[Kamasatti]

ChotooMotoo, on 24 March 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

For me, claims that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that fossil fuel consumption etc. Don't cause or contribute significantly to global warming fit that definition.

In fact the refutation of such claims is not a claim in itself, only the denial of them. Continuing to try and refute claims is part of the scientific process of such claims, is it not? However, the hostility of anthropogenic global warming advocates to such efforts, gives off the impression that the anthropogenic global warming theory is pseudo-scientific.

EirinnMoChroi, on 24 March 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

^
and might I remind you that Chotoo has a PhD in Chemistry. When it comes to gas, she knows what she's talking about...

Commendable, but ultimately besides the point.

[ChotooMotoo]

I don't think, Kamsatti, that you have a full understanding of the scholarship behind global warming and the 30 years and scientific research into the topic if you're so eager to dismiss it as pseudosscience. I actually find that offensive. That's on the order of a Christian coming in here and telling Muslims that we worship a moon god. You are free to think what you like for yourself, but saying its pseudoscience just bexause you don't agree with it is really offensive to me. Someone not believing that cingarettes increasing the risk for or causing lung cancer doesn't make the evidence showing such pseudoscience. Be careful with your accusations.

[displaced]

EirinnMoChroi, on 24 March 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

I literally agree with 100% of everything you said...even though I wear hijab. lol. But I have aj seriously love/hate (mostly hate) relationship with the hijab. I absolutely agree with the statement that hijab (and many other things like "making sure women don't talk loud or wear shoes that make sounds when they walk, or wear bright colors, or makeup, etc.etc.) puts the entire responsibility on women. I believe men need to learn to control themselves instead of expecting me to cover up entirely, wear quiet shoes, dim colors, and keep my voice down.

I also take it REALLY badly when men tell me what to wear. They can't even fathom the burden that I have with the hijab. Males who preach to me how I should dress, I want to sit and nitpick every little thing about their outfits too. They just act like it's their Islamic duty to do it to me.

I also 100% believe what you said about abortion and hadith/quran. I once saw a website where a Muslim man said something along the lines of "Islam is 20% Allah and 80% Mohammad" and I was like ummmm......astaghfurillah. Islam is 100% Allah. People like that tend to treat Mohammad as God in the flesh and it drives me insane.

this..is no different than the way christians view jesus.

i hate the way men talk about what women should wear, how women should speak, how a man can marry 4 times, how a man can hit his wife. really? you read the quran, looked around at our societal issues and this is the highest priority topic you found?

[EirinnMoChroi]

displaced, on 25 March 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

this..is no different than the way christians view jesus.

i hate the way men talk about what women should wear, how women should speak, how a man can marry 4 times, how a man can hit his wife. really? you read the quran, looked around at our societal issues and this is the highest priority topic you found?

thats exactly how I feel. #1, I dispise polygamy (I believe it had a place 1400 years ago but it has no place in 2012 and shouldnt be practiced anymore unless it NEEDS to be), and #2, there are bigger issues in this world than the fashion of women. I wish Muslims were more concerned about human trafficking, drug wars, missing children, animal abuse, environmentalism, etc. etc. Instead, they are too busy carrying on about these small thigns that are only specific to the Muslim community. Theres a bigger world out there and there are bigger problems than a woman wearing shorts.

[Kamasatti]

ChotooMotoo, on 25 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

I don't think, Kamsatti, that you have a full understanding of the scholarship behind global warming and the 30 years and scientific research into the topic if you're so eager to dismiss it as pseudosscience. I actually find that offensive. That's on the order of a Christian coming in here and telling Muslims that we worship a moon god. You are free to think what you like for yourself, but saying its pseudoscience just bexause you don't agree with it is really offensive to me. Someone not believing that cingarettes increasing the risk for or causing lung cancer doesn't make the evidence showing such pseudoscience. Be careful with your accusations.

30 years of scientific research is not a substitute for cross-examination, and the appeal to authority is not a legitimate scientific argument against those who challenge the theory. Furthermore, those who actually treat it as pseudoscience are, ironically enough, those who advocate it, as they take a very non-scientific approach to it.

[ChotooMotoo]

Kamsatti, the evidence has been examined and cross examined over and over. I'm not telling you to agree or disagree. I'm simply asking you to please not dismiss that with which you don't agree as pseudoscience for the sole reason that you don't agree with the conclusions, which is what you are doing. You are saying that since the majority of people look at the body of evidence and don't draw your conclusions, that they must be dishonest unscientific knumbskulls inent on conspiracy and deception, and that couldn't be further from the truth. The look at the body of evidence and come to their conclusions because that's where their data and models lead them. There is no conspiracy. They spend their lives working on this, they don't need your insults, they get enough from the rabid right wing which would have us all be uneducated wage-slaves. Disagreement is a healthy part of science too, go back and read about Hoyle and steady state theory. Majority of scientists came to accept the Big Bang based on the evidence fitting the models and the theories, but there will always be dissent. That doesn't make mean that the people who disagree with your view are practicing pseudoscience.

[heba]

with everything thats going on in this world today with muslims, i am sometimes embarrassed to tell people im muslim.

i know it is not my fault or islams fault that there are psychos terrorizing every part of the world in the name of islam, and i know its not my fault that people are ignorant and stereotype all muslims...but i really cant help that i hate to tell people im muslim

[Wolfn]

There are some people who don't deserve to live.

[EirinnMoChroi]

What I want is an Islam that is more active in the youth community and more fun. One of the things that was so awesome about being a Christian and going to church was that most churches have youth groups where there are games, singing songs about God, having fun, learning, and building friendships. I feel like the mosques in the communities that I've lived in don't do any of that stuff. They do the basic Jummah prayer, Arabic classes, and sunday school for little kids. They don't go above and beyond and hold get-togethers for adults, halaqas (the MSA has one but it's boring), community-building activities, etc. There's a very tiny sense of community with the Muslims where I live. There's plenty of us in Madison to make a difference but nobody seems to think it's very important. For converts, it's extremely important. Islam is hard enough for converts in America, and then add on the extra difficulty of wondering which culture you are meant to identify with (American/European (if they are white), or Middle Eastern/Subcontinent Islam). We don't just learn another religion, we learn an entire culture and then have the added burden of sifting through what is religious and what is cultural. There are almost NO resources for converts to use to do this and no community building activities sponsored by mosques to bring coverts and the Muslim community closer. We all just sort of float around and attend Jummah together.

And I don't know why Muslims feel like introducing themselves to noobies is hard, but I NEVER have had a Muslim woman approach me and introduce herself if she didnt know me and I was sitting alone in the masjid (actually no. I had it happen ONCE and it was a kind Shia lady when I was visiting the Shia mosque. The Shias were so much nicer than any of the other mosques I've ever attended AND I've even been invited to keep in contact with most of them.) It makes a whole world of difference, if you are new, to have someone come up and say hello and help you understand where you are and introduces you to other people. That's called courtesy and nobody seems to think it should happen. Ive literally had older women walk into the masjid, say "salaam" to everyone down the row, skip me, and keep going. It's beyond rude and makes people feel like they don't belong. And guess what? It makes people not want to go back to that mosque.

So lesson for those who do that: don't.

[Kamasatti]

ChotooMotoo, on 25 March 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

Kamsatti, the evidence has been examined and cross examined over and over. I'm not telling you to agree or disagree. I'm simply asking you to please not dismiss that with which you don't agree as pseudoscience for the sole reason that you don't agree with the conclusions, which is what you are doing. You are saying that since the majority of people look at the body of evidence and don't draw your conclusions, that they must be dishonest unscientific knumbskulls inent on conspiracy and deception, and that couldn't be further from the truth. The look at the body of evidence and come to their conclusions because that's where their data and models lead them. There is no conspiracy. They spend their lives working on this, they don't need your insults, they get enough from the rabid right wing which would have us all be uneducated wage-slaves. Disagreement is a healthy part of science too, go back and read about Hoyle and steady state theory. Majority of scientists came to accept the Big Bang based on the evidence fitting the models and the theories, but there will always be dissent. That doesn't make mean that the people who disagree with your view are practicing pseudoscience.

I am not calling it pseudoscience because I don't agree with its conclusions, I'm calling it pseudoscience because of how it presents itself. I don't agree with the conclusions because as far as I can see, the facts don't support those conclusions. Furthermore, the politicization of anything, by definition, requires a conspiracy, and global warming politics offers nothing but more taxes, more unnecessary regulation, higher prices and a loss of national sovereignty as a "solution" to its alleged "problem".

