Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Science may of course survive hover how it is used is another moral  matter.

Maybe there's no bad science, but there are bad scientists?
And please let us tell between science and application, right?

Malthusianism and Social Darwinism, leading back to eugenics…is what I expect. Nothing you've said leads me to think you'd be against such.
Does the Population Bomb still scare you? Do you watch the seconds tick, on the Doomsday Clock? Is the Climate Catastrophe something that gives you the willies?

Science is not "at risk". It will survive the puerile idolatry of your like.

The global warming doomsday scenarios for the past 30 years have simply not come true.  Despite this fact, we can expect similar predictions from alarmists, such as yourself, to continue even though the present outlook is not nearly as bad as once expected.

Put another way: We do not have a hiatus; we have data. Preferring such models to the data is a symptom of — religious devotion…rather then scientific purity.

Why is your 'scientific purity' and expertise(?) in this matter better than that of the best scientific minds from around the globe who have been studying this for decades?  And just how did you get to be such an expert on analyzing data and predicting climate change?  Where did you study and what is your total number of years of experience as a professional in this field?  Apparently, you think that the expert teams on this panel are all just being pigheaded (why?), when perhaps it's just the other way around--ever consider that?

Lots of scientific theories and models fail, but much is learned from failure--wouldn't you agree?

Oakdale; you love to ruminate about irrational, or at least unlikely, worst-case outcomes.  Do you ever even consider best-case possibilities or are those just too dull and unexciting for you?  The sky is not falling my friend, much as you would like to say it is.

TEN years ago, computers stopped getting faster. Stroking your sleek smartphone or latest laptop, this may seem a rather implausible statement. Surely there's no contest between it and a decade-old desktop?

That's true – in a way. But even if computer chips weren't made of silicon, the comparison would be built on sand. Continually increasing computing power used to rest on a solid foundation of ever smaller, faster chips. In the past decade, though, it has become a case of using more chips, less efficiently. Chip speed stalled sometime around 2004.

TEN years ago, computers stopped getting faster. Stroking your sleek smartphone or latest laptop, this may seem a rather implausible statement. Surely there's no contest between it and a decade-old desktop?

€100 says my 2006 former desktop still blows the vast majority of stupid phones out of the water. A recent laptop should be faster, but not by terribly much unless it's a high-end model.

I can think of more than a few people who could benefit from this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-transplant-could-happen-in-two-years.html#.VO72ilPF84Q

In other words: "If you're not a priest, what allows you to interpret scripture?" 

Wrong-headed theories have to be dynamited from their porticoes… If the pillars cannot stand on their own, they cannot support the awning…

I don't know, James, what you really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) .

Although a consensus may arise surrounding any specific scientific hypothesis or theory, the existence of a consensus is not itself the evidence.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-02-26, 08:22:54

I don't know, James, what you really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) .

Is this what you are talking about?  

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

My original interest in NASA's climatology efforts stemmed from their (reported) bizarre use of computer models… (Philosophy of Science, remember?) Between Hansen and Oreskes, it seemed that the models were to be excused from making predictions… Instead, they prompted "scenarios".
To my mind, that's akin to pitching a movie. That's not science, is it?

Is this a product of science or religion?