Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations A different type of long term weather forecast

RAH, who is the "certain crowd"? I would say that the argument that the lack of weather prediction ability by scientists has no bearing on long term climate prediction seems to be a favorite among a "certain crowd", but is just a distraction that their science has not been proven.

This passive aggressive dismissal by the weather police, using the term "certain crowd", is a neat way to diminish those who just don't think that the weather police have proven themselves. I have not seen ANY models for the future that have been born out. Conjecturing on what has happened in the past means nothing, a gypsy can do that and tell you why they think it happened.

What we have here is opinion from both sides and, until one side can give some scientific model that actually proves future weather prediction models, it is disingenuous to call any model "science".

That is like saying evolution is bunk because we have not predicted what humans will evolve into, and then seen it happen. This is another favorite tactic among that "certain crowd". I will fight for you to voice your opinion till my dying breath, but I will not let it go unchallenged.

I think this guys theory sound better then a lot of other stuff that's been said that's for sure... However none of us and I mean NONE of us can till for sure what may or may not happen, I am sure this world has cycles of life just like any other and we are just now barely understanding the cycles... If at all.

I mean lets think about this for a second. If the moon itself was I think it is 2 feet or 2 meters closer to us or farther away. We would have absolute chaos on this planet.....


That's messed up


RC

Climate change, like evolution is purely opinion. There is some "evidence" to support both evolution, and climate change. There is also equal "evidence" to refute each. It all comes down then, to your individual opinion since neither has a conclusion based in fact.

Being a part or the earth's ecosystem, every person's actions has SOME form of impact on climate change, but does that make it all "human caused"? Of course not! Every organism evolves in some form or another also, but does that mean the theory of evolution is accurate? No. Theories are only ideas based on assumptions, conjecture, supposition, etc, not on fact.

If a theory puts your mind at ease and you accept it as fact, that is your choice and right.

When it comes to private property, freedoms, education and our ponds, I have a big problem with another person's views on conjecture forcing my rights, child's education, or wallet to be impacted.

Parroting something constantly, yelling the loudest, or claiming others are just wrong, will never make any theory, fact.

"Climate change, like evolution is purely opinion."

Thank you for your post. It makes the crux of the debate as clear as anything that I could post:)

The problem is RAH it's become political for some, and to accept what NASA, NAOO, and other 95 percent of scientists say means they've capitulated to the other side of the political spectrum. Heck even Exxon Mobile now believes in anthropogenic GW.

What I can't fanthom is how NASA, NAOO, and 95 percent of scientists say -- and the defense department believes -- is some grand conspiracy.

Everytime I look into the rare GW alledged scientist deniers I find several things:

1. He's not a scientist but a journalist with a political bias.

2. He's on the payroll of a fossil fuel corp.

3. He's just some nitwit blogger with no qualifications.

It comes down to who you trust.

That's the essence of the debate, RAH. It's also easily accepted when that is where the debate ends.

The problems arise when some try forcing what they trust or believe onto others, especially when it costs other's money or they attempt to socially engineer youth through educating children with theory that is claimed to be settled fact....hence your quote about letting opposition die out while a new, mis-informed and socially engineered generation is created.

I support public schools teaching our kids evolution in science class, and that the earth is round. Fortunately, most others agree. If you don't trust science, that is your choice, but evolution and anthropogenic global warming are not really controversial among scientists, just the public. This is quite clear from the Pew polls that I linked to previously. This is a public debate on trusting science, not a debate about what scientists conclude from the science.

John, I don't want to ice fish anywhere near me.

I support the THEORY of evolution in education as well, when it's taught honestly, as a theory, and not as fact, because no matter how much you'd like it to be fact. It is not, and has not, been proven as fact. Tossing in "the world is round, is very condescending. It is when some try to dismiss and belittle educated, accurate opposition to a viewpoint, that things get ugly, and the one refusing to acknowledge their views may be flawed, or even wrong, that things can no longer be intelligently and politely discussed. Creation is another theory (and widely held belief/faith). When schools teach one theory, and exclude another, it is no longer educating, but socially engineering, if not openly lying.

