What Stance Is More Anti Science?

[o'dubhlaoich]

What stance is more anti science in your opinion? The belief that global warming is fake or belief in transgender and everything that goes with that?

 

[Exception]

You need to be specific. What does this even mean?

For example, I've personally never heard anyone say that hermaphrodites don't exist.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

trannies easily

global warming is objective

your gender and sex are not. Chromosomes exist...

 

[BEER]

Transgenderism is a real thing. If the argument was that biological sex was invalid/socially constructed, than you could argue that the idea is "anti-science".

 

[klnOmega]

Transgenders.

People who argue against global warming usually attempt to do so with science. They cite natual variations, the warming "pause", past predictions which didnt come true, etc... They may very well be wrong, but it is at least a scientific discussion.

People who believe people with dicks are really women are just disconected with reality.

 

[djacobox372]

What stance is more anti science in your opinion? The belief that global warming is fake or belief in transgender and everything that goes with that?

The later, science has a far better understanding of climate than it does of the human brain.

To not believe in global warming is to actively rebel against provable facts. To believe in transgender is to take a stance on something that is still not fully understood. Neither are scientific stances, but only the climate-change deniers are being actively "anti-science."

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Belief has nothing to do with science.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Perhaps the most lazy OP ive read in WR....

Obviously both exist, so it's just anti-intelligence to deny the reality of either.

Narrow down your question to specifics about each topic and the correlating research from both sides. Then ask about agreement or denial directly related to the material you bring forth.

try harder, man.

 

[Undying Poster]

Global warming because social sciences aren't real science, obviously.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

global warming is objective

How so?

The theory of man-made climate change lacks even a standard of falsifiability. This is the fundamental requirement to even call something "science".

What metric or measurement makes the theory of man-made climate change "objective".

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

To not believe in global warming is to actively rebel against provable facts.

Such as?

If the figures and data were as definitive as you seem to think they are, man-made climate change wouldn't be the hotly debated issue that it is today.

 

[MMAAAM]

trannies easily

global warming is objective

your gender and sex are not. Chromosomes exist...

How is gender and sex not objective?

 

[Scheme]

It depends. Global warming has a bunch of different viewpoints that fall under the same umbrella.

Such as: 'global warming denier': is it:
a) someone who denies the earth is getting warmer
b) someone who denies the earth is getting warmer at a faster rate than previous centuries
c) someone who denies that humans cause any amount of global warming
d) someone who denies that humans cause a significant amount of global warming
e) someone who denies that carbon emissions are the root cause of global warming

Now unlike most people I've actually looked this stuff up. And scientists correlated carbon emissions and temperature rates via readings of ice cores (that trap both carbon and temperature readings). That's pretty much all we have to correlate the two, and who knows if correlation actually equals causation in this case.

But apparently the 'science is out' on global warming. It's because of carbon emissions. The environment is extremely complex and it is very hard to actually predict or observe. Look at weather channels, lots of science and they still fail to predict a very small part of the environment (the weather for a particular zone).

And now major legislation is being passed and trillions of dollars are being spent based on the words of doomsayers who aren't educated in an area of science that still has a long way to go.

But trannies are simply people with a mental disorder. Not sure what debate there is there.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

How so?

The theory of man-made climate change lacks even a standard of falsifiability. This is the fundamental requirement to even call something "science".

What metric or measurement makes the theory of man-made climate change "objective".

to what exact degree the impact is...

what percentage is humans/carbon emissions fault...

Can it be reversed?

all valid questions.

Unless you're a literal hermaphrodite, you are a male or female. Period. We don't tell anorexics they should be skinny if they want, no we treat the mental delusions and body dimorphism.....

 

[The Diplomat]

It's a weirdly vague question. Transgenders do exist. Now are we arguing the scientific opinions regarding "genders/social constructs/identities/etc." ? Anyone can "feel" whatever they want, it doesn't exactly make it the norm. In regards to global warming, are we arguing the people who believe it's man-made, or that it doesn't exist at all?

 

[The Diplomat]

How so?

The theory of man-made climate change lacks even a standard of falsifiability. This is the fundamental requirement to even call something "science".

What metric or measurement makes the theory of man-made climate change "objective".

The planet is objectively warming over time, as it is still recovering from the last glacial period, roughly 12,000 years ago. The debate is whether we are either speeding it up, or causing it to begin with.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

to what exact degree the impact is...

what percentage is humans/carbon emissions fault...

Can it be reversed?

all valid questions.

But none have an objective answer.

That's where I take issue with your assertion that "global warming is objective".

Even if one conceded complete intellectual ground to a proponent of manmade climate change theory (that proponent would first have to establish a standard of falsifiability, but let's assume that this particular proponent has put in all of the intellectual work and rigor that the rest of the proponents of manmade climate change theory have not done), the theory of manmade climate change would still fall under the category of "implied science" (closer to economics then chemistry). Therefore, the term "objective" could never really be applied to man-made climate change theory.

 

[Squarechoke]

The question isn't presented in a manner where you can answer it without either using a biased interpretation (very clearly displayed by some posters above) or making a long answer where you answer differently depending on various parameters.

 

[*Z*]

Transgenders.

People who argue against global warming usually attempt to do so with science. They cite natual variations, the warming "pause", past predictions which didnt come true, etc... They may very well be wrong, but it is at least a scientific discussion.

People who believe people with dicks are really women are just disconected with reality.

I thought being trans was a mental disorder? If that is true how can it be disregarded as bullshit? Do any mental disorders exist?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

But none have an objective answer.

That's where I take issue with your assertion that "global warming is objective".

Even if one conceded complete intellectual ground to a proponent of manmade climate change theory (that proponent would first have to establish a standard of falsifiability, but let's assume that this particular proponent has put in all of the intellectual work and rigor that the rest of the proponents of manmade climate change theory have not done), the theory of manmade climate change would still fall under the category of "implied science" (closer to economics then chemistry). Therefore, the term "objective" could never really be applied to man-made climate change theory.

touché

my bad, I meant Subjective not objective, makes sense the responses I got