Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
We're doomed!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JoeUSooner" data-source="post: 3818812" data-attributes="member: 55109"><p>There is a great deal of difference between the true (real, honest, classic, actual, verifiable, "hard") sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. - which <em>can </em>be trusted, and the so-called "soft" sciences, which cannot. Psychiatry, for example, was for a century (even self-admittedly) the "least exact" of all sciences. </p><p></p><p>But a few decades ago, that 'position of honor' was replaced by a new invention called "climate" science. It cannot be defined, exactly, and does not have any of the usual characteristics of true science. It was just sort of 'discovered' one day, by someone who pulled it out of thin air (or more likely out of their anal orifice). They magically made it fit all their preconceived notions. Worse, all its reports and conclusions are only allowed to be "reviewed" by the "peers" that specifically agree up-front with those preconceived conclusions. That whole canard is intentionally passed off to the public as something to be revered, since it has the (knowingly deceitful) tag of "science" attached to it.</p><p></p><p>Is it obvious that this subject pisses me off??</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JoeUSooner, post: 3818812, member: 55109"] There is a great deal of difference between the true (real, honest, classic, actual, verifiable, "hard") sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. - which [I]can [/I]be trusted, and the so-called "soft" sciences, which cannot. Psychiatry, for example, was for a century (even self-admittedly) the "least exact" of all sciences. But a few decades ago, that 'position of honor' was replaced by a new invention called "climate" science. It cannot be defined, exactly, and does not have any of the usual characteristics of true science. It was just sort of 'discovered' one day, by someone who pulled it out of thin air (or more likely out of their anal orifice). They magically made it fit all their preconceived notions. Worse, all its reports and conclusions are only allowed to be "reviewed" by the "peers" that specifically agree up-front with those preconceived conclusions. That whole canard is intentionally passed off to the public as something to be revered, since it has the (knowingly deceitful) tag of "science" attached to it. Is it obvious that this subject pisses me off?? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
We're doomed!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom