Can we look at astrology from a scientific point of view?

Cary2

Banned
A discussion about science can go two ways. It may go toward the properties, goals, and ideals of pure Science with a capital "S", or it may go toward the hidden agendas and egotistical tangents of the society of scientists.

Pure science is interested in finding consensus by trial and error. It prizes a skeptical approach to new information, but it also prizes intellectual honesty and freedom from corruption.

Pure Science is practical and it is a noble goal, but rarely is it achieved or expressed.

I will give an example from our modern times. Many people claim to be spokespeople for science who are fraudulent. Let's consider the topic of Global Warming. Many politically motivated people insist that if you don't follow the politics formulated by Al Gore, then you are "anti-science". That is not a scientific approach. It is fraud. Science is ruined by any political takeover or any New Religion referred to as Politcal Correctness. Here is the science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3hHi4sylxE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z_IC3xrgJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWtaackIJU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGqcweY1a3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgm3QOWt6Tc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkAsPizAbU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX8kEjSUr04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
What kind of uniformity do you mean? I am pretty sure that science recognizes partial uniformity with unexplained variation, even in the so-called hard sciences.

Which will eventually be resolved into uniformity, upon further application of the scientific method when more information becomes available.
 

david starling

Well-known member
A discussion about science can go two ways. It may go toward the properties, goals, and ideals of pure Science with a capital "S", or it may go toward the hidden agendas and egotistical tangents of the society of scientists.

Pure science is interested in finding consensus by trial and error. It prizes a skeptical approach to new information, but it also prizes intellectual honesty and freedom from corruption.

Pure Science is practical and it is a noble goal, but rarely is it achieved or expressed.

I will give an example from our modern times. Many people claim to be spokespeople for science who are fraudulent. Let's consider the topic of Global Warming. Many politically motivated people insist that if you don't follow the politics formulated by Al Gore, then you are "anti-science". That is not a scientific approach. It is fraud. Science is ruined by any political takeover or any New Religion referred to as Politcal Correctness. Here is the science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3hHi4sylxE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z_IC3xrgJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWtaackIJU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGqcweY1a3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgm3QOWt6Tc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkAsPizAbU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX8kEjSUr04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

So, it's REALLY okay to massively pollute the environment and despoil the wilderness areas in pursuit of $$$? That's GREAT news for the industrial Corporations!
 

Cary2

Banned
So, it's REALLY okay to massively pollute the environment and despoil the wilderness areas in pursuit of $$$? That's GREAT news for the industrial Corporations!

Not very scientific, but a very, very political ploy. All those who disagree are evil. Smear, not science. Its the disagreement that is the sticking point. Your alarmism has been addressed scientifically.

Notice that you put words in my mouth I did not say. That is the threat of the Left. "If you disagree, there are a thousand ways I can get you."
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Not very scientific, but a very, very political ploy. All those who disagree are evil. Smear, not science. Its the disagreement that is the sticking point. Your alarmism has been addressed scientifically.

Notice that you put words in my mouth I did not say. That is the threat of the Left. If you disagree, there are a thousand ways I can get you.

I'm not tying a clean healthy environment and wilderness protection to the disputed claim that pollution causes Global climate change. The corporate polluters are however, quite pleased to have some scientists relieving them of that particular accusation.
 

Cary2

Banned
I don't think you can blame the gross offenders on scientists who disagree with you. That is smear. "If you don't agree, there are a thousand ways I can get you."

The scientists did not protect the gross offenders. They pointed out that most of the climate models are useless, have failed completely to model the future. The Russian model was pretty good, but NONE of the others were, but those are the ones that were used by Gore and his cohorts.

The scientists pointed out the content and the tactics of the alarmists. They pointed out the science that is so embarrassing for the alarmists. I don't know of one who defended the gross offenders of pollution.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
I don't think you can blame the gross offenders on scientists who disagree with you. That is smear. "If you don't agree, there are a thousand ways I can get you."

The scientists did not protect the gross offenders. They pointed out that most of the climate models are useless, have failed completely to model the future. The Russian model was pretty good, but NONE of the others were, but those are the ones that were used by Gore and his cohorts.

They pointed out the content and the tactics of the alarmists. They pointed out the science that is so embarrassing for the alarmists.

Disagree with me about what, exactly? I've stated that supporting a clean and healthy environment and the protection of wilderness areas isn't dependent on the belief that the gross polluters are contributing to climate change.

Are these scientists you speak of OPPOSED to clean air and water, a healthy environment when it comes to controlling toxic waste disposal, and the protection of the wilderness areas? If not, I have no problem with their research, provided it's accurate.
 

