or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another Nail in the AGW Coffin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Nail in the AGW Coffin - Page 2

post #41 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How dare you point out the those who embrace global warming/climate change might have ulterior motives!

I have noticed that those who deny any human influence in global warming are very quick to point out that scientists (in general) are always subject to the temptation to compromise their work in order to qualify for research grants etc. It's human nature. Has this happened in climate change studies which point to "human influence"? Can you point us to any specific work on the part of climate scientists which is flawed in this respect, and has been rebutted in a paper which has been submitted to the anonymous peer review process with favorable results?

Quote:
No, No! It's only the greedy oil companies that have the agenda. It's corruption! It's people that hate the planet! It's ignorance! It's morons! You can't possibly mean to suggest that those who embrace AGW may have sinister motives, are corrupt and/or stupid. I mean, how could that be?!

As above, is there motivation on the part of vested interests (fossil fuel companies, utilities etc) to keep things the way they are? Of course. Are there studies out there funded by oil companies et al which deny a human influence in climate change/global warming, and have these been properly vetted?

Quote:
After all, we're liberals...and liberals are SMART!

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #42 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Can you point us to any specific work on the part of climate scientists which is flawed in this respect, and has been rebutted in a paper which has been submitted to the anonymous peer review process with favorable results?

Here's a good place to start.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #43 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I have noticed that those who deny any human influence in global warming are very quick to point out that scientists (in general) are always subject to the temptation to compromise their work in order to qualify for research grants etc. It's human nature. Has this happened in climate change studies which point to "human influence"? Can you point us to any specific work on the part of climate scientists which is flawed in this respect, and has been rebutted in a paper which has been submitted to the anonymous peer review process with favorable results?

Strawman noted. Will be processed accordingly.

Quote:


As above, is there motivation on the part of vested interests (fossil fuel companies, utilities etc) to keep things the way they are? Of course.

Agreed.

Quote:
Are there studies out there funded by oil companies et al which deny a human influence in climate change/global warming, and have these been properly vetted?




Yes, of course. But for some reason, that's always where the discussion stops. What you refuse to acknowledge is the very real financial and other motives for "stopping global warming." These range from selling carbon credits, to new taxes, to the erosion of US sovereignty, to outright punishment of 1st world economies. Climate change is THE umbrella issue of all umbrella issues. But somehow, the only people with ulterior/sinister motives are on the other side. Got it!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 244
Thread Starter 
And another:

Quote:
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #45 of 244
Just what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be? Perhaps it's supposed to be warmer.
post #46 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And another:






Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

One: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ing-denialism/

Two: The questions you should be asking when presented with graphs include...


"Why did they choose that scale for each axis?"

"Why did they choose those numbers to represent the origin?"

"Is the graph being used as an unbiased tool to show an accurate picture or has it potentially designed to lead the witness?"

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #47 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

One: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ing-denialism/

Two: The questions you should be asking when presented with graphs include...


"Why did they choose that scale for each axis?"

"Why did they choose those numbers to represent the origin?"

"Is the graph being used as an unbiased tool to show an accurate picture or has it potentially designed to lead the witness?"

Who's paying you?

Why do you hate the planet and all of mankind?

How dare you question the science!

Denialist!!!!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #48 of 244
Whether we like it or not, all our technology, our hospitals, our food transport, our entire civilisation is based on fossil fuels. If we precipitously try to remove that, you would see a new definition of disaster!

On the other hand, the worst predictions of the "climate scientists" is a 4 degrees C increase by the end of the 21st century. The consensus is somewhat lower. Even if we take their worse case *and* assume it causes natural disasters, we note that advanced societies typically come through such disasters with amazingly few casualties.

So even granting everything the warmers claim, the best option is still to keep using fossil fuels (assuming you care about human beings more than wilderness).

But if it's true that there has been no warming for 15 years, then either the co2 theory is wrong, or the man-made increases are being cancelled out, perhaps by the Earth approaching a natural ice age. Either way, there is no longer any need for drastic action. We can develop proper, economical clean energy solutions, and take our time to get them right, and not rush deploy the primitive crap we have now, causing people massive expense.
post #49 of 244
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Quote:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

...
post #50 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

One: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ing-denialism/

Two: The questions you should be asking when presented with graphs include...


"Why did they choose that scale for each axis?"

"Why did they choose those numbers to represent the origin?"

"Is the graph being used as an unbiased tool to show an accurate picture or has it potentially designed to lead the witness?"

Let me get this straight: You, who embraces the "hockey stick" graph, are talking about SCALE?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #51 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me get this straight: You, who embraces the "hockey stick" graph, are talking about SCALE?

Who said I embraced that graph? Strawman in an attempt to justify your own misdeeds. "Because they do it, too" also is not an effective argument.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #52 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Who said I embraced that graph? Strawman in an attempt to justify your own misdeeds. "Because they do it, too" also is not an effective argument.

