Greenland's most critical glacier is suddenly gaining ice. CNN: here's why that's bad

submitted by iamonlyoneman from edition.cnn.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, science is the current best knowledge. The uncovering of new facts produces new understanding, and the scientific consensus occasionally moves to align with new facts.

More often a new fact doesn't fundamentally refute an understanding but adds to it.

The enhanced greenhouse effect is contributing to the ice mass loss in Greenland. An oscillation is affecting this one particular glacier, so that it has been going through a growth phase. It doesn't overthrow anything we know. It just adds some detailed knowledge about the micro-climate of one glacier.

The only irony here is how fanatical cultists like you who believe in the infallibility of science actually have the biggest egos.

On the contrary. The changing of one's understanding based on new facts is the opposite of having a big ego.

Let's all forget that the old science was once published too and demand that being published is absolute proof of truth, and proof that this new truth is based on the smart people doing smart things and advancing human knowledge. The only true knowledge of humanity. The published knowledge. It is in the Bible now and obviously that means it has divine properties of invoation, discovery, and novelty.

What?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The changing of one's understanding based on new facts is the opposite of having a big ego.

The ego is your belief that adherence to a religious doctrine is more intelligent than thinking for yourself. That those who question the "science" because they think for themselves are somehow less intelligent than those who accept scientism without question.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not religious.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Who can produce science? If your answer to the question is anything other than anyone then what you believe to be science is scientism, a religion.

Your religion only allows those inducted into your priesthood to espouse on the contents of your Bible.

Science does not have gatekeepers. Your religion does.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Flat earthers don't produce science, because science requires rational thought, sounds reasoning, and the ability to accept evidence.

It turns out people who have spent a couple of decades in a field trend to have a more rounded understanding of the relevant data, and a correct understanding of the work of those who have done before.