And that is exactly what belief is all about. Ignoring the evidence and having faith in some unsupported nonsense. That's why John is a sceptic and you are a loony.Originally Posted by TAP
Thank you for making me laugh, we need more clowns on this forum.
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
[pedantic zealot]If they said such they would be wrong. Strictly speaking both the Earth and the Moon orbit the barycentre. The Earth at a distance of around 3000 miles and the moon 240,000 miles[/pedantic zealot]
skb
http://cseligman.com/text/moons/earthmoongravity.htm
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
"This post may be edited to make it more wrong" - skb
"Ignorance is no basis for rewriting the laws of physics" - Pebble
"I am a scientist, with a beard to prove it. This makes me an authority on nothing other than the growing and maintenance of facial hair" - skb
So exactly when does a skeptic become a denier? Is it when most scientists disagree with them?
Skeptics becomes deniers when they keep shifting their "evidence" every time what they say is debunked, so as to support the same conclusion. A skeptic faced with new evidence should change the conclusion. A denier faced with new evidence sticks to the conclusion and invents different evidence.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
The Moon actually goes around the Sun in a wavy line. It doesn't loop back around the Earth at all -- that's just an illusion from our point of view.
Actually, the Earth doesn't really go around the Sun, it just makes a wavy line around the centre of the galaxy ... and the Sun doesn't really go around the centre of the galaxy ... and so on. At least I think so ... I would have to do the sums.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
Don't want to move away from the OP but, ugh, what?
You forgot to put [super pedant zealot] tags around your post
skb
ETA: I remember seeing some time ago a working model of a geocentric model, was something like this but with the sun and all the planets.
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/both.html
Last edited by skbuncks; 25th August 2009 at 11:01 AM.
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
"This post may be edited to make it more wrong" - skb
"Ignorance is no basis for rewriting the laws of physics" - Pebble
"I am a scientist, with a beard to prove it. This makes me an authority on nothing other than the growing and maintenance of facial hair" - skb
So is it possible, then, to be a climate change skeptic at the moment, or are you automatically a denier if you question it?
We've been around all of this before. There's a complete difference between being sceptical of the evidence around climate change, as I am, and denying that climate change is happening. They are opposites, not on a spectrum next to each other.
Everything I've ever been told in my lifetime about climate has been wrong. I remember when it was being predicted that things would get colder not warmer. I don't doubt that most of what we are being told now is wrong (though it could possibly be under-estimating change rather than exaggerating).
I'm not a denier for questioning the evidence. People who say "I don't believe in global warming" are deniers and are not being skeptical.
When something is as complicated as climate change but 97% of "experts" are in broad agreement (many having changed sides) you have to act on an assumtion that they are correct, even while being sceptical and nit-picking. Perhaps they are wrong, but it's not being a sceptic or a skeptic to insist that you know they are wrong.
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
Define what you mean by "climate change skeptic".
It looks to me like you're making the frequently made mistake of equating 'skeptic' with 'non-believer'.
Very naive of you if I may say so; especially as we've covered the issue many times on here.
.
More-or-less where I stand - thanks for explaining my position to me.
I also agree, just because we don't get everything right doesn't mean it's wrong.
In seriousness, climate is so bloody hard to understand and get right, we must assume that so much will turn out different from projection or expectation, but it doesn't mean that it still isn't our 'best guess' at this point in time.
Deniers are sticking to a belief position for the sake of it, they have no better evidence than anyone else.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
Work it out. In a month the Earth moves around the Sun about 78 million km, but the diameter of the Moon's orbit is only about 800,000 km. The Moon's orbital motion around the Earth amounts to a barely discernible 1% wiggle in its path around the Sun.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
I think this thread has given us a good example of the mischaracterization of skepticism as being the position of non-belief.
i.e. you either believe in something or you're a skeptic!
Of course, when you're talking about ghosts or psychic abilities, the positional (and wrong) view of skepticism is in line with the conclusions skeptics reach on these issues so there's no perceived discrepancy; but when it's something like global warming, you can really confuse people by stating that you do accept global warming is occurring - because you're a skeptic!
Being a 'skeptic of' (i.e. sceptical) is not the same as being a skeptic. Believing so is making the fallacy of equivocation.
.
Agree, like Chaggle and Farside, on the climate change issue ... and the skepticism one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks