• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Tomorrow's World

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by FSM with Cheddar View Post
    When Einstein showed that some of Newtons theories were wrong, that didn't mean that gravity no longer existed, but that our understanding of it had been slightly wrong. It is exactly the same with climate change science. One new scientific finding does not rule out global warming, but does help build a better understanding of what is going on.
    Tell that to the politicians who have misconstrued scientific evidence as hard fact and taxed absolutely everything they can accordingly… do you think they’ll be giving rebates proportionate to how right or wrong the actual outcome is?

    That’s my beef with the whole global warming debate or lack of.
    Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
      It’s called progress. What we thought we knew yesterday turns out to be only partly correct, or even totally incorrect, so the hypotheses need to be renewed and retested. It’s why we do science.
      I know. My point is I wonder what the next big theory will be after the theory of today proves to be "only partly correct, or even totally incorrect". Given the theory has evolved over the last 3 decades, why should we assume that they suddenly have it right now?

      Nice attempt at being patronising - unfortunately you have merely made my point for me. Thanks.
      Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by PM-Junkie View Post
        I know. My point is I wonder what the next big theory will be after the theory of today proves to be "only partly correct, or even totally incorrect". Given the theory has evolved over the last 3 decades, why should we assume that they suddenly have it right now?

        Nice attempt at being patronising - unfortunately you have merely made my point for me. Thanks.
        Global warming-up-in-some-places-and-cooling-down-in-others-theory doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
        And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by FSM with Cheddar View Post
          When Einstein showed that some of Newtons theories were wrong, that didn't mean that gravity no longer existed, but that our understanding of it had been slightly wrong. It is exactly the same with climate change science. One new scientific finding does not rule out global warming, but does help build a better understanding of what is going on.
          Einstein's theories are being continually tested, whereas with climate change the verdict is given, that's the difference. It is a critical departure from the scientific method. Scepticism and enquiry are not features of fundamentalism, but science.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
            Tell that to the politicians who have misconstrued scientific evidence as hard fact and taxed absolutely everything they can accordingly… do you think they’ll be giving rebates proportionate to how right or wrong the actual outcome is?

            That’s my beef with the whole global warming debate or lack of.
            Yes the government are tw@ts, but if they actually do believe global warming is a fact then I would say they are not doing enough proportionally. The problem is that some of the "Green Taxes" are not being reinvested in green technologies, and that is what upsets most people. The government don't have enough balls to really deal with the problem.
            Originally posted by cailin maith
            Hang on - there is actually a place called Cheddar??

            Comment

            Working...
            X