[EirinnMoChroi]

Kamasatti, on 26 March 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

I am not calling it pseudoscience because I don't agree with its conclusions, I'm calling it pseudoscience because of how it presents itself. I don't agree with the conclusions because as far as I can see, the facts don't support those conclusions. Furthermore, the politicization of anything, by definition, requires a conspiracy, and global warming politics offers nothing but more taxes, more unnecessary regulation, higher prices and a loss of national sovereignty as a "solution" to its alleged "problem".

This is getting ridiculous. Nobody here agrees with your "scientific" views so why are you wasting your time arguing for a point that ONLY you agree with? Me and Chotoo are the only ones even talking to you about this stuff and neither of us will ever agree with you. Can't this just rest?

I still can't believe you are arguing with a doctor of Chemistry about the properties of gases. Apparently you know more than she does.

[ChotooMotoo]

Kamasatti, on 26 March 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

I am not calling it pseudoscience because I don't agree with its conclusions, I'm calling it pseudoscience because of how it presents itself. I don't agree with the conclusions because as far as I can see, the facts don't support those conclusions. Furthermore, the politicization of anything, by definition, requires a conspiracy, and global warming politics offers nothing but more taxes, more unnecessary regulation, higher prices and a loss of national sovereignty as a "solution" to its alleged "problem".

I really feel you're mixing things several issues here. Politicians have politicized the issue, the actual facts and data have been around for 30+ years. It's only become politicized in the last 10 years. The Environmental Movement started in the 70's, and not by politicians or by a political party, but by average people. If you don't agree with the data as presented, that's your right. Taxes go up because politicians want to increase taxes, not because they must increase for some intrinsic reason.

The facts not supporting the conclusions, in your opinion, does not make it a pseudoscience. Since you do not agree with it, would there be any possible way for for the negative point of view to present itself as valid, but false to you? In science, the scientific method, it is always possible to have a scientifically valid set of data with an incorrect conclusion. By calling it pseudoscience you're saying that the data and methodology is made up hocus pocus that someone pulled out of their nose, which I find offensive in this context as I have looked at that data and have looked at the methodology. Again, that's on the same order as a Christian coming in here and telling Muslims that we worship a moon god. It's blatantly false and offensive. Pseudoscience is the ancient alien people. Even the people who don't believe in global warming don't call it pseudoscience. Those links you posted, they don't call it pseudoscience. The scientists who disagree with the conclusions of other scientists, they disagree with the conclusions. They don't disagree with the methodology, they don't call it pseudoscience. They are still disagreeing within the established framework of peer reviewed researched etc. They may even say that some of the data is flawed, they may say "Well, you did a very careful job with your data collection, but did you consider XYZ when you considered..." because that is how the process works. It's a very lively debate that happens in scientific circles on these topics, very lively. If you have not been to a conference about these topics, about just something as simple as water (which you think is simple but it is not, boy it is not) you would never know how cuthroat people can be about something as simple as nucleation of clouds. For scientists to come to a consensus on ANYTHING means quite a lot. These are people who are in love with their own theories, with their own ideas. To come to a consensus means giving up your own idea, and scientists do not like to do that, ever. There's also a concept in science that theories are never proven absolutely, but all it takes is one good experiment to disprove any theory. Evidence can build and build in support of one model, one theory, but all it takes is one experiment to disprove anything. Once something is disproved absolutely it doesn't resurrect, as with steady state theory, or the "ether" of the 1800's.

If you Kamsaati would like to develop and present an alternate model and present alternate data to support your model, you may do so, but pseudoscience is a very offensive term. I'm telling you. I don't want you to go to a scientific conference someday, have you raise your hand to speak, you say "you're all practicing pseudoscience" and have someone throw a book at you. That would be bad.

[Kamasatti]

ChotooMotoo, on 26 March 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

I really feel you're mixing things several issues here. Politicians have politicized the issue, the actual facts and data have been around for 30+ years. It's only become politicized in the last 10 years. The Environmental Movement started in the 70's, and not by politicians or by a political party, but by average people. If you don't agree with the data as presented, that's your right. Taxes go up because politicians want to increase taxes, not because they must increase for some intrinsic reason.

It is the politicization of it over the last 10 years that is the problem, and the reason why I called it "pseudoscience". With the politicization of the theory, it all of a sudden goes from a healthy scientific theory under constant research, to an engineered political movement with ulterior motives. And so, no longer is it a working theory among some scientists, but instead it's now an indisputable fact that is, all of a sudden, beyond question.

