CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Political Correctness is just a bunch of whiny lib-tards who want us to be nicer to fat chicks, retards, gimps and all those eternally oppressed minorities. Fuck'em
But what is worse is this Scientific Correctness bull-shit. Creationism is not Scientifically Correct. Blow me. Global Warning is a Fraud. Not Scientifically Correct. Blow me sideways. Take your Scientific Correctness go jump off the edge of this flat flat earth.
I see. So science should be above and beyond politics -- but somehow the global warming scientists (including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of over 2000 scientists from 100 countries working under a mandate from the United Nations in the largest peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history) have contaminated the data for political ends.
Sounds like the claims a noted science-fiction writer might make. Lets see how rigorous this writer of fiction did when writing about real science in his book "State of Fear".
"Although Crichton attempts to use real-world data and studies within the novel to highlight some of the realities and uncertainties in climate science, the novel contains a number of strawman arguments, misinterpretations of the scientific literature, and even a few misleading statements drawn from the so-called “skeptics.” Despite his research and the book’s many footnotes, Crichton has a less-than-commanding understanding of climate change science. The book is much more of a vehicle for his own opinions on the issue rather than an objective commentary on the state of the science and policy debate." (See the link for discussion of key questions raised by Crichton in State of Fear) http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm
First of all, the speech was not solely for climatology, but for any scientific study.
He was not only a science-fiction writer - he wrote non-fiction books and was a graduate of Harvard medical school.
Thirdly, the critics of State of Fear are the people he was trying to disprove. Doesn't it make sense that they would say that? He used somewhat obscure sources because they have all been shunned.
Don't you think that these scientists are remaining poor? If the governments tax the world on these things, they stand to become wealthy.
"Thirdly, the critics of State of Fear are the people he was trying to disprove. Doesn't it make sense that they would say that?"
It makes sense that scientists use science to advance knowledge. He misused science to advance his agenda. Of course it makes sense for scientists to then respond to his falsehoods with facts.
So now, your task is to prove his facts are correct or their facts are correct.
Their 'facts' are the ones widely publicized. If anybody goes against them, they say that it is all lies. They will disprove anybody who disagrees with them. Who says that they are telling the truth?
What makes you think that it was Michael Crichton who misused science, and not the so-called 'scientists?'
The results of scientific research are published in peer reviewed scientific journals -- subject to the critical examination of other scientists before being published and subject to the critical examination of other scientists after being published. Sometimes these journal articles get covered by the media -- sometimes well, sometimes badly.
You already fell victim to the "widely publicized" claim that scientists in the 1970's were widely predicting global cooling. They were not. A comprehensive review of the scientific papers on the subject of climate change during that period found only a handful of papers supporting the idea of global cooling. Global warming was the scientific consensus then, as it is now.
"If anybody goes against them, they say that it is all lies."
If anyone criticizes published scientific research, they need to present the facts proving their claims. These are, in turn, subject to critical examination by other scientists.
Taunting other scientists with claims of "Liar, liar, pants on fire" is not part of the scientific method.
"Who says they are telling the truth?"
The facts they present are the foundation for verifying the validity of their findings. If you can prove they are lying, or if their facts are wrong, then do so.
"What makes you think that it was Michael Crichton who misused science, and not the so-called 'scientists?'
His misuse of science leads me to the conclusion that he misused science. The articles I linked to give the details about Crichton's misuse of science.
But those articles are published by the people that Michael Crichton was putting down. Does it not seem logical to assume that they would say that he is a liar?
He said in a speech to the Senate that they have been known to make mistakes and to hide/manipulate data. You cannot believe everything you read, I realize this. But I am saying, what makes him any less reliable than these 'scientists'?
And stop mentioning the 'global cooling,' that was something my Uncle told me about years ago. I know nothing about it.
What makes you think that all of the 'peers' are not involved in some type of scandal? I do not consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but I am always open to the possibility.
"But those articles are published by the people that Michael Crichton was putting down. Does it not seem logical to assume that they would say that he is a liar?"
Michael Crichton was "putting down" people. And using bad science to do it. In turn, other scientists do not "say that he is a liar" but show how his science is flawed. And, seeing as the fact of human caused global warming is now the overwhelming consensus of the world's scientists, and seeing that Crichton's advocacy-based misuse of science was clearly evident, its not going to be hard to find a scientist to point out the flaws.
What's not logical is you not addressing the facts and instead engaging in sure conjecture (in other words, uninformed guess-work).
"what makes him any less reliable than these 'scientists'?"
Who said Crichton was unreliable? He used bad science. His facts are not verifiable. They are unreliable. His claims have insufficient support. They are unreliable. Science deals with the reliability of the data, not the personalities involved.
"And stop mentioning the 'global cooling..."
Not as long as we are discussing Crichton, who was one of the vectors of the myth that world scientists predicted global cooling. Again, another claim by Crichton not based on fact.
