Creationism and Climate Change

[Discombobulated]

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Yeah cause we all know scientists can only have experience in one field of study.

No doubt your fields of expertise lend themselves to many opinions.

 

[RKMBrown]

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Yeah cause we all know scientists can only have experience in one field of study.

No doubt your fields of expertise lend themselves to many opinions.

My opinion on this subject is that you folks promoting the idea that the planet is on a course for destruction due to man caused CO2 emissions, are full of bunk.

 

[Discombobulated]

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Yeah cause we all know scientists can only have experience in one field of study.

No doubt your fields of expertise lend themselves to many opinions.

My opinion on this subject is that you folks promoting the idea that the planet is on a course for destruction due to man caused CO2 emissions, are full of bunk.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your opinions don't have more effect on science.

 

[RKMBrown]

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Yeah cause we all know scientists can only have experience in one field of study.

No doubt your fields of expertise lend themselves to many opinions.

My opinion on this subject is that you folks promoting the idea that the planet is on a course for destruction due to man caused CO2 emissions, are full of bunk.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your opinions don't have more effect on science.

On what evidence do you make your guess.

 

[Discombobulated]

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Yeah cause we all know scientists can only have experience in one field of study.

No doubt your fields of expertise lend themselves to many opinions.

My opinion on this subject is that you folks promoting the idea that the planet is on a course for destruction due to man caused CO2 emissions, are full of bunk.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your opinions don't have more effect on science.

On what evidence do you make your guess.

You really don't get it do you. No one on this forum comes anywhere close to being able to interpret any scientific data of any kind. My opinion of science doesn't matter any more than yours.......and you can't dispute the information any more than I can confirm it. That's what scientists do.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah cause we all know scientists can only have experience in one field of study.

No doubt your fields of expertise lend themselves to many opinions.

My opinion on this subject is that you folks promoting the idea that the planet is on a course for destruction due to man caused CO2 emissions, are full of bunk.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your opinions don't have more effect on science.

On what evidence do you make your guess.

You really don't get it do you. No one on this forum comes anywhere close to being able to interpret any scientific data of any kind. My opinion of science doesn't matter any more than yours.......and you can't dispute the information any more than I can confirm it. That's what scientists do.

Let me see. So you believe that because you made a guess, and I asked for your evidence, that means I really don't get "it." Well duh, why would I ask for your evidence if I already had your evidence?

You say, "no one on this forum comes anywhere close to being able to interpret any scientific data of any kind." I see. So basically you are a moron, and because you are a moron, you assume everyone else must be a moron like you.

You say your "opinion of science doesn't matter any more than" mine. Perhaps not to you, but I assure you my opinions on certain matters of science matter more to me than your opinions.

You say that I "can't dispute the information any more than I can confirm it." Nonsense, you can't dispute that the hokey <sp> stick was fabricated because for one it was fabricated, and for another it did not happen.

Then you say "that's what scientists do." Look up the concept of projection. I'm a scientist, you appear to believe that because you are not a scientist, that means everyone else here must be just like you.

 

[westwall]

Do we? Point to any data that shows difinitively, that man is causing the climate to change.

Are you really this slow? As stated already: we have scientists to interpret the data for us........opinions don't matter.

Oh, so you're falling back on that old "we must obey what our high priests tell us" mumbo jumbo. I hate to inform you of this, but that's not science, that's witchcraft. Science says that anyone who wishes too, may have your data so that your results can be checked. That is the definition of the scientific method. Climatologists universally NEVER release their data so that it can be checked by others.

No doubt you will then run to the old meme "but only climatologists can understand what they're doing" and I will counter with, if it's good science, any scientist can understand it. But, more importantly, climatology is a "soft" science. Which means I as a PhD in a "hard" science can teach any climatology class there is. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would be totally lost in any classes beyond third year geology (my discipline), and unable to even put together a syllabus for a graduate level class.

So, your vaunted climatologists really aren't that special.

You are not a scientist, but thanks for offering your amateur opinions.

Wrong again bucko, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born.

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

 

[westwall]

Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?

In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

You are a ******* moron.

Must be one of the 42%.

I'm still waiting for you to show me the data that says man is causing climate change. What's the hold up? Or were you just talking out of your ignorant ass?

As though scientific information of any kind would have significance for you.

It certainly doesn't seem to matter to you.

 

[westwall]

Yeah cause we all know scientists can only have experience in one field of study.

No doubt your fields of expertise lend themselves to many opinions.

My opinion on this subject is that you folks promoting the idea that the planet is on a course for destruction due to man caused CO2 emissions, are full of bunk.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your opinions don't have more effect on science.

On what evidence do you make your guess.

You really don't get it do you. No one on this forum comes anywhere close to being able to interpret any scientific data of any kind. My opinion of science doesn't matter any more than yours.......and you can't dispute the information any more than I can confirm it. That's what scientists do.

Wrong. My opinions regarding science carry far more weight than do yours. Your opinions are based on nothing more than ignorance and a religious belief that mankind is bad. You are the modern day religious nut with the sandwich board proclaiming "the end is nigh!"

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you really this slow? As stated already: we have scientists to interpret the data for us........opinions don't matter.

Oh, so you're falling back on that old "we must obey what our high priests tell us" mumbo jumbo. I hate to inform you of this, but that's not science, that's witchcraft. Science says that anyone who wishes too, may have your data so that your results can be checked. That is the definition of the scientific method. Climatologists universally NEVER release their data so that it can be checked by others.