I always chuckle when I hear "scientists conclude" anything in current times, since they always seem to be reconcluding conclusions. Flat-earthers, 100's of years ago when no one knew what was out of site were wrong, and every "scientist" concluding opinion as fact can be equally as wrong....I don't know, you don't know, no one knows, yet.

In science, you never "prove" anything. You assemble evidence, try to disprove things, and when the evidence is overwhelming and you cannot disprove something, then you accept it. In biology, there are no laws like in physics. The strongest evidence in biology leads to a hypothesis becoming a theory, like the theory of evolution. Creationism is a belief based on faith, not scientific evidence, which is just fine; but in the USA, it does not belong in public school. Our founding fathers took care of that in the Constitution.

In the world of ponds, there have been long held beliefs on fish habits and interactions that some biologists and educators presented as fact have been proven inaccurate, a few, by people on this great site.

Fish that we were told could not live in warm climates, have been proven they can not only live but thrive in them, because someone didn't buy into the accepted "science". Fish that "science" has claimed would destroy an ecosystem, I have personally proven can do the exact opposite.

Well, I'm a former investment analyst. I tend to trust data rather than expert consensus, since I've seen the experts fail too many times.

In this case, the double dynamo theory successfully predicted the solar climate 97 percent of the time. So while there are no guarantees, I'd bet on cooler temps in the 2030s/40s.

That's still a good ways off, though. It will be interesting to see what happens until then!

Sir, on that you are wrong...though held up in courts, the founding fathers wanted freedom OF religion, not FROM it. I'm sure if you did objective research on what many evolutionary theorists have compiled, many of their attempts to "disprove" creation, tended to support it....

My best friend is a creationist. What I say to him , I will say to you. I was not there at the time, but the evidence is clear that evolution describes our development as a species. If the evidence was all planted or created to deceive people, then I have been deceived.

What, if anything, can be proved or disproved relating to Creationism? You'll find there is no more and no less than can be with evolution. This poses the scientific question to research further....why do some demand one is more "truth" than another? This is why I accept both have equal merit and should be taught. Maybe that way, someone will have the full education to discover more in all that has been discussed.

When a person accepts one thing over the exclusion to equal things opposing, they only deceive themselves...Rex Rains 01/21/2016

98% of scientists accept evolution, so scientists feel differently than you do about the weight of evidence supporting the two "theories".

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/12/darwin-day/

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/

Where's the data then? I'm seeing a model but not data. How can you show data for an event that hasn't happened yet?

Rah...I can create questions that would create a poll where 98% of scientists would accept almost anything. If the only "evidence" that can be brought to a reasoned debate is....."they say so", there is nothing more that can be said. I do wonder...how many of those 98% also believe in Creation, or religion? Wouldn't any number over 2% cast huge doubt over the accuracy of a 98% poll? And IF more than 2% claimed other beliefs as well, wouldn't a reasonable person think someone is either lying, going with the popular belief, or some combination?

All I, want is some modicum of proof. Give me data and information that can produce reasonably accurate, repeatable, observable, and quantitative results....not some, "because they say so" stuff...

98% of "scientists" that used admittedly manipulated/corrected data comes no where near that basic standard

Rainman, best to shut up. It appears you may be part of "that certain crowd". I'm no scientist but I do demand proof before I believe what a man says. I work in math, live math, guns are made from math. When I make something I can prove it works. I have made things that "experts" said would not work. I have been the "2%" and I now make my living selling a rifle that aint supposed to work.

I feel very bad for "people", starting to wonder if they really are people, of that other "certain crowd". The crowd that treats the weather trend of the day as a religion. Is the weather warming? Sometimes. Is the weather cooling? Sometimes. Has the weather in the history of man, or before, ever done what it is generally doing now? Yep.

Next.

Is a Mini Ice Age Coming? 'Maunder Minimum' Spurs Controversy - Live Science

You guys need to stop this junk.
Cody Note: Members try to stay on direct pond topics. Some of you posters have too much time on your hands. If you have so much energy go help your wife clean the house instead of getting political and or religious on this forum.