What do creationism and global warming have in common?

[rdean]

What about allof the NASA, DOD, NOAA and the majority of other scientists in the world that believe global warming is fact?

a majority of scientists believed tomatoes were poisonous until the 1800s, did that make them right?

or the many who claimed in the 1970s that we had global cooling

for something to be a fact, the data has to be observable, repeatable, and immutable, which global warming isn't, this is very different than what we saw with sulfur dioxide causing acid rain, which no one of any political background disputed, this is why global warming is more about unverifiable religious beliefs, you just have fools who use science as a way of advancing their political views

we also shouldn't be seeing so many global warming fearmongers of the past now backing into "climate change", the data has changed and they've changed their story

National Snow and Ice Data Center: News & Videos about National Snow and Ice Data Center - CNN.com

When you see this happening, pictures and everything, do you consider it "observable"? Do you have this much evidence for "Gawd"?

 

[Dr Gregg]

that doesn't know the scientific method.

you clearly don't, I wouldn't hire you to clean the trash can in a lab, never mind actually conduct an experiment, you don't have the ability to distinguish a hypothesis from a fact, a skill you typically find in any Freshman engineering student

and in spite of exposing your pathetic inability to do something a student could do, you have nothing to refute my claims other than a very scientific "shut up", but I think this is probably what you say to the drive thru customers when they get on your case about not providing enough ketchup

troll. You haven't made any claims to refute. what looo sssseeeerrrr

 

[ihopehefails]

That would mean that there are approximately the same number of scientists who believe in creationism as there are scientists who believe the earth is getting warmer.

I said the REASONS for one person to believe in creationism and for one person to believe in global warming are the same.

Oh you mean like the REASON that overwhelming evidence leads scientists to believe man made factors are contributing to global warming?

Or the REASON that some fundamentalists believe an invisible being created the world with no scientific evidence at all

hmm...and when the evidence doesn't match they make it up as they did with climategate and a whole bunch of other things. Why would you believe something when you can't find any evidence for it? Is it called faith, religion, enviro-theism (a word a liberal times reporter used to describe Avatar).

The reasons are the same.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anybody who is still subscibing to anthrpogenically caused global warming is an idiot. Plain and simple. Talk about flat Earthers!!! Who are these morons?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

My whole life it has been the same shit... in tens years we're going to burn to death. In ten years we're going to freeze to death. In ten years we're going to drown. In ten years there'll be no water. Ice caps are going to melt. Ice caps are gping to take over the planet. THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS HAVE NEVER BEEN RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING.

Fuek 'em.. EnviroNazis.

 

[code1211]

right, so instead of examining actual data as I was taught, I should be like you, and just regurgitate fearful rhetoric from noted scientist Al Gore

It's incredible that those who most loudly proclaim that science is being ignored are the ones that ignor the science. Either they cannot understand that what they are doing is contradictive or they simply don't understand what the debate is about.

For those of you who are in this group, the debate is not about whether or not it's warming. The debate is about the cause of the warming. Proof is not showing that warming is occurring. Proof is showing why warming is occurring and attributing the warming IN VERIFIABLE SHARES to cited causes.

Support for this proof would be showing predictions that have been fulfilled by experience.

Neither of these tests have been met to my knowledge. If they have, please produce those research results. If you do not have them, you have no proof.

So you are saying, "As long as we don't know "exactly" why something is happening, we should ignore it?"

No. I am saying that if we notice something is happening, we should study it, determine a cause and then try to find a solution.

Right now, we believe that our globe has warmed by 0.7 degrees across the last 2000 years. We believe that our globe has been warmer than now by ranges of 2 to 7 degrees. That at the end of each of the previous interglacials that the global climate has been from 1 to 2 degrees warmer than it is today.

We believe that during the current interglacial, that is during the last 10,000 years, our globe has been 1 degree warmer than now and also 1 degree cooler.

Those who are touting the rapid change of the world economy are not telling us these things which obviously reduce the cause for panic and response. They are not presenting verifiable proof of a connection between CO2 and warming and they are incapable of making accurate predictions regarding the climate.

