Global Warming?

[tcreeley]

No you didn't really read it very well. I only posed the deep questions.
As far as I know this planet has never had an element or animal species, make the deterination that the planet's current state of progress and evolution, was at the point of perfection and should be held stagnant at that point. My state of intelligence dictates that I am not capable of knowing if the planet and ice pack depths etc... should stay at recent levels or not. Anyone who knows this anwser for sure isn't on the forum.

This is a semantic argument- premise is "you can't prove this is not true, so therefore we should treat it as true" similar to the "can you prove Santa isn't real".
Common sense makes it a moot point.

Ok, if your house has some heavy smoke- do you call the fire department? Maybe your house was fated to burn on this particular day. To call the fire department may be going against the designer's plan. What would you do?

Places with 3 digit heat in the US may need some new long range planning- re drought, resevoirs, agriculture. Should we ignore it or plan ahead?
Can we mitigate the effect of tornado disasters with more warning time, shelters? Should we try?
Should coastal areas reconsider the flood planning to mitigate lives lost and property damage? Or is the warming climate fated, and we should do nothing?

I see it as common sense to address these issues.

Fate and the grand design are party discussion topics. The rest is common sense.

 

[toppop52]

Your point is good though as religions themselves don't try to disprove their own "theories" or to collect data prospectively to answer questions.

You obviously have little to no understanding of theological science, therefore any attempt on your part to discuss it will make you appear extremely ignorant, I suppose it's appearance, but may just be the facts. What are your qualifications to discuss theological science?

 

[toppop52]

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. "

So then, Obama's theory that socialism would be good for us is wrong? Because it's been experimented with and failed miserably numerous times.
The promotion of Islam is another that while having temporary success at times and places, has by and large failed the experiment.
That's a great quote, thanks!

 

[EE_Bota]

Fate and the grand design are party discussion topics. The rest is common sense.

Common sense is ranking all the things that could happen to the country and the world, along with probabilities, outcomes, potential solutions, costs of solutions, etc so that we can decide how to deploy our resources. Now, people just pick things based on whether they think it will give them a political advantage or help them differentiate themselves from their opponents, or energize their base, or distract the people from problems that are larger and more imminent.

 

[toppop52]

Find me a Nobel laureate....

Let's use them as high water marks, a few infamous Peace Prize winners that give one great confidence that Nobel laureates are so much the mark to measure ones self against. You maybe, not me....

Chamberlain, Le Duc Tho, Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and Barack Obama who had yet to do a dam# thing but take office! Yep, those laureates are surely what one should strive to emulate. Of course from you I'd expect no less, and certainly no more!

 

[chkntrktr]

Common sense is ranking all the things that could happen to the country and the world, along with probabilities, outcomes, potential solutions, costs of solutions, etc so that we can decide how to deploy our resources. Now, people just pick things based on whether they think it will give them a political advantage or help them differentiate themselves from their opponents, or energize their base, or distract the people from problems that are larger and more imminent.

Well said.

 

[toppop52]

Ice core samples are more than a 100 years back!

Yes they are and they prove the repeated warming and cooling cycles of the natural earth. Thanks for finally coming around!

 

[Rainbody]

You can tell someone they are getting ripped off. You can show them it's a bad deal. You can point out the lies in the ad. But in the end they will buy it. And only after they've spent their money, will some realize what a mistake it was. Some will tell themselves over and over that it was a good choice.
If these legislative ideas pass(carbon tax) based of manipulated studies, most will realize the mistake as energy jumps and jobs drop. Others will praise what a great move the country has made. Somehow the second group won't be effected by either of the effects of the fabricated cause.

 

[/pine]

Now I got to use that fancy word. Denier. That gives my view credibility now, right?

:thumbsup: I wish I had your eloquence (of conviction)...

 

[IslandTractor]

First off...I have more important things to do than sit around a message board replying to gullible, misguided dimwits and *try* like you have (ad nauseam) to make myself appear to be more intelligent than those I disagree with...

Secondly...I have some news for you...The ONLY thing that is "cutsie" in this entire thread is *your* failed and misguided attempts to make anyone with differing views than you appear to be inferior intellectually...IMO...mentioning the word intellectual and anything you have posted is a contradiction of terms...

Just how many of those "thousands" of *experts* (climate scientists) make their living off entities that would have no business at all if AGW was proven to be the myth that it may very well may be?

If you think about it long enough you *may* be able to figure out what "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" means...obviously to date it's beyond your comprehension abilities (regardless of your lame attempts to prove otherwise)...
And FYI...I have never made any correlation to faith/religion and the current climate change/season shift we are experiencing...

I think you owe us an explanation of your understanding of Feynman's quote : "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"? As a misguided inferior dimwit, I am still wondering what you think the quotation you used out of context means and how it is relevant to the discussion. Oh do please enlighten us with your wisdom.

In case you have never read his talk to the National Science Teachers Association, here is a link: What Is Science?

Though I still don't know what you think the quote refers to, I think you will be enlightened by reading the talk. It is quite good and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Again, while your out of context quote might be popular in dittohead circles, it is interesting to read the last paragraph of his talk which remarkably is relevant to this discussion of faith (biblical wisdom) vs science (experimental inquiry) as a means of answering difficult questions regarding climate change. Here is a quote from his summary: "Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation." So, to help you along, it appears that your little quote is not intended as a put down or denigration of science at all but rather a warning to question uncritical acceptance of faith based information (I presume you believe those who wrote the bible to be greatest teachers of preceding generations). Perhaps we shouldn't just accept that dinosaurs were wiped out by Noah's great flood without seeking further proof from beyond the Bible.

And, FYI, I don't recall ever saying you made any correlation between religion and climate change denial. One of the other posters (Madmax) did and that was what I addressed in my initial question and subsequent posts. You just jumped in with your dimwit post and just couldn't wait to use your Feynman quote, apparently thinking it was a real put down. Nice try.

 

[madmax12]

I think you owe us an explanation of your understanding of Feynman's quote : "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"? As a misguided inferior dimwit, I am still wondering what you think the quotation you used out of context means and how it is relevant to the discussion. Oh do please enlighten us with your wisdom.

In case you have never read his talk to the National Science Teachers Association, here is a link: What Is Science?

Though I still don't know what you think the quote refers to, I think you will be enlightened by reading the talk. It is quite good and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Again, while your out of context quote might be popular in dittohead circles, it is interesting to read the last paragraph of his talk which remarkably is relevant to this discussion of faith (biblical wisdom) vs science (experimental inquiry) as a means of answering difficult questions regarding climate change. Here is a quote from his summary: "Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation." So, to help you along, it appears that your little quote is not intended as a put down or denigration of science at all but rather a warning to question uncritical acceptance of faith based information (I presume you believe those who wrote the bible to be greatest teachers of preceding generations). Perhaps we shouldn't just accept that dinosaurs were wiped out by Noah's great flood without seeking further proof from beyond the Bible.

And, FYI, I don't recall ever saying you made any correlation between religion and climate change denial. One of the other posters (Madmax) did and that was what I addressed in my initial question and subsequent posts. You just jumped in with your dimwit post and just couldn't wait to use your Feynman quote, apparently thinking it was a real put down. Nice try.

I disagree with your continuous division of faith and science. I know you think I am completely wrong and simple. However, the links I sent you are about how science and faith are actually a great team.

When you write about that division as a given truth, you are presupposing and assuming things to be true, that I think are not.

Your quote above suggesting that I accept the dinosaur flood only on faith, is to show a lack of comprehension of everything I have posted. I provide sources for you to consider. You won't. By faith, you hold to the view that the Bible is myth. That is your faith. Not your science. For you refuse to investigate the subject, you simply mock it away.

That is nonsense...non-science.

 

[IslandTractor]

I disagree with your continuous division of faith and science. I know u think I am completely wrong and simple. However, the links I sent u r about how science and faith r actually a great team.

When u write about that division as a given truth, u r presupposing and assuming things to be true, that I think r not.

Your quote above suggesting that I accept the dinosaur flood only on faith, is to show a lack of comprehension of everything I have posted. I provide sources for u to consider. U won't. By faith, u hold to the view that the bible is myth. That is your faith. Not your science. For u refuse to investigate the subject, u simply mock it away.

That is nonsense...non-science.

1) I strongly disagree with you but I do not disrespect you. You are approaching this issue from the perspective of a person who accepts the Bible as literally true (you haven't said that explicitly but your statements are consistent with that view). I do not accept the Bible as anything other than excellent literature that has informed and guided religion for a couple of thousand years. I would never argue that it is not an important book to our civilization but I do argue that it is in no way supported by scientific evidence. If you are as I suspect someone who reads it as being literally true then there is indeed a very large chasm between us and we will never agree. I have no trouble with the Bible as a repository of much wisdom and guidance much of which I wholeheartedly agree but I draw the line at Genesis and stories like Noah's.

2) The "evidence" you presented to support your theory on dinosaur extinction is frankly pathetic. Sorry but I cannot think of a better term. The single creationist lecturer has no standing whatsoever in the scientific community. Please provide peer reviewed evidence from respected journals of paleobiology or similar sources if you insist on backing up your claims with scientific evidence.

3) On the original subject of global climate change and skeptics or "deniers" (?denyers), I found an well organized website that provides brief but well written and documented responses to frequent questions from skeptics. Here it is: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ This does not address some of the concerns from slash pine about conspiracies and wholesale scientific fraud but it does address many of the confusing issues and provides detailed references.

 

[madmax12]

1) I strongly disagree with you but I do not disrespect you. You are approaching this issue from the perspective of a person who accepts the Bible as literally true (you haven't said that explicitly but your statements are consistent with that view). I do not accept the Bible as anything other than excellent literature that has informed and guided religion for a couple of thousand years. I would never argue that it is not an important book to our civilization but I do argue that it is in no way supported by scientific evidence. If you are as I suspect someone who reads it as being literally true then there is indeed a very large chasm between us and we will never agree. I have no trouble with the Bible as a repository of much wisdom and guidance much of which I wholeheartedly agree but I draw the line at Genesis and stories like Noah's.

2) The "evidence" you presented to support your theory on dinosaur extinction is frankly pathetic. Sorry but I cannot think of a better term. The single creationist lecturer has no standing whatsoever in the scientific community. Please provide peer reviewed evidence from respected journals of paleobiology or similar sources if you insist on backing up your claims with scientific evidence.

3) On the original subject of global climate change and skeptics or "deniers" (?denyers), I found an well organized website that provides brief but well written and documented responses to frequent questions from skeptics. Here it is: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ This does not address some of the concerns from slash pine about conspiracies and wholesale scientific fraud but it does address many of the confusing issues and provides detailed references.

Genuine respect is a very rare, precious, commodity. It would be nice to share it together.

Peer review. I do not mean this sarcastically, though I know it sounds unprofessional. Is there not peer pressure, in the world of climate change teaching? It is the world's current doctrine/dogma. One may choose to believe it or not, but no one escapes its teaching or general media acceptance...from kid to elderly.

To suggest a link I listed implies there is one single loon scientist who sees a cohesiveness with science and the Text, doesn't seem a respectful assessment.

Is truth determined by popularity?

Even if you turned out to be correct... I find it curious that you have reached a conclusion about the sources I listed, when it seems you couldn't have had the time to actually look at their work in the field.

Are you asking me to find someone who switched sides, or some scientist you have respect for already, to give their stamp of approval on the reality of the Noaic Flood...or the history recorded in Genesis?

Why not ask the actual scientists for their evidence, and see if the experts actually have anything of scientific value? Why do you want an unprofessional like me to represent their findings to you, when you can actually connect with the smart guys yourself?

I'll check out the link you provided, thank you.

 

[/pine]

I think you owe us an explanation ...

FYI...I do not owe you anything..
I highly doubt that you had ever even heard of Feynman before you started researching the quote...

Furthermore...I followed his career from about 1965...I have listened to many of his lectures, read a few of his books and even heard him speak once...

If it were not for Internet resources (your diatribe fodder) you would be lost on the subject of Feynman and your (IMO misguided) belief in AGW...

Nice try goofy...

 

[IslandTractor]

FYI...I do not owe you anything..
I highly doubt that you had ever even heard of Feynman before you started researching the quote...

Furthermore...I followed his career from about 1965...I have listened to many of his lectures, read a few of his books and even heard him speak once...

If it were not for Internet resources (your diatribe fodder) you would be lost on the subject of Feynman and your (IMO misguided) belief in AGW...

Nice try goofy...

Is that your backhanded way of saying "oops, the quote wasn't a criticism of science after all".

You love to bad mouth and almost never address issues without goofy dimwitted ad hominem attacks. Grow up, man up. Either present logical argument or leave your keyboard alone. Oh, and save the conspiracy theories for the dittohead forums unless you have actual evidence to present.

 

[toppop52]

Island Tractor;
You are among the most disrespectful people on the forum, and that says a lot. Over time I've seen you call people racists for not agreeing with Obama and his welfare state, call anyone names, especially your pet favorite, "dittohead", which of course you are, if the left says it you repeat it. You claim to be a doctor or some such professional, but totally went to pieces of some perceived racial slur last summer, I understand you may have been banned for a time for losing your cool when someone rightly pointed out you were no Einstein. Maybe you should get back on your meds and seek therapy.

PS; someone please quote me in case he has me on ignore!

 

[IslandTractor]

Island Tractor;
You are among the most disrespectful people on the forum, and that says a lot. Over time I've seen you call people racists for not agreeing with Obama and his welfare state, call anyone names, especially your pet favorite, "dittohead", which of course you are, if the left says it you repeat it. You claim to be a doctor or some such professional, but totally went to pieces of some perceived racial slur last summer, I understand you may have been banned for a time for losing your cool when someone rightly pointed out you were no Einstein. Maybe you should get back on your meds and seek therapy.

PS; someone please quote me in case he has me on ignore!

Your memory is quite distorted. You really think I called you and a few others racist because you disagreed with Obama. Let me remind you, the quote I objected to was referring to Obama as "the little negro". That is racist. I asked you to go on the street in Baltimore and ask a black man whether he thought it was racist. Did you do so? I doubt you have the cajones to have done it anyway and the fact that you are still alive suggests you did not.

I've never been banned and certainly never would object to being called "no Einstein". I was given an infraction (serious infraction) about three years ago when I referred to one of LBrown's posts as "inane". Apparently one of the moderators thinks that is a severe insult.

 

[toppop52]

Your memory is quite distorted. You really think I called you and a few others racist because you disagreed with Obama. Let me remind you, the quote I objected to was referring to Obama as "the little negro". That is racist. I asked you to go on the street in Baltimore and ask a black man whether he thought it was racist. Did you do so? I doubt you have the cajones to have done it anyway and the fact that you are still alive suggests you did not.

I've never been banned and certainly never would object to being called "no Einstein". I was given an infraction (serious infraction) about three years ago when I referred to one of LBrown's posts as "inane". Apparently one of the moderators thinks that is a severe insult.

I didn't make the statement you refer to, nor do I live anywhere near Baltimore, soooo.....

But seriously, you should understand ......well anything!

 

[/pine]

Is that your backhanded way of saying "oops, the quote wasn't a criticism of science after all".

You love to bad mouth and almost never address issues without goofy dimwitted ad hominem attacks. Grow up, man up. Either present logical argument or leave your keyboard alone. Oh, and save the conspiracy theories for the dittohead forums unless you have actual evidence to present.

:laughing::laughing::laughing: ...how cliche

FYI if you knew anything (more than what you dredged up researching the quote) about Feynman you would know that he used the line on many occasions... doh!