Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Apparently now you can abort an abortion

Apparently now you can abort an abortion
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2015, 05:52 PM
 
Arizona first in nation to require patients be informed of abortion-reversal option | Fox News


If you're that conflicted about having the kid, maybe aborting the abortion isn't the best thing for anyone. I also can't imagine what kind of negative health effects this could have, that we probably won't know anything about for years to come.

Arizona, you've fallen so hard on your ideology that you've become exactly what you hate. Pro-abortion (of abortions)!
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2015, 10:35 AM
 
Yes, it can and has been done. You Can Reverse the Abortion Pill - Abortion Pill Reversal Information - San Diego, CA

Dr Delgado has been on Catholic Answers several times
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2015, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Arizona first in nation to require patients be informed of abortion-reversal option | Fox News


If you're that conflicted about having the kid, maybe aborting the abortion isn't the best thing for anyone. I also can't imagine what kind of negative health effects this could have, that we probably won't know anything about for years to come.

Arizona, you've fallen so hard on your ideology that you've become exactly what you hate. Pro-abortion (of abortions)!
Yeah, I mentioned this in the vaguely titled "WTF Arizona" thread.

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Science does not support this claim.


Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Dr Delgado has been on Catholic Answers several times
That likely undermines his credibility.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2015, 06:00 PM
 
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2015, 07:07 PM
 
Reversing a a first trimester chemical abortion if you're quick about it isn't implausible.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2015, 09:31 PM
 
Reversing a physical abortion could open up a whole new class of baby-switch errors. I can imagine the lawsuits.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2015, 10:41 AM
 
Can an Abortion Be Undone? — The Atlantic
What's puzzling about this measure, regardless of one's opinion on abortion, is that the progesterone dose appears to be completely unnecessary. Women who only take the first pill already have a 30 to 50 percent chance of continuing their pregnancy normally, according to ACOG. The progesterone advice is based on a study by Delgado in which he analyzed six case studies of patients who regretted their abortions and were given progesterone. Four out of the six patients went on to deliver healthy infants. In other words, the limited evidence we have suggests that taking progesterone does not appear to improve the odds of fetal survival by much. The abortion pill binds more tightly to progesterone receptors than progesterone itself does, one reproductive researcher told Iowa Public Radio, and thus the hormone surge is unlikely to do much of anything.

As Cheryl Chastine, an abortion provider at South Wind Women’s Center in Kansas, put it recently, "Even if these doctors were to offer a large dose of purple Skittles, they’d appear to have ‘worked’ to ‘save’ the pregnancy about half the time.”
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2015, 10:43 AM
 
I just find amusing red states are rushing to force doctors to tell patients about this unproven science when they have so much trouble accepting something with so much more study behind it, like, oh-i-don't-know, climate change?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2015, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I just find amusing red states are rushing to force doctors to tell patients about this unproven science when they have so much trouble accepting something with so much more study behind it, like, oh-i-don't-know, climate change?
In fairness, the amount of study into a subject is by no means an indicator of our understanding of that subject.

This is more a case of inductive reasoning, much like I think AGW is (but lets save that for a different thread, if we can).
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2015, 06:53 PM
 
The amount of study is indicative of how much weight we should give it, though. Which is why this should get no legal weight, just further study.

As opposed to climate change which has decades of study, and overwhelming current scientific consensus. Meanwhile, we have states banning/avoiding the use of the term for nothing short of political reasons.

The short of it – this ain't about science or medicine.
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; Apr 20, 2015 at 11:53 AM. Reason: HAPPY NOW?!)
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2015, 02:14 PM
 
[QUOTE=The Final Dakar;4316591]The amount of study is indicative of how much weight we should give it, though. Which is why this should get no legal weight, just further study.[.quote]
I think the amount of weight we give it is what indicates how much study we should put into it.

As opposed to climate change which has decades of study and overwhelming current consensus. Meanwhile, we have states banning/avoiding the use of the term for nothing short of political reasons.
Decades of current consensus?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2015, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Decades of current consensus?
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
As opposed to climate change which has [decades of study] and [overwhelming current consensus].
Think of it like a math equation. The and is joining two distinct parts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2015, 02:19 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2015, 02:20 PM
 
I love the oxford comma. Good note.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2015, 04:54 PM
 
purple skittles are best skittles.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2015, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Think of it like a math equation. The and is joining two distinct parts.
Consensus is not a scientific approach to determining anything. There was vast scientific consensus once upon a time that the earth was flat as well, and consensus among the religious dinosaurs that this abort-an-abortion pill is a good idea. People follow consensus simply because we are predisposed to do so from an evolutionary standpoint. Once upon a time consensus was our survival (before we were able to articulate the scientific method).

