A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 30th 07, 11:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment,sci.physics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
neoconis_ignoramus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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  
Old July 31st 07, 12:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment,sci.physics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
PerfectlyAble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old July 31st 07, 12:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment,sci.physics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 656
Default 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  
Old July 31st 07, 12:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment,sci.physics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
Einar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,219
Default 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  
Old July 31st 07, 12:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment,sci.physics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 656
Default Science out the window when it comes to political issues like"gun control" and Global Warming!

wrote:



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



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

Hop
  #27  
Old July 31st 07, 01:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment,sci.physics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
Einar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,219
Default 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

  #29  
Old July 31st 07, 01:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment,sci.physics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
Bill Ward[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default 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  
Old July 31st 07, 02:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.environment,sci.physics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 08:19 AM
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" Jonathan History 9 December 22nd 06 08:19 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.