Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

In article . com,
neoconis_ignoramus wrote:

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.

Yeah, and indeed, it's only because they've applied the scientific
method that they have all reached such a consensus. That's the real
power of science: it is the only means of generating knowledge that is
constrained against reality, so that people of diverse cultures,
backgrounds, and agendas will (if they all apply the method) come to
pretty much the same conclusions.

That's why science has risen in prominence over the centuries, while
other means of gaining knowledge (e.g. divine inspiration) have
declined. Only science produces results that (1) make predictions that
are usually correct, and (2) match everybody else's results.

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.

Just like the creationists.

There is a difference here, though, which just sunk in for me. A
creationist can believe whatever he want, and as long as he doesn't
screw with the public school system, it doesn't matter much to me -- and
it certainly doesn't matter to other countries. A country overrun with
creationists would simply decline in importance, as it's outcompeted in
the marketplace by the more scientifically literate ones.

But when it comes to global warming, it's really a global problem, and
one big country (like, say, the U.S.) can screw things up for everybody,
not just for themselves. That's why it's so heinous that the deniers
were in power here for so long, after the rest of the world was at least
making an effort. But the denial finally broke under the weight of
scientific opinion, and that's a sign that the system basically works if
I ever saw one.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

Hop David wrote:
wrote:



Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".

How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I don't know.

How's this: ppmv.

Cheers,

Rich


Hop

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.

Yup.

Although Venus receives nearly double the insolation of earth, it also
has nearly twice the albedo. The sunlight reaching the planet is
comparable to earth's. It's thick CO2 atmosphere seems to explain the
planet's high temperature.

-----


And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means.

Eh? I had no intention to argue about that. Oh. I see you're talking to
the inflatable straw man you just pulled out of the closet.


I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned
and could care less about the arguements either way.

When confronted with the possibility of a scientific argument you resort
to what Strout calls D3:

D3: "OK, global warming is real, but it's a natural process and humans
aren't to blame, therefore we still don't need to modify our behavior."
Or, "OK, global warming is real and it's our fault, but a nice toasty
world sounds nice to me, think I'll buy some beachfront property in
Alaska."

If surface sea temperatures do contribute to hurricane ferocity, you and
the rest of your dishonest ilk will have contributed to death, personal
injury and extensive property damage.


Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change.


Huh? Oh, your straw man again. He's getting sticky.

If you choose to argue science (the part of this post above the dashed
line) I will postpone kill filing you.

Hop

"Hop David" wrote in message
...
wrote:



Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".



How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

How about this: so is O2 N and H20.

Prove me wrong.

Hop to it, Hop.

Excellent points!

wrote in message
...
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.

People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine,
Minnesota or Washington.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are
entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it
actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today.
When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were
walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern
Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the
months of total darkness.

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

Such a change isn't going to happen over night, or even within a
person's lifetime, not matter what you see in the movies.

So what?

Met any Romans, Phoenicians, Mayans, Carthaginians, Shangs, Summerians,
Aztecs, Goths, Minoans, Hittites, or Bablyonians lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I said, the time of transition is the tricky part. Not the time when
all is over and done with.

The time of transition is already begun. That means things are on the
move already. The only thing we can affect now is the share size of
the change, and hence the extend of adaptation that will come
necessary.

What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly
due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion,
even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production
could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two
countries, and the world wouldn´t be able to rescue them preciselly
due to the size of theyr respective populations.

If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries
have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over
large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as
nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried?

Cheers, Einar

In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
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?

You appear to be setting a pleasant standard for the argument here

It's your arguement, not mine.

I refuse to particpate.


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.

Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are
entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it
actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today.
When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were
walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern
Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the
months of total darkness.

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

Such a change isn't going to happen over night, or even within a
person's lifetime, not matter what you see in the movies.

So what?

Met any Romans, Phoenicians, Mayans, Carthaginians, Shangs, Summerians,
Aztecs, Goths, Minoans, Hittites, or Bablyonians lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I said, the time of transition is the tricky part. Not the time when
all is over and done with.

The time of transition is already begun. That means things are on the
move already. The only thing we can affect now is the share size of
the change, and hence the extend of adaptation that will come
necessary.

Any such change will come at a rate that you can walk away from.

snip doom and gloom

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Hop David 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.

Yup.

Although Venus receives nearly double the insolation of earth, it also
has nearly twice the albedo. The sunlight reaching the planet is
comparable to earth's. It's thick CO2 atmosphere seems to explain the
planet's high temperature.

-----


And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means.

Eh? I had no intention to argue about that. Oh. I see you're talking to
the inflatable straw man you just pulled out of the closet.


I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned
and could care less about the arguements either way.

When confronted with the possibility of a scientific argument you resort
to what Strout calls D3:

D3: "OK, global warming is real, but it's a natural process and humans
aren't to blame, therefore we still don't need to modify our behavior."
Or, "OK, global warming is real and it's our fault, but a nice toasty
world sounds nice to me, think I'll buy some beachfront property in
Alaska."

If surface sea temperatures do contribute to hurricane ferocity, you and
the rest of your dishonest ilk will have contributed to death, personal
injury and extensive property damage.


Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change.


Huh? Oh, your straw man again. He's getting sticky.

If you choose to argue science (the part of this post above the dashed
line) I will postpone kill filing you.

Hop

What part of I have no interest in argueing about it that you are
too blazingly stupid to understand?

Idiots like you are just like the idiots that show up at my front
door trying to engage me in a conversation about their idea of God.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Hop David wrote:

wrote:
:
: Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".
:
:
:
:How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
:

How's this statement: CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, having much
smaller impacts than many others like water vapor and methane.

And which part of I have no interest in argueing about it are you
too blazingly stupid to understand?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 30, 4:20 pm, Einar wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:46 pm, Einar wrote:
wrote:

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
it´s 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?

That the age of the planet exceeds 3.5 billion years. You accept that?

Yes. Now that I've answered you question you answer mine.

You stated the following:
Einar:
. . . 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). There has been only the
ordinary haggling over the details.

I, Claudius Denk, responded as follows:
Denk:
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.

Well how about it Einar are you a scientist or a nose picker? Tell us
this wonderful theory you've been concealing from us all this time,
you clever little monkey.