There was a lengthy consensus among many of my friends and I that my long time girlfriend was a good, honorable person. We were all wrong and the consensus has now shifted completely given a more comprehensive understanding of the subject of study.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Consensus is not a scientific approach to determining anything.
Overwhelming scientific consensus. Jesus.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
There was vast scientific consensus once upon a time that the earth was flat as well
This is an incredibly stupid argument. A. Science can make mistakes. B. Mathematicians (the closest thing you'd find to scientists) thought the world was round all the way back in 500 BC.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 12:45 PM
 
I remember watching this episode of "In Search of..." The overwhelming scientific consensus was that due to changes in the earth's orbit, this "abnormal interglacial period" would soon end.


One of algore's climate experts, Stepehn Schneider appears in it and says regarding measures to prevent the coming ice age:
DR. STEPHEN SCHNEIDER: Can we do these things? Yes. But will they make things better? I'm not sure. We can't predict with any certainty what's happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance? You could melt the icecaps. What would that do to the coastal cities? The cure could be worse than the disease. Would that be better or worse than the risk of an ice age?
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I remember watching this episode of "In Search of..." The overwhelming scientific consensus was that due to changes in the earth's orbit, this "abnormal interglacial period" would soon end.
What do you think I should conclude from this fact?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2015, 09:47 AM
 
Chongo?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2015, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Overwhelming scientific consensus. Jesus.
Semantical argument. Consensus between scientists does not amount to a "scientific consensus" as the mere idea of such a term is decidedly unscientific.

Science is a process, not a feeling, poll, or a conclusion.


This is an incredibly stupid argument.
We'll see

A. Science can make mistakes.
No, science cannot make mistakes. Humans can & do quite often though, even scientists.

The entire point of "science" is that it cannot be wrong. Consensus among scientists is not science, merely a poll of a bunch of scientists making their best guess in the face of a lack of actual science.

B. Mathematicians (the closest thing you'd find to scientists) thought the world was round all the way back in 500 BC.
So are you suggesting we put mathematicians on this problem? The math guys got it right, the science guys got it wrong....how does this support your argument that the "scientific consensus" is as good as real bona fide scientific method?

The entire point of the scientific method is to ensure that human and other biases do not affect the data points. "Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Consensus among professionals in support of a hypothesis hardly qualifies as empirical or measurable evidence subject to reasoning beyond an emotional need to agree with others.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2015, 03:24 PM
 
Well, I can see I'm going to be out of my depth here. Tell me snow-i, does this mean you're a climate change denier? That the jury is still out, so to speak?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Semantical argument
Sounds like the right title for you most of your post. Starting with…

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No, science cannot make mistakes. Humans can & do quite often though, even scientists.
Semantic: relating to meaning in language or logic. In this case arguing what the term 'science' means.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The entire point of "science" is that it cannot be wrong. Consensus among scientists is not science, merely a poll of a bunch of scientists making their best guess in the face of a lack of actual science.
Alright, whatever the hell you'd like to phrase it as to satisfy your pedantry, 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening. The term agree here doesn't mean "What's your gut feeling here?" it's "the data measured or the tests carried out point to this hypothesis."


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So are you suggesting we put mathematicians on this problem? The math guys got it right, the science guys got it wrong....
There weren't science guys back then (Let's see if this gets sacrificed on the altar of pedantry). Math is an integral part of science now.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
how does this support your argument that the "scientific consensus" is as good as real bona fide scientific method?
Straw man. I never claimed consensus was "as real bona fide scientific method". If you asked me however, the results of said consensus are based on their data they've acquired using the good ol' scientific method.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The entire point of the scientific method is to ensure that human and other biases do not affect the data points.
Well I'm sure as hell not sensing any human bias in this discussion right now…

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Consensus among professionals in support of a hypothesis hardly qualifies as empirical or measurable evidence subject to reasoning beyond an emotional need to agree with others.
You make it sound like they this is some kind of casual man on the street poll, rather than a considered conclusion based on the facts available. Do you think these guys are talking out of their asses?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2015, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, I can see I'm going to be out of my depth here. Tell me snow-i, does this mean you're a climate change denier?
As much as you're an AGW evangelical, yes.
That the jury is still out, so to speak?
That our understanding of the science behind Climate change is in it's infancy.

Sounds like the right title for you most of your post. Starting with…
Fire with fire and all that.
Semantic: relating to meaning in language or logic. In this case arguing what the term 'science' means.
I'm not arguing it. It means what it means there's really not a whole lot of wiggle room for that.

Alright, whatever the hell you'd like to phrase it as to satisfy your pedantry, 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening. The term agree here doesn't mean "What's your gut feeling here?" it's "the data measured or the tests carried out point to this hypothesis."
As it did when the scientific community decided the earth was flat based on "the data measured or the tests carried out point[ing] to this hypothesis". My point is that consensus means jack shit, and the science behind our climate patterns is by no means conclusive or complete. The flat-earth analog is apt because as our understanding of the Earth increased, so did our understanding of its shape. It follows that as our understanding of our climate increases, so will our understanding of climate change. "Consensus" does not measure our understanding of climate change, nor should it be considered when looking at the issue scientifically.

There weren't science guys back then (Let's see if this gets sacrificed on the altar of pedantry). Math is an integral part of science now.
And what will they say about our scientists today a few hundred years from now?

Straw man. I never claimed consensus was "as real bona fide scientific method".
Then we agree.
If you asked me however, the results of said consensus are based on their data they've acquired using the good ol' scientific method.
Which is by any scientific measure woefully incomplete. We know more about the inside of the sun then we do about the Earth's climate patterns to date.

Well I'm sure as hell not sensing any human bias in this discussion right now…
You're more than welcome to point to any flaws in my reasoning, but try to keep the insults in the closet with your AGW manifesto - they have no use here.

You make it sound like they this is some kind of casual man on the street poll, rather than a considered conclusion based on the facts available. Do you think these guys are talking out of their asses?
No, I don't think they're talking out of their asses. I also don't think they're anywhere near an acceptable degree of certainty as the biggest indicator of that certainty is "consensus". In other words, I would like the scientific process to continue as our technological advances allow us to get better at it. AGW is a political movement who's leaders have profited immensely both economically and politically through the hysteria they've caused by touting "consensus" as some kind of meaningful empirical indicator of our understanding of climate change.

I don't fault the scientists for this - they're doing what they're supposed to. Their hypothesis and conclusions will continue to change as new data and better theories emerge from the scientific process, and where we now laugh at the flat-earthers future climate scientists will laugh at us. Does this mean I deny AGW is a factor on the climate? No, but I also don't accept your dogma based on an infant science with alot of money and power hanging in the balance.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2015, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
As much as you're an AGW evangelical, yes.
Well that's funnily cryptic.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Fire with fire and all that.
That's kind of like meeting my match with your flame-thrower.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not arguing it. It means what it means there's really not a whole lot of wiggle room for that.
We're not lawyers here (or at least I'm not). Many people can understand how terms are being used via context.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
"Consensus" does not measure our understanding of climate change, nor should it be considered when looking at the issue scientifically
I'm not arguing the level of our understanding on the subject either. I'm flatly stating what we understand as of now.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Then we agree.
No, we don't. You're constantly twisting or misconstruing my words because you don't agree with the general premise behind them. This many posts in and all you're doing is picking apart how I've worded my point rather than the point itself.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Which is by any scientific measure woefully incomplete.
Sometimes we have to make decisions based on the information we have. I realize you disagree.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're more than welcome to point to any flaws in my reasoning,
I'm pointing out the flaws in you manner of argument. You obviously disagree with my general premise, but rather than say so, you've obfuscated it behind some grand display of wordsmanship. This post is the first time you've actually made some real statements.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
but try to keep the insults in the closet with your AGW manifesto
Believing in AGW qualifies as having a manifesto. Got it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I also don't think they're anywhere near an acceptable degree of certainty as the biggest indicator of that certainty is "consensus".
Ah. So what you're saying is, you don't think we have enough information to act on.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
AGW is a political movement who's leaders have profited immensely both economically and politically through the hysteria they've caused by touting "consensus" as some kind of meaningful empirical indicator of our understanding of climate change.
And this seems to be pointing to AGW is a political and economic conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Their hypothesis and conclusions will continue to change as new data and better theories emerge from the scientific process, and where we now laugh at the flat-earthers future climate scientists will laugh at us.
Well here's the interesting thing. CC is our current best conclusion given the data. Right? What's the harm in acting on that conclusion?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Their hypothesis and conclusions will continue to change as new data and better theories emerge from the scientific process, and where we now laugh at the flat-earthers future climate scientists will laugh at us.
To me, this implies you think scientists must be wrong now. And it also overlooks being right for the 'wrong' reason.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Does this mean I deny AGW is a factor on the climate? No, but I also don't accept your dogma based on an infant science with alot of money and power hanging in the balance.
What power is hanging in the balance?


It'd have been nice to just cut through the bullshit and tell me you disagreed with the conclusion in my analogy rather than the analogy itself instead of trying to do some kind of death through a thousand grammatical cuts thing.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2015, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well that's funnily cryptic.
I don't believe it's cryptic at all.

That's kind of like meeting my match with your flame-thrower.
Your not the only one here that's capable of being snarky.

We're not lawyers here (or at least I'm not). Many people can understand how terms are being used via context.
Even when using that term incorrectly? Perhaps it was I who needed the clarification.

I'm not arguing the level of our understanding on the subject either. I'm flatly stating what we understand as of now.
Then you and I are talking past each other, as I am not satisfied that what we understand as of now is sufficient to draw any conclusions, especially when the most scientific rationale we can provide is "consensus". I am flatly stating that the science simply isn't there yet.

No, we don't. You're constantly twisting or misconstruing my words because you don't agree with the general premise behind them. This many posts in and all you're doing is picking apart how I've worded my point rather than the point itself.
Challenging your argument by applying it to logical tests to demonstrate it's weaknesses is not the same as misconstruing or twisting your words. If you believe I've missed your point, then perhaps you've not communicated it clearly enough as I've done nothing but address your arguments head on. I've only sought to demonstrate how weakly they support your point.

Sometimes we have to make decisions based on the information we have. I realize you disagree.
What does this even mean? Sounds like the same "something is better than nothing" bullshit i've heard so often (which is at extreme odds with the word "science" that gets thrown around so often.)

We have a potential problem on our hands with climate change (or potentially not). Are you advocating that we make policy decisions based on what we know to be incomplete/immature data? Isn't that one of your major complaints with the war in Iraq? That we went in with what we knew to be incomplete/unverified data?

I'm pointing out the flaws in you manner of argument. You obviously disagree with my general premise, but rather than say so, you've obfuscated it behind some grand display of wordsmanship. This post is the first time you've actually made some real statements.
Well if thats the case, could you please restate the premise you're using to support your argument and reconcile that premise with my arguments against it?

Believing in AGW qualifies as having a manifesto. Got it.
Just like being skeptical makes you a denier, right?

Ah. So what you're saying is, you don't think we have enough information to act on.
No, I think the quality of the information we have isn't enough to act on, nor do we presently have the tools to process/interpret that information correctly. I do believe this will change in the relative near term as our science and technology advances in the area of study.

And this seems to be pointing to AGW is a political and economic conspiracy.
Not as a conspiracy but as a vehicle for greed, just like any other hot-button issue today.

Well here's the interesting thing. CC is our current best conclusion given the data. Right? What's the harm in acting on that conclusion?
All the consequences of those actions which may be completely unfounded would be the harm in acting on that conclusion. Literally any consequence of those actions.

To me, this implies you think scientists must be wrong now. And it also overlooks being right for the 'wrong' reason.
There's a difference between "wrong" and "don't know".

What power is hanging in the balance?
You don't equate taxes, regulatory authority, money, & influence as power? What exactly is power in your mind?

