Tiberius Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Yes you have no idea. The 'consensus' argument is the same logic that brought us Eugenics. Ummmm....no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Bill Nye isn't a scientist. But even so, he's still far more a scientist than Sarah Palin. Remember kids: weather is not climate, .................................unless it is Bill NyeVerified account @BillNye 15h15 hours ago Rained enough in Texas to close businesses and schools. Extra heat energy in the atmosphere. Climate change? pic.twitter.com/IfAXQXfnyP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 In response to my statement "The 'consensus' argument is the same logic that brought us Eugenics the village idiots only response. Ummmm....no. Nice try sparky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 In response to my statement "The 'consensus' argument is the same logic that brought us Eugenics the village idiots only response.Nice try sparky.only an idiot would make such a stupid argument, lol. Go ahead an explain it to us, moron. Would love to hear this stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Gator 101: Make a ridiculous argument, then when called out for it he asks someone else to explain his original point for him and how it's relevant. Trooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolling right along... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Gator 101: Make a ridiculous argument, then when called out for it he asks someone else to explain his original point for him and how it's relevant. Trooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolling right along... You are so stupid. Wtf are you trying to even say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 You are so stupid. Wtf are you trying to even say? Okay, that might have been the wittiest comeback you've ever had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 only an idiot would make such a stupid argument, lol. Go ahead an explain it to us, moron. Would love to hear this stupidity Gator is trolling again ... avoids addressing what is discussed and like a 12 year old resorts to name calling. Time for a history lesson. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v530/n7591/full/530418a.html By 1928, a total of 375 US universities and colleges were teaching eugenics, and 70% of high-school biology textbooks endorsed the pseudoscience in some form. Eugenics was also endorsed by presidents including Theodore Roosevelt, funded by philanthropic organizations including the Carnegie Institution, and touted by award-winning scientists such as biologist Edwin Grant Conklin and the Nobel laureate Hermann Muller, discoverer of X-ray mutagenesis, as well as prominent inventors such as Alexander Graham Bell. http://www1.assumption.edu/ahc/1920s/eugenics/default.html By the 1920s Eugenics was well established as a branch of biology. Most high school and college textbooks, for example, devoted a chapter to it -- including the one used by John T. Scopes to teach evolution in Tennessee. Its treatment began with the observation that experience had shown how plants and animals could be improved by proper breeding techniques. Surely it was reasonable to assume the same would hold for humans. http://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/america-s-hidden-history-the-eugenics-movement-123919444 The eugenics movement took root in the United States in the early 1900s, led by Charles Davenport (1866-1944), a prominent biologist, and Harry Laughlin, a former teacher and principal interested in breeding. http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/pdf/undated/The-Eugenics-Movement.pdf During the first few decades of this century, the most influential geneticist in America was Charles B. Davenport. He taught at Harvard until 1899, and then moved to the University of Chicago briefly, before founding the Carnegie Institution's genetics and evolution laboratories at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. https://www.academia.edu/12333972/When_Harvard_Said_No_To_Eugenics?auto=download By the time of Mearss death, eugenics had been part of the Harvard landscape for almost a generation. Students, administrators, faculty, and staff members were thoroughly versed in the work of eugenic organizations and the ideas that drove the movement. Scholars of eugenics wrote books about the power of heredity, and the Harvard curriculum included various courses on eugenics. Endorsement of the importance of the eugenic outlook started at the top of Harvards hierarchy. http://www.yougenics.net/online_docs/eugenicsTimeline.pdf 1914::courses teaching the "science" of eugenics offered at Harvard, Columbia, Brown and Cornell 1928::75% of universities and colleges offer courses teaching eugenics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 So, the moral of your story is that since Eugenics is not accepted today, the science behind global warming is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 So, the moral of your story is that since Eugenics is not accepted today, the science behind global warming is wrong? The moral is "consensus" is not "science." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 The moral is "consensus" is not "science." Yes. Because the "science" in eugenics was pathetically rudimentary and highly biased by racism, class and ethnic hatred. The science in global warming is serious--unless you think its a religion, I guess--and much more thorough and grounded in the scientific method Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Yes. Because the "science" in eugenics was pathetically rudimentary and highly biased by racism, class and ethnic hatred. The science in global warming is serious--unless you think its a religion, I guess--and much more thorough and grounded in the scientific method So what are your plans to reverse mother nature? Getting people to agree that there's a problem and it's manmade is not an acceptable response to that question BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Yes. Because the "science" in eugenics was pathetically rudimentary and highly biased by racism, class and ethnic hatred. The science in global warming is serious--unless you think its a religion, I guess--and much more thorough and grounded in the scientific method What "scientific method" is this again? Please describe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 What "scientific method" is this again? Please describe it The scientific method? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ?? So what are your plans to reverse mother nature? Getting people to agree that there's a problem and it's manmade is not an acceptable response to that question BTW. Sure it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 The scientific method? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ?? Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7] Explain how Global Warming is falsifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Explain how Global Warming is falsifiable. Curveball! I got this though. Simple, fill a bottle with air and increase the CO2 and leave in the sun. Measure the temp increase and do the same with a bottle without increasing CO2. Boom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Sure it is Ok play that game. Let's assume we get a vast majority of the people to agree that climate change is real and manmade. Then what would you propose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Ok play that game. Let's assume we get a vast majority of the people to agree that climate change is real and manmade. Then what would you propose? Well....increased government involvement in alternative energy. Promoting more of it. Carbon sequestration, if possible. And using human creativity to figure news way. And, are we assuming I am a dictator and can do whatever I want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Well....increased government involvement in alternative energy. Promoting more of it. Carbon sequestration, if possible. And using human creativity to figure news way. And, are we assuming I am a dictator and can do whatever I want? And how do you plan to get the rest of the world's biggest polluters to follow along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Curveball! I got this though. Simple, fill a bottle with air and increase the CO2 and leave in the sun. Measure the temp increase and do the same with a bottle without increasing CO2. Boom! Participation ribbon in the third grade science fair here you come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts