|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
On Jul 30, 3:42 pm, wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:09 pm, "Server 13" wrote: They say global warming is real (it is!) Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to deny global warming. (He has in the past) Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming. Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.) Um, the rest of the world disagrees. If that were actually true, the above post would have never been made. OK, the rest of the world -5% Denialists.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Science isn't a democracy. lol Quoting the same ten or so denialists over and over isn't science.- Hide quoted text - Stating that same old lame ass propaganda line that " all scientists" BELIEVE in this fable is not science either. Give us directly here the scientific poll of either climate scientists or scientists in general. Or admit that, like usual, you are talking out of your ass, making unsupported statements and are delusional in even this fact in which you believe. At some point you twits just may find out that it can be incredibly dangerous to believe your own lies. There are plenty of scientists and many more that do not believe in this non-scientifically derived conclusion. They just do not go around stating bald face lies like this in promotion of their propaganda. KDeatherage- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I got your poll. It's called the IPCC, the NOAA, and the National Academy of Sciences. All 3 groups (comprised of literally thousands of climatology experts, by the way) have concluded that global warming is a) happening and b) been exacerbated by man. And, believe it or not dumb****, they've done this by actually applying the scientific method to the issue. Then again, how could thousands of experts with collectively hundreds of thousands of hours reasearching the subject stack up against your XOM-funded shill groups and various loons with their anecdotes? Oh, that's right, you live in bizzarro con world, where reality is based on your predetermined conclusions. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
Benj wrote: Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too huge to read on Google! What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political agenda where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window. We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and using clever wording and lies to further their agenda. The Global warming thing is a great example. They say global warming is real (it is!) Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to deny global warming. (He has in the past) Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming. Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.) Bottom line we all must accept global warming as due to our SUVs and power plants or these guys will call us nasty names! Brrrrr! I'm shaking in my boots! This is all identical to the "gun control" debate where firearm ownership is tied by the propagandists to higher crime rates. Too bad all scientific studies including the ones mandated by Congress and done by the CDC found NO such connections. So what am I getting at here? These issues are NOT what I'm talking about. I"m not trying to forward a political agenda here, save ONE: To take the POLITICS out of Science! Science, it seems has developed a certain amount of well-deserved credibility in the public perception. So it isn't surprising that those with a political agenda would try to USE that public credibility to further their political agendas. What I'm saying here is that we scientists, need to stand up and speak out. No, not take sides in the debate lies. And certainly not to join all the noise of name-calling and "proofs by assertion" that characterize political "debates". No! We need to squawk loud and often about this SUBVERSION of the integrity of Science by political agendas. When lies are all over the media being held up as "science" someone needs to point it out and when prizes are given for bogus research they need to be taken back and the schools embarrassed! In short all this MISUSE of OUR science for political purpose needs to stop and it's only going to stop if WE start speaking out instead of going along with those pretending there is a "scientific" debate where there actually is none! Exactly, the narrow bandwidth provided by corporate media supplies instant consent. But its worst, China, India are producing a diverse army of scientists and engineers who have not grownup with the monumental monotone media. We spend our time distracted by fools who think all they need is to pound a irrelevent black book and be afforded equal access to our homes and our childrens classes. America is nolonger the land of free expression, people in China, India, freely expressing a far larger range of opinions each fitting current scientific understandings. Amercians super-capitalists have shat in the scientific pie far too often when it suited them. Rolling out the armies of God they smash any contrary freespeach that holds to current scientific wisdom with their collective voice. You see religion is essentiallyu socialism, and the President is the first true communtarian. America will rebound but only after a decade of ridiculing Jesus freaks. Science moves forward by fertilising and nourishing a public space for open debate that stomps on the beliefs of people of faith with a passion. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like"gun control" and Global Warming!
Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:00:34 -0700, Benj wrote: (snip unscientific arguments) You are spot on. Get a good newsreader and join the fray. We need more people with science backgrounds. You need people with science backgrounds just like creationists need people with biology backgrounds. Hop |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
wrote: On Jul 30, 2:46 pm, Einar wrote: wrote: On Jul 30, 2:21 pm, Joe Strout wrote: In article . com, Benj wrote: They say global warming is real (it is!) Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to deny global warming. (He has in the past) Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming. That's not a leap of faith, that's the scientific consensus resulting from decades of detailed, careful climate modeling by real climate scientists, before the whole thing became politicized and unscientific loons like yourself started trying to get involved. If you stick to serious scientific journals, like Science (which I've read on a weekly basis since college), it's clear that there has never been any serious controversy about whether the current warming is anthropogenic, nor the extent to which CO2 and other gasses are to blame (and yes, there are others, but that's the main one). No such theory exists. All we have are vague, untestable notions. If you believe otherwise then why don't you show us. Go ahead. What are you waiting for, a hand engraved invitation. Show us. Put us in our place. Go ahead. There has been only the ordinary haggling over the details. This is much like another case where unscientific loons with a political axe to grind are trying to interfere with the scientific process: evolution. Really. I'm an expert in evolutionary theory. Biologists all know evolution is real, just as climatologists all know that anthropogenic global warming is real. Bull****. AGW is 100% propaganda, 0% science. But religious fundies try to spread uncertainty and doubt by digging up "experts" who support their views, as long as you don't look too closely at their arguments or credentials; and by blowing ordinary scientific discourse out of proportion to make the case that the scientists haven't any idea what's going on. Surely you don't expect us to take your word on all of this. Or do you? This is by now very much old hat to anybody who follows such things; these are the standard tricks which people use to obstruct the dissemination of scientific understanding. Nobody stopping you from posting whatever you wish. It's often effective, too -- look how many people still ascribe to creationism (or some modern label thereof such as "intelligent design"), and periodically get schoolboards to interfere with the teaching of evolution, one of the central pillars of biology. It's a bit sad that the U.S. seems particularly susceptible to such shenanigans; most other countries are far more