"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific hypotheses
are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific method?

Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics would come to
understand that.

Which "fanatics" are you referring to? The millions of scientists and experts worldwide
who understand the limits of the scientific method but still accept evolution as the best
explanation, and are concerned about the mounting evidence of global warming?

Or the fanatics who are in denial about the solid foundations for evolution and the
growing evidence of global warning?

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Matt Whiting posted:

John Mazor wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bob,

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily
anti-science.
I can't see how it isn't.
OK. then we'll just have to disagree

As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
knows what science is...
Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
population.

Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
principles of the scientific method.
And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.

Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the
scientific method?

Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics
would come to understand that.

Only if you'll tell me why gravity doesn';t work.


Bertie

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

John Mazor wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:

Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
principles of the scientific method.
And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
those who claim to be scientists.

Wrong, see below.

This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the
global warming, er,
global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be
the biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.

Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable
scientists claim that increased global warming to catastrophic levels
is a dead certain fact and won't admit to the usual caveats of the
scientific method. They may exist but they would be a small
minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science
reporting is notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific
statements way beyond the scientist's actual views. We need to see
it in their own published material or equally reliable sources.

http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/gl...in-change-and-
mor
al-uncertainty/

Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just to
be clear is that what you are saying?


A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method
would be along the lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence
that the Earth is experiencing global warming, that the rate of
warming is increasing, that human activity could be contributing to
this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as
useful in explaining all the observed data." There is no absolute
certainty anywhere in there. Often scientists are guilty of not
reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume that
everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their
announcements. But even when they do provide the full context, it
seldom is included in the media accounts because it's not as sexy as
some version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"

I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in
statements such as:

“the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate
change had anything to do with human activity on this planet.”

“There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are
dominated by human activity…The warming of the climate system is now
unequivocal,”

Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?


Why would you want to?

Unless you were an idiot, of course.

Bertie

But Jay....the really big question: Did you sell any rooms during the
media frenzy?

Al
1964 Skyhawk
SFF/Spokane WA

Jay Honeck wrote:
The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections.


Boy, isn't that the truth? The money that was just spent in Iowa was
absolutely astounding -- and for what?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:

Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the
scientific method.
And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those who claim to be
scientists.

Wrong, see below.

This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the global warming,
er, global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest
setback to science in our lifetimes.

Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable scientists claim that
increased global warming to catastrophic levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit
to the usual caveats of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a
small minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science reporting is
notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific statements way beyond the
scientist's actual views. We need to see it in their own published material or equally
reliable sources.

http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/gl...l-uncertainty/

Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just to be clear is that
what you are saying?

First of all, the statement related only to the question of whether human activity
contributed to the greenhouse effect, not to predictions of how far warming will go or its
effects. At the risk of sounding unscientific, the answer to that was pretty predictable
even before the results were in. Only a fool would deny that it happens. The only open
question is in the details, such as what are the mechanisms and how much does each
contribute?

Furthermore, what they are saying is that the probability that their findings and
conclusions about the effects of human activity on global warming are wrong has decreased
to the point that, given the consequences ignoring the growing body of evidence, they are
confident enough that as human beings who just happen to be scientists, they have been
moved to call for action by society. Since it's inherent in the scientific method that
you're never going to achieve 100% certainty on anything, it's a judgment call on when you
decide that the evidence is "good enough for government work". By your standards,
scientists could never speak up outside the boundaries of their professional constraints
because they know that they can never be 100% sure about their findings and conclusions.

And I'm sure that if you cornered any of those scientists and asked "We understand the
concerns you have expressed, but keeping in mind the limits of the scientific method, are
you prepared to give us a 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility that your
findings might be mistaken?" the vast majority would not say yes.

A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the
lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global
warming, that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be
contributing to this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining
all the observed data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often
scientists are guilty of not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume
that everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their announcements. But
even when they do provide the full context, it seldom is included in the media accounts
because it's not as sexy as some version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"

I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in statements such as:

“the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
anything to do with human activity on this planet.”

“There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human
activity…The warming of the climate system is now unequivocal,”

See previous.

Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?

See previous. And since it is a brief news account, we don't know that the appropriate
caveats weren't given at the news conference or in the report.

"John Mazor" wrote in message
news:T8Bgj.172040$TO.53294@trnddc01...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
hypotheses
are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific
method?

Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics
would come to understand that.

Which "fanatics" are you referring to? The millions of scientists and
experts worldwide who understand the limits of the scientific method but
still accept evolution as the best explanation, and are concerned about
the mounting evidence of global warming?

What evidence of globa;l warming?



Or the fanatics who are in denial about the solid foundations for
evolution and the growing evidence of global warning?

Or those in denial about the fraudulent evidence for global warming.

John Mazor wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:
Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the
scientific method.
And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those who claim to be
scientists.
Wrong, see below.