Quote

The facts not supporting the conclusions, in your opinion, does not make it a pseudoscience. Since you do not agree with it, would there be any possible way for for the negative point of view to present itself as valid, but false to you? In science, the scientific method, it is always possible to have a scientifically valid set of data with an incorrect conclusion. By calling it pseudoscience you're saying that the data and methodology is made up hocus pocus that someone pulled out of their nose, which I find offensive in this context as I have looked at that data and have looked at the methodology. Again, that's on the same order as a Christian coming in here and telling Muslims that we worship a moon god. It's blatantly false and offensive. Pseudoscience is the ancient alien people. Even the people who don't believe in global warming don't call it pseudoscience. Those links you posted, they don't call it pseudoscience. The scientists who disagree with the conclusions of other scientists, they disagree with the conclusions. They don't disagree with the methodology, they don't call it pseudoscience. They are still disagreeing within the established framework of peer reviewed researched etc. They may even say that some of the data is flawed, they may say "Well, you did a very careful job with your data collection, but did you consider XYZ when you considered..." because that is how the process works. It's a very lively debate that happens in scientific circles on these topics, very lively. If you have not been to a conference about these topics, about just something as simple as water (which you think is simple but it is not, boy it is not) you would never know how cuthroat people can be about something as simple as nucleation of clouds. For scientists to come to a consensus on ANYTHING means quite a lot. These are people who are in love with their own theories, with their own ideas. To come to a consensus means giving up your own idea, and scientists do not like to do that, ever. There's also a concept in science that theories are never proven absolutely, but all it takes is one good experiment to disprove any theory. Evidence can build and build in support of one model, one theory, but all it takes is one experiment to disprove anything. Once something is disproved absolutely it doesn't resurrect, as with steady state theory, or the "ether" of the 1800's.

I am not calling the 30 years of research pseudoscience, and neither the data gathered nor the methodology used am I calling pseudoscientific. I'm calling the hardline approach of its advocates as well as how they present it, as "pseudoscience", because it is not scientific. That there is a consensus on such an issue only makes me doubt it even more. That is what makes it "pseudoscience", not whether I agree with its conclusions or not.

Quote

If you Kamsaati would like to develop and present an alternate model and present alternate data to support your model, you may do so, but pseudoscience is a very offensive term. I'm telling you. I don't want you to go to a scientific conference someday, have you raise your hand to speak, you say "you're all practicing pseudoscience" and have someone throw a book at you. That would be bad.

Do not worry, as I have no plans to attend any scientific conference. As far as alternative models go, others have already made them, and while they have issues just like the anthropogenic global warming model does, I find them more convincing than the anthropogenic global warming theory.

[EirinnMoChroi]

Kamasatti, on 25 March 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

Commendable, but ultimately besides the point.

How is that besides the point? You are arguing with a doctor of Chemistry about gases...something that she specialized in and is considered a credible source in the field. You think you know more than she does?

[ChotooMotoo]

Why does consensus make you skeptical? There is consensus on evolution. There is consensus on the Big Bang. There is consensus on gravity. There is consensus that smoking cigarettes significantly increases your risk for developing lung cancer. The consensus about global warming is that it's real, either caused by or exacerbated by the human consumption of fossil fuels, and is only going to get worse. There are other details for which there is no consensus. Amount of sea level rise, for instance, as a result of global warming does not have a consensus, that's still being debated. There are high and low predictions. How much of the current warming is human caused, how much of it is due to the last 100 years vs. the last 200 years, how much of the current trends will exacerbate existing natural trends (trapped frozen methane could be released, methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2) meaning, where is the tipping point for uncontrollably greenhouse effect? Where is it and how much do current activities contribute towards reaching that point? At current consumption levels based on the models are we 50 years away, 100 years away? What does the future hold?

Don't let the word "consensus" lure you into a false sense of security Kamsatti. There is still a LOT to be debated on the subject of global warming, even for those who believe the most extreme models. There are still many to discover, models to tweak, lots of lively debate to have, lots of "consensus" still to form. In a very real way the consensus on global warming is actually very narrow, which should I think make you feel a little better about it.

