Global Warming?

[EE_Bota]

If you have to ask you may be one.

Flat Earth Society = Ludites

Look it up.

Me? I may not be from your planet, monkeyboy.

I turned on my advanced BS preprocessor/filter and ran a series of these posts through it. There wasn't nearly as much to read.

If awards were to be made based on childish name calling and tantrums the winners would be found here.

It seems for some here the "rule" is if you have no credible evidence to support your contentions then call your detractors names, impugn their intelligence and motivation, and act as a cheering section for like minded who in turn support you. (Credible evidence from refereed recognized scientific journals not National Enquirer level of BS.) Volume and repetition do not equal validity.

Science is not a democratic process where everyone gets an equal vote and physical processes are subject to political correctness. Science is ... well... science, the application of the scientific method. Scientists are flawed humans subject to all the human foibles but there is no better process for finding out how things work than the scientific method.

I note that in addition to name calling and mindless tis taint tis taint retorts where it seems the goal is "scoring sarcasm points" on your "enemies" there is pigeon holing. Statements such as if you believe that xxxxxx then you are a left wing *&^%$) or support yyyyyy and you are a right wing ^%^%4 &^*&!!!

I have never missed voting for president since becoming of legal age. I have never voted for a Democrat for president (but did for some other offices depending on available choices and some independents too.) I have several conservative tendencies. My job title at retirement was SCIENTIST.

Intelligent design? I think evolution IS intelligent design. I have a concealed weapon permit and I do carry and advocate it for all law abiding citizens.

So what camp does that put me in? AGW or denier????

I think the preponderance of evidence is insufficient to irrefutably identify a smoking gun for AGW but is certainly sufficient to warrant our attention and funding of research. To deny AGW out of hand because it would be inconvenient if conclusively proven and an expensive response were to be required is whistling in the dark. I bill myself as an optimistic realist, one who hopes for the best and deals with reality.

I have seen examples of folks who refuse to go to the doctor because if the doctor found them to be suffering from xzxzxzx they wouldn't like the treatment regimen. Similarly some folks who fear the consequence(s) of some situation deny all or part of its component parts like children getting hyperactive trying to avoid the inevitable bedtime.

Science works as a self improving system with corrective feedback not unlike Newtons method of successive approximation. Want the square root of a number? Say 139. Take a guess. divide the guess into 139 add the quotient to your guess and divide by 2. Use this result as the new divisor of 139. Repeat the process till you get as many accurate digits as you want. Being smart about the guess doesn't help much. By analysis it is easily seen that the answer is greater than 11 (squared is 121) and less than 12 (squared is 144.) So 11 1/2 would be a SMART first guess but the end result is not changed and the number of iterations to get the desired result is not greatly reduced. Improvement through self correcting feedback... the driving force behind the scientific method.

Science works a lot like this. You make a guess and then experiment to see if you can improve on the guess. The initial guess is not nearly as important as the method of proving/disproving/improving on the guess. If you make a simplistic model of the climate it will have large errors. Modifying the model by iteration, guided by its performance will evolve the model to a closer approximation of "the truth."

If this interests you, I suggest you read some on the topic of Artificial Intelligence through evolutionary programming.

I have a dog in this fight. I live in an area experiencing extreme drought with less than 15 inches of rain so far as the year is drawing to a close. Our average rainfall is 37 inches. In the last 12 years I have experienced the wettest year on record and the driest year on record, dryer than the dustbowl at its worst. The "normal" pattern is a roughly 7-10 year wet dry cycle with some odd flyers but... things are looking pretty bleak with credible experts suggesting a high probability of desertification (becoming a desert.) If some of this is human caused and reversible I'd be interested in reversing it. If not human caused but reversible, I'm interested. Otherwise... my wife and I enjoy the desert but not sure we want to experience becoming one.

Pat




d self corrects to rapidly converge on the cube root accurate to as many decimal places as you want depending on the number of iterations you perform.

You look it up. You'll find it's spelled Luddites.
No, Pat, "Flat World Society" is what he said. Seeing as how our planet has a name, I thought I would check what world he was talking about in the slim hope this was not YET ANOTHER reference to "Flat Earth Society" which has been mentioned here ad nauseam. You jump on that same attack before later denouncing such things. Your post is a mess, and unjustly targeted. You attack things I have never said nor done, but in reply to my post as if to imply otherwise and I do somewhat resent that aspect.

 

[EE_Bota]

True, but don't forget, the power structure we're talking about is the church, which in turn is based on religious dogma. Religious dogma and science are often diametrically opposed. Give the church the power of the government and the outcome is not often good for science or the scientist.

