Adam Zyglis on Science Skeptics  

Science skeptics

Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News

 

Category: Humor, UnScience

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

6 Responses to “Science Shmience”

  1. ilsm says:

    According to Sunday’s Cosmos episode a cleric in the middle ages estimated the earth to have been created in 4004 BC.

    The scientist who determined the earth to be 4.5 billion years old measuring lead in rocks also helped remove lead from gasoline, so there are two reasons to question science in one episode.

    • Iamthe50percent says:

      Two? I haven’t seen you mention one! Do you question radioactive decay? Do you question the toxicity of lead?

  2. NoKidding says:

    Who argued against gravity? That panel is filler to make it a square.

    At the time of Columbus, the prevailing opinion was already a round Earth. If he used Copernicus instead, outside of convention with an idea proposed as early as 500BC, it would leave two out of three remaining panels attacking Christianity.

    Unlike heliocentricity and gravity, global warming provides no falsifiable predictions. Model based projections have been overwhelmingly inaccurate.

    Philosophically, global warming is more like Christianity than unlike it.

    • Seth says:

      If climate models made no falsifiable predictions, it would make no sense to claim that they have been wildly inaccurate. Better word salad, please. You reason like Sarah Palin on a bad day.

      Worry about the inaccuracies because they are all on one side: reality keeps proving to be worse than the predictions.

    • DeDude says:

      “global warming provides no falsifiable predictions”

      The models predicting increased global temperature cannot be falsified? Are you repeating Foxified babble because you believe it, or to make fun of it?

    • Biffah Bacon says:

      “Unlike heliocentricity and gravity, global warming provides no falsifiable predictions. Model based projections have been overwhelmingly inaccurate.”

      I find this to be a fascinating statement. The first sentence is simply false in a way that is described as “not even wrong;” so detached from the actual facts as to be completely irrelevant.

      The second sentence is dead on, but like the first elides the entire processual and competitive nature of scientific inquiry. The first models are always bad, wrong, and questionable. Just like in economics and other disciplines there is a need to look at complex data sets and examine their interactions; however, this is a process that began decades ago and continues to this day, with models tested and refined. It is far more exciting for a scientist to have the model blow up than not, because that is where the new discoveries are found.
      Case in point is the discovery of ocean heat transfer mechanisms in the Pacific Ocean (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/ ) or updated corrected datasets ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/ ) leading to reassessment of models in an iterative evolutionary process of improvement (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/shindell-on-constraining-the-transient-climate-response/ ).
      Is it the complexity of the concepts and discussion or the consequences of inactive policy that deniers find most frightening?