"What makes you think that all of the 'peers' are not involved in some type of scandal?"
Uncover the scandal then. Maybe you don't get the point. Science deals with facts. So, where are the facts to dispute human caused global warming? Where are the facts behind your conspiracy theory?
You don't have any. So basically, this conversation is over.
Who says that Michael Crichton's science was bad???
I don't recall him saying anything about global cooling.
Concensus does not mean truth. Billions of people do not believe in evolution, yet others do. Many people believe in Santa, that does not make him true. Many people believe in Global warming. Some say that it is true and some say that it is not.
Obviously, if the scientists are in any way gaining from global warming, they aren't going to tell people about it.
Who says that the data about global warming was true? Why is most of the northern hemisphere in a deep freeze? Why are Florida's oranges frozen?
Earlier I mention publicity of these scientists. Think about this: have you ever heard about scientists disproving global warming? Many have said it, but none are advertised.
"Who says that Michael Crichton's science was bad???"
On this issue, most every other scientist does. We are going over ground we have already covered.
"I don't recall him saying anything about global cooling."
The attack on global warming science was the central theme in his 2004 novel State of Fear. He claimed that it had “little basis in fact or science”, ironic, since his dismissal of global warming science had little basis in fact or science. For example, he claimed that the scientific consensus in the 1970s was that the world was in danger of entering a new ice age. It was not the scientific consensus in the 1970s, on the contrary, that humans were causing global warming was the closest to any scientific consensus to be had during that time.
"Concensus does not mean truth."
In regards to the material universe, consensus arrived at after a careful and through process of gathering data and confirming conclusions by peer review is the closest to "truth" we can get. Unlike the belief in creationism and Santa, the idea that human activities are causing global warming has quite a bit of science behind it.
That human activities are causing global warming is not what everyone believes to be true, it is what an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists have found to be true, as evidenced by carefully gathered and examined data.
"Obviously, if the scientists are in any way gaining from global warming, they aren't going to tell people about it."
Obviously you aren't going to provide any evidence of your claim that EVERY FRICKIN SCIENTIST WORKING ON THE QUESTION OF HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE PAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS HAS BEEN PART OF A VAST SHADOWY UNPROVABLE CONSPIRACY WITH THE AIM OF ENSLAVING US AND MAKING THEMSELVES FILTHY FILTHY RICH! You don't have to, right, because "it might be true" is good enough. Proof not required. Suspicion, not science shall rule us all!
"It's cold outside. What happened to global warming?"
The brutal cold snap that has put much of the Northern Hemisphere on ice this week doesn't disprove global warming or mean we're off the hook for greenhouse emissions.
"have you ever heard about scientists disproving global warming? Many have said it, but none are advertised."
Scientists don't make the findings of their methodical research known by taking out a Super Bowl ad. Their studies are published in peer-reviewed journals. If the research is done well, it gets published, and other scientists critically examine the study. Think about this: poor science is not rewarded by attention, other than the reasoned assessment of why its poor science.
But I'm sure none of this will convince you of anything. Obviously, your mind is controlled by a cabal of 5th dimension cosmic travel agents who want to make sure that we don't stop our world from warming, so they can turn the entire planet into one big nudist resort destination. I think they are building seaside hotels in the Alps already! See you at the beach.
It was hard for me to choose which side I should take. I agree that both are sheer lunacy. For Scientific Correctness, however, people still have a minor amount of freedom. But if people are politically incorrect, they will be chastised. I am expecting controversy, but I shall say it anyway.
The word Negro is Spanish, it means black.
The word Nigger is Latin, it means black.
The word Black is English, it means black.
Based on the above conslusions, would it not be more politically correct to refer to them in a different language. Would that not cause less offence?
I recently read about a one-garbage bag maximum. A few months ago they had a two-garbage bag maximum. The article went like this: "The people of the city of ----- have risen to the challenge to make this earth greener by limiting garbage intake to one bag per family.' I just kept thinking to myself, 'we have not chosen it, you lunatics are shoving it down our throats.'
During a family-debate, several relatives talked about how some agency in the US decided that, when plants are not forming oxygen they are forming carbon dioxide, and thus should be cut down. IT IS THE PLANTS THAT GIVE YOU OXYGEN YOU DAMNED IDIOTIC BASTARD!
A singer (can't remember her name) went on a tour of America, telling people to use a maximum of three squares of toilet paper each time that they go to the washroom!?!
Michael Crichton (of the Jurassic Park fame) wrote a book called 'State of Fear,' I haven't read it, but am planning on it soon. In the book, he used the sources of scientists who don't believe in global warming. The 'mainstream,' global warming-believing scientists said that they book was full of flawed science. Anti-global warming scientists said it was truth. Of course, people seem to believe the masses and have criticized him for a flawed book.
The idiots who came up with global warming are the same people who said that there would be an ice age back in the 90s. It doesn't feel that cold.
Now more on political correctism.
I posted some links on a debate about ASBOs. The British Anti-Social-Behaviour-Order is an attempt to make non-jailable offences (such as saying the word 'grass,' or being sarcastic, or spitting, or having loud sex) jailable. In theory, the offence is not jailable - but if they do it they are given an ASBO. The offence is breach of the ASBO, which carried a prison term of upto 5 years. It is our God-Given right to spit wherever we damn well please and have as loud of sex that we damn well please.
Some feminists made a controversy over the film Hannibal. Why? Because he eats a woman. It's all fine and dandy that he eats men, but women are a no-no.
Others say that 'woman' is politically incorrect because the word 'man' is in it. Rather, they spell it 'womyn.'
"If, through omission or commission, I have inadvertently displayed any sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other type of bias as yet unnamed, I apologize…''
("[…] the stories were sexist, discriminatory, unfair, culturally biased, and in general, demeaning to witches, animals, goblins, and fairies everywhere. […] We'd like to think that future generations of fairy tale fans will see this as a worthy attempt to develop meaningful literature that is totally free of bias and purged from the influences of the flawed cultural past."),
"The idiots who came up with global warming are the same people who said that there would be an ice age back in the 90s."
Incorrect. The only sources for the "ice age" prediction were stories by journalists from Newsweek and some newspaper (I'll do the research leter to provide the names). They cited the only scientic paper in all of that decade that predicted the ice age. It was not peer reviewed.
On the other hand, there were hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers about the evidence for global warming.
Sorry. One paper blown out of proportion by journalists does not make a scientific controversy. It is a problem created by people like yourself who fall victim to this myth made up by the media, fail to check the facts, and find it convenient to spread this phony story to support your political position. Sorry. you are now a victom of Scientific Correctness.
Well now, hold on a moment. I think we both misspoke. The Global Ice Age myth was current mid 1970s. As I'm appealing to fact-based arguments, let me provide some, now that I am able.
Perhaps the most-often cited proof of the supposed scientific consensus about a coming Ice Age was the1975 Newsweek article by Peter Gwynne. [1] Newsweek is not a scholarly journal – reporters working on deadline have been known to get things wrong from time to time. The best way to determine what scientists were worrying about at the time is to review the peer reviewed literature and see how many times the issue pops up.
-------------------------
"In the 1970s, all the scientists were saying an ice age was coming.” This seems to be a popular sentiment echoed in blogs and novels aimed at challenging the consensus views regarding future climate change. It was even a key theme in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear , when a character suggests that scientists only jumped on the global warming bandwagon in a bid to secure funding.
But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a 'global cooling ' consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming.
A favorite news article cited by climate skeptics is from Newsweek in April 1975: “The Cooling World [1].” And yet even this piece made abundantly clear that, as far as the scientific community was concerned, there was little certainty as to what was occurring. Here‘s an excerpt:
"'Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,' concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. 'Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.'"
The BAMS (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) piece examines the scientific origins of the myth, the popular media of the 1970s who got the story slightly wrong, the deniers/delayers who perpetuate the myth today, and, most importantly, what real scientists actually said in real peer-reviewed journals at the time. Their literature survey, the most comprehensive ever done on the subject, found:
The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.
-----------------------------
Between 1965 and 1979 the authors of the BAMS study found:
· 7 articles predicting cooling
· 44 predicting warming
· 20 that were neutral
In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.
Did you read my entire argument? The part about global cooling was only a vague reference. I have no knowledge of it. What did you think of the rest of the argument?
"It was hard for me to choose which side I should take. I agree that both are sheer lunacy."
OK, here we go. This is rather essential. Political Correctness is about a well-ordered society. One in which we are all nicey-nicey to each other. Like Mom always said, "If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all."
Some people feel contained by such namby-pamby, priggish and fraudulent behavior. They want to let it all out. They want to do their thing. They want to be self-indulgent and not have to consider the feelings of others. It's like a right-wing version of the hippies. Fucking Hippies. Hey, Glen Beck! Get your Groove On!
Scientific Correctness is about political decisions concerning, well, science, being based on sound research and verifiable fact. In other words, being smart and sensible instead of simply taking a passionate and partisan position. Unfortunately, the same folk who don't like to have to be Politically Correct object to being Scientifically Correct as well. In other words, to be politically incorrect about it, they are idiots.
Like that point you made about global cooling. Never happened. Scientists did not claim it was going to. A stupid science-fiction author had a fictional environmental scientist make that claim. What part of "fiction" don't you understand? I think I've made that point. The significance of it is this. Facts don't matter. In fact, don't bother me with facts. I've already made my mind up! That seems to be the position of the uninformed folks who want to make political decisions based on information that is not Scientifically Correct.
I mean, why would the folks who deny the fact of evolution be agreeable about the facts of human-caused climate change? That will never happen, not anywhere on this flat flat earth.