You lost me. If I say that "I don't think it had to do with religion" and you say "true" but take exception that it is based on "religious dogma," then what part was true?

Give scientists control of the government, and it will not go well for religion, no?

I'm not saying religion and science are the same, not by a long shot, but some of the complaints against religion need to be more finely targeted.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

You lost me. If I say that "I don't think it had to do with religion" and you say "true" but take exception that it is based on "religious dogma," then what part was true?

Give scientists control of the government, and it will not go well for religion, no?

I'm not saying religion and science are the same, not by a long shot, but some of the complaints against religion need to be more finely targeted.

Let's put it in context. At one time in history, the Church was as powerful as the King. They had their own courts and owned as much property and wealth as the government. They protected their dogma, even burning people at the stake. People were different then, and their thought processes were different. Today we are more enlightened and the church has no such power. The Church was a powerful institution, complete with governmental authority. I though you were saying that it was the power structure, institution that was the driving force, which it was, but the underlying philosophy was dogma. Today we still have the Church and the dogma, but not the all powerful institution.

 

[IslandTractor]

Let's put it in context. At one time in history, the Church was as powerful as the King. They had their own courts and owned as much property and wealth as the government. They protected their dogma, even burning people at the stake. People were different then, and their thought processes were different. Today we are more enlightened and the church has no such power. The Church was a powerful institution, complete with governmental authority. I though you were saying that it was the power structure, institution that was the driving force, which it was, but the underlying philosophy was dogma. Today we still have the Church and the dogma, but not the all powerful institution.

Agree. In this country that is largely due to the efforts of Roger Williams and his battles with the theocracy in Massachusetts. The separation of church and state that is codified in our constitution can be traced back to ideas and arguments first promulgated by Williams. We would not have freedom of religion or a secular government if the Pilgrims and Puritans had prevailed. Look to Iran for a picture of modern life under a theocracy.

 

[houstonscott]

Agree. In this country that is largely due to the efforts of Roger Williams and his battles with the theocracy in Massachusetts. The separation of church and state that is codified in our constitution can be traced back to ideas and arguments first promulgated by Williams. We would not have freedom of religion or a secular government if the Pilgrims and Puritans had prevailed. Look to Iran for a picture of modern life under a theocracy.

Just to be clear there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Before you write a bunch of stuff, now read; the tenth amendment which IS in the constitution. Regrettably millions are miseducated in our country.

HS

 

[Renze]

Now regarding evolution being intelligent design. Before anyone argues against that concept consider that to do so implies you know for a fact that God didn't use the natural laws of his own creation in the form of evolution to do his miraculous work. I pity the fools who pontificate and limit the infinite God with their limited and typically flawed interpretations.

...Thanks for your confirmation, i already had a feeling you'd come up with this surprise...

The fools with limited and typically flawed interpretations you pity, can be found in any school of thought, whether you call it religion or not. The universe cannot be explained by mankind, period. Those who draw far reaching conclusions from limited knowledge can be found both in church as in scientific institute. No matter what you believe, at the end of the day no one is free from human error. Not even you, even though this might sound as a surprise

 

[Gator6x4]

Just to be clear there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Before you write a bunch of stuff, now read; the tenth amendment which IS in the constitution. Regrettably millions are miseducated in our country.

HS

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. “The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.”


The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

What does all that have to do with “Climate Change”?

 

[turnkey4099]

Pat

Logical thinking until you find out that removing CO2 in gigantic qualities is easy, a few machines around the world that do this and bingo no man effect. Car companies tried this early on in fight, easy to scrub more pollution from air than car emits, but EPA is not concerned with using science to clean up air just want control the manufacture of your auto. Then comes the truth about this stuff, they are not interested in cleaning up anything they want control of your energy, your health care, and then you, it's a hoax.



HS

I also am interested. From your other reply it would appear that you have no cite to that amazing fact.

Harry K

 

[tcreeley]

More evidence of GW. Yesterday the temp here in central Maine was in the low 60's (w/o the sun shining). When I was awake- 4:30am I could hear the frogs outside. The grass is still rich, not brown. The horses were sweating up easily due to having their winter coats. It rained today. 20 years ago I would be shoveling snow right now!

 

[toppop52]

First, Jefferson wrote that letter years after the Constitution was law and simply sent to a friend, and making no law regarding religion, is saying no promotion, no detraction, hands off. It isn't, doesn't and never will; mean that you can't pray in school or have the Ten Commandments in a public park. There is no twisted way to make it say that. I believe Jefferson was correct in wanting a wall between the two, but he never said they were mutual enemies.