I don't like the politicization of it either, I think climate issues should be decided on the facts (I happen to be in the other camp from you so I support things like the Kyoto accords and green energy exploration rather than pushing an exclusively carbon based energy economy) and that politicians wouldn't try to play scientist to their constituents. I also don't like it when politicians try to play doctor and politicize health issues. Politicians should to politicking. THey should do things like take the advice of experts and decide things like taxes and foreign policy and stuff. They should let actual scientists and doctors regulate science and medicine.

[Kamasatti]

EirinnMoChroi, on 27 March 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

How is that besides the point? You are arguing with a doctor of Chemistry about gases...something that she specialized in and is considered a credible source in the field. You think you know more than she does?

No, I think the subject of chemistry is largely irrelevant to the discussion.

ChotooMotoo, on 27 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Why does consensus make you skeptical? There is consensus on evolution. There is consensus on the Big Bang. There is consensus on gravity. There is consensus that smoking cigarettes significantly increases your risk for developing lung cancer. The consensus about global warming is that it's real, either caused by or exacerbated by the human consumption of fossil fuels, and is only going to get worse. There are other details for which there is no consensus. Amount of sea level rise, for instance, as a result of global warming does not have a consensus, that's still being debated. There are high and low predictions. How much of the current warming is human caused, how much of it is due to the last 100 years vs. the last 200 years, how much of the current trends will exacerbate existing natural trends (trapped frozen methane could be released, methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2) meaning, where is the tipping point for uncontrollably greenhouse effect? Where is it and how much do current activities contribute towards reaching that point? At current consumption levels based on the models are we 50 years away, 100 years away? What does the future hold?

I'm skeptical of scientific consensus in general, because in a way, it seems to put the issue beyond reproach, which seems unscientific. However, the consensus on global warming seems to have appeared only after it was politicized, so I am even more skeptical of those claims in particular and needless to say, the recent "Climategate" scandal didn't help. Before the politicization of global warming in the early 2000s there was no consensus and I was actually more receptive to it then as well. However, the climate data correlates better with other trends than it does with the greenhouse gas levels of anthropogenic CO2.

Quote

Don't let the word "consensus" lure you into a false sense of security Kamsatti. There is still a LOT to be debated on the subject of global warming, even for those who believe the most extreme models. There are still many to discover, models to tweak, lots of lively debate to have, lots of "consensus" still to form. In a very real way the consensus on global warming is actually very narrow, which should I think make you feel a little better about it.

My skepticism of "consensus" does not mean that I view the assertions in it as unscientific. I'm just not keen on agreeing with them just because there is a consensus. In this case, even though it is narrow, and there is a lot that isn't agreed on, I still disagree with the basic assumption that humans have significantly contributed to climate change.

Quote

I don't like the politicization of it either, I think climate issues should be decided on the facts (I happen to be in the other camp from you so I support things like the Kyoto accords and green energy exploration rather than pushing an exclusively carbon based energy economy) and that politicians wouldn't try to play scientist to their constituents. I also don't like it when politicians try to play doctor and politicize health issues. Politicians should to politicking. THey should do things like take the advice of experts and decide things like taxes and foreign policy and stuff. They should let actual scientists and doctors regulate science and medicine.

Then we are more or less agreed on that issue. However, I have nothing against green energy exploration. If industrial civilization can run on an energy source that is cheaper, cleaner, more convenient and more abundant, then why not? However, that really should be left up to the individual countries to decide for themselves what works best for them.

[Wolfn]

I'm a firm believer that 9/11 was NOT a government conspiracy and that Truthers are insulting to the victims families.

[Ninjabi17]

I can't find "thoughts of the day"

so here is it, I'm no longer part of the girls forum.. or i am.. i have no idea, it's been some times since i've been here ( a couple of months?) and I can longer find the girls forumbit to post in

alas.

Just because I wear hijab does not mean I'm a terrorist! get your face out of the MEDIA and READ elsewhere for all the facts! losers without minds and just bent on thinking anyone with a hijab is a terrorist is a fool.

end of.

[Kamasatti]

Wolfn, on 28 September 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

I'm a firm believer that 9/11 was NOT a government conspiracy and that Truthers are insulting to the victims families.

My views are the exact opposite.

[Wolfn]

Kamasatti, on 10 October 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

My views are the exact opposite.

Do you really believe a missile was shot into the Pentagon? Or the towers were brought down with a controlled demolition?