So if you don't embrace it, why? Are you saying it's flawed?

<makes popcorn>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So if you don't embrace it, why? Are you saying it's flawed?

<makes popcorn>

We aren't getting sidetracked with your obvious attempts to shift the argument toward me being on the defensive. Easily spotted and not playing your retarded games.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #54 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

We aren't getting sidetracked with your obvious attempts to shift the argument toward me being on the defensive. Easily spotted and not playing your retarded games.

Answer the question, Newt.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #55 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Answer the question, Newt.

Suck a bag of dicks, moderator.


Also, I do not play your game here because you have a history of the following logical fallacies:

Argument from Fallacy
Shifting the burden of proof
Moving the goalposts

You also REALLY love this one:

Cherry Picking

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #56 of 244
Germany's Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Skeptic

Quote:
Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement, no longer trusts the forecasts of the IPCC. Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. "I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #57 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Suck a bag of dicks, moderator.


Also, I do not play your game here because you have a history of the following logical fallacies:

Argument from Fallacy
Shifting the burden of proof
Moving the goalposts

You also REALLY love this one:

Cherry Picking

Answer the question, you coward.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #58 of 244
Only after you take back the faulty Cycle 25 article which has been thoroughly debunked--and apologize for spreading that misinformation.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #59 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Only after you take back the faulty Cycle 25 article which has been thoroughly debunked--and apologize for spreading that misinformation.

Yes, BR. All arguments against AGW have been "debunked." We know. You have websites on TEH INTERNETS to prove it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Only after you take back the faulty Cycle 25 article which has been thoroughly debunked--and apologize for spreading that misinformation.

Your sister is a harlot and your mom has a big butt.

Is this really the highest level of discourse you can engage in?

/whine
Take it back.....take it back.........TAKE IT BACK!!!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, BR. All arguments against AGW have been "debunked." We know. You have websites on TEH INTERNETS to prove it.

Is that what I said? I said that THIS ARTICLE...the cycle 25 one that YOU POSTED...has turned out to be factually deficient. Do you retract support for THAT ARTICLE based on the new evidence that has come to light about THAT ARTICLE?

YOU PRESENTED to us that article allegedly supporting your idea that global climate change isn't happening. YOUR EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, turned out to be factually deficient. YOU SHOULD BE HONEST AND RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT CLAIMING THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE DOES ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #62 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Is that what I said? I said that THIS ARTICLE...the cycle 25 one that YOU POSTED...has turned out to be factually deficient. Do you retract support for THAT ARTICLE based on the new evidence that has come to light about THAT ARTICLE?

YOU PRESENTED to us that article allegedly supporting your idea that global climate change isn't happening. YOUR EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, turned out to be factually deficient. YOU SHOULD BE HONEST AND RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT CLAIMING THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE DOES ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

First, don't act as if my entire position on the global warming scam is based on this article. It's obviously not.

Secondly, I read Met's response, and I disagree they have "debunked" the article. It's a freaking BLOG, not a true rebuttal. They do disagree, but even that is not so cut and dried. Consider this statement from the comments section of the article:

Quote:
....There is a difference between warm (values) and warming (a trend). The last 10 years may have been warm, but there has been no warming trend. That is what people are talking about all over the world. No warming for 15 years. Thats accurate....

Third, the "rebuttal" makes me think that the person who actually wrote it is not objective. It's filled with predictions and questionable assumptions, such as this:

Quote:
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Global warming due to man made greenhouse gases has simply not been proven. This statement takes it as fact.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #63 of 244
New peer-reviewed paper finds 20th century warming within range of natural variability

Quote:
A paper published this week in the journal Climate of the Past analyzes an "unprecedentally large network of temperature...proxy records" [a total of 120] and concludes that warming of the 20th century was "within the range of natural variability over the last 12 centuries." Only two of the eight types of temperature proxies analyzed indicate 20th century warming exceeded that of the Medieval Warming Period.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #64 of 244
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

Quote:
The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

We were wrong about the Himalayas, but trust us on everything else! We're doomed. DOOOOOOOMED!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #65 of 244

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #66 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows



We were wrong about the Himalayas, but trust us on everything else! We're doomed. DOOOOOOOMED!

Good for the Himalayas.

Who was wrong about the Himalayas, exactly? Were there peer reviewed papers saying there was glacial loss there that weren't considered estimates? And then, faced with more accurate data, what exactly did those scientists who are trying to trick everyone do?

How many glacial areas are there in the world? How many have lost glacial mass? How many haven't? How many have gained glacial mass? Of course we'll ignore all that, and claim that scientists correcting themselves and acknowledging new data proves that the science is a big fraud. Right.
post #67 of 244
Google "Himalayagate".

