Disgusting

Post Reply New Topic

That alone put him apart from the massively "pink" intellectual establishment of the 30s and 40s. But I take your reservation. I have never seen that "pedia" before so I have no general opinion on it.

By the way, the science or "science" behind the claim that the current warm phase of the world is primarily driven by human activity is sh***y as science goes. Freeman Dyson, who is not a foam at the mouth Right Winger has said that the climate models are not causal but statistical and therefore are bad science.

They (the politically corrupt IPCC and others) might very well be right about primarily human causes for the current warm phase, but the matter has not been well established to my satisfaction. The entire climatic history of this planet for the last 3.5 to 4.0 billion years has been a succession of warmer and colder phases. The warmest of which were the eruption of the various Traps, such as the Siberian and Deccan Traps and the coldest of which was the "ice ball". Climate is always changing. Sometimes, not to our liking. It could be that we are headed for extinction and not through our own doing.

Since we are being asked to sacrifice our comfort (and perhaps decades of our all too brief lifetime) for the sake of modifying the climatic trend, I insist on a scientific basis as least as good as the Standard Model for Fields and Particles.; accurate to 12 places and overwhelmingly established by experimental means. I am not about to commit sepuko for Giaia. I know I am being a stickler, but there it is.

ruveyn

The Standard Model of fields and particles is one of the most incomplete and least solid modern scientific theories. In many ways the Standard Model is an article of convenience, a lot like String Theory is, and has some major problems that are likely to lead to its downfall. The standard model is not consistent with Relativity Theory which HAS been experimentally verified, and most of all it fails to allow for a quantum theory of gravity.

I'm starting to wonder whether the Conservapedia was really put together by "Liberals" for the sake of lampooning Conservatives.

The entire Conservapedia comes across as a big joke--who would actually take it seriously?

It just succeeds in making Conservatives appear profoundly stupid.

Bull crap! The Standard Model predicts non-gravitational effects and phenomena to 12 places accuracy. It is the best scientific theory yet devised. But for all that, it is incomplete since it does not handle gravitation. There is no contradiction between the Standard Model (which assumes special theory of relativity) and the General Theory of Relativity since the two theories are disjoint. The first is for non-gravitational phenomena and effects, the latter for gravitation. The two theories speak to different matters.

On the other hand climate "science" consists of statistical models which have many adjustable parameters. One can get whatever results are politically expedient.

ruveyn

ruveyn

I don't think Ruveyn is disputing that global temperatures are rising, rather I think he remains unconvinced that the cause is human activity. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Ruveyn.

The line between satire and the irrationality of the religious ultra-right is very fine at the best of times.

Some of Tina Fey's comedy came verbatim directly from the mouth of Sarah Palin.

They also claim to be unbiased and more reliable than Wikipedia.

Well, yes. But you have to remember--this is the United States. We have huge numbers of dumb people who even take Rush Limbaugh seriously.

Well, yes. But you have to remember--this is the United States. We have huge numbers of dumb people who even take Rush Limbaugh seriously.

I was home schooled until the 9th grade and I hadn't heard of "conservapedia" until this thread.