+- ShareholdersUnite Forums (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Companies (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: InterOil Forum (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: O'Neill + Abe + Private Sector Delegation (/showthread.php?tid=9219)
RE: O'Neill + Abe + Private Sector Delegation - stpioc - 10-19-2015
The fact that there is (as you admit) "near consensus" on a matter gives anyone "basis" of doubting based on inherent flaws in any model. For you to say otherwise shows how ignorant you choose to be on matters opposed to your views. Past refuted scientific "facts" have had higher consensus than this, and people and governments went all in, only to be proven wrong.
Please don't act like you have a crystal ball on this issue when you admit you are anything but a climate scientist. Not very impressive, to put it mildly.
You didn't understand the (very Popperian) point I was making, apparently.
- I admitted that the near consensus on the causes of climate change can break down in the future. As a Popperian, it would be absolutely foolish to deny this anyway. However
- That something can happen is far from a guarantee that it will happen
- You have no basis for saying that it will happen, since you're not a climate scientist
- As long as it hasn't happened we should certainly take it as our best understanding
In addition to point 4: should we then discard all science for which there is a near consensus, just because it might be proven wrong in the future?
I don't think science, humanity would have gotten very far on such a practice..
And guess what, even stuff for which there was absolute consensus have been proven wrong.
The scientific truth is basically always temporary, until falsified. But that doesn't discard from the fact that it is still the best truth we have, until we have something better..
Hope that helps.
RE: O'Neill + Abe + Private Sector Delegation - Palm - 10-19-2015
"In addition to point 4: should we then discard all science for which there is a near consensus, just because it might be proven wrong in the future?"
Yeah, let's go to the extreme with it. Science can't get things correct about things which happened in the past at times (what happened to the dinosaurs? Volcanoes. Yeah, that's it. Uh no, well we're not sure). And enough things have been disproven over time when just a small part of a theory is shown to be incorrect. To think that this time they have it right-on is something I choose not to do. Science is wonderful and sometimes is right, but too many times IMO they are wrong. putting absolute faith in this "fact" is something I choose not to do. I laugh anymore when those studying the universe think they finally have it figured out. It's static, it's expanding, it's contracting, on and on, only to correct themselves time after time. Like this article says, they get it wrong far too often.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul-aug/29-why-scientific-studies-often-wrong-streetlight-effect
Hope that helps.
RE: O'Neill + Abe + Private Sector Delegation - Thylacine-2 - 10-19-2015
'Putncalls' pid='63807' datel Wrote:Well I just reduced my carbon foot print. I finished harvesting my Colorado weeds today. The molar calculation shows that I took at least 5 pounds of CO2 out of the air.
But when you smoke the weed, the CO2 will be released back into the air.
RE: O'Neill + Abe + Private Sector Delegation - admin - 10-19-2015
Climate discussion is now closed. If you must, you can discuss further here.