Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

I WAS KIDDING! Did you not read the next line? However, I think being specialtive of data that comes from the distant past is prudent. If one did not question the geocentric model like Copernicus and Galileo, but rather agreed with the Aristotelian consensus would we be better off? Most of the tools we have for looking at the distant past are murky at best, so while useful always have to be taken in stride, which is what I have been saying all along.

Radio age dating, and stellar cartagrophy have all shown themselves to be off by large margins at times. For instance, the believed age of the universe has increased 5 billion years in my life time...a very large number when trying to make other measurements like cosmic inflation and other dependent things. Small and large variances would undo very fundamental understood physical properties of the universe. If the age of the universe changes by any amount, any new theory trying to explain cosmological inflation has to be reworked from scratch...or at the very least re-propagated.

I never said throw it out, I said approach it with cautious skepticism, the same would go for radio carbon dating. It is good for estimations and approximations, but the fact is the data sets could be wildly inerrant. For general things like tectonic tenancies and the slow moment of things overtime, this isn't as big of a deal. But for making very detailed climatic predictions about the overall direction and the results of said direction of the weather is putting to much credence in the information at hand.

If the science is bogus, it doesn't necessarily have to be disproven in a timely manor either. It was nearly two thousands years from Aristotle to Galileo, and that was with something that could bee seen, this can never been seen. Your mistaken my faith in God for my ability to use reason as well. I started an atheist and have a firm back round in science and scientific thinking. The modern movement of science by consolidation more resembles church that true empirical thought. I find that true science is dead, and what is alive now is conjecture by consensus. The empirical model is dead. Science now has more faith than most would care to comment on. Belief in aliens because of the large amount of space and large amount of planets is evidence of faith before empiricism. If you want faith, church is ok, but science is chop full of non-agnostic positions.

My desire is to not be ignorant. I find the current fear mongering as a play on ignorance. I find people defending the radical data as definitive as naive. But I also see pollution as a problem that should be corrected if not just for the sake of doing it or the planet; but for breath of fresh air in the morning, a commodity that is hard to price.

Try not to be jaded by people you assume I am like and look at my argument more fully next time. I don't think you read exactly what I said but you read more what you wanted to read from someone named like I am named. I also was very crass and kinda rude to start off my comments in that thread, so maybe I had it coming

Anyway, it is a problem that is bigger than any one of us, so us calling each other names or mocking each others believe systems is not going to get us anywhere. I will endeavor to not get sarcastic when on a mountain dew high if you will read my objections for what they really are, based in rational skepticism. When confronted with skepticism, my position is to remain as agnostic about projections about what I am skeptical about until that thing is resolved; it is the only logical position.

In reply to this comment by asynchronice:
"O shit, they had climatologists in the 300,000BC"

LOL...you've got to be fucking kidding me. Let's throw out carbon dating too. It's unverifiable! You weren't there ! And how do they know what stars are made of ? They can't verify it !

I don't get the defensiveness here. No debate corporations will use this data for profit. They will use ANYTHING for profit. And governments will always want to tax more of their citizenry. It has no import/relevance on the scientific facts being given. And if the science is bogus, then it will be disproven. PERIOD. That's just how it works. Just because you're spoiled and think the scientific community has to give you a day, a time, and detailed description of what will happen, isn't a reason to dismiss it. If you want that, go back to church.

It weirds me out that people go to great lengths to show how it is all a conspiracy to instill fear and get money; just look at the facts, and make up your own goddamn mind. And if you choose to be willfully ignorant, then do people a favor and stay out of the debate. Some of us actually want to understand what's going on.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This wasn't meant to be posted here - anyway i replied again on the kia ora advert post. Go read it if ya want.

I replied to this on the video post itself... but I kinda wanted to make sure you heard my side:

>> ^asynchronice:
My wife works at a hospital, and can tell stories of 'natural births' that have gone horribly wrong. While that can also happen at a hospital, at least at a hospital you have the the very best people available to step in ASAP. I can't fathom why an 'empowering experience' would be more important than the physical well-being of your child.
And I get weary of the 'business=bad' line of thinking; if you don't like capitalism, try the other games in town and see what you think. These montages of 'people in suits SIGNING things' are so cliche.


