For help on how to follow a comic title,
“Priests rely you believing them when they tell you that things that cannot be verified are true.”
And I cannot verify that the claims about anthropogenic global warming are true. As I said, from the outside, it looks like a priesthood.
“Science is about verifiable truth.”
I quite agree. And I would add that it is not about consensus or calling people “deniers.”
“Martens comment about the isotope ratio is science. There is no way that the isotope ratios end up as they do unless it is because of humans adding fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere. You can read about it in Wikipedia.”
I am not interested in where I can find more “listen and believe.” However, I am quite interested in “here is an experiment anybody and his uncle can do that doesn’t require you to trust anyone.” I don’t suppose you have that?
By the way, which one of you is using NeoconMan as an alternate account to pretend to “agree” with me but denouncing science?
I mean what I say. And I don’t mean “NeoconMan’s” strawman either. The evidence available to the general public amounts to “we are the authorities, listen and believe.” They might have some compelling evidence that the rest of us can’t see (or understand.) But from the outside, they look like a priesthood.
The climate has supposedly been changing for billions of years. I don’t see anyone disputing that. Climate change exists. Anthropogenic global warming might not.
“Yes, ALL lives matter, but ALL lives don’t have a target on their back or get shot by police after being fully subdued or being polite and compliant after being pulled over for a broken tail light.”
Got an example of that actually happening? First off, if it actually happened, I will agree that the police were wrong in that situation. But one of the poster boys for BLM (Mike Brown) was actively trying to take a police officer’s weapon to use against the officer. And BLM transforms this to “hands up, don’t shoot.”
And who is now opposing body cams for police officers? I like the idea myself. I don’t think the officers should have an option to turn them off. When police officers know that they are being recorded, I expect that they will be on their best behavior. However, some people don’t like the fact that it also records criminals. And the stories about what the police officers are doing gets contradicted by the cameras.
So, no, I don’t believe the police are going around hunting black people. I think an inconvenient truth is that, for whatever reason, many black-majority neighborhoods think they should not be subject to law. And when people from those neighborhoods encounter the police, they aren’t respectful, they do fight, and the results, while tragic are predictable.
And there is one more thing, if you think black lives matter, perhaps you should focus on drive-by shootings which kill far more black people than police do. They aren’t even considered newsworthy. But any time a police officer kills a black person, it’s on the front page.
“you are trying to peddle the Big Carbon lie about some nasty conspiracy”
Don’t try to tell me what I am “trying to do.” You’re not very good at it.
I have a tendency to be untrusting. Therefore, I like evidence that doesn’t require that I trust anyone. And, really, why isn’t there evidence that doesn’t require that I trust anyone? The thing about trusting authorities is that it makes them into a type of priesthood. The priesthood could be sincere in its beliefs and correct. The priesthood could be sincere in its beliefs and completely wrong. Or the priesthood could be lying outright to get a public action it desires. And when you say “conspiracy” you tell me that you can’t establish that it is not the last one.
“Science welcomes contrary evidence,”
Science welcomes contrary evidence. Dogma does not. Science does not modify a description to something blatantly unfalsifiable. The term “climate change” has no place in science.
Even recognized scientists are human and are susceptible to dogma. And I get suspicious whenever I see something that is claimed to be “science” but is shielded as though it is a dogma. I present why I think this looks like a dogma. And the dogma hypothesis makes a testable prediction. It predicts that you will try to discredit me. And you did, in fact, make such an attempt.
That is a key difference between science and dogma. Dogma tries to silence critics or get people not to listen. Science has no need to do so.
“to educate the illiterate debunkers”
Poisoning the well as well as ad hominem.
“(both ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ are, in the long run, accurate terminology, but ‘climate change’ is easier for uneducated CONservatives to understand when they see local exceptions).”
Same fallacies present. However “climate change” has been happening with or without human involvement for billions of years. A claim of “climate change” makes no predictions (aside from there being some change which, given the planet’s history is rather safe.) It is inherently unfalsifiable and that makes it unscientific.
Of course, the change from “global warming” to “climate change” was made to prevent anyone from presenting what he considered contrary evidence. The people involved did not want a discussion. They wanted blind obedience.
“Your comment runs counter to actual science I have seen.”
Your writings thus far suggest that you have not seen actual science, but instead prefer a “listen to and believe the authority” approach. Of course, if I am incorrect and you have evidence that does not rely on people just believing what they are instructed to believe, I would love to hear it.
“Short of getting Garrett Morris to interpret science to the reichwing I think I’ve found a way to make them realize it’s a serious problem”
Given that you resort to misrepresentative name-calling (i.e. “reichwing”) I rather doubt it.
“Fix climate or no kHz radio and no clock between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. "
The current proposals to “fix climate” involve blackouts at various inconvenient times of the day.
“McCain will take guns away”
Isn’t he dead?
It seems a lot of people here think that Wiley’s strip was pulled from several papers out of a desire to protect Trump. When Wiley syndicated his strip, he agreed to a few rules. “Respect the president” was not among them. But “keep it G-rated” was.
Wiley made his opinion of Trump quite clear long before this incident. And it didn’t get his strip dropped. Nor should it have. But this time Wiley appears to have thought “these papers hate Trump as much as I do, they’ll overlook a little f-bomb.” He may have been right about the first part. But not the second. And if your defense revolves around freedom to express hatred for Trump, you are missing the point. He broke the rules that he agreed to.
He is entitled to his opinion. But “hey, check out the easter egg in the Sunday strip” just doesn’t seem to reconcile with “it was a private joke that I never meant to have published.”
And you determine a source is legitimate, how?
The mainstream media, with the notable exception of Fox News are all on the same page. The proposition that they have removed all bias is laughable on its face. The forced conclusion is that they share the same bias and are thus, effectively a single source.
One catch. No one can be trusted to be dispensing real info.