RE: Questions on climate change? (Full Version)

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



Message

Tkman117 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 11:14:46 AM)

love how you fight back with 0 evidence. At least phydeaux was intelligent enough to understand the science, while you just look at it like another religion. Sad and horribly misguided.



Yachtie -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 11:32:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

love how you fight back with 0 evidence. At least phydeaux was intelligent enough to understand the science, while you just look at it like another religion. Sad and horribly misguided.



But, it is. [:D]




Tkman117 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 11:43:06 AM)

Give a round of applause everybody, we have our ignorant red neck comment of the week! Congratulations!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Science

quote:


In contrast, the scientific method gains knowledge by testing hypotheses to develop theories through elucidation of facts or evaluation by experiments and thus only answers cosmological questions about the universe that can be observed and measured. It develops theories of the world which best fit physically observed evidence. All scientific knowledge is subject to later refinement, or even outright rejection, in the face of additional evidence. Scientific theories that have an overwhelming preponderance of favorable evidence are often treated as de facto verities in general parlance, such as the theories of general relativity and natural selection to explain respectively the mechanisms of gravity and evolution.
Regarding religion and science, Albert Einstein states (1940): "For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action; it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts…Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determine the goals, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up."



Yachtie -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 12:04:02 PM)

You genuflect nicely. [;)]



MrRodgers -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 12:04:31 PM)

You know. I always wondered if Venus was a hoax. Could the NCO New Climate Order crowd have pulled that one off too ? I say we go there instead of Mars.

I bet there really is some nice beachfront property up there we could all someday sun ourselves on...in about 5 minutes or less. After all, that's where the 'hottest' women are...well aren't they ?



Tkman117 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 12:21:12 PM)

oh look, how cute. He thinks he's people because he knows a fancy word.



Tkman117 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 12:34:58 PM)

On the bright side, if you think science is a religion, then those who "believe" in science should be allowed the same rights as christians, correct? Tax exemption would be a big thing for research institutions/churches, it would be great for research and would help spread the science "we" unearth. So thanks Yachtie, I'm glad we have people like you standing up for "our" right to "practice" ;)



Lucylastic -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 12:44:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

You genuflect nicely. [;)]

genuflection is not religious
and you wonder why your posts cant be taken with anything but a dose of salts, n pepto



VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/25/2014 2:02:49 PM)

FR

I suggest the sniping stop. I see no difference in the posts between this topic and the previous one. If it is just going to be the same back and forth, keep it in one topic at least.

If you have any questions please contact me or Chi. Do not reply to this post.

Thanks,
Gamma



Owner59 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/27/2014 7:35:01 PM)

A denier gets his comeuppance.....from Buzz Aldrin



Imho, all deniers share a common need and drive.


From Holocaust deniers to climate change deniers to moon landing deniers....... from birthers to truthers to Benghazi-nuts....these pathetic losers all share a hope of eventual vindication(ah!....I told you so!) and a need to embarrass themselves as obnoxiously as possible....


Case in point..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k


Notice how this creep comes off, sounds and acts like orly tates or sean hanity........and what Buzz does.....[sm=applause.gif]



joether -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/28/2014 12:02:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
A denier gets his comeuppance.....from Buzz Aldrin

Imho, all deniers share a common need and drive.

From Holocaust deniers to climate change deniers to moon landing deniers....... from birthers to truthers to Benghazi-nuts....these pathetic losers all share a hope of eventual vindication(ah!....I told you so!) and a need to embarrass themselves as obnoxiously as possible....

Case in point..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k

Notice how this creep comes off, sounds and acts like orly tates or sean hanity........and what Buzz does.....[sm=applause.gif]


You forgot to mention the ones that disagree with the Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Abiogenesis. And they all vote Tea Party with a few 'radicals' voting Republican. What does that tell anyone of the Tea Party or Republicans?



popeye1250 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/29/2014 2:53:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

On the bright side, if you think science is a religion, then those who "believe" in science should be allowed the same rights as christians, correct? Tax exemption would be a big thing for research institutions/churches, it would be great for research and would help spread the science "we" unearth. So thanks Yachtie, I'm glad we have people like you standing up for "our" right to "practice" ;)


They should be, but no U.S. Taxpayer dollars should be involved in this.



Rule -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/29/2014 3:39:19 AM)

FR

[8D] I have been informed by the bacteria that live inside my guts, that the climate has been changing for 3.5 billion years. Back then they voted against this change and for the first twelve million years they even imposed a tax for the purpose of stopping the change, but no matter how high the tax, the climate inexorably kept changing. Eventually they got smart and abolished the tax for reason that it had no effect and even proved contraproductive and because the organisation, administration and legal costs were too high.

Instead they conceived the plan to create stable environmental conditions and they subsequently designed multicellular organisms with guts that they could comfortably live in.



vincentML -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/29/2014 3:21:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

For those of you who may have questions on climate change, this is a good place to go to to get your answers.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

If you still have questions that have not been answered by this page, I'd recommend contacting a local university professor on the subject. Because I'll admit I'm no genius, and while I don't want this thread to become a hot bed of further conflict, I just wanted to point people in a good direction if they actually want answers. If you just want to fight and argue, be my guest, but you can do it without me.

