Liberals vs Conservative thought differences: What does the Science say?

Started by Sci Fi Fan, November 27, 2013, 06:42:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Solar on December 02, 2013, 05:22:58 PM
Wait, I post an entire comment on the thread, and you run with this nonsense?

How is it nonsense to point out to you the existence of the law of conservation of mass-energy and Newton's laws of motion, both of whom you just openly flouted?

Do you not find it ironic that someone who doesn't understand the most fundamental foundations of physics smugly holds the entire scientific community in contempt?

Quote
Try responding to the actual topic, and I still expect an answer as to whether you actually believe this shit.
My post below.

You claim that it is pseudoscience but offer no specific criticisms or counterarguments beyond your say-so.

taxed

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on December 05, 2013, 06:24:18 PM
How is it nonsense to point out to you the existence of the law of conservation of mass-energy and Newton's laws of motion, both of whom you just openly flouted?

Do you not find it ironic that someone who doesn't understand the most fundamental foundations of physics smugly holds the entire scientific community in contempt?

You claim that it is pseudoscience but offer no specific criticisms or counterarguments beyond your say-so.

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: taxed on December 05, 2013, 06:39:13 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm

Scientists at CERN also had to retract claims of detecting faster-than-light neutrinos.  Does this suggest that neutrinos do not exist, and/or that Einstein's theory of special relativity is fraudulent?

Try again.

Solar

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on December 05, 2013, 06:24:18 PM
How is it nonsense to point out to you the existence of the law of conservation of mass-energy and Newton's laws of motion, both of whom you just openly flouted?

Do you not find it ironic that someone who doesn't understand the most fundamental foundations of physics smugly holds the entire scientific community in contempt?

You claim that it is pseudoscience but offer no specific criticisms or counterarguments beyond your say-so.
KEEP DODGING AT YOUR OWN PERIL SON.

It's pretty obvious what this study proves, that liberals are gullible and willing to accept pseudoscience as fact.
You, Scifool are a perfect example of useful idiot, you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that man is killing the planet and it is imperative that the US stop all use of oil to save the planet, that somehow refusing to use nuclear energy is not part of this equation is irrelevant.
See the point here, or am I talking beyond you comprehension?

The leaps you make in your quest to prove you are somehow intellectually superior, screams emotional instability mixed with a heavy dose of fear, but I'm certain that no lib professor has done that study, since they are too busy trying to prove to themselves that backing big govt is somehow superior to self reliance.

And you wonder why I'm getting tired of your shit, you're like a pestilent child with a hammer, you see breaking down our culture as progressive, when every sane individual in the world knows you're simply dangerously destructive.

But the question holds, do you actually believe this shit?
I guess it goes without saying, because you swallowed AGW despite the evidence to the contrary.
I wish you could see what we see, a kid with a little knowledge. Remember when you told your parents you could make it on your own without them "I'm 16 and I know it all"?
Well, you're a little older and no smarter, and we see you as nothing more than an useful idiot for a destructive leftist agenda Hell bent on killing Capitalism..
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

quiller


taxed

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on December 05, 2013, 06:46:06 PM
Scientists at CERN also had to retract claims of detecting faster-than-light neutrinos.  Does this suggest that neutrinos do not exist, and/or that Einstein's theory of special relativity is fraudulent?

Try again.

Your straw man analogy might work on other academics and others with no experience or desire to educate themselves, but that doesn't work here.  You are comparing real science with your AGW fairy tale.  Please save the low-intellect arguments for your academic peers.  You have yet to make any case for a crisis, warming, or anything to remotely support your fallacy.

At some point you need to ask yourself why you continue with this idiocy.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Solar on December 06, 2013, 05:56:34 AM
It's pretty obvious

Prove it.  Show errors in methodology or provide counterexamples.  Declaring something to be self evident was tried once in science - it left us with geocentrism and aristotelian physics. 

Solar

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on December 08, 2013, 07:56:27 AM
Prove it.  Show errors in methodology or provide counterexamples.  Declaring something to be self evident was tried once in science - it left us with geocentrism and aristotelian physics.
Wrong son, you do not redirect on this forum! So answer my question first.

Do you actually believe this shit? Yes or no, any other answer is evidence you need a qualifier, which would be proof you didn't swallow this nonsense either.

So yes or no, do you own it?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2013, 08:02:52 AM
Wrong son, you do not redirect on this forum! So answer my question first.

Do you actually believe this shit? Yes or no, any other answer is evidence you need a qualifier, which would be proof you didn't swallow this nonsense either.

So yes or no, do you own it?

Of course I don't believe it.  Science is not predicated on belief.  I have read the studies and have seen no errors in methodology, so I accept it as valid theory.

Now, on what grounds do you reject these studies?  Where is your justification?

Solar

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on December 08, 2013, 08:09:13 AM
Of course I don't believe it.  Science is not predicated on belief.  I have read the studies and have seen no errors in methodology, so I accept it as valid theory.

Now, on what grounds do you reject these studies?  Where is your justification?
So you don't believe it, yet you believe it, which is it?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kopema

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on December 08, 2013, 07:56:27 AM
QuoteIt's pretty obvious what this study proves
Prove it.  Show errors in methodology or provide counterexamples. 

Translation:  "If you're so smart, then prove that you're wrong and I'm right!"

BTW:  Your cutting and pasting skills are almost as bad as your reading comprehension skills - and that's saying an awful lot.
''It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.''

- Justice Robert H. Jackson

Solar

Quote from: kopema on December 08, 2013, 09:43:32 AM
Prove it.  Show errors in methodology or provide counterexamples. 

Translation:  "If you're so smart, then prove that you're wrong and I'm right!"

BTW:  Your cutting and pasting skills are almost as bad as your reading comprehension skills - and that's saying an awful lot.
The kid is a wonder in contradiction, it's a scientific anomaly he even functions at all.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

quiller

Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2013, 10:28:04 AM
The kid is a wonder in contradiction, it's a scientific anomaly he even functions at all.

At first he was amusing.


walkstall

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

quiller