Seriously, must a skeptic do all the research for you?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #68 of 244
its not as bad as the models predict
the models are wrong because its agenda driven

and funny how the solution to agw is more socialism and government and taxes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ins?intcmp=122

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...s-than-thought

science, non agenda driven --science is self correcting

einstein's theories are still being tested and validated

how come agw science is "settled" and their is consensus and attacked if questioned
but if you do you are a "denier

question all science it makes it better

and the plight of the polar bear.....http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/1...cy-questioned/

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/sto...9-b71a9e5df868
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #69 of 244
Let's not forget that the neutrino now goes faster than the speed of light. But let's not question global warming!
post #70 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #71 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #72 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #73 of 244

Time to tweak BR.

 

 

 
Quote:
Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?
 
Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried...

 

 

Quote:
"As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #74 of 244

The only thing that tweaks me about that study is the poor methodology and poor reporting after the fact.  Here's a decent breakdown of the latter.

 

http://www.txwatson.com/2012/05/28/a-case-study-in-biased-reporting-fox-news-and-global-warming/

 

The average score was 57% on a 22 question test for those who are "skeptical."  The average score was 56% on the same test for those who are worried about AGW.  Come on now.  Validity of the test aside, the difference in scores there is minimal and more than likely within the margin of error.  

 

Furthermore, you don't just get to make up a 22 question test and decide that is the arbiter of scientific knowledge.  There's a lot that goes into making a test that actually measures what it claims to.  I'd like to see how such a short multiple choice & true/false test is indicative whatsoever of what it claims.

 

Lastly, as pointed out in the article I linked, the author of the study stressed what he thought was more important in the abstract:  those who are more individualistic decidedly reject AGW much more frequently.

 

 

 

Quote:

In those paragraphs above, Kahan points out that the cultural views aspect was the most important part.  That was in paragraph 10 of the FOX article, and in the abstract of the study.  The study had an accompanying graph, which illustrates much more clearly that, while they accurately expected people who valued community to accept evidence for climate change, they were surprised by the results of individualists.  People who value individualism and power tend to get more skeptical as their scientific knowledge increases.

This is similar to a cognitive bias I’ve written about before, Escalation of Commitment, but it’s a better example of one I haven’t written about yet:  the Backfire Effect, which describes the fact that people tend to hold more strongly to their beliefs when confronted with evidence that they’re wrong, rather than letting go of them.


Edited by BR - 5/28/12 at 8:09pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #75 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The average score was 57% on a 22 question test for those who are "skeptical."  The average score was 56% on the same test for those who are worried about AGW.

 

 

 

Bingo. If what you mention above is true, then it is highly ironic that this was a study of scientific knowledge. LOL.

post #76 of 244

If the study has any validity whatsoever, what it is saying is that the climate change deniers are willful in their denial--they can understand the science but choose to ignore it.  That's even worse than being ignorant.  It's one thing if they just need education.  It's quite another when they put their fingers in their ears and scream, "NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH!"

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #77 of 244
Perhaps their understanding of science has led them to believe that AGW is not a threat.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #78 of 244

Except, those who truly understand climate science--the experts who spend their lives researching it--have reached an overwhelming consensus backed by mountains of evidence.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #79 of 244
The consensus never existed. It was a fabrication, a myth perpetuated not by scientists, but by political activists and politicians. Science IS skepticism.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #80 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The consensus never existed. It was a fabrication, a myth perpetuated not by scientists, but by political activists and politicians. Science IS skepticism.

 

IMO, not quite. Science as currently practised is based on a consensus of sorts. The skepticism is disproving the consensus, but much research can be done in line with testing hypotheses in line with the consensus. Nothing is ever supposed to be "proven" in Science, merely the consensus is what is not majorly disproven.

 

For example, a fetal stem cell can become a brain cell or a muscle cell. This is a general consensus, because it has not been conclusively disproven, ie, no one has shown that you can conclusively extract a fetal stem cell (from very, very early developmental stages) that is 99% destined to become a brain cell... This is just as a general example, I'm sure neurobiologists may chime in. But generally you want to find out what exactly causes a stem cell to become a brain cell, what I call, in line with the consensus that the fetal stem cell can become anything, we just need to know what causes (molecular signalling in neurobioogy terms) what.

 

So there is a consensus in that line of enquiry.

 

If one were a kind of skeptic, you could say, well, maybe the fetal stem cell is told by the "soul" of the fetus to become a brain cell. That is not disproven, but there is no ~evidence~ of that as such, since there is no "brain" anyway in the part of the fetus before it becomes an actual fetal brain, so no brain/ processing/ consciousness/ soul can be shown to exist at this stage, prior to the brain actually forming itself in the fetus.


Edited by nvidia2008 - 5/29/12 at 7:11am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another Nail in the AGW Coffin