RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science

RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:22:28 PM)
When "Global Warming" failed, the loony left did what it always does and changed the argument to "climate change". Science has PROVEN that climates are cyclical so, "climate change" is a "no-brainer" (which also suits the loony left)

epiphiny43 -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:28:20 PM)
Those who refuse to grasp what a Science Theory is also missed the key element of "Proof". Science can Never PROVE anything. There are always plausible exceptions or further knowledge and understanding in the future. What it does well is Disprove ideas and concepts. When experiment conflicts with predictions, the algorisms that made those predictions have to be changed or abandoned. Current 'theories' have survived huge numbers of experimental attempts to disprove them. Anyone familiar with the History of Science expects continual fine tuning of all theories and likely overarching new ideas that include what we know now as well as group previously unrelated events and dynamics under a new intellectual 'umbrella'. Those arguing against anthropogenic causes of global warming usually do so to prevent having to take inconvenient changes in their lifestyle or behavior. Regardless of the cause, global warming IS HAPPENING, the bigger question is how do we survive it individually, as communities and as cultures. And what might mitigate or reverse it. Knowing WHY has huge effects on that last, what might alter the present trajectory. Another thread on global warming keeps harping that there has been no warming the last decade or so. . . Totally false. Atmospheric warming has been inexplicable low, the Ocean has been warming at unprecidented levels, at almost all depths and areas. With what we now understand of the dynamics of ocean currents and how they modify atmospheric weather, ALL educated observers expect 'catastrophic' changes as major current alterations or failures occur. Biggie is if the Gulf Current fails, which probably puts Europe into a localized Ice Age by their standards, weather similar to Siberia or other areas equally far North.

mnottertail -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:29:42 PM)
WTF? Are the nutsuckers having a stupid off contest? It has always been climate change (thats the bigger picture) global warming is a small subset of that, (as is global cooling) one is talkiing about atmospheric events and the other the heating or cooling of our earth (they may often have a causal relationship). http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/08/bergen_county_scientist_who_co.html His paper was: "Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global warming" in Science magazine.

Yachtie -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:52:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC Let's run with that then Yachtie. I totally agree. A "theory" never becomes a fact in the absolute sense. However, since there is only one test case for this particular theory I think we can agree it is fact upon one successful test. The only rub with that is I don't WANT a successful test that involves massive loss of life and human suffering. So other than the actual, after-the-fact, reality what might convince you? Can you guarantee the after-the-fact reality upon which you wish to proceed? Right there I sense an element of faith in numbers today which, back in the 70s, we were told an ice age was coming. We were told that. I read it in TIME magazine. Makes me think of the scare-mongering when concealed carry was to be introduced in Florida. Blood will run in the streets. The way the numbers were used by the anti-carry folk one would think "this is a test we should not make as X WILL happen". I'm just musing here. It's not about convincing me. I do not deny that climate changes and that we are experiencing such. Historically it has been proven, climate changes. Back in the 70s we were told we were entering an ice age. Oh, but today we have better data. What data will it be tomorrow? If it's different, should we have proceeded today under what were false or erroneous assumptions? But the intentions are good I'm led to believe. I find it all to be emotionally driven. My problem with the whole advocacy is that it seems to be at a go-green cost-be-damned extreme and quite politically-agenda driven. I see it a lot from posters here. It's not science, it's agenda advocacy clothed in a pseudo-science immediacy of "we have to do something". I see it as irrational fear and not science based truth one can "take to the bank" with sufficient certainty as to justify what seems the heavy-handedness for accomplishment of what exactly? "So other than the actual, after-the-fact, reality what might convince you?" Jesus coming back?

mnottertail -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:54:56 PM)
Yet the most pronounced feature of the debate is the deniers treating the denials as religion, and not science.

JeffBC -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 3:12:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Can you guarantee the after-the-fact reality upon which you wish to proceed? Of course not. But let's just proceed on the idea that neither you or I are stupid. So what's going on in my head is pretty simple and the story reads something like this (numbers accurate last time I looked them up). 92% of all climate scientists who have published a paper in the last 2 years (that is to say, all active climate scientists) agree that we have a problem and that problem is likely man-made. That is plenty enough for me to dispense with all the hand-wringing and suggest we start looking at this problem with some diligence. It is not enough for me to say "at any cost". We are all trying to make an educated guess here and "at any cost" is rather absolute. However, when the risk is unknown but you have good reason to think it's "high" and the outcome is "exceptionally bad" don't you think SOME sort of moderate action ought to be happening while we sort it out? As a secondary question, how do you feel about the scientific process? Flawed as it is, it gives us the internet we are communicating on right now. That's where the "92% of all publishing..." gets me. Ultimately I believe in the scientific process and that's a pretty freakin high amount of agreement. That's a lot of folks who know better than me who have all reviewed each other's work and all agree. How many experts do we need before we either give up on the concept of expertise entirely (in this case, do away with science) or admit we must act on the basis of their accumulated opinions? Otherwise, what's the point in science at all? "So other than the actual, after-the-fact, reality what might convince you?" Jesus coming back? In other words, you have no dog i this game at all. You're mind is made up and that's that. I wish people who think that way would simply say it. "I have closed my mind on this topic and can conceive of no useful purpose to discuss it further"

Yachtie -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 7:02:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Can you guarantee the after-the-fact reality upon which you wish to proceed? Of course not. But let's just proceed on the idea that neither you or I are stupid. So what's going on in my head is pretty simple and the story reads something like this (numbers accurate last time I looked them up). 92% of all climate scientists who have published a paper in the last 2 years (that is to say, all active climate scientists) agree that we have a problem and that problem is likely man-made. That is plenty enough for me to dispense with all the hand-wringing and suggest we start looking at this problem with some diligence. It is not enough for me to say "at any cost". We are all trying to make an educated guess here and "at any cost" is rather absolute. However, when the risk is unknown but you have good reason to think it's "high" and the outcome is "exceptionally bad" don't you think SOME sort of moderate action ought to be happening while we sort it out? As a secondary question, how do you feel about the scientific process? Flawed as it is, it gives us the internet we are communicating on right now. That's where the "92% of all publishing..." gets me. Ultimately I believe in the scientific process and that's a pretty freakin high amount of agreement. That's a lot of folks who know better than me who have all reviewed each other's work and all agree. How many experts do we need before we either give up on the concept of expertise entirely (in this case, do away with science) or admit we must act on the basis of their accumulated opinions? Otherwise, what's the point in science at all? "So other than the actual, after-the-fact, reality what might convince you?" Jesus coming back? In other words, you have no dog i this game at all. You're mind is made up and that's that. I wish people who think that way would simply say it. "I have closed my mind on this topic and can conceive of no useful purpose to discuss it further" My first problem revolves around "likely man-made". Perhaps that's 20% man-made, or 80% man-made. Could be 100% man-made, or could even be zero. Now, I do not subscribe to zero. Nor do I to 100%. But neither can or do I subscribe to anything in between. I know not where to put my subscription. This leads me to not ringing any hysteria bell or proclaiming the sky is falling. Should we be doing something? Perhaps. But that begs the question of just what we should be doing if doing is what is determined is needed. Do we attack it as if it's 80%? 50%? or perhaps 20%? How much of what the data says is natural? Do we know? How close to 2+2=4 does science say we are in this respect? Can science even quantify such a question? The scientific process is working us there, maybe. I see way to much political involved for me to trust in expertise. Nor does consensus, even scientists, hold sway for me. I do not think climate science is there at this time. So I ask the question, on what exactly do we all hang our hats? As to my having a dog in this fight, well I better damn well. I live here too. My Jesus quip was tongue in cheek. Ultimately we'll all bugger along, fighting it out. My own personal observation is this - That technology is both our greatest asset and our worse liability. edit: I picked this off another thread. You wrote it. Or, more accurately, I have 100% confidence that they will do what they think is "right". It's just the way they evaluate "right" and "wrong" has nothing to do with anything except the acquisition and maintenance of power.

Phydeaux -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 7:03:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Can you guarantee the after-the-fact reality upon which you wish to proceed? Of course not. But let's just proceed on the idea that neither you or I are stupid. So what's going on in my head is pretty simple and the story reads something like this (numbers accurate last time I looked them up). 92% of all climate scientists who have published a paper in the last 2 years (that is to say, all active climate scientists) agree that we have a problem and that problem is likely man-made. Not true. As I sourced in the last thread on this, that number is made up. In fact many of the people claimed as 'supporters' signed op eds that they were,in fact, not supporters of human current global warming theory. quote: That is plenty enough for me to dispense with all the hand-wringing and suggest we start looking at this problem with some diligence. It is not enough for me to say "at any cost". We are all trying to make an educated guess here and "at any cost" is rather absolute. However, when the risk is unknown but you have good reason to think it's "high" and the outcome is "exceptionally bad" don't you think SOME sort of moderate action ought to be happening while we sort it out? Your figures and your science are just out of date. Google: Nasa admits global warming theories wrong. Google: Cern research shows solar radiation cause of global warming Google: Mann admits no global warming last 16 years.

JeffBC -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 7:10:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie My first problem revolves around "likely man-made". Perhaps that's 20% man-made, or 80% man-made. Could be 100% man-made, or could even be zero. Now, I do not subscribe to zero. Nor do I to 100%. But neither can or do I subscribe to anything in between. I know not where to put my subscription. You and I are in agreement here. In addition, I'd prefer to avoid the hysteria bell also... as would the actual scientists involved (if you go read their websites many of them decry the reblogging that happens afterwards which always sensationalizes the findings). We are also in agreement that it'd be nice if the science could be let to proceed with a minimum of political theatrics. The only problem is... that happened... and a 92% consensus was reached. Now what? By the way, there is a website where a bunch of actual climate scientists hang out. If you're interested I'll try to dig it up. They would be able to answer your question "how much is man-made". Of course, you're not going to get some blog answer from them. The answers tend to be detailed and nuanced. That, more than anything was what really threw me over into the 100% believer category. The general tone of the conversation was just so ... well ... pragmatic. How close to 2+2=4 does science say we are in this respect? 2+2=4 is not a science question, it's a math question. They are not even remotely the same thing. Math can deal in absolutes because it is an entirely constructed and artificial system. It makes sense because it was created to make sense. Reality is a bit more squirrely. quote: Can science even quantify such a question? In the absolute sense, no. But science can provide things like "confidence intervals" and "repeatable test data" and the like. And whatever science does provide, I'll remind you again it managed to produce the internet we are sharing this conversation over. It must be at least somewhat useful. ]As to my having a dog in this fight, well I better damn well. I live here too. My Jesus quip was tongue in cheek. My bad. I have a tendency to take things literally.

Hillwilliam -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 7:18:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Google: Nasa admits global warming theories wrong. Google: Cern research shows solar radiation cause of global warming Google: Mann admits no global warming last 16 years. The way you are setting up your search skews the results to be what you want. For instance, you could google "Evidence of Bigfoot found in Washington State" and show everyone that Bigfoot undoubtedly exists. But it doesn't does it? Seriously, anyone who has even thought about research, much less done any can see the prejudice in your methodology.

Yachtie -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 7:39:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie My first problem revolves around "likely man-made". Perhaps that's 20% man-made, or 80% man-made. Could be 100% man-made, or could even be zero. Now, I do not subscribe to zero. Nor do I to 100%. But neither can or do I subscribe to anything in between. I know not where to put my subscription. You and I are in agreement here. In addition, I'd prefer to avoid the hysteria bell also... as would the actual scientists involved (if you go read their websites many of them decry the reblogging that happens afterwards which always sensationalizes the findings). We are also in agreement that it'd be nice if the science could be let to proceed with a minimum of political theatrics. The only problem is... that happened... and a 92% consensus was reached. Now what? By the way, there is a website where a bunch of actual climate scientists hang out. If you're interested I'll try to dig it up. They would be able to answer your question "how much is man-made". Of course, you're not going to get some blog answer from them. The answers tend to be detailed and nuanced. That, more than anything was what really threw me over into the 100% believer category. The general tone of the conversation was just so ... well ... pragmatic. How close to 2+2=4 does science say we are in this respect? 2+2=4 is not a science question, it's a math question. They are not even remotely the same thing. Math can deal in absolutes because it is an entirely constructed and artificial system. It makes sense because it was created to make sense. Reality is a bit more squirrely. quote: Can science even quantify such a question? In the absolute sense, no. But science can provide things like "confidence intervals" and "repeatable test data" and the like. And whatever science does provide, I'll remind you again it managed to produce the internet we are sharing this conversation over. It must be at least somewhat useful. ]As to my having a dog in this fight, well I better damn well. I live here too. My Jesus quip was tongue in cheek. My bad. I have a tendency to take things literally. First, the internet. The Internet, like anything man-made, is a product of engineering. What science is attempting to do in this discussion is not engineering. It's more akin to medicine and the slow, arduous unraveling of the human mystery. So much we do not know. The more we learn, so it seems, the more we do not know. "2+2=4 is not a science question, it's a math question. They are not even remotely the same thing. Math can deal in absolutes because it is an entirely constructed and artificial system. It makes sense because it was created to make sense. Reality is a bit more squirrely." Bingo! Reality is quite squirrely. But the point of 2+2=4 is not one of math, but an answer within reality that works. 2+2=4, like gravity, is. I do not think the consensus you point to is close enough to such reality to hang one's hat on. There is a problem, so we are told. Therefore we need a solution. Exactly what is the problem? Both the problem and answer is one of consensus. Within this discussion, I find consensus to contain a bit of Voodoo. edit: One thing I have a problem with climate scientists is over modeling. Hell, the climate is as uncertain as economics and even that cannot be modeled correctly. Unlike other sciences, like chemistry and physics where modeling can be quite precise, modeling here is so imprecise that we have to resort to consensus. Given our history at economics, I'll not hang my hat on any climate consensus.

Phydeaux -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 8:30:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Google: Nasa admits global warming theories wrong. Google: Cern research shows solar radiation cause of global warming Google: Mann admits no global warming last 16 years. The way you are setting up your search skews the results to be what you want. For instance, you could google "Evidence of Bigfoot found in Washington State" and show everyone that Bigfoot undoubtedly exists. But it doesn't does it? Seriously, anyone who has even thought about research, much less done any can see the prejudice in your methodology. No offence, but.. duh. I'm not trying to present both sides of an issue - only one. You are welcome to evaluate the issue yourself. I'm only trying to provide counters to the (bs) opinions that 'the science is settled'. When, in fact, it isn't. Claims of authority are one of the last refuges of those who don't have an actual arguement.

Hillwilliam -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 9:06:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Google: Nasa admits global warming theories wrong. Google: Cern research shows solar radiation cause of global warming Google: Mann admits no global warming last 16 years. The way you are setting up your search skews the results to be what you want. For instance, you could google "Evidence of Bigfoot found in Washington State" and show everyone that Bigfoot undoubtedly exists. But it doesn't does it? Seriously, anyone who has even thought about research, much less done any can see the prejudice in your methodology. No offence, but.. duh. I'm not trying to present both sides of an issue - only one. You are welcome to evaluate the issue yourself. I'm only trying to provide counters to the (bs) opinions that 'the science is settled'. When, in fact, it isn't. Claims of authority are one of the last refuges of those who don't have an actual arguement. You don't fight bias with bias. You fight bias by showing and correcting the mistakes. Do you seriously think you accomplish anything by saying "HAHA, you're a partisan douche on one side well let me show YOU, I'll be an even bigger partisan douche for the other side"

Phydeaux -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 9:31:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Google: Nasa admits global warming theories wrong. Google: Cern research shows solar radiation cause of global warming Google: Mann admits no global warming last 16 years. The way you are setting up your search skews the results to be what you want. For instance, you could google "Evidence of Bigfoot found in Washington State" and show everyone that Bigfoot undoubtedly exists. But it doesn't does it? Seriously, anyone who has even thought about research, much less done any can see the prejudice in your methodology. No offence, but.. duh. I'm not trying to present both sides of an issue - only one. You are welcome to evaluate the issue yourself. I'm only trying to provide counters to the (bs) opinions that 'the science is settled'. When, in fact, it isn't. Claims of authority are one of the last refuges of those who don't have an actual arguement. You don't fight bias with bias. You fight bias by showing and correcting the mistakes. Do you seriously think you accomplish anything by saying "HAHA, you're a partisan douche on one side well let me show YOU, I'll be an even bigger partisan douche for the other side" No, honestly, probably not. But I've provided literally hundreds of quotes on this topic Hill. Ive quoted where Nasa admits its adoption of "global warming" was politically motivated - and wrong. I've quote where Nasa said the contribution to global warming by co2 that new studies showed it was much less than previously thought. I've quoted where the IPCC admitted there was no global warming for the last 16 years. I've quoted where Mann says he was wrong. I've quoted where jones said he would throw out the global warming data rather than expose it to sceptics. I've quoted where nasa admitted to falsifying satellite data on two occassions. I've quoted CERN which in a highly touted study said that virtually all of global warming could be explained by increases in solar ionizing radiation probably tied to the m????? minimum. I've quoted where thousands of scientist who were represented as supported anthrogenic global warming - didn't. I've shown where global warming people conspired to keep deniers research from getting published. I've shown that virtually every country that once led the fight for global warming is reversing course. Germany, spain, Britain, Denmark. And that the treaties resulted in net increases in global warming if they didn't cover china and india. News out today are that the majority of the big chinese manufacturers are losing money. And if they can't make money with their economies of scale.... Ive shown that US reductions in greenhouse gases were from fracking - not renewable energy sources. I've shown that the US govt manipulated the costs of energy significantly to make solar and wind appear more economic. I've pointed users to the Australian web sites where the science is a bit more unbiased. Ethanol is both a political, economic, and environmental disaster. It drove up food prices world wide, distorts the marketplace and results in the US taxpayer subsizing European driving through the export of gas with ethanol. . . .

