Could it get any worse for liberals.... lol

[Thin Lizzy]

I think you may need some stats in your life, variance is accounted for, when you receive a value within an alpha range of .01/.05 you are near certain that it's not due to chance, the chances would be 1-5%, keep repeating and you can confirm your finding, this is how medicine works. You will never have exact causation, correlations are all causation is, just a very strong type.

This is my argument against using Variance, as well, as it begs the question: Variance to what?

A fair coin will have a 50% chance of coming up heads today, tomorrow or a 100 years from now.

You can't say that about an ever changing Universe.

[Coach is Back!]

not sure what u mean, im excited about a trump presidency as long as he doesnt go all "christian" on issues

It means, like the predictions of Clinton winning the election by 98%, like "Global warming" Climate change or whatever the left is calling it these days....it's total BS. As for the "Christian issues"? It was the lack of Christian belief and morals by the left that lead this country into a complete downfall since day one, eight years ago. War on Christianity, war on cops, war on whites and a complete divide of this entire country was based on a TOTALLY false narrative spewed by the entire political left with Obama leading the way that most fell for. That's not rhetoric, that's a fact.

[Thong Maniac]

It means, like the predictions of Clinton winning the election by 98%, like "Global warming" Climate change or whatever the left is calling it these days....it's total BS. As for the "Christian issues"? It was the lack of Christian belief and morals by the left that lead this country into a complete downfall since day one, eight years ago. War on Christianity, war on cops, war on whites and a complete divide of this entire country was based on a TOTALLY false narrative spewed by the entire political left with Obama leading the way that most fell for. That's not rhetoric, that's a fact.

generalize much?

so some entertainment " news" outlets on one side say clinton is gonna win, means mainstream scientists and research organizations are researching fake issues? hmmm right. brilliant

[Primemuscle]

Do you even realize how moronic and brainwashed you sound?

'cept when you are as old as I am and remember when it actually snowed in the winter for more than a day and in Portland, air conditioning was a rare an mostly unneeded luxury.

[Viking11]

Science isn't a political subject. I can't understand how scientific studies are impugned because the results somehow bother people. The Big Bang, evolution (not evolutionary theory, since none of its critics seem to understand it), climate change, even the age of the earth are all widely accepted theories, with more actual understanding among scientists. For some reason, some have issues with these findings, without having doen any actual peer reviewed studies to refute any of them. If they had, it would mean a Nobel Prize. (Note, I'm not a liberal, more an Independent centrist with conservtive economic views and more open social  views.)

[Coach is Back!]

Science isn't a political subject. I can't understand how scientific studies are impugned because the results somehow bother people. The Big Bang, evolution (not evolutionary theory, since none of its critics seem to understand it), climate change, even the age of the earth are all widely accepted theories, with more actual understanding among scientists. For some reason, some have issues with these findings, without having doen any actual peer reviewed studies to refute any of them. If they had, it would mean a Nobel Prize. (Note, I'm not a liberal, more an Independent centrist with conservtive economic views and more open social  views.)

Because the sciences are not just one sided. There is science to back both sides of all of the arguments you described above. I guaranty if someone posting about, lets say apologetics there would be more name calling from the other side rather than an actual discussion. It always happens so why bother? 

[Necrosis]

This is my argument against using Variance, as well, as it begs the question: Variance to what?

A fair coin will have a 50% chance of coming up heads today, tomorrow or a 100 years from now.

You can't say that about an ever changing Universe.

Variance to the standard you are working from, all things are levels of certainty, some accept it before others. For example, you state the universe is changing, in what manner? the laws that govern them do not, how variable is that, not very much? I don't need to recalculate the strong and weak nuclear forces in the same way I don't need to know every variable or data point in the earth's history, it's moot.

We collect date, make predictions and re test, if our predictions are 99% accurate I would agree with them, that's the alpha level. Said another way, the chances of receiving the value we did (that co2 is causing the warming) happens 1 out of 100 times.

We know the sun's output, we know it's relative mass, what it produces, it cycles, would the cycles be different in the past? perhaps, but we know the variables that make up the sun, we can predict output that is.

In this scenario we know the sun's output pretty accurately, we know the effect of wobble, orbit, ocean currents, jet stream etc.. we have fairly accurate data, I mean we can shoot laser beams from pin point to pin point km's away, drive vehicles on mars and make extraordinary calculations and predictions, to picoseconds even.

I don't need to meet every human to know we can't fly, there are laws governing this shit, it's repeatable and testable this isn't ancient greece.

I feel people who talk about this from a denial standpoint (no offense intended) haven't gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics were people are at the forefront of actual knowledge, making computers, rockets that self land, the precision required and dedication to reach those levels (as those in climate science have done) is astounding. It's not social studies, it's hard science.

[Necrosis]

Because the sciences are not just one sided. There is science to back both sides of all of the arguments you described above. I guaranty if someone posting about, lets say apologetics there would be more name calling from the other side rather than an actual discussion. It always happens so why bother? 

That's the thing you are missing, it is one sided there is but one truth. As if the name calling is unwarranted, creationism was thrown out of court, things like irreducibly complex are non-science, it's not the truth it's some bastardization.

Science is how you know which exercises and muscles to train, you are conflating social sciences with naturalistic sciences. Seriously Joe it's the case. What you are saying is like saying water is not made up of 1 hydrogen atom and 2 oxygen, it's one sided, if you had evidence to the contrary or if anyone ever has it would predict things better.

[AbrahamG]

Because the sciences are not just one sided. There is science to back both sides of all of the arguments you described above. I guaranty if someone posting about, lets say apologetics there would be more name calling from the other side rather than an actual discussion. It always happens so why bother? 

No.  There absolutely is not. 

[markofan]

"I feel people who talk about this from a denial standpoint (no offense intended) haven't gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics were people are at the forefront of actual knowledge, making computers, rockets that self land, the precision required and dedication to reach those levels (as those in climate science have done) is astounding. It's not social studies, it's hard science."

Yes,  I suppose the 10 PhD scientists listed here (along with the 1,000+ dissenting scientists who signed the Climate Depot report and the 31,000+ who signed the OISM Global Warming Petition) have not gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics, etc.

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Jizmonkey]

"I feel people who talk about this from a denial standpoint (no offense intended) haven't gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics were people are at the forefront of actual knowledge, making computers, rockets that self land, the precision required and dedication to reach those levels (as those in climate science have done) is astounding. It's not social studies, it's hard science."

Yes,  I suppose the 10 PhD scientists listed here (along with the 1,000+ dissenting scientists who signed the Climate Depot report and the 31,000+ who signed the OISM Global Warming Petition) have not gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics, etc.

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I agree for the most part. It's like the deniers don't even do any real research. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and some people are more likely to believe a you tube video with eerie music playing in the background, than actual facts from real scientists. It's not even worth arguing with some of these people, all they tend to say is that you are wrong, but never actually present facts or real arguments. Right el_torro?

[Viking11]

Because the sciences are not just one sided. There is science to back both sides of all of the arguments you described above. I guaranty if someone posting about, lets say apologetics there would be more name calling from the other side rather than an actual discussion. It always happens so why bother? 

Missed the point completely. Science isn't a field that exists to back up human political position, but a systematic attempt to understand the universe and all within it. We may only know a small fraction of the truth, but we are always learning. We may not always like the answers, but too  bad, that's how it goes.