*sigh* You and your wife are so very much part of the problem:

* The use of quotations around natural births suggests that you don't think giving birth the way your body was built to give birth is natural... which, is... you know, weird and all.

* You have many, MANY misconceptions here:

1. You assume a natural birth means to give birth at home... hmmm... how about a big fat WRONG on that. While yes, many people would like to give birth at home, and many do, especially in countries which actually support it, it's in no way a necessity. Allow me to state the case for a natural birth IN HOSPITAL... Our first child was diagnosed with a collection (yep, a good 4 or so) of serious heart defects at the 20 week ultrasound (yeah, see, wanting a natural birth doesn't mean eschewing all forms of science you know). Even with this knowledge we (and especially my wife) still wanted a natural birth, and after consultation it was decided it could indeed go ahead that way... and you know what? She had a completely natural birth, and as soon as he was born he was taken care of by an enormous team of doctors, specialists and god knows who else... and now, after open heart surgery and care he's a very happy 4 year old with a funky chest scar.

2. You suggest that the doctors/nurses etc. at the hospital are the 'very best people'... not really true in many cases when it comes to child birth. What is happening SO, SO more now is doctors wanting to get births done and out of the way as quickly as possible. Close friends of ours had their birth booked in so as to fall before the DOCTOR'S HOLIDAY... heaven forbid it be let happen naturally, no, it was induced and pushed out early with many drugs, just so the doctor could go and have his hugely expensive holiday. The doctors and nurses at hospitals are so VERY MUCH NOT natural birth friendly or aware most of the time. We've had hospital midwives throw their hands up and leave the room because my wife refused to be strapped to a bed in a very uncomfortable position during childbirth because that was 'procedure'... (We've always had an independent midwife, and let me tell you they're worth their weight in gold, as they can step in when the nurses/doctors are saying 'look, the baby is distressed etc. I think we need to speed this up'... etc. etc. They can step in and say 'Um, actually, no, the baby is fine... their heart rate does that you know... they are being squished a fair bit down there...
Doctors LOVE to use the term 'baby in distress' to force people into have a caesar or force things along with drugs, or using suction or forceps or the like... because they know that without any other knowledge, if you suggest to parent's to be that their unborn baby might be in danger, you'll leap. With an knowledgeable independent midwife you can cut through the bullshit and know when it's ok to continue going naturally... that sometimes births do actually, you know, take a while... and sometimes they do hurt a lot (man they love offering you drugs), and sometimes the mother makes a lot of noise (we have friends who were told they were being too noisy), and all of this is OK. But if you're thinking they're rogue operators who love to put mothers and babies in risk, you're wrong. They also know when to say "Actually, they're right, it's best to intervene here"

3. "I can't fathom why an 'empowering experience' would be more important than the physical well-being of your child." Because it's not about putting one above the other, it's about what's best for BOTH mother AND baby. What's better for the baby do you think? A natural birth the way things nature intended, with all the GOOD body chemicals etc. being brought into play, and the baby being pushed out AS DESIGNED. OR... a birth where both mother and baby are drug addled with un-natural drugs and possibly removed from the mother either by being yanked out by metal clasps on the skull, or pulled out via the mother being cut open?

YES, sometimes things go wrong that require intervention, but MOST, by FAR most times it is NOT required. Check out the world facts, check out the stats on countries that encourage midwives and natural births, and you'll find FAR fewer interventions with NO increase in complications. This leaping to intervene crap is PURELY the doctors et al not liking being out of control, preferring (for THEIR sakes, not the mother/baby) to be able to control things with a scalpel.

4. "And I get weary of the 'business=bad' line of thinking; if you don't like capitalism, try the other games in town and see what you think." You think that's the way to run HEALTH CARE? You do know that in the VAST majority of countries this sort of thing is free? Provided by the government, as it should be? Not for profit? No, you think that giving birth should be for profit do you? I'm sorry, but that's pretty twisted.