Edwynn -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 10:58:28 PM)
Coming from someone who uses the lunatic Sun Myung Moon's Washington Post as a regular 'reliable source,' and whatever other back-to-stone-age-mentality agenda-seeking publications or otherwise mental or philosophical diarrhea-spewing founts of sick diatribes ... well, I'm sure you can count on the thinking person taking you seriously, here. Count on it. As you somehow seem to be taking as assumption. Good luck in your venture.

Edwynn -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 11:18:16 PM)
We do have to point out how the Rev. Moon had progressed through the decades, and how amazing he was at seducing people to whatever cause, as is certainly apparent in this instance. In the old days, he sent out armies of blank-stared homeless people to street corners to sell us flowers. People who couldn't even make it as hippies. He eventually progressed to sending out willing soldiers of fire-eyed Petro-Unification-Pentacostal Church faithful to spread the gospel of "Drill, Baby, Drill!," now morphing to be to be known as "Frack, Baby, Frack! Which will, soon enough, be known as "Oh Crap! Oh Crap!"

popeye1250 -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/5/2013 12:42:00 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/video/climate-change-might-actually-weaken-000047766.html Boy those "warmers" are batting a thousand.

joether -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/5/2013 1:01:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: joether I find it amusing that someone that takes to being against the Theory of Climate Change, base their entire argument on faith rather than any actual understanding of science or the Theory of Climate Change. Theory. Interesting word. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>. Your knowledge of the basic concepts of science are appalling! A THEORY is much different from a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Please read up on both definitions. quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Not quite bedrock as 2+2=4 or the log of 2 is .3, but such is what climate change "we have to do something" advocates argue it is. Climate change, as advocates argue it, may be plausible and even a scientifically acceptable general principle. But fact it is not. Thus there has to be an element of faith in the principles advocated. Not to the degree that no faith need be had for the hard fact that 2+2=4, or the hard math and engineering that keeps the 747 aloft, but climate change, as advocates argue it, does not come close to such certainty. Your looking for the Theory of Climate Change to prove something 100% correct. Sorry to say Yachtie, but that is a defining quality in faith. In science, could the Creationists be correct in that the whole planet was created in seven days by a being so powerful and awesome he's referred two as only three letters in the English alphabet? Yes. However, the amount of peered reviewed studies show there is very little evidence supporting this possible idea. In comparison, the Theory of Abiogenesis would be much more 'correct' to compare to Creationism than The Theory of Evolution for example. That is what makes science so fascinating for the educated and confusing for the ignorant: there is no 'right' and 'wrong', 'good' and 'evil', or 'light' and 'dark'. What is the speed of dark, Yachtie? BTW, Yachtie, the symbols '2+2=4' is not science; its mathematics. 'H2O' while having a number that is exactly like part of the mathematical equation from the previous sentence is used to define a concept in chemistry (which is a science). Do you know what 'H20' is? quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie It's now easy to argue climate change advocates, given their vocal and endless proselytizing about it, as closely resembling religion. If it were easy to argue with "...climate change advocates...", you would be able to understand quite a vast amount of information of not just chemistry but the many other sciences involved. You would have studied these concepts for a good length of time. Be able to ask the serious question if such a condition is due to climate change or if some other variable would be the more likely concept creating the condition. But, you do not know the difference between a 'theory' and a 'scientific theory'. Heck, you did not know a 'scientific theory' even existed before this post! So 'no', you can not easily argue with climate change advocates. You really do not have the background, education, wisdom or intelligence to debate such a concept with someone who has spent decades analyzing, experimenting, researching, and studying this concept.

