What Stance Is More Anti Science?

[Squarechoke]

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.

All of those questions are of the kind that they can have a clearly correct answer, without any opinion bias, so the issue is definitely objective in the full extent of the definition. That we can be unsure of whether we've uncovered those answers doesn't change the nature of the core problem.

It's just like that there's definitely an objectively correct answer to why gravity works as it does even though we perhaps haven't found it yet.

 

[Trotsky]

trannies easily

global warming is objective

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

Uhh, what?

I'm not sure you know what "objective" means, since it would seem to cut against your argument, nor do you realize that persons who advocate or transgendered persons are fully aware of the fact that that person was born a biological female or male, but are also cognizant of the possibility that their brain was hardwired to an opposite conclusion and they are therefore free to identify or alter themselves otherwise.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

touché

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

The fact that you were willing to admit to the slightest typographical error, rather than doubling and tripling down on your position, shows that you're a hell of a lot more mature then most of the posters I come across here.

Travel well friend.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Uhh, what?

I'm not sure you know what "objective" means, since it would seem to cut against your argument, nor do you realize that persons who advocate or transgendered persons are fully aware of the fact that that person was born a biological female or male, but are also cognizant of the possibility that their brain was hardwired to an opposite conclusion and they are therefore free to identify or alter themselves otherwise.

already corrected that

Do we treat anorexics and bulemics the same way? rather than actually fix their delusions, we just kowtow to their altered sense of reality?

Can I be a dolphin if I want? How about black, even though I was born white? This is patently absurd

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

The planet is objectively warming over time,

Perhaps, but that in no way proves man-made climate change theory.

as it is still recovering from the last glacial period, roughly 12,000 years ago.

This was a period of warming, before humans had developed agriculture.

This demonstrates that temperatures can fluctuate without human interference.

The debate is whether we are either speeding it up, or causing it to begin with.

We should have objective, measurable answers before the proponents of manmade climate change theory should be allowed to craft policy.

Almost all human life on Earth is sustained by the conversion of fuel to energy. If proponents of manmade climate change theory have their way, fuel consumption will be severely curbed. If that happens, tens of millions of people will die. People won't get access to the medicines they would have otherwise had, areas won't get economic development that they would have otherwise had, food will not be produced that would have otherwise been produced.

That's a lot to ask people to sacrifice, especially if we're not even sure that it's worth it.

 

[CargoKing]

I don't think the question is fleshed out enough to make any sense. But I will say there is science to wrap your head around that's difficult for some people in regards to global warming. The differences between boys and girls, not so much.

If you're a boy but you liked makeup and dresses at an early age, you're still a boy. You're not a girl trapped in a boy's body. That's psychotic.

 

[The Diplomat]

Perhaps, but that in no way proves man-made climate change theory.


This was a period of warming, before humans had developed agriculture.

This demonstrates that temperatures can fluctuate without human interference.



We should have objective, measurable answers before the proponents of manmade climate change theory should be allowed to craft policy.

Almost all human life on Earth is sustained by the conversion of fuel to energy. If proponents of manmade climate change theory have their way, fuel consumption will be severely curbed. If that happens, tens of millions of people will die. People won't get access to the medicines they would have otherwise had, areas won't get economic development that they would have otherwise had, food will not be produced that would have otherwise been produced.

That's a lot to ask people to sacrifice, especially if we're not even sure that it's worth it.

I don't think we caused anything. The planet is naturally warming regardless of what we do. We might accelerate it though, as even a yard filled with ants shows change.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

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

I was just going to post this. Smh @ "and everything that goes with that"

 

[Jack V Savage]

touché

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

Wait, what? Temperature is subjective?

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.

There's no legitimate debate on that subject either. It's just people who ignore facts for partisan or ideological reasons and people who face reality.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Wait, what? Temperature is subjective?

of course b/c that's what I said. try harder Jack

what is causing temperature rises (and to what degree culpability is placed), what can be done, can it be reversed .....

are all valid questions.

I never said 'the mere subject of global warming/climate change' is subjective

I live in the hottest part of the US besides Death Valley, by no means am I denying overall climate change.

 

[kpt018]

The OP makes no sense, as pointed out by several people, but it is very telling that some posters answered anyway.

 

[Jack V Savage]

of course b/c that's what I said. try harder Jack

what is causing temperature rises (and to what degree culpability is placed), what can be done, can it be reversed .....

are all valid questions.

I never said 'the mere subject of global warming/climate change' is subjective

??? What do you understand "subjective" to mean?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

??? What do you understand "subjective" to mean?

the same definition that everyone on earth uses?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

All of those questions are of the kind that they can have a clearly correct answer, without any opinion bias, so the issue is definitely objective in the full extent of the definition. That we can be unsure of whether we've uncovered those answers doesn't change the nature of the core problem.

As I said in another post, proponents of manmade climate change theory should have undisputable data before they should be allowed to craft policy.

The conversion of fuel to energy dictates the totality of life on this planet.

It's just like that there's definitely an objectively correct answer to why gravity works as it does even though we perhaps haven't found it yet.

The biggest differences between the theories is that gravity can be consistently measured (pulling objects at 9.81 m/s/s).

Also the theory of gravity has a rock-solid standard of falsifiability.

That is the main standard that proponents of manmade climate change theory lack. A standard of falsifiability is the fundamental requirement to call anything "science".

 

[Jack V Savage]

the same definition that everyone on earth uses?

Obviously not given that last post. Why not just answer?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Obviously not given that last post. Why not just answer?

the rise in temperature: objective. a measurable, provable fact

what exactly causes the rise in temperatures (as in ratio wise), how it can be slowed or stopped: subjective.

You're born either a male or female, that's about as objective as it gets. So in this sense, it's clearly more subjective (the causes and solutions) than say someone's sex

 

[Last Samurai]

everything has a scientific explanation

when it comes to transgenderism
men are left-brained, women are right-brained
so what you got is a right-brained person in a man's body
or vice-versa

if there is something we cannot explain scientifically
it simply means we don't understand it well enough

 

[Jack V Savage]

the rise in temperature: objective. a measurable, provable fact

what exactly causes the rise in temperatures (as in ratio wise), how it can be slowed or stopped: subjective.

That's not subjective.

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
   "his views are highly subjective"
   synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive
   "a subjective analysis"

A subject's experiences have nothing at all to do with the causes of global warming. It's not an issue that is touched by subjectivity in the least.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm unaware of widely held unscientific beliefs by people who want rights for trans people.

 

[no fat chicks]

Dumbassery is a bipartisan issue.