It'd have been nice to just cut through the bullshit and tell me you disagreed with the conclusion in my analogy rather than the analogy itself instead of trying to do some kind of death through a thousand grammatical cuts thing.
My arguments have nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with the way you're framing your argument, which IMO is rather unscientifically.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2015, 10:29 AM
 
Since we've drift into climate change:
8:45 AM | The sun is now virtually blank during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century « Vencore Weather
Consequences of a weak solar cycle
First, the weak solar cycle has resulted in rather benign “space weather” in recent times with generally weaker-than-normal geomagnetic storms. By all Earth-based measures of geomagnetic and geoeffective solar activity, this cycle has been extremely quiet. However, while a weak solar cycle does suggest strong solar storms will occur less often than during stronger and more active cycles, it does not rule them out entirely. In fact, the famous "superstorm" Carrington Event of 1859 occurred during a weak solar cycle (#10) [http://vencoreweather.com/2014/09/02...55-years-ago/]. In addition, there is some evidence that most large events such as strong solar flares and significant geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the declining phase of the solar cycle. In other words, there is still a chance for significant solar activity in the months and years ahead.

Second, it is pretty well understood that solar activity has a direct impact on temperatures at very high altitudes in a part of the Earth’s atmosphere called the thermosphere. This is the biggest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which lies directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity.

Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830 (below). Both of these historical periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many scientists as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2015, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
My arguments have nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with the way you're framing your argument, which IMO is rather unscientifically.
The underlying point being – still – that you're making a big deal out of the specifics while ignoring the broad point of the analogy in reference to the actual topic.

But since that's about as clear as things are going to get, I'll show myself out. I don't typically debate global warming, but I didn't realize I was until several posts in of my phrasing being picked apart.

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Since we've drift into climate change:
Have at it, it's Snow-i's thread. But doesn't the Catholic Church believe it's happening?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2015, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post


Have at it, it's Snow-i's thread. But doesn't the Catholic Church believe it's happening?
Not quite. If you are refering to the statement issued by the recent climate change workshop, it was not a Magisterial document.
I get the feeling there were not any skeptics presenting data to the workshop.

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph

Did exaggerated records make global warming look worse? | Daily Mail Online
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2015, 03:55 PM
 
I'm referring to stuff like this from last year.

Pope Francis Makes Biblical Case For Addressing Climate Change: 'If We Destroy Creation, Creation Will Destroy Us' | ThinkProgress
“Safeguard Creation,” he said. “Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us! Never forget this!”

Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility
During the 20th century world population grew by a factor of four (to more than 6 billion) and world output by 14, industrial output increased by a multiple of 40 and the use of energy by 16, methane-producing cattle population grew in pace with human population, fish catch increased by a multiple of 35, and carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 10. It is not without cause that our current era has been named the Anthropocene.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2015, 12:31 PM
 
Why is it you can't post an explanation instead of just links?

And only a nutter would think anything Francis has said is 'radical'.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2015, 10:35 PM
 
Here is the latest success story from First Way Pregnancy Centers in AZ.
https://www.facebook.com/1stWayCente...10930335618282
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2015, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Reversing a physical abortion could open up a whole new class of baby-switch errors. I can imagine the lawsuits.
Or the movies Disney could make out of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2015, 04:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
As it did when the scientific community decided the earth was flat based on "the data measured or the tests carried out point[ing] to this hypothesis". My point is that consensus means jack shit, and the science behind our climate patterns is by no means conclusive or complete. The flat-earth analog is apt because as our understanding of the Earth increased, so did our understanding of its shape. It follows that as our understanding of our climate increases, so will our understanding of climate change. "Consensus" does not measure our understanding of climate change, nor should it be considered when looking at the issue scientifically.
Actually the flat Earth idea is not as apt as you think. For a start its an opinion that mostly pre-dated the scientific method, so any consensus was not scientific. I'm pretty sure the ancient Greeks new the Earth was round. It was on covered on an episode of QI.

Scientific consensus while not really scientific in itself, is the best thing the layperson has to go on. And all the people doing the meaningful debating and deciding on policies are laypeople.

Its bizarre that people who will happily take the word of an intelligence agency that someone on the far side of the planet is guilty of this, that and the other without expecting to see a shred of evidence and will even support wars over such intel but will argue with thousands of scientists who openly publish reams of data and explain its significance. Except its not really that bizarre, because these decisions nearly always come down on the side of whatever best suits the decider.
In other words, its wishful thinking at best.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,