Things we know for an absolute fact:
1. All of the climate information provided by GISS was adjusted prior to being entered into the data bank and in 1999 was adjusted again with all of the averages before 1978 dropping and all of the averages after 1978 rising.
2. Dr. James Hansen is a proponent of a certain conclusion and that conclusion is not supported by facts.
3. The prescription for curing the warming is based on thinking from the 1800's and not on documented evidence in spite of 40 years of concentrated effort to produce something.
4. The abandonment of the use of fossil fuels is the only way to achieve the goals of the AGW alarmists and in doing that the world would be plunged into global famine.

Without knowing why something is happening, stopping it from happening is difficult. We might as well be throwing virgins into volcanoes.

I don't recomend combating Global Warming by the reduction of fossil fuel use OR by throwing virgins into volcanoes.

I do recomend using fossil fuels to fly women who were once virgins to Hawaii which was formed by volcanoes and assisting them in coating their bodies with oil. Mauna Loa CO2 will blow toward California and the young lady will be safe with me on the windward side near Diamond Head.

Probably won't help Global Warming, but it couldn't hurt.

 

[code1211]

we understand completely. You dont' want to believe in the facts, so just discredit actual science, with supporting evidence. It's typical though of people with no scientific background, science is complex and not for the faint at mind, so instead of dealing with it, its must easier to claim its a myth and a lie. THat people who spent their lives searching for the truth and using the scientific method are all just trying to scam us and make shit up is just so completely dumb. If you knew anything about science, you would no any sort of fudging of data and making shit up is repugnant, and those who do such things are caught and essentially banished from science. WE take the methods and honesty of the science very serious.

All the while you benefit from all the scientific discoveries leading to the technology we have today. YOu are alive and survived childhood because of the scientific method making discoveries, but when it comes to something you don't want to believe, you just attempt to discredit by calling it a myth or making other simple minded claims. You guys are fools, and hold back society with such idiocy. the only people making shit up are people like you.

Blah, blah, blah.

Show me the proof.

Point proven, blah blah blah, all you got. stick finger in your ears and ignore the science there are plenty of resources for you to find this. LIke the other poster said, global warming is a fact, what's at question is whether its man made, the there are sound scientific reasoning why that is a likelihood.

Reasoning is not prood. If the reasoning was both sound and scientific, there would be proof. I am saying that I don't believe it because there is no proof. You are saying that you do believe it and that there is no proof.

I suppose, since we both have our reasons to believe or not, we can both be justified in our beliefs.

By the by, scientifically speaking, a lack of proof is not reason to believe something.

 

[code1211]

It's incredible that those who most loudly proclaim that science is being ignored are the ones that ignor the science. Either they cannot understand that what they are doing is contradictive or they simply don't understand what the debate is about.

For those of you who are in this group, the debate is not about whether or not it's warming. The debate is about the cause of the warming. Proof is not showing that warming is occurring. Proof is showing why warming is occurring and attributing the warming IN VERIFIABLE SHARES to cited causes.

Support for this proof would be showing predictions that have been fulfilled by experience.

Neither of these tests have been met to my knowledge. If they have, please produce those research results. If you do not have them, you have no proof.

So you are saying, "As long as we don't know "exactly" why something is happening, we should ignore it?"

"If religion has taught us anything, its that we get nowhere by calling our ignorance, god"

Love that quote. People can't deal with the complexity of life, can't comprehend it mentally, so "god did it" is what they believe. Unreal

Stevie Wonder said, "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you'[ll suffer. Superstition..." You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming and obviously do not understand it.

Whether you call the cause God or CO2, you are ony arguing terminology.

 

[Dr Gregg]

So you are saying, "As long as we don't know "exactly" why something is happening, we should ignore it?"

"If religion has taught us anything, its that we get nowhere by calling our ignorance, god"

Love that quote. People can't deal with the complexity of life, can't comprehend it mentally, so "god did it" is what they believe. Unreal

Stevie Wonder said, "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you'[ll suffer. Superstition..." You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming and obviously do not understand it.

