask yourself.  Just like the creation vs Evolution - one has 0% support; the other has 99% but many people are much more hostile towards the latter (not that there aren't some who are hostile to the former).

You know how scientific notions are found to be faulty?  By using Science.  Scientists are just people; people make mistakes; other people use the scientific method to find flaws and update information.  It's the best process we have so far. 

I think you might want to learn more about the scientific method and how it works (as you have indicated you don't know anything about it) before critizing how you "think" it works.  I'm not sure you quite understand how the peer review process works, the difference between a notion, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law, for example.

And this begs the question: why is it that the ultra right wing is so hostile towards science, education, and the environment?  Because you know, God and Science aren't mutually exclusive; if God exists then Science is just how she "did" it. 

I mean, I understand why ultra right wing politicians disdain education; it's easier for the masses to work crummy jobs for low pay if they don't know any better. I understand those same politicians being anti-environment since their so cozy with those who profit greatly from destroying the environment; but I have yet to understand why the common lay person would adopt the same world view <shrugs>.

[lester1/2jr]

I'm not hostile to science. 

really, my non scientific objection to global warming hysteria comes more for their predictable anti capitalist. coercive big government prescriptions  than any of their well funded studies.

I'm not anti education, I'm against the state.  the department of education doesn't teach anyone anything.  teachers do.

""scientific consensus can be criticized."

Indeed."

okay then

[Scott]

Holy Crap!

Bill Gates is host of Adventure Theater!

Scott, I expected you to have some Bigfoot monster come out of the woods and chase you...

I know.........I just wish I had a big hairy suit. I would have borrowed a suit from a neighbor if somone had one. Better yet I could have just filmed some distance shots of a hairy neighbor. Instead of Bigfoot in the treelines it would be me filming a long haired neighbor sprinkling their yards from the distant woods.

At last Sco....er Conan, you finally reran the bigfoot movie!! At last I can get some decent sleep!

I hope you know we're only kidding Scott.

Rest is important. Been looking for an excuse to rerun my masterpiece. 

[Joe the Destroyer]

tars-  so there is no debate allowed regarding global warming?

how about acid rain? 


anyone remember acid rain?  do you know how many times they've said the world was running out of oil?

scientific consensus can be criticized.

Let's also not forget the age old "we're going into another ice age debate" from the 60's and 70's.  That one's resurfacing as well.

[nshumate]

Let's also not forget the age old "we're going into another ice age debate" from the 60's and 70's.  That one's resurfacing as well.

Simultaneous to global warming?  It's a miracle!

I think with all of the looming catastrophes currently confronting us, sure to confront us in the future, or having confronted us in the past (through which we somehow emerged unscathed), there are two facts to keep in mind:

1) Mild inconvenience and neutral change don't get headlines; earthshaking catastrophe and peril for your children ("Won't somebody think of the children?!") do.  If there is nothing to worry about, we will invent something.

2) Science as delivered by politicians, political activists, extremists, fundamentalists, or demagogues is already compromised beyond unexamined acceptance.

[lester1/2jr]

I reject terrorism hysteria  and global warming hysteria and try to reject economic hysteria but it's getting hard on the last one.  I mean, 516 TRILLION dollars in derivatives  are there even that many grains of sand?

[flackbait]

I reject terrorism hysteria  and global warming hysteria and try to reject economic hysteria but it's getting hard on the last one.  I mean, 516 TRILLION dollars in derivatives  are there even that many grains of sand?

What do you mean reject economic hysteria?
If you don't the econmies bad than try to find a job in Michigan I dare you!

[lester1/2jr]

well, as I said, it's getting harder to remain unhysterical.