Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Racket wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

All scientific discoveries build upon scientific consensus. That's the way science works.

Einstein could never have conceived his theories if there were no consensus on the properties of matter, light, natural processes, etc. In fact, Einstein did not actually throw away the scientific consensus on Newtonian physics. Rather, he was able to see Newton's work in a different way and improve our understanding of physical relationships and the nature of time.

And because of scientific consensus, we still study Newtonian physics and acknowledge that its principles still hold in most ordinary circumstances. Otherwise, our bridges would fall down.

For climate change, the scientific consensus is that current global warming is caused primarily by man-made emission of greenhouse gasses. If we do not drastically cut emissions in the next ten years then we are sentencing our children and grandchildren to conditions that will be increasingly unlivable. There is even a statistically significant chance that mankind could be extinct by the end of this century.

This is conflating so many different ideas that it's hard to know where to start and it's not very clear what your point is.

2+2 doesn't equal 4 because everyone at the Committee for Rules of Addition voted yea. Science does not equal consensus and the whole idea of "scientific consensus" is basically a buzzword used by people who want to promote an agenda (usually a political one). Furthermore, consensus for a lot of things change over time.

Consensus is reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review. You're basically putting the cart before the horse and appeal to consensus is (ironically) very anti-science.

Fat hurts wrote:

Racket wrote:

This is conflating so many different ideas that it's hard to know where to start and it's not very clear what your point is.

2+2 doesn't equal 4 because everyone at the Committee for Rules of Addition voted yea. Science does not equal consensus and the whole idea of "scientific consensus" is basically a buzzword used by people who want to promote an agenda (usually a political one). Furthermore, consensus for a lot of things change over time.

Consensus is reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review. You're basically putting the cart before the horse and appeal to consensus is (ironically) very anti-science.

I never said that science equals consensus and I never said that consensus doesn't change.

I am merely pointing out that consensus is necessary in science. Without it, you have nothing to build upon.

I agree with you that, "Consensus is reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review."

In the case of climate change, consensus has been reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review taking place at least since 1896.

For climate change, the scientific consensus is that current global warming is caused primarily by man-made emission of greenhouse gasses. If we do not drastically cut emissions in the next ten years then we are sentencing our children and grandchildren to conditions that will be increasingly unlivable. There is even a statistically significant chance that mankind could be extinct by the end of this century.

Conundrum wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I never said that science equals consensus and I never said that consensus doesn't change.

I am merely pointing out that consensus is necessary in science. Without it, you have nothing to build upon.

I agree with you that, "Consensus is reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review."

In the case of climate change, consensus has been reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review taking place at least since 1896.

For climate change, the scientific consensus is that current global warming is caused primarily by man-made emission of greenhouse gasses. If we do not drastically cut emissions in the next ten years then we are sentencing our children and grandchildren to conditions that will be increasingly unlivable. There is even a statistically significant chance that mankind could be extinct by the end of this century.

The final answer:

You are both right about consensus and science, and your argument comes down to semantics.

Whether a scientific fact is correct or not, is irrelevant to consensus. If scientific consensus said the earth was flat, it doesn't make it flat.

However,the field and progress of science is very much dependent on consensus and the findings of earlier scientists. Scientists rely on the consensus of scientists and their learned findings to decide what is known and what research needs to be done. They don't go back and examine every experiment that's ever been done to determine what is true, they rely on scientific CONSENSUS.

A science book would never have been written without consensus of understanding of the science reviewed.

So although you are both right, in the context of the consensus of scientists believing in global warming, fathurts reflects the reality here. Unless you are a climatologist and personally examined every bit of information pertaining to climate change, you would be a fool to ignore the findings of the consensus of scientists.

Dear Conundrum wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

What I find interesting, after all their countless posts supporting Trump, we are starting to see more and more posts where they are starting to drop hints that they really are not true Trump fans after all. I see a very small but present sign of some distancing from Trump. This is not bode well for Trump.

I didn't see that so much before. (Five years from now, how many supporters will be declaring that they never really liked Trump)

Your delusional posts are hilarious! You try to decipher things in an attempt to make a sound point, but you fail each time. You're as delusional as these voters in this video and just as biased.

Starting to see hints that they really are not true Trump fans after all? You are obviously short in the brains department. You've got at most 2 dozen people posting on this thread over and over.

Do you realize that this site, this thread, and your demented biased opinion could not be used for a poll for any subject on the face of the earth let alone the Presidency? I cannot believe that one of you far left wing nut jobs never realized that.

Flagpole and his repeated lies to get attention and 6-10 others just post over and over trying to convince each other that he'll be impeached soon and won't be running next year. You only post links that FIT YOUR AGENDA, all others are fake.

Have the Brothers get my IP. I post on this thread once a month at most although a year ago I posted more. Once your mentor Flagpole started denying things that he clearly posted, I realized you all are just bonkers.

Trump owns all of you. You're obsessed with anything you can find about him to post it in an effort to convince yourselves that you know what's going on. Fact is, you are all clueless.

Carry on Conundrum and this video reminds me of you and a few others on this thread. Catch you in mid December and dimes to dollars you'll be posting the same garbage (just look at your posts from a year ago, 2 years ago, etc...)

Get a life!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrnfbN2_yG0

Racket wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

The final answer:

You are both right about consensus and science, and your argument comes down to semantics.

Whether a scientific fact is correct or not, is irrelevant to consensus. If scientific consensus said the earth was flat, it doesn't make it flat.