This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the global warming,
er, global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest
setback to science in our lifetimes.
Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable scientists claim that
increased global warming to catastrophic levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit
to the usual caveats of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a
small minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science reporting is
notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific statements way beyond the
scientist's actual views. We need to see it in their own published material or equally
reliable sources.
http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/gl...l-uncertainty/

Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just to be clear is that
what you are saying?

First of all, the statement related only to the question of whether human activity
contributed to the greenhouse effect, not to predictions of how far warming will go or its
effects. At the risk of sounding unscientific, the answer to that was pretty predictable
even before the results were in. Only a fool would deny that it happens. The only open
question is in the details, such as what are the mechanisms and how much does each
contribute?

Furthermore, what they are saying is that the probability that their findings and
conclusions about the effects of human activity on global warming are wrong has decreased
to the point that, given the consequences ignoring the growing body of evidence, they are
confident enough that as human beings who just happen to be scientists, they have been
moved to call for action by society. Since it's inherent in the scientific method that
you're never going to achieve 100% certainty on anything, it's a judgment call on when you
decide that the evidence is "good enough for government work". By your standards,
scientists could never speak up outside the boundaries of their professional constraints
because they know that they can never be 100% sure about their findings and conclusions.

Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
(they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
different?


And I'm sure that if you cornered any of those scientists and asked "We understand the
concerns you have expressed, but keeping in mind the limits of the scientific method, are
you prepared to give us a 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility that your
findings might be mistaken?" the vast majority would not say yes.

A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the
lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global
warming, that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be
contributing to this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining
all the observed data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often
scientists are guilty of not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume
that everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their announcements. But
even when they do provide the full context, it seldom is included in the media accounts
because it's not as sexy as some version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"
I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in statements such as:

“the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
anything to do with human activity on this planet.”

“There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human
activity…The warming of the climate system is now unequivocal,”

See previous.

Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?

See previous. And since it is a brief news account, we don't know that the appropriate
caveats weren't given at the news conference or in the report.

Nice rationalizations. Keep trying, these are pretty weak.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Xref: news rec.aviation.piloting:581205
Path:
news.glorb.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!
nntp.frontiernet.net!
news2.epix.net!news1.epix.net!not-for-mail From: Matt Whiting
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT
5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070222 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 - a Firefox
sibling MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: "socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
References:


l4efj.19953$Ux2.17252@attbi_s22
9Uefj.16965$DG4.7949@trnddc04
yrufj.130$Xo1.93@trnddc06 K2Dfj.21648$Ux2.1511@attbi_s22







iQagj.6743$9e1.3236@trnddc02
W2igj.5915$Xo1.4382@trnddc06
2IBgj.7352$9e1.4415@trnddc02 In-Reply-To:
2IBgj.7352$9e1.4415@trnddc02 Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 84
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:34:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.74.29.154
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: news1.epix.net 1199763274 209.74.29.154 (Mon, 07 Jan 2008
22:34:34 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:34:34 EST

John Mazor wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:
Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
principles of the scientific method.
And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
those who claim to be scientists.
Wrong, see below.

This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of
the global warming,
er, global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That
will be the biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable
scientists claim that increased global warming to catastrophic
levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit to the usual caveats
of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a
small minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media
science reporting is notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate
scientific statements way beyond the scientist's actual views. We
need to see it in their own published material or equally reliable
sources.
http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/gl...in-change-and-
m
oral-uncertainty/

Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just
to be clear is that what you are saying?

First of all, the statement related only to the question of whether
human activity contributed to the greenhouse effect, not to
predictions of how far warming will go or its effects. At the risk
of sounding unscientific, the answer to that was pretty predictable
even before the results were in. Only a fool would deny that it
happens. The only open question is in the details, such as what are
the mechanisms and how much does each contribute?

Furthermore, what they are saying is that the probability that their
findings and conclusions about the effects of human activity on
global warming are wrong has decreased to the point that, given the
consequences ignoring the growing body of evidence, they are
confident enough that as human beings who just happen to be
scientists, they have been moved to call for action by society.
Since it's inherent in the scientific method that you're never going
to achieve 100% certainty on anything, it's a judgment call on when
you decide that the evidence is "good enough for government work".
By your standards, scientists could never speak up outside the
boundaries of their professional constraints because they know that
they can never be 100% sure about their findings and conclusions.

Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
(they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
different?



Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100%
certain,
Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over

And still you won't get it.


Bertie

"Andreus" wrote

So, what book were they reading when they sold indulgences, and commited
the crusades, witch burnings, and many other misdeeds involving native
populations.

Don't judge me, on what happened a thousand years ago.

That was a little period of time called the dark ages. Ignorance ruled.
Period.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Andreus" wrote

So, what book were they reading when they sold indulgences, and
commited the crusades, witch burnings, and many other misdeeds
involving native populations.

Don't judge me, on what happened a thousand years ago.

That was a little period of time called the dark ages. Ignorance
ruled. Period.


Well, the trend is for a return to those happy times.




http://www.thecatholiclibrary.org/Do...p/article1.php


Bertie