Cary2

Banned
Disagree with me about what, exactly? I've stated that supporting a clean and healthy environment and the protection of wilderness areas isn't dependent on the belief that the gross polluters are contributing to climate change.

Are these scientists you speak of OPPOSED to clean air and water, a healthy environment when it comes to controlling toxic waste disposal, and the protection of the wilderness areas? If not, I have no problem with their research, provided it's accurate.

I produced the scientific evidence from the scientists. They were impressive generally even though their output was an embarrassment for the Left. The scandal is Gore, Obama, Biden, Kerry, and many others. The scientists have nothing to atone for. What about the lies of Gore, Obama, Biden, Kerry, et. al.? That is a scandal. It is sadly unscientific, and it is the worst kind of politics.

None of Gore's very alarming predictions came true. The due dates have all passed. The use of the "97% of scientists agree" tactic was ignominious and now committed to public record. The Paris Climate Accord is a sham. Most of the mudslinging using the environment has been debunked. IT WAS A HOAX.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Pretty funny when Al Gore was caught "flat footed" on his insistence that everyone should reduce their "carbon footprint". Turns out he's a Bigfoot carbon user himself!
 

david starling

Well-known member
I produced the scientific evidence from the scientists. They were impressive generally even though their output was an embarrassment for the Left. The scandal is Gore, Obama, Biden, Kerry, and many others. The scientists have nothing to atone for. What about the lies of Gore, Obama, Biden, Kerry, et. al.? That is a scandal. It is sadly unscientific, and it is the worst kind of politics.

None of Gore's very alarming predictions came true. The due dates have all passed. The use of the "97% of scientists agree" tactic was ignominious and now committed to public record. The Paris Climate Accord is a sham. Most of the mudslinging using the environment has been debunked. IT WAS A HOAX.

For me, it has the advantage of ENCOURAGING a better environment, whether it's scientifically accurate or not.

I'm not sure what such a hoax would be meant to accomplish?
 

Bunraku

Well-known member
The environment being polluted is through big corporations looking to cut corners and make as much money as possible, not scientists.
 

david starling

Well-known member
The environment being polluted is through big corporations looking to cut corners and make as much money as possible, not scientists.

"Modern Science" made modern technology possible, through scientific research. Modern technology requires a huge electrical supply, which adds greatly to the pollution problem.
 
Last edited:

Cary2

Banned
For me, it has the advantage of ENCOURAGING a better environment, whether it's scientifically accurate or not.

I'm not sure what such a hoax would be meant to accomplish?

One of the top scientists in the field has explained the motives and rewards of a hoax here. Gore scooped up millions of government funds.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c


Accusing your political opponents and those who vote differently from you of conspiring to destroy the planet is a path to election and revenge. Its called a smear.

If it is a dishonest claim, you lose credibility which is fitting and right. The reason for all the virtue signaling is to build a rationale for ruthlessness.
 

Cary2

Banned
"Modern Science" made modern technology possible, through scientific research. Modern technology requires a huge electrical supply, which adds greatly to the pollution problem.

Modern science just developed an economical LED technology for lighting. It is far more efficient than incandescence, and it will save enormous amounts of energy. Lighting is one of the biggest consumers of energy.
 

david starling

Well-known member
One of the top scientists in the field has explained the motives and rewards of a hoax here. Gore scooped up millions of government funds.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c


Accusing your political opponents and those who vote differently from you of conspiring to destroy the planet is a path to election and revenge. Its called a smear.

If it is a dishonest claim, you lose credibility which is fitting and right. The reason for all the virtue signaling is to build a rationale for ruthlessness.

Trump has been removing any restrictions he can on corporate pollution. He's also been attempting to force the States, California in particular, to lower their own pollution standards, so far without much success.

I'm not saying he's trying to destroy the whole planet; he's trying to increase corporate profits by freeing corporations to pollute with impunity.

That's not a "smear", it's an inconvenient truth for the Trump administration.
 

Cary2

Banned
Trump has been removing any restrictions he can on corporate pollution. He's also been attempting to force the States, California in particular, to lower their own pollution standards, so far without much success.

I'm not saying he's trying to destroy the whole planet; he's trying to increase corporate profits by freeing corporations to pollute with impunity.

That's not a "smear", it's an inconvenient truth for the Trump administration.

Are you sure?
 

david starling

Well-known member
Are you sure?

Yeah, from everything I've read so far. He actually seems proud of that, since it will lower prices, and he doesn't care about the environment.

There was one exception though: He's pushing for more off-shore oil rigs, despite the danger of oil spills, but he did explicitly exempt the coastline of Marlago.
 
Top