Obama/Obozo is nothing compared to THIS worry!!
The dangerous supervolcano that once destroyed much of what’s now the USA is much bigger than vulcanologists previously thought.
...All experts agree that if another massive eruption occurs the concussion, lava, superheated gas and ash fall would effectively destroy almost half of the US and be the greatest single catastrophe in recorded world history. --POWIP quoting some prestigious science journal.
Meaning that Obozo would be only #2 or #3.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Since when do YOU consider findings of scientific journal as FACT.
Only when it fits his perverted world view.
And Spicey-Person considers what as scientific fact? (Alleged) AGW? Maybe "Big Bang"? Oh, wait....Collective Bargaining "Rights". Bet that's it.
Deek, you seem to want it both ways. What does "scientific fact" mean to you?
Scientifically, anony 8:08 a.m., you are mentally ill. I wonder who else is for continuing to give this "person" a forum...
Scientific "fact" is exactly that: "fact". For example:
Fact: The sun rises in the East.
Fact: If you drop an item just above the surface of the Earth, it will fall toward the center of the Earth.
Fact: No human has survived the Life experience.
Fact: Water ice forms at 32 degrees F at sea level on Earth.
As opposed to "theory" of which are all of the items in my earlier comment.
So you think "theories" can't be true?
No. Theories are not "facts". I'm sure that "learnin'" remains in your hippocampus someplace.
Stick to your original point. But then, it's indefensible, so maybe you should change it. Like all good Lefties. Indefensible points, so change the tune. Oh...and call the other side "stupid". Don't forget that one.
I'm just trying to understand how you think science works. How do you get from an assemblage of scientific facts, and what role does "theory" play in the advancement of knowledge?
I'm not calling you stupid and I'm not changing the subject. How do you get from a scientific, reproducible fact like "items fall toward the center of the Earth" to a theory of gravity? How many observations lead you to conclude that something is "true", and what "theory" gets you there?
One makes an observation. The observation is a "fact". The theory comes from the "why?" One can hypothesize and develop a theory of why, but the why has to be true for all cases. If true for all cases, it becomes fact. If not, the theory is false. If not all cases can be tested, it remains theory.
So this "Big Bang" you speak of... it isn't a fact, because you don't think there is a preponderance of evidence? Global warming, not enough measurements? No evidence linking it to human action?
Who claims "Big Bang" is fact? No one was there when it happened (if it did), so it is not observable, has not been recreated in a lab and can therefore not be a fact.
Evidence does not make fact. Evidence gives credence to theory. There is substantial evidence that AGW is not only "theory", but a really bad one biased by government money and political gain. Enough questions can (and have been) raised regarding methodology, bad data and natural variability to bring a large measure of doubt to the theory in the mind of any real scientist. Scientists SHOULD be skeptical. If "everyone" is in agreement, there is something wrong. "Everyone" thought the Sun moved about the Earth...until the likes of Copernicus and Galileo. It was "settled science". How dare they question it.
A big bang led to me infecting Caleb Foust with HIV.
Mental illness personified by anony 6:15 p.m.
I'd like to thank Dad29 for zapping many of the uncivil comments here. However, he's missed one above.
My comment is not uncivil, it's fact. Only a person who has no sense of honor, integrity, and morality (anony 6:15 p.m.) would make those comments. If he/she finds humor in repeatedly making those statements, then they are unstable and imbalanced and a danger to our community.
Post a Comment