Good day everyone.


I am neither religious nor political right of center in any respect. I am simply a lay person with a science education, a strong respect for the scientific endeavor, and strongly pissed over any misrepresentation of science. So, I have had in general an antithetical reaction to the claim for a consensus on AGW. I took your suggestion, went to the site you posted and sought out the consensus. Science is not performed by votes, often the consensus may be influenced by extraneous factors, and frankly the consensus can be wrong. So, whither the consensus of 97% of climate scientists approving AGW?

The numbers come from an analysis of abstracts of papers published by climatologists in peer review journals between 1991 and 2011. SOURCE

The results showed that of all the abstracts 32.6% were rated as supporting AGW and 2.9% rejected or were uncertain of AGW. So the 32.6% is presented as 97.1% of the abstracts that had a position on AGW. This number does not represent all climatologists as is often claimed because 66.4% of the papers had no position on AGW. None, zip, nada. This data is from a total of over 11,000 abstracts.

Then the research group sent emails to 8547 authors to rate their positions and received responses from 1200. The numbers are a little confusing to me but 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. Of all the papers evaluated by authors 1342 endorsed AGW while 39 rejected AGW and 761 had no position or were uncertain (35.5%)

The authors conclude that 97.2% of the papers with a position supported AGW and conveniently ignored the 35.5% who had no position or were uncertain.

Furthermore, take note that 7358 authors did not reply to the email survey.

Neither the abstract analysis nor the email self-evaluations add up to a consensus of 97% to me, nor does the science seem ‘settled’ with any certainty as trumpeted by the advocates. Certainly not a consensus of all climate scientists as alleged.

Responses welcomed.




Rule -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/29/2014 9:02:57 PM)

Thank you for the information, Vincent. Well done!

[sm=applause.gif]

I had no idea that the 'consensus' was misrepresented in such a fraudulent way.



vincentML -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 7:19:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Thank you for the information, Vincent. Well done!

[sm=applause.gif]

I had no idea that the 'consensus' was misrepresented in such a fraudulent way.

Neither did I. Thank you, Rule.[:)]



PeonForHer -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 10:05:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Thank you for the information, Vincent. Well done!

[sm=applause.gif]

I had no idea that the 'consensus' was misrepresented in such a fraudulent way.

Neither did I. Thank you, Rule.[:)]


I very much doubt that fraud is afoot here, Vincent. What's happened here is that the papers concerned didn't directly or clearly say that they supported AGW. However, in more 62.5% of those cases that the researchers were being cautious about, the authors of the papers themselves said that they supported AGW.

"A direct comparison of abstract rating versus self-rating endorsement levels for the 2142 papers that received a self-rating is shown in table 5. More than half of the abstracts that we rated as 'No Position' or 'Undecided' were rated 'Endorse AGW' by the paper's authors.

Figures below.

Table 5. Comparison of our abstract rating to self-rating for papers that received self-ratings.
Position Abstract rating Self-rating
Endorse AGW Abstract rating: 791 (36.9%) Self-rating:1342 (62.7%)
No AGW position or undecided Abstract rating:1339 (62.5%) Self-rating:761 (35.5%)
Reject AGW Abstract rating:12 (0.6%) Self-rating: 39 (1.8%)"


This is all about scientific caution, basically. Unless it was abundantly clear from the papers they looked at, the researchers didn't want to assume that the relevant authors supported AGW.

The study had been replicated a few times in the past. The latest study shows that the percentage of climatologists supporting AGW has been generally climbing. Fewer than 2% of them reject AGW on these latest figures.

I have to say that it'd be astonishing to me if this series of studies hadn't been ripped to pieces years ago if there'd been as howlingly big a bias involved as you suggest.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 10:24:39 AM)

I have no problem believing that the climate is changing. I think that is a no-brainer.

However, ever since algore declared global warming as a fact, I started doing some simple research on my own.

On every local news, everywhere I've lived since algore was vice-perpetrator (Monterey, CA., Phoenix, AZ., Columbus, GA., New Brunswick, NJ., Kingston, Pennsyltucky) they have an "end of the year 'wrap up'" on the weather section of the broadcast on 30 or 31 DEC.

For many years now, the average temperature has been going down; not up. It's why the global warming crowd have changed their tune to "climate change".

As I said, before; I think climate change is a no-brainer but, if one does a just a little bit of research, it becomes apparent that the climate has been fluctuating for a very long time.

Is anyone familiar with the "Little Ice Age" which came about in the "Medieval Warm Period"?

It's hard to argue that cars and factories and energy users caused that. It's why the algorians don't want to include it in the discussion.






PeonForHer -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 10:38:26 AM)

It was a climate change sceptic who pushed for a change in the way official sources talked about the issue: 'climate change' sounds less frightening than 'global warming'. In fact both terms have seen an increasing usage, though 'climate change' is older in the scientific literature. See

http:

. . . which, incidentally, also says that global warming is continuing year on year - versus your claim.



Tkman117 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 11:02:00 AM)

This is why I posted the link to that site, to debunk crap like "temperatures are actually going down." Here's the information about these so called "arguments," and why they're actually wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875