joether -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/5/2013 1:19:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 http://news.yahoo.com/video/climate-change-might-actually-weaken-000047766.html Boy those "warmers" are batting a thousand. Trying to find anything to support your whacky idea that climate change is false, eh, popeye? How about you an ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE on the subject. When you get done with that one, there is THIS ONE. After that, I would suggest visiting either your local public library and asking the nice librarians on further information on this specific topic. I found a few thousand listings when I did it myself. Many of them are not broad in scale but handle more specific aspects of 'hurricanes' and 'conditions found with climate change'. From how marine biology could be affected to how Caribbean counties could most adapt to strengthen their ports and land masses from utter destruction.

joether -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/5/2013 3:13:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No, honestly, probably not. But I've provided literally hundreds of quotes on this topic Hill. Ive quoted where Nasa admits its adoption of "global warming" was politically motivated - and wrong. I've quote where Nasa said the contribution to global warming by co2 that new studies showed it was much less than previously thought. I've quoted where the IPCC admitted there was no global warming for the last 16 years. I've quoted where Mann says he was wrong. I've quoted where jones said he would throw out the global warming data rather than expose it to sceptics. I've quoted where nasa admitted to falsifying satellite data on two occassions. I've quoted CERN which in a highly touted study said that virtually all of global warming could be explained by increases in solar ionizing radiation probably tied to the m????? minimum. I've quoted where thousands of scientist who were represented as supported anthrogenic global warming - didn't. I've shown where global warming people conspired to keep deniers research from getting published. I've shown that virtually every country that once led the fight for global warming is reversing course. Germany, spain, Britain, Denmark. And that the treaties resulted in net increases in global warming if they didn't cover china and india. News out today are that the majority of the big chinese manufacturers are losing money. And if they can't make money with their economies of scale.... Ive shown that US reductions in greenhouse gases were from fracking - not renewable energy sources. I've shown that the US govt manipulated the costs of energy significantly to make solar and wind appear more economic. I've pointed users to the Australian web sites where the science is a bit more unbiased. Ethanol is both a political, economic, and environmental disaster. It drove up food prices world wide, distorts the marketplace and results in the US taxpayer subsizing European driving through the export of gas with ethanol. How about you quote all of them against for us. I have not seen any of these things you have quoted. How do I know the information is unbiased, accurate and honest? I don't. That would be the skeptic in me. Given that you seen this whole concept as some sort of 'conservative verse liberal' or 'Republican verse Democrat' battle; yes, I think based on the evidence that your quotes would come from questionable sources. The NASA information for example was attempting to explain that the Earth goes through normal warming and cooling periods of hundreds of years and that the earth is indeed affected by the sun (2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes to mind). Even though you can read the information, whether you fully understand it against all the other information/evidence gathered is at best, questionable. When I read your quoted stuff, all I get is 'conspiracy', 'hate the government', and 'against science'. In other words, you've allowed your anger to control your behavior. You have allowed others to do your thinking for you. You have not sat down and honestly tried to understand the basics let alone the more advance concepts. But hold this belief that you can 'take on those commie, mutant, climate changing loving liberals' in a zero sum contest. You honestly seem to feel there has to be some sort of 'us verse them' battle for total domination. And the understanding that is the Theory of Climate Change is so completely different. Its like you wanting to play Candyland while all of us are talking about how to repair the engine on a Ford Bronco. The best course of action? Take all those quotes and simply dump them. Start over. Sit down and honestly gain a good understanding of the basics in science. Then move onto Chemistry, Biology and Physics. After that, take some course work from the local accredited college or university on Climate Change. Yeah, all this will take time, effort and some money. Your welcome to have a conservative viewpoint politically afterward. But I do think you'll find the material coming out of conservative circles to be uninformed and biased at best; corrupted and one-sided at worst.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375