67 replies to this topic

[m.oreilly]

typical irish...
hey brah

[David_Heavey]

Sup MoMan .. .hope youz good

[m.oreilly]

David_Heavey, on Mar 30 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

Sup MoMan .. .hope youz good

fair to midland...you?

[brewin]

I can never figure out if that last panel is meant to be ironic or not.

[m.oreilly]

you don't really believe...?

[hog]

brewin, on Mar 31 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

I can never figure out if that last panel is meant to be ironic or not.

[stormrosson]

Heavey are u really that big of a moron

[eniparadoxgma]

This thread is kind of frightening.

[David_Heavey]

stormrosson, on Mar 31 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

Heavey are u really that big of a moron

Heehee. Look. If people want to believe people landed on the moon then that's fine. If people believe in God then that too is fine. If people believe we're not alone in the universe then again, that's fine. I respect what others believe in. But I personally don't believe any human landed on the moon. If that offends any I'm sorry. It's just what I myself believe. If we did land on the moon why have we not gone back since? I'm willing to bet meteorologists would just LOVE some (new if you believe we were there already) samples of moon rocks

[m.oreilly]

dave, i think they have looked at the rocks already, many years ago? they're rocks lol. you know how much it costs to buy and launch and maintain a fleet of giant lifting bodies (capable of going straight there?) or how much to rearrange that setup to having an orbiting platform dedicated to that? and what's the payoff all way 'round for the hundreds and hundreds of other science programs vying for funding? i'd rather send robots to mars and get a tax rebate in the summer

[David_Heavey]

m.oreilly, on Apr 1 2009, 03:51 AM, said:

dave, i think they have looked at the rocks already, many years ago? they're rocks lol.

So with all the stuff flying around space you don't believe there may be something new to see in those rocks? And on the price of things, it can't be more of a waste of money that that space station they have orbiting Earth.

[m.oreilly]

gosh, you're so anti tech...

[David_Heavey]

m.oreilly, on Apr 1 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

gosh, you're so anti tech...

[banj0]

David_Heavey, on Mar 31 2009, 10:19 PM, said:

Heehee. Look. If people want to believe people landed on the moon then that's fine. If people believe in God then that too is fine.

The problem I have with those sentences is that it seems to try and link science with theism. There is no "belief" or "faith" required with the first part, just the second. And neither one requires or even asks for "proof." To bridge those two is insulting (not personally my bruthaman Dave, lol) to both scientists and theists.

A belief in science would take faith - but science doesn't want belief, it wants rational examination of the evidence and logical explanation for it. And that evidence of Apollo 11 has been presented, peer-reviewed by scientists from across the globe, and is currently the best, repeatable, and falsifiable interpretation of the evidence presented. If anyone could present better evidence for the moon landing being faked it would be accepted and the old model thrown out. Therein lies the distinction between science and theism. Conspiracy theories are fine but evidence to the contrary of any accepted theory has to be presented and, if anybody believes there's some global conspiracy about anything, it's pretty simple---submit your results to peer-review and ask for a rebuttal. It's pretty hard for a global-conspiracy to claim your math is wrong if you start with '2+2=4.'

The big problem is that evidence supplied by scientists that believe Apollo 11 was faked has not lived up to peer-reviewed scrutiny. The consensus among the scientists that have peer-reviewed their findings is that Apollo 11 did, in fact, land on the moon. Proof? Not even close. Science never claims to provide proof of anything. And remember, like with this whole global-warming thing and the IPCC, consensus doesn't mean all, just most. Evidence to the contrary is welcomed if it stands up to the method.

Same way that I disagree with WFO about "Global Warming As Conspiracy." Are the lefties that claim more than a 2.5 inch rise in sea-level in our lifetime crazy? Yep. And the wacko pure-earth folks that claim Florida will be underwater in 80 years are talking out of their collective asses. Are the righties that claim that CO2 doesn't cause warming and there is no reason to limit our use of a finite resource to infinity crazy? Yep. And the wacko-"normal-warming cycle" folks that haven't read the data, specifically the Vostok Ice Core data are talking out of their collective asses.

Crazies on either side don't help.

Quote

I could post hundreds of links from different sources. What good would it do? The facts would only confuse you

I hope you'll note that I have never made fun of any individual in this thread, only groups on both sides of the argument. If you can provide links to peer-reviewed findings about Global Warming evidence not supported by consensus (not anthropogenic Warming or otherwise, that's another thread---just Warming not being supported by consensus via peer-review, I would, sincerely, be grateful. I like reading that stuff.)

And please, for the love of my dog, no Steyn. His hockey stick citing from McIntyre and McKitrick has repeatedly been, through lots and lots of peer-review, discredited. Not to mention that McIntyre and McKitrick's findings haven't even been able to stand up to statistical analysis, unlike the paper they tried to discredit.

Finally (swear this time, lol), I know Mann's IPCC TAR is a sticking point so I'll cite repeatable peer-reviews of his work so that IPCC 4TAR won't apply:

Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004