Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

[EricHiggin]

SpokenTruth said:

EricHiggin said:

Same here since I'm wondering when we're going to get back to the original topic of paying for the wall but it seems you want to stay away from that.

I didn't question the climate historical data.

We only know based on what we've found, and to assume we've found everything is one bold assumption. How do you know for sure that we couldn't have lived in those conditions? There's been plenty of change already and we're still here. If it's tech that's aloud us to survive, then why can't it continue to based on it's ever rapid innovation and evolution?

How do you definitely know there will be 12 billion people in 100 years? Why will it be around 100 years before we can live on Mars if at all? I thought we only had 12 years? The expert scientists told us all so already.

If you want to continue this discussion regarding historical climate data, human physiology, ecosystem robustness, population projections, mars colonization, and science in general, we will need a new thread.  You are correct that we have moved too far off the original topic at hand and should return to it (or Trump specifically given that is this thread's overall topic).

I will say one thing regarding those other topics.  Skepticism is not a valid means for debunking data.  If you think our ice core data, geological strata, fossil records, and other markers are insufficient to determine historical climate trends, then you need to postulate why. What precisely makes them insufficient for that use?  What basis are you founding your skepticism upon? What better means and methods should we use? 

I agree.

To finish the previous conversation, I do believe skepticism is a valid means when data is presented as 100% accurate and factual, when it sometimes is found not to be, especially in reoccurring cycles. That's not to say it was a lie to begin with, because new facts may have come to light since, but that doesn't change the fact that it was incorrect or incomplete when presented, yet unknowingly. For example, your point about Mars. Since you keep using historical data and trends etc, if you simply look at human history in it's entirety as we know it, and compare that to the last 100 years, then it shouldn't be crazy to think we couldn't have billions of people on Mars in 100 years or so. That's not to say it's definitely going to happen, but based on some of the tools you were using for your previous points, it should fit the mold, yet you didn't seem to think so. This of course leads me to confusion.

What I think is the most important is to find and use tools that both sides agree upon and debate using them. If both sides are using completely different tools, or using them in a completely different manner, then having a productive conversation is going to be extremely difficult. Not only do both people need to 'learn the same language', they need to both have the same understanding of it's 'words and meanings', if you get my point. Things like bias however can disrupt this understanding nonetheless, and trying to remove that is like trying to remove stage 4 cancer, which we're still working on curing. There isn't a one fits all answer unfortunately so sometimes we have to compromise and sometimes there's no choice but to face the fact that there's very little you can do about the problem as the present time and just know you tried and hopefully learned.