I have studied global warming. Did you know that in science you can never actually prove anything? Even the "scientific laws" aren't really proven because we could possibly find something that would disprove them. So global warming never can be proved. And there's no evidence that global warming is a critical condition.
43 comments
Close, yet so far.
Correct, Science works by disproving things... in the end, it leaves us with things that are unable to be disproved because the evidence is stacked for them, not against.
Does this make Science weaker? No, it does not.
Congratulations.
You were looking for a way to justify your SUV. You found one.
Don't bother verifying whether it's true, the important thing is it makes you feel better. Just like with your religion.
Drivel. there are many scientific laws which, granted we may find new information, but that tends to lead to a refinement of the laws, not a disproof.
Besides, the effects can be proven, even if the exact causes cannot. So you fail.
"I have studied global warming."
Listening to a politician say, "Global warming? Never heard of such a thing. Now then, let's build some more factories over there!" doesn't count as "studying" global warming.
"Did you know that in science you can never actually prove anything?"
No kidding.
"Even the "scientific laws" aren't really proven because we could possibly find something that would disprove them."
Well now, what do you know about that. Simply amazing. Have you notified the Nobel committee of your astonishing find?
"So global warming never can be proved."
Even when the environment is so fucked up life can't be sustained?
"And there's no evidence that global warming is a critical condition."
Except for, you know, all that climatological data that climatologists have gathered.
How about dead Polar Bears? They can't get out onto the sea ice to hunt because there's little/no sea ice near the Arctic shores anymore. How do you explain that?
If you truly had studied global warming, you'd know that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world. You'd also know that there's enough methane trapped in the permafrost cause major ecological disasters worldwide, if the permafrost melts.
Now STFU and go sit in the corner, dunce.
"I have studied global warming."
No you haven't.
That's not true.
Also, patently untrue.
Guys, I have solved the world's nuclear waste problem. We just dump all our spent U235 rods in this guy's yard. After all, according to him, you can't scientifically prove they're dangerous! Why, at any moment we might discover new evidence that the atomic physics we've understood all along is wrong and that, in reality, spent fuel rods will actually prolong your life and also provide you with an inexhaustible supply of salt, grain and gold!
I studied heat transfer in thermodynamics.
When more heat goes into a system than comes out, the temperature of the system increases.
Deal with it. Please die soon.
It's true that we can't prove anything, but when the evidence overwhelmingly supports something, like say, global warming, then we can pretty much treat it as a fact, with the understanding that we may have to revise our view in light of future evidence.
"Even the "scientific laws" aren't really proven because we could possibly find something that would disprove them."
Yeah, so you can never disprove it either.
But global warming is just code for pollution anyway, the real issue. I'm not going to debate it with you.
Well at least he tried studying it. There are far to many who don't even go that far. Still, it seems like he should probably understand that global warming is an observation and not a 'scientific law'.
But he may be onto something right when he said "there's no evidence that global warming is a critical condition".
Still, it's not like us being nicer to our environment is a bad thing. Even if it completely wrong, not that I'm saying it is, it still is beneficial to our earth.
He's not really fundie, just a bit confused.
From a strictly philosophical point of view, the only things that can be proved are the laws of logic. They are of coruse self evident as breaking them causes non-existence (i.e. anything that breaks the laws of logic literally has NO possibility of existing). The cause of globalb warming can never be proved outright, and if you start thinking abstractly, neither can the effects. But thats no godo reason to buy a range rover.
I too have profound doubt about the full global warming litany.
I am curious as to exactly what this other thing is that you have mistaken for science. Because I'm quite sure that science proved that my blood type matched the donated blood when I needed a transfusion, and that science proved that my tumor, once removed, wasn't cancerous, because I don't seem to recall having chemo and/or radiation...
*scratches head*
You're absolutely right; things can't be proven, as laymen would like them to be. There is always the possibility of a stronger theory coming along later, to disprove all that we currently know.
Still, global climate change is VERY, VERY much a critical condition, as we really, really needed to do something about it, like last decade!!! It might already be too late to ward it off. But, you dolts won't mind, as it will bring on the End Times, quicker than you'd thought. In just a matter of centuries, all life on this planet might be gone.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