However,the field and progress of science is very much dependent on consensus and the findings of earlier scientists. Scientists rely on the consensus of scientists and their learned findings to decide what is known and what research needs to be done. They don't go back and examine every experiment that's ever been done to determine what is true, they rely on scientific CONSENSUS.

A science book would never have been written without consensus of understanding of the science reviewed.

So although you are both right, in the context of the consensus of scientists believing in global warming, fathurts reflects the reality here. Unless you are a climatologist and personally examined every bit of information pertaining to climate change, you would be a fool to ignore the findings of the consensus of scientists.

Wrong. Scientific consensus is not a tool that a scientist uses, and the progress of science does not depend on it unless you want to argue about direction of research and funding and trendy topics to study throughout the ages. Scientists rely on reproducibility, hypothesis testing, and all the other stuff I mentioned. No one is creating new "science" from consensus, which again, is really on a word for all you non-scientists to talk about the goings on of actual scientists.

But wait! There's more! First of all, wow I got bored way faster than I thought I would when I started typing this. Second, the overall quality of peer reviewed papers and all that has absolutely plummeted so to be honest there probably is a lot of people agreeing with outcomes just because and honestly I'm way less interested in continuing on about this than I thought now

Conundrum wrote:

Dear Conundrum wrote:

Your delusional posts are hilarious! You try to decipher things in an attempt to make a sound point, but you fail each time. You're as delusional as these voters in this video and just as biased.

Starting to see hints that they really are not true Trump fans after all? You are obviously short in the brains department. You've got at most 2 dozen people posting on this thread over and over.

Do you realize that this site, this thread, and your demented biased opinion could not be used for a poll for any subject on the face of the earth let alone the Presidency? I cannot believe that one of you far left wing nut jobs never realized that.

Flagpole and his repeated lies to get attention and 6-10 others just post over and over trying to convince each other that he'll be impeached soon and won't be running next year. You only post links that FIT YOUR AGENDA, all others are fake.

Have the Brothers get my IP. I post on this thread once a month at most although a year ago I posted more. Once your mentor Flagpole started denying things that he clearly posted, I realized you all are just bonkers.

Trump owns all of you. You're obsessed with anything you can find about him to post it in an effort to convince yourselves that you know what's going on. Fact is, you are all clueless.

Carry on Conundrum and this video reminds me of you and a few others on this thread. Catch you in mid December and dimes to dollars you'll be posting the same garbage (just look at your posts from a year ago, 2 years ago, etc...)

Get a life!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrnfbN2_yG0

You just asked me to "have the brothers get my ID...I post ...once a month"???

Really that's your idea? Wouldn't it be easier if you just used the same handle?

You seem worked up and a bit emotional in your post. Now you will deny this vehemently, but the effort you put into denying that any supporters would ever start to harbor any doubts, makes me think you might be worried.

And to say trump owns me is a very odd thing to say. It's very odd for your mind to think that way.

I will look for your reply a month from now.

(I would hate to have to ask the brothers to check your ID to see if you are posting more than one time per month)

Conundrum wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I never said that science equals consensus and I never said that consensus doesn't change.

I am merely pointing out that consensus is necessary in science. Without it, you have nothing to build upon.

I agree with you that, "Consensus is reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review."

In the case of climate change, consensus has been reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review taking place at least since 1896.

For climate change, the scientific consensus is that current global warming is caused primarily by man-made emission of greenhouse gasses. If we do not drastically cut emissions in the next ten years then we are sentencing our children and grandchildren to conditions that will be increasingly unlivable. There is even a statistically significant chance that mankind could be extinct by the end of this century.

The final answer:

You are both right about consensus and science, and your argument comes down to semantics.

Whether a scientific fact is correct or not, is irrelevant to consensus. If scientific consensus said the earth was flat, it doesn't make it flat.

However,the field and progress of science is very much dependent on consensus and the findings of earlier scientists. Scientists rely on the consensus of scientists and their learned findings to decide what is known and what research needs to be done. They don't go back and examine every experiment that's ever been done to determine what is true, they rely on scientific CONSENSUS.

A science book would never have been written without consensus of understanding of the science reviewed.

So although you are both right, in the context of the consensus of scientists believing in global warming, fathurts reflects the reality here. Unless you are a climatologist and personally examined every bit of information pertaining to climate change, you would be a fool to ignore the findings of the consensus of scientists.

Racket wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

All scientific discoveries build upon scientific consensus. That's the way science works.

Einstein could never have conceived his theories if there were no consensus on the properties of matter, light, natural processes, etc. In fact, Einstein did not actually throw away the scientific consensus on Newtonian physics. Rather, he was able to see Newton's work in a different way and improve our understanding of physical relationships and the nature of time.

And because of scientific consensus, we still study Newtonian physics and acknowledge that its principles still hold in most ordinary circumstances. Otherwise, our bridges would fall down.

For climate change, the scientific consensus is that current global warming is caused primarily by man-made emission of greenhouse gasses. If we do not drastically cut emissions in the next ten years then we are sentencing our children and grandchildren to conditions that will be increasingly unlivable. There is even a statistically significant chance that mankind could be extinct by the end of this century.

This is conflating so many different ideas that it's hard to know where to start and it's not very clear what your point is.

2+2 doesn't equal 4 because everyone at the Committee for Rules of Addition voted yea. Science does not equal consensus and the whole idea of "scientific consensus" is basically a buzzword used by people who want to promote an agenda (usually a political one). Furthermore, consensus for a lot of things change over time.

Consensus is reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review. You're basically putting the cart before the horse and appeal to consensus is (ironically) very anti-science.