For the AGW Faithers

[Navy1960]

Here is just one example of why you never say science is settled.

Are you wondering how many planets are in the Solar System? Until just a few years ago, there were 9 planets in the Solar System. However, the International Astronomical Union decided that Pluto is no longer a planet, so there are now only 8 planets in the Solar System.

Why is Pluto not a planet? We have a whole article that discusses this in great detail, but it happened because astronomers discovered a new object larger than Pluto out beyond its orbit. This object is called Eris, and it's at least a few hundred kilometers bigger than Pluto. The IAU wondered if this object should be considered a planet too?
How Many Planets are in the Solar System?

For years even on schools if a child was asked on a test how many planets there were on the solar system and did not answer 9 they were given an incorrect answer. So does this mean we go back and correct all those tests based on that settled science? The fact is the science of global warming is far from settled, so before we get to the point where we have to go back and start changing text books again, perhaps we allow for research on the subject and not political mandates based on theory.

 

[MaggieMae]

Unfortunately, even THIS issue is becoming split solely along party lines, with Al Gore being the focal point for blame from the right (although he simply wrote the book, not the science). I still maintain that it would be better to get out front of the problem than to be proactive, even while scientists debate what the extent of global warming actually is. Why would at least containing the problem to its natural cyclical import ever be considered "foolish"??

Because the premise that man can do so is foolish on its face....That's what makes it so irresistible to libs to begin with.

Nah, "people" can't be held responsible for creating earth's hazards. Libs are making it all up.

 

[Oddball]

Unfortunately, even THIS issue is becoming split solely along party lines, with Al Gore being the focal point for blame from the right (although he simply wrote the book, not the science). I still maintain that it would be better to get out front of the problem than to be proactive, even while scientists debate what the extent of global warming actually is. Why would at least containing the problem to its natural cyclical import ever be considered "foolish"??

Because the premise that man can do so is foolish on its face....That's what makes it so irresistible to libs to begin with.

Nah, "people" can't be held responsible for creating earth's hazards. Libs are making it all up.

Yet another lame and dishonest deflection from the fact that man cannot control the weather, even though quantifiable damage like trash dumps can be mitigated.

Also, it's interesting that you'd post a picture of a crowded train station as one of your examples of "pollution"...You have some eugenicist proclivities you're not telling us about?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You have some eugenicist proclivities you're not telling us about?

You have hit on the true, thus far hidden motive for the "green" movement. For if they are correct that CO2 warms the earth, and if they reach their stated goal of greatly reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we will not have a green planet at all. We will have a brown, cold, dead one that only the very few elite humans can survive on.

The real inconvenient truth of the matter is, CO2 is vital for ALL life on the planet. Eugenicists definitely believe mankind is an aberration here, and is vastly overpopulating the planet. What better way to correct this than to ban DDT so malaria continues wiping out whole populations, and to get CO2 levels down below 200 ppm so plant life (food and oxygen) is greatly reduced, leading to mass starvation and death.

They know exactly what they're doing, and it is a long-term plan that is only now starting to bear results after decades.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Are these a series of trick questions? I really don't even KNOW the sun is 90 million or however many miles from earth. I just read similar information from seemingly different sources and start to trust it.

That's just pathetic Tornado. SCIENCE can verify and HAS verified the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Scientists trust it because it CAN be verified. The ability of "good science" to REPEAT findings is one of the hallmarks of why true science can be trusted. But when CONTRARY data is deliberatelyu suppressed and altered and concealed, it no longer follows that it can be logically, reasonably or rationally RELIED upon.

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

By contrary data you mean data from sources which disagree with a conclusion? I firmly believe Exxon-Mobil or BP have a financial incentive to spread information which supports their bottom lines so we will get that information. A bunch of tree hugging hippies have a faith or concern based incentive to spread information which supports their cause and we get theirs.

Global Warming concerns predate this crazy capitalist carbon credit idea so while someone in government may wish to support their job collecting carbon credits that person can not be the initial cause of the Global Warming theories. When did this credit idea come up? After Kyoto in 2002?

CONTRARY data is the data generated by OBSERVATION that fails to agree with the hypothesis of the AGW Faithers. THAT is the very DATA that was SUPPRESSED. If you cannot acknowledge that this is inherently contrary to the mandates of "good science" then you are just being disingenuous -- or you know nothing of the proper scientific method.

And as for whether Exxon has an interest in how the data looks and how it gets interpreted, you are conflating an entirely different matter. Yes. It may very well have an interest. So what? Having an interest does NOT mean that they would or that they DID themselves skew, distort or conceal DATA. And if they di, to that extent, their 'work" is unscientific and should be roundly condemned and discounted. Shouldn't that be the very same standard to which ALL scientists are held? All "peer reviewed" scientific articles should be scrutinized not just as to the methodology for interpreting results, but should be scrutinized into the very DATA used.

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?

Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....

I will agree, as against capitalist ideals as it is, data should be shared. If its to be used for public policy it should be shared. Now if no one at Shell Oil thinks its worth their trouble to round up temperature data from world wide sources and publicize it something fishy has to be up. I have no idea why they would just lie down unless they the data doesn't support them.

Once again, don't think I'm an eco-nut out to take away your light bulbs and gas powered automobile. I'm just for conservatively tweaking the system since I'm conservative when it comes to things like messing up the environment.

OMG, would your new car have 20 fewer HP if xxx auto company had a .1 mpg increase in their CAFE standard! Heck, that 09 Camaro it might have the same power and just come with skinnier tires.

Whatever it is you seem to imagine you are communicating, you are a complete fail.

Why the long-winded evasions? Why can't you JUST answer a simple, direct question with a simple, direct answer?

So, do you agree with that quote I lifted that CO2 is our best guess of what to release tons of if we do ever feel a need to raise global temperature?

Who gives a fuck? If you imagine that WE actually have that much influence over planetary climate at THIS stage of human development and given our present knowledge of science, I have a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. In a fairly open system like Earth's climate, no. I don't think the amount of CO2 we have ever released into the atmosphere has any measurable impact on planetary temperatures. And, no, I think if we wanted to warm the Earth (if that was possible for us to do), I don't think releasing lots more CO2would accomplish the mission. Call it a hunch, but I think we'd likely have to focus our attention and energies instead on that massive hot yellow thing in the sky.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

That's just pathetic Tornado. SCIENCE can verify and HAS verified the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Scientists trust it because it CAN be verified. The ability of "good science" to REPEAT findings is one of the hallmarks of why true science can be trusted. But when CONTRARY data is deliberately suppressed and altered and concealed, it no longer follows that it can be logically, reasonably or rationally RELIED upon.

Because under these conditions, it is no longer science and cannot rationally be called science.

Science begins with "we do not know" not with, "we DO know, now let's try to sort of prove it."

 

[Si modo]

That's just pathetic Tornado. SCIENCE can verify and HAS verified the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Scientists trust it because it CAN be verified. The ability of "good science" to REPEAT findings is one of the hallmarks of why true science can be trusted. But when CONTRARY data is deliberately suppressed and altered and concealed, it no longer follows that it can be logically, reasonably or rationally RELIED upon.

Because under these conditions, it is no longer science and cannot rationally be called science.

Science begins with "we do not know" not with, "we DO know, now let's try to sort of prove it."

Right. One may even say that the soundest work is work done in an attempt to disprove an idea. If the falsifiability of the question is not demonstrated, there is nothing scientific about the question or the suspected answer.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

That's just pathetic Tornado. SCIENCE can verify and HAS verified the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Scientists trust it because it CAN be verified. The ability of "good science" to REPEAT findings is one of the hallmarks of why true science can be trusted. But when CONTRARY data is deliberately suppressed and altered and concealed, it no longer follows that it can be logically, reasonably or rationally RELIED upon.

Because under these conditions, it is no longer science and cannot rationally be called science.

Science begins with "we do not know" not with, "we DO know, now let's try to sort of prove it."

Right. One may even say that the soundest work is work done in an attempt to disprove an idea. If the falsifiability of the question is not demonstrated, there is nothing scientific about the question or the suspected answer.

Like everything else, the far-left believes science is some massive grey area, not an area of absolutes. They have NO black or white on anything, only one towering, titanic grey area. Therefore "science" is what they say it is, at any given time, and like everything else -- they have no real respect for it and therefore believe they can play fast and loose with it.

 

[Liability]

REAL science embraces the notion of falsifiability.

This is one of the reasons the suppression of data undermines the fundamental precepts of good science!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

REAL science embraces the notion of falsifiability.

This is one of the reasons the suppression of data undermines the fundamental precepts of good science!

And makes it, more correctly -- simple fraud.

Does Dr. Huang ring a bell for anyone?

 

[Si modo]

Because under these conditions, it is no longer science and cannot rationally be called science.

Science begins with "we do not know" not with, "we DO know, now let's try to sort of prove it."

