More Believe In Space Aliens Than In God According To U.K. Survey

[Zevico]

You're the one playing semantics. There is no need for a definition.

You posit a distinction between facts and "truths supported by measurable evidence." You state that the former consists of the application of the scientific method to a hypothesis (traditional method) whereas the latter consists of what reasonable people assume to be to true. As I already pointed out, what reasonable people assume to be true is often very, very wrong. It is not a scientific statement of fact.

And moreover, this particular hypothesis, or some versions of it, have been disproven. For example, various climate models positing warming at a given rate have not actually eventuated in fact. There are no accurate models that posit a significant role for anthropogenic warming in global average temperatures of which I am aware. None. Zero. Zilch.

There are some that have proven consistent with a minor role and that is possible, but on the other hand we don't know how with anything approaching certainty how other causal factors affect global average temperatures.

I'll allow you that there are some statements on which anecdotal evidence is sufficient. Common sense and experience tells us not to jump into the ocean if we don't know how to swim and that otherwise we'll drown. I suppose that's a statement about the physical world. But some statements are capable of being proven and disproven on scientific terms.

[Kidlicious]

We have no idea if there is every bacterial life on Mars, how exactly would we know if there was life in other star systems?

I didn't say we know, but I'm skeptical. How do you know that Jesus didn't overcome death? I'm not the kind of person that believes unreasonable things with no evidence.

Nope, you just apply very different standards of proof to things you already ferverently believe in.

The fact is that you stated the evidence of christianity incorrectly. So it means nothing that you say that I use a different standard than you.

What a ridiculous peice of reasoning.

It's called skepticism. Look into it.

[Kidlicious]

You posit a distinction between facts and "truths supported by measurable evidence." You state that the former consists of the application of the scientific method to a hypothesis (traditional method) whereas the latter consists of what reasonable people assume to be to true. As I already pointed out, what reasonable people assume to be true is often very, very wrong. It is not a scientific statement of fact.

And moreover, this particular hypothesis, or some versions of it, have been disproven. For example, various climate models positing warming at a given rate have not actually eventuated in fact. There are no accurate models that posit a significant role for anthropogenic warming in global average temperatures of which I am aware. None. Zero. Zilch.

There are some that have proven consistent with a minor role and that is possible, but on the other hand we don't know how with anything approaching certainty how other causal factors affect global average temperatures.

I'll allow you that there are some statements on which anecdotal evidence is sufficient. Common sense and experience tells us not to jump into the ocean if we don't know how to swim and that otherwise we'll drown. I suppose that's a statement about the physical world. But some statements are capable of being proven and disproven on scientific terms.

It's a bit of a two way street. If you say scientists aren't reasonable (skeptical), what does that say about everyone else? Then what point is there of talking about science if the thing isn't proven one way or the other?

[kentonio]

I didn't say we know, but I'm skeptical.

No, you said "The evidence is that we have looked at a lot of star systems and not found any ETs." which is a stupid thing to say considering our ability to look at other star systems is so limited we consider it a wild success when we detect the present of a planet.

How do you know that Jesus didn't overcome death? I'm not the kind of person that believes unreasonable things with no evidence.

Except you clearly are, because you believe someone 'overcame death' for no reason other than that someone wrote a book about it. I look forward to the church of Harry Potter spreading its gospel of the Boy Who Lived in a few thousand years.

The fact is that you stated the evidence of christianity incorrectly. So it means nothing that you say that I use a different standard than you.

Bull****, there is no proof which is why you need faith and why the whole world isn't Christian. Believe what you like but at least have the honesty to admit there's no physical evidence to support anything you're saying.

It's called skepticism. Look into it.

It's idiotic. Yes you can certainly argue that something happening once does not mean it happens everywhere, but in a universe of billions or trillions of stars, the idea that life appeared once in this one place is just so far fetched as to be almost idiotic. The only way you can even see it as not idiotic is if you already believe in some supernatural voodoo.

Oh and I'm loving the religious guy lecturing me on skepticism, top marks.

[Kidlicious]

No, you said "The evidence is that we have looked at a lot of star systems and not found any ETs." which is a stupid thing to say considering our ability to look at other star systems is so limited we consider it a wild success when we detect the present of a planet.

You think it is significant that there are many stars and the universe is so large that we can't know if there isn't life out there? The fact is that the earth is a young star and there are many older stars. The fact that the universe is large is evidence against your belief because if there was life out there it would be so advanced that it would have spread out over the universe and it would have come into contact with us.

Except you clearly are, because you believe someone 'overcame death' for no reason other than that someone wrote a book about it. I look forward to the church of Harry Potter spreading its gospel of the Boy Who Lived in a few thousand years.

Then you are ridiculous. No one believes that Harry Potter is real. You only make my point. The disciples and early christians believed what they were saying and they were there. The fact that you expect people to die because they believe in Harry Potter says a whole heck of a lot buddy.

Bull****, there is no proof which is why you need faith and why the whole world isn't Christian. Believe what you like but at least have the honesty to admit there's no physical evidence to support anything you're saying.

When did I say that I have physical evidence? I didn't. You don't either. So why don't you take your own advice?

It's idiotic. Yes you can certainly argue that something happening once does not mean it happens everywhere, but in a universe of billions or trillions of stars, the idea that life appeared once in this one place is just so far fetched as to be almost idiotic. The only way you can even see it as not idiotic is if you already believe in some supernatural voodoo.

No. You either didn't read it or you don't understand it. They are saying we don't know. There is no evidence. You are, in fact, the one who is basing your beliefs on assumptions with no physical evidence whatsoever. The irony is not lost on anyone but you my friend.

[kentonio]

You think it is significant that there are many stars and the universe is so large that we can't know if there isn't life out there? The fact is that the earth is a young star and there are many older stars. The fact that the universe is large is evidence against your belief because if there were life out there it would be so advanced that it would have spread out over the universe and it would have come into contact with us.

You mean the Fermi paradox. A poor piece of theorizing that falls apart as soon as you add in any consideration of FTL travel not being possible.

Then you are ridiculous. No one believes that Harry Potter is real. You only make my point. The disciples and early christians believed what they were saying and they were there. The fact that you expect people to die because they believe in Harry Potter says a whole heck of a lot buddy.

A bunch of crazy goat herders started a cult and it took off. Who knows what the crazy cults of the future will look like.

When did I say that I have physical evidence? I didn't. You don't either. So why don't you take your own advice?

So the evidence you keep insisting is there is not physical evidence, its... what exactly?

No. You either didn't read it or you don't understand it. They are saying we don't know. There is no evidence. You are, in fact, the one who is basing your beliefs on assumptions with no physical evidence whatsoever. The irony is not lost on anyone but you my friend.

Drawing conclusions based on probability is not irrelevant. If life has a natural cause then for that cause to have occured only once in the billions of years the universe has existed is so numbingly unlikely that it makes Jesus coming back from the dead look like something boring and everyday.

Incidentally the physical evidence here is that life exists.

[Kidlicious]

Incidentally the physical evidence here is that life exists.

Wow, this says it all! You don't even know what physical evidence is. Physical evidence that ET exists is not that it exists on earth! Physical evidence would be something like seeing some buildings or something else that was built by intelligent beings.

I'm done here.

[kentonio]

Wow, this says it all! You don't even know what physical evidence is. Physical evidence that ET exists is not that it exists on earth! Physical evidence would be something like seeing some buildings or something else that was built by intelligent beings.

Try and keep up, the premise is that life in its most basic form must have a natural cause (because everything else we've seen or experienced has). That is a reasonable assumption that is not contradicted by anything we've yet seen. If that is the case, then we then get into the probabilities of that natural cause only occuring once in the 13.75 billion years that we believe the universe has existed, and on one insignificant planet in a universe of billions or trillions of stars. The weight of those kind of numbers make it wildly unlikely that something happened here that was completely unique. I actually struggle to understand how someone can look at the size of the numbers involved and actually believe we are the only life in the universe. It seems to require a religious level of faith.

[giblets]

There's pretty good evidence for anthropogenic global warming, zev. That said, there isn't good reason to believe we should cripple our GDPs over it and we have no idea what degree or effect it might take. Moreover, aspects of the global warming advocacy take on religious overtones of atoning to the Earth God for our transgressions against Him.

There's no good reason to restrict emissions of a gas that we know will have a major impact on the climate, but we have no precise idea of what will happen and so we can't prepare for it?

[Kidlicious]

Try and keep up.

Ok I'll try to keep up with your misstatements.

[Zevico]

There's no good reason to restrict emissions of a gas that we know will have a major impact on the climate

Major by what measure? There are zero climate models that have accurately predicted the role of carbon emissions or temperature. Without accurate data we can't weigh the costs and benefits of any given action to reduce or increase carbon emissions for that reason. In other words, unless and until we have an accurate means of judging how climate changes, and we don't, then this policy amounts to playing at grand gesture politics to save the earth without knowing whether it will or whether it will amount to an immense waste of money.

[regexcellent]

It's a good idea not to trust climate models at all. They're inherently unscientific and there are a number of key components that they completely fail to account for. The biggest factor in the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface is clouds, and we have no idea what global warming would do to cloud cover. Then there's the nonlinear attenuation effect of light moving through different distances in the atmosphere which is very confusing. There were others too; this is just what I remember from my geoscience class.

Policy proposals for dealing with global warming are totally unworkable economically and would have at best a token and meaningless impact on carbon dioxide levels. The only possible way we could arrest growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is if we condemned India and China to eternal poverty while dismantling most of the first world economy.

Hybrid/plug-in vehicles and veganism and locavorism and shopping at whole foods and other bull**** feel-good personal sacrifice environmentalist activities do nothing meaningful for the environment. They smack of religious fervor, giving up the luxuries of modern living to atone for our transgressions against the environment. It's like how devout catholics will not eat meat on Fridays during Lent or whatever. It gives me the same sort of vibe.

Another major problem with global warming is that the popular version of it is totally unfalsifiable. Every time there's some unusual weather event someone blames global warming. As an example, the Antarctic ice sheet has been growing rapidly for the past decade and nobody really knows why. Someone at this point is going to go pull up some article on the Antarctic peninsula at this point so I'll pre-empt that: The antarctic peninsula contains a tiny fraction of Antarctica's ice, and the ice there has been melting, but everywhere else on Antarctica the ice sheet has been growing at a tremendous pace. Many climatologists blame global warming for this. But what observed weather events demonstrate global warming and which ones falsify it? The ice sheet in Greenland is shrinking rapidly and that is also global warming.

Hurricane Katrina was blamed on global warming, with papers coming out linking "extreme weather" to rising sea surface temperatures and so forth due to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. Then in 2007 we had an unusually weak Atlantic hurricane season, which was also blamed on global warming, as papers came out suggesting that increasing global temperatures generate wind shear. Wind shear is known to prevent hurricanes from forming and sap the energy of existing ones. So global warming stops extreme weather. Then Queensland, Australia got badly flooded in 2010 and global warming causes extreme weather again. Basically, every weather event ever gets linked to global warming and presented as evidence of its truthfulness. The result is that our notion of what the actual effects of global warming are is rather confused and contradictory.

I think the most promising proposals for dealing with global warming involve some kind of geoengineering. That has its own (rather enormous) set of risks associated with it so I won't go so far as to actually advocate it. There's really not much to do but wait and see what happens, hope for the best, and take advantage of any new benefits (northwest passage, milder climate in places like Canada, etc.).

[giblets]

Policy proposals for dealing with global warming are totally unworkable economically and would have at best a token and meaningless impact on carbon dioxide levels. The only possible way we could arrest growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is if we condemned India and China to eternal poverty while dismantling most of the first world economy.

Either it cripples the economy or it only has a token effect. Or maybe neither, but I don't see how you could do both. I'm pretty sure you have to pick one or the other.

[regexcellent]

Our carbon dioxide levels passed what scientists consider to be critical levels in 1911 or so (300 parts per million). To get carbon dioxide levels and temperatures to begin to drop, it would take years, perhaps decades, of basically zero carbon output. Even that that probably wouldn't be enough.

If you pumped a **** ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the temperature would not rise immediately. Carbon dioxide also takes a while to work its way out of the atmosphere, much longer than most other greenhouse gasses. That's why nobody really worries about methane or water vapor; they have a short lifespan in the atmosphere. So ceasing carbon output would also take a while to effect changes in the climate.

[giblets]

What's the difference between going over 300ppm, and simply adding to the carbon dioxide levels? And wouldn't it still be harmful to add more even if we're past "critical levels"? I think what's clear is the carbon dioxide emissions have a negative externality, and it's just an argument over the estimated size of that externality and the margin of error.