Whether you call the cause God or CO2, you are ony arguing terminology.

except I understand it. We pump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, leading to warming. No mystery or superstition there

 

[code1211]

What about allof the NASA, DOD, NOAA and the majority of other scientists in the world that believe global warming is fact?
All of them wrong and the 5% that call it a hoax are right?

Currently, global warming is occurring. We have warmed 0.7 degrees in the last 2000 years. We have warmed about a degree, give or take, in the last 150 years. Clearly, in 1800 or so years in between, we cooled dramatically. That cooling ended and warming started between 1600 and 1700.

AGW mongers claim that the Industrial revolution and the widespread burning of fossil fuels cased the warming to begin and yet the warming predates the Industrial Revolution.

THE WARMING STARTED BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. AGW proponents are arguing that the future causes the past.

The warming has continued. It started without aid of the cited cause. Proving that it continues due to the cited cause requires proof.

Provide that proof and you case will be stronger. Without proof, you have no case.

 

[SwingVoter]

They are going with "climate change" because some idiot right wing flat earthers are unable to comprehend the concept that it snows in the winter

so you can't explain the shift from panicking about global cooling to panicking about global warming, not surprised

 

[rdean]

Dr. Gregg doesn't understand science, because he's confused a hypothesis for a fact, due to his brainwashed devotion to the words of Al Gore. But he'll use science as an excuse to justify a political belief, even as he refuses to consider data that could prove him wrong, which is about as unscientific as someone can be. Maybe he'd believe some of the claims against global warming if they were told to him by a fortune teller.

Since only 6% of Scientists will admit to being Republican, I suspect that Republicans are the last people you should listen to for "scientific advice".

 

[SwingVoter]

troll.

listen, you're the d-bag who has to tell everyone on an Internet message board he's a "doctor", yet doesn't have the scientific ability of a college Freshman

pathetic

 

[SwingVoter]

When you see this happening, pictures and everything, do you consider it "observable"? Do you have this much evidence for "Gawd"?

I call it anecdotal, as is the unusually large pile of snow in front of my house

I don't believe in creationism, but you being yet another lib who can't refute anything with facts, you just lump be in with the creationists, I'm sure "wignut teabagger con racist" is coming next

funny how there are no gravity skeptics, yet you global warming losers will never get it because you don't understand some people in this world are rational, while you just listen to Al Gore like zombies

 

[Dr Gregg]

troll.

listen, you're the d-bag who has to tell everyone on an Internet message board he's a "doctor", yet doesn't have the scientific ability of a college Freshman

pathetic

Coming from the moronic shit you spew, I take that as a complement.

 

[SwingVoter]

I take that as a complement.

you would, because you have no facts to present, can only imagine how old you were when you finally got laid

pussy

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know believe in creationism but people who do believe in it for the same reason that people who believe in global warming.

That would mean that there are approximately the same number of scientists who believe in creationism as there are scientists who believe the earth is getting warmer.

I said the REASONS for one person to believe in creationism and for one person to believe in global warming are the same.

People don't believe in creationism because they've seen scientific evidence for it.

 

[rdean]

When you see this happening, pictures and everything, do you consider it "observable"? Do you have this much evidence for "Gawd"?

I call it anecdotal, as is the unusually large pile of snow in front of my house

I don't believe in creationism, but you being yet another lib who can't refute anything with facts, you just lump be in with the creationists, I'm sure "wignut teabagger con racist" is coming next

funny how there are no gravity skeptics, yet you global warming losers will never get it because you don't understand some people in this world are rational, while you just listen to Al Gore like zombies

I just want to make sure I'm clear on this because it's "shocking" to me. Are you saying the data from NSIDC is "anecdotal"?

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis: Questions about Arctic sea ice

Studying sea ice
Is Arctic sea ice really declining?
Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

 

[Dr Gregg]

I take that as a complement.

you would, because you have no facts to present, can only imagine how old you were when you finally got laid

pussy

I'm guessing you are like 10 years old with this mature response?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

They both require a lot of faith to believe.

Sometimes the truth has so much humor in it.

Both are definately religious in nature. Well MAN made global warming and creationism anyway .