rational in this respect. I attribute this to the combination of poor science education, and an abnormally high level of religious fervor. Frankly, we'd be much better off with more science and less religion, since science leads to truth, while religion leads to dogma (often, *conflicting* dogma, which leads to wars and other such unpleasantness) and poor decisions. Science, it seems has developed a certain amount of well-deserved credibility in the public perception. But not enough, apparently, since politicians and religious leaders can still spread uncertainty and doubt regarding firm scientific conclusions -- just as you're doing now. AGW theory is nothing but vague, untestable rhetoric. It exist only in the fervent imagination of numerous whackos like yourself. (You are demostrating as much right here.) No! We need to squawk loud and often about this SUBVERSION of the integrity of Science by political agendas. When lies are all over the media being held up as "science" someone needs to point it out and when prizes are given for bogus research they need to be taken back and the schools embarrassed! In short all this MISUSE of OUR science for political purpose needs to stop and it's only going to stop if WE start speaking out instead of going along with those pretending there is a "scientific" debate where there actually is none! Oddly enough, I agree with all this. It just seems to be the exact opposite of what you were doing a few paragraphs ago. That's because your own thinking is so ephemeral you don't know what you think from one moment to the next. Expert on evolutionary theory. Extrapolate a bit on that. Google Groups. Even though itīs not on topic, does that mean you agree with scientists that evolution is real Of course. and that you accept the currently given scientific age for the planet? Specifically? Einar- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That the age of the planet exceeds 3.5 billion years. You accept that? Cheers, Einar |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like"gun control" and Global Warming!
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
In sci.physics Hop David wrote:
wrote: Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start. And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means. I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned and could care less about the arguements either way. Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
wrote: On Jul 30, 3:09 pm, "Server 13" wrote: They say global warming is real (it is!) Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to deny global warming. (He has in the past) Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming. Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.) Um, the rest of the world disagrees. If that were actually true, the above post would have never been made. OK, the rest of the world -5% Denialists.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Science isn't a democracy. lol Quoting the same ten or so denialists over and over isn't science.- Hide quoted text - Stating that same old lame ass propaganda line that " all scientists" BELIEVE in this fable is not science either. Give us directly here the scientific poll of either climate scientists or scientists in general. Or admit that, like usual, you are talking out of your ass, making unsupported statements and are delusional in even this fact in which you believe. At some point you twits just may find out that it can be incredibly dangerous to believe your own lies. There are plenty of scientists and many more that do not believe in this non-scientifically derived conclusion. They just do not go around stating bald face lies like this in promotion of their propaganda. KDeatherage To use words like "lame ass propaganda" "you twits" must give you a fealing of well being. You appear to think that they give more power to your words, despite complete lack of any rational arguments in your post. Einar |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
wrote: In sci.physics Hop David wrote: wrote: Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start. And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means. I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned and could care less about the arguements either way. Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if itīs present in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments wether that is the case or not. How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing? Einar |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:56:29 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com, wrote: If you stick to serious scientific journals, like Science (which I've read on a weekly basis since college), it's clear that there has never been any serious controversy about whether the current warming is anthropogenic, nor the extent to which CO2 and other gasses are to blame (and yes, there are others, but that's the main one). No such theory exists. All we have are vague, untestable notions. Nonsense. We're talking about detailed climate models here; nothing vague or untestable about them. Your comments give you away as having little experience with climate models. If you believe otherwise then why don't you show us. Go ahead. What are you waiting for, a hand engraved invitation. Show us. Put us in our place. Go ahead. Okey dokey, but I only have 5 minutes before I need to leave for the day. Let's see what a mere 5 minutes or less of Googling turns up (should be faster than rifling through recent issues of Science, though not as effective -- I invite you to visit a "library" and try the latter for yourself)... http://www.ocean-sci.net/1/45/2005/os-1-45-2005.html http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL025579.shtml http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/...ts/060405.html OK, that only took about one minute, but it shows you (or at least, shows those willing to see), as requested. And you're not worth any more of my time than that. I'm not sure what your prowess in googling has to do with the state of climate modeling. You might want to read the model limitations section of the IPCC FAR, for example, for a more direct indication. Basically. they are low resolution (3 or 4 degrees), and thus don't handle water latent heat well. They depend heavily on arbitrary parameters, which must be laboriously tuned to converge on past training data. They often have a vast excess of degrees of freedom. If you actually have and understand any references showing otherwise, lets talk. I don't expect you to be convinced, because you are a AGW-denying loon with a political axe to grind, and you'll reject any-sized mountain of evidence if it conflicts with your politically motivated agenda. But you asked, so there it is. No please go away, and take your anti-science babbling elsewhere. Your politics are showing. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
In sci.physics Einar wrote:
wrote: In sci.physics Hop David wrote: wrote: Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start. And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means. I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned and could care less about the arguements either way. Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments wether that is the case or not. What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means are you too blazingly stupid to understand? How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing? Clue number 1: How many people book vacations to Alaska compared to Barmuda? Clue number 2: How many crops, i.e. food, are grown between 45 degrees and 90 degrees compared to +/- 45 degrees? Clue number 3: The population as you go through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and finally get to North Dakota. Clue number 4: People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine, Minnesota or Washington. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | Policy | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | History | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Planetoid2001 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 10:33 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Astronomie | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 04:01 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Phineas T Puddleduck | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 03:23 PM |