In any case even if it is the case with 1, 2 and 3 are still to be settled and thus the issue is still a evolving one in policy terms.
Last edited by Cevno; 16-11-2011 at 07:12 PM.
There was a Whole NOAA report saying that Antartica had stopped to warm more in 2007/8, also parts of some IPCC reports, some parts of flip flops and lies caught in some earlier reports with facts still emerging etc.....
I don't certainly believe them as with more carbon emissions increased they have to go somewhere, so i can't argue for that side and neither i have the expertise to go into the scientific details or what some scientist are saying on that side(or whether they are industry sponsored or not).In any case settled in public policy terms means that when everyone is convinced.
Point 2 and 3 are more important AFAIC. Hasn't a recent report by the IPCC(?) sister organisation said that it would become irreversible after 5 years or something?
Last edited by Cevno; 16-11-2011 at 07:38 PM.
Last edited by Cevno; 16-11-2011 at 09:31 PM.
Reminds me of this: Weathering Fights - Science: What's It Up To? - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/26/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
Unfortunately this is the mainstream platform of the republican party.
While Herman Cain is simply ignorant, Ron Paul's views are flat out dangerous for a civil society.
On Health Care :- Tea Party Fanatics Cheer 'Let Him Die' - YouTube
I watched the debate live and I don't think I have heard a more hypocritical response to health care debate.
On Abortion - Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research - YouTube
Abortion is an act of violence ? Really ? And I don't understand this Federal Vs. State Govt. right, so it is okay if the state government allows abortion but not if Federal Govt. does ? To me it is just passing the buck to the states. He continues to justify his stance by citing extreme examples.
Education :- Ron Paul: 'Education Isn't A Right' - YouTube
Education isn't a right, Really ?? May not be a constitutional right (which is a a joke anyway). So you want to protect the right of the unborn but do not want to have anything to make sure that he.she gets an equal opportunity to get educated.
Civil Rights Act :- Enuff has already been said about this.
I have a great deal of respect the Ayn Rand philosophical school of libertarianism, but only as a philosophy. What a lot of people have done with that philosophy - Ron Paul included and in many ways at the heart and centre - is truly despicable.
Libertarianism was originally supposed to be about limited government intervention with a social conscience.
A lot of people seem to have forgotten the second bit.
Ah Ayn Rand - summarized succinctly by Roger Ebert as: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."
Atlas Shrugged was such a chore.
On a side note which is unrelated since I'm sure there isn't anyone here who takes Glenn Beck seriously but it was hilarious to see him go on and on about Rand until someone pointed out that she was an atheist and wasn't exactly a fan of religion in general. Pretty funny moment.
Last edited by shankar; 16-11-2011 at 11:34 PM.
Well that's only sort of true. While a single fact will not disprove a theory that is able to make many many predictions, it depends on the type of fact. The reason ad-hoc explanations were offered because Newtonian mechanics still explained a hell of a lot, and more importantly, there was no other theory that explained everything Newton's did plus the new fact. That latter is key. A discovery of a new process or a fact does not invalidate the facts which are explained by the previous theory - that theory is still sufficient to explain all the facts it previously did, and unless someone can do a better job of explaining those facts, it makes no sense to abandon a theory that yields useful results.
As an example, it would be like as soon as a single fact was found that contradicted Newtonian mechanics, you would stop engineering buildings or machines that relied on calculations derived from Newtonian mechanics....that approach wouldn't really make any sense.
However, and this is both field and theory dependent, it is possible for a single fact to disprove a hypothesis depending on how central to the theory it is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)