Right. One may even say that the soundest work is work done in an attempt to disprove an idea. If the falsifiability of the question is not demonstrated, there is nothing scientific about the question or the suspected answer.

Like everything else, the far-left believes science is some massive grey area, not an area of absolutes. They have NO black or white on anything, only one towering, titanic grey area. Therefore "science" is what they say it is, at any given time, and like everything else -- they have no real respect for it and therefore believe they can play fast and loose with it.

If Newspeak successfully infiltrates science, I will leave it. Seriously, it is one of the few sane areas of my life for now.

 

[Oddball]

REAL science embraces the notion of falsifiability.

This is one of the reasons the suppression of data undermines the fundamental precepts of good science!

And makes it, more correctly -- simple fraud.

Does Dr. Huang ring a bell for anyone?

1) Falsifiablility

2) Reproducibility

3) Static control model.

AGW voodoo "science" fails on all three of those traditional acid tests.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

REAL science embraces the notion of falsifiability.

This is one of the reasons the suppression of data undermines the fundamental precepts of good science!

And makes it, more correctly -- simple fraud.

Does Dr. Huang ring a bell for anyone?

1) Falsifiablility

2) Reproducibility

3) Static control model.

AGW voodoo "science" fails on all three of those traditional acid tests.

That's the crux of it. The nutshell.

 

[Liability]

The Warmers have so little so say, here let me help. Your SUV is melting the ice caps!!!!

Someone should shoot that fucking polar bear before his body heat melts the last vestige of ice on Earth!

In fact, that IS the North Pole the critter is on, isn't it?

Fuckin' stupid ass polar bitch!

 

[anakin]

There are more polar bears in existence now than there have been in decades. If they're so endangered, how is it there are so many more of them?

 

[Toronado3800]

Liability, my point is "have you verified the sun is really in the center of the galaxy? Maybe its just an anti-bible conspiracy some left wingers have going on against the moral minority"

Like I also said, it is ridiculous to believe Exxon or BP have no incentive to disprove global warming. Were they so foolhardy not to try to independently track global temperatures once the warming thing became an issue?

Who gives a fuck? If you imagine that WE actually have that much influence over planetary climate at THIS stage of human development and given our present knowledge of science, I have a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

All we need to do is use 19th century farming technology to clear enough land for farming and we have a fair effect on the environment.

Midnight Marauder, I like that random "leftists hate science" quote. Does that imply the folks who wish to dispute evolution are lefties? Don't use it anymore, it gives the impression you read a political party platform to find out what your scientific opinion on this issue is.

and to get CO2 levels down below 200 ppm so plant life (food and oxygen) is greatly reduced, leading to mass starvation and death.

So you would like to raise the level of CO2 on purpose to help plant life? Its a theory, one the folks who believe we can't have an influence on the environment will fight you tooth and nail over. Personally I'm conservative as the stick in the mud and think earth has been supporting life for several hundred million years and don't think we need to push our luck manipulating it.

 

[Toronado3800]

There are more polar bears in existence now than there have been in decades. If they're so endangered, how is it there are so many more of them?

I'm not looking it up, but, we hunt them less. Think it has to do with big government regulations.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There are more polar bears in existence now than there have been in decades. If they're so endangered, how is it there are so many more of them?

There aren't more of them. That data is corrupted, or something. Or needs a little massaging.

Get with the program.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There are more polar bears in existence now than there have been in decades. If they're so endangered, how is it there are so many more of them?

I'm not looking it up, but, we hunt them less. Think it has to do with big government regulations.

OUR "big government regulations" have nothing at all to do with whether other countries hunt them, or how many they "harvest."

Another false, weak talking point rapidly shot down.

You're welcome.

 

[MaggieMae]

You have some eugenicist proclivities you're not telling us about?

You have hit on the true, thus far hidden motive for the "green" movement. For if they are correct that CO2 warms the earth, and if they reach their stated goal of greatly reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we will not have a green planet at all. We will have a brown, cold, dead one that only the very few elite humans can survive on.

The real inconvenient truth of the matter is, CO2 is vital for ALL life on the planet. Eugenicists definitely believe mankind is an aberration here, and is vastly overpopulating the planet. What better way to correct this than to ban DDT so malaria continues wiping out whole populations, and to get CO2 levels down below 200 ppm so plant life (food and oxygen) is greatly reduced, leading to mass starvation and death.

They know exactly what they're doing, and it is a long-term plan that is only now starting to bear results after decades.

Sigh...I genuinely hate to see smart people buy into such horseshit. I expect it from Dud who thinks he's God's Gift to the Universe anyway, but not from you.