No doubt you will then run to the old meme "but only climatologists can understand what they're doing" and I will counter with, if it's good science, any scientist can understand it. But, more importantly, climatology is a "soft" science. Which means I as a PhD in a "hard" science can teach any climatology class there is. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would be totally lost in any classes beyond third year geology (my discipline), and unable to even put together a syllabus for a graduate level class.

So, your vaunted climatologists really aren't that special.

You are not a scientist, but thanks for offering your amateur opinions.

Wrong again bucko, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born.

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

 

[Discombobulated]

Are you really this slow? As stated already: we have scientists to interpret the data for us........opinions don't matter.

Oh, so you're falling back on that old "we must obey what our high priests tell us" mumbo jumbo. I hate to inform you of this, but that's not science, that's witchcraft. Science says that anyone who wishes too, may have your data so that your results can be checked. That is the definition of the scientific method. Climatologists universally NEVER release their data so that it can be checked by others.

No doubt you will then run to the old meme "but only climatologists can understand what they're doing" and I will counter with, if it's good science, any scientist can understand it. But, more importantly, climatology is a "soft" science. Which means I as a PhD in a "hard" science can teach any climatology class there is. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would be totally lost in any classes beyond third year geology (my discipline), and unable to even put together a syllabus for a graduate level class.

So, your vaunted climatologists really aren't that special.

You are not a scientist, but thanks for offering your amateur opinions.

Wrong again bucko, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born.

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

The more time you spend trying to establish your credentials the less I believe you.

 

[Discombobulated]

No doubt your fields of expertise lend themselves to many opinions.

My opinion on this subject is that you folks promoting the idea that the planet is on a course for destruction due to man caused CO2 emissions, are full of bunk.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your opinions don't have more effect on science.

On what evidence do you make your guess.

You really don't get it do you. No one on this forum comes anywhere close to being able to interpret any scientific data of any kind. My opinion of science doesn't matter any more than yours.......and you can't dispute the information any more than I can confirm it. That's what scientists do.

Let me see. So you believe that because you made a guess, and I asked for your evidence, that means I really don't get "it." Well duh, why would I ask for your evidence if I already had your evidence?

You say, "no one on this forum comes anywhere close to being able to interpret any scientific data of any kind." I see. So basically you are a moron, and because you are a moron, you assume everyone else must be a moron like you.

You say your "opinion of science doesn't matter any more than" mine. Perhaps not to you, but I assure you my opinions on certain matters of science matter more to me than your opinions.

You say that I "can't dispute the information any more than I can confirm it." Nonsense, you can't dispute that the hokey <sp> stick was fabricated because for one it was fabricated, and for another it did not happen.

Then you say "that's what scientists do." Look up the concept of projection. I'm a scientist, you appear to believe that because you are not a scientist, that means everyone else here must be just like you.

There is no evidence of any kind to suggest that there is anyone on this forum qualified to comment on any kind of science., particularly if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Discombobulated]

Oh, so you're falling back on that old "we must obey what our high priests tell us" mumbo jumbo. I hate to inform you of this, but that's not science, that's witchcraft. Science says that anyone who wishes too, may have your data so that your results can be checked. That is the definition of the scientific method. Climatologists universally NEVER release their data so that it can be checked by others.

No doubt you will then run to the old meme "but only climatologists can understand what they're doing" and I will counter with, if it's good science, any scientist can understand it. But, more importantly, climatology is a "soft" science. Which means I as a PhD in a "hard" science can teach any climatology class there is. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would be totally lost in any classes beyond third year geology (my discipline), and unable to even put together a syllabus for a graduate level class.

So, your vaunted climatologists really aren't that special.

You are not a scientist, but thanks for offering your amateur opinions.

Wrong again bucko, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born.

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

I heard somewhere that Professor Westfall's thesis on string theory overturns relativity. Einstein's ghost should be pissed.

 

[PredFan]

Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?

In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

You are a ******* moron.

Must be one of the 42%.

I'm still waiting for you to show me the data that says man is causing climate change. What's the hold up? Or were you just talking out of your ignorant ass?

As though scientific information of any kind would have significance for you.

Actually, I'm a great fan of science. Mostly the Bio-sciences. I'm in medicine, have been for 32 years.

 

[PredFan]

Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?

In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

You are a ******* moron.

Must be one of the 42%.

I'm still waiting for you to show me the data that says man is causing climate change. What's the hold up? Or were you just talking out of your ignorant ass?

As though scientific information of any kind would have significance for you.

Let me help you out. Now, I don't know why I'm doing this, you are a disciple and won't ever change your mind or admit wrong but hey, I don't have anything better to do right now so....

There is NO data that shows a direct connection from man's activities to climate change/global warming/climate disruption. It is a theory. The planet might be warming, it might not. It might be natural, it might not. BUT there is NO data that proves man is affecting the climate. Zip,zilch, nada.

 

[PredFan]

Oh, so you're falling back on that old "we must obey what our high priests tell us" mumbo jumbo. I hate to inform you of this, but that's not science, that's witchcraft. Science says that anyone who wishes too, may have your data so that your results can be checked. That is the definition of the scientific method. Climatologists universally NEVER release their data so that it can be checked by others.

No doubt you will then run to the old meme "but only climatologists can understand what they're doing" and I will counter with, if it's good science, any scientist can understand it. But, more importantly, climatology is a "soft" science. Which means I as a PhD in a "hard" science can teach any climatology class there is. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would be totally lost in any classes beyond third year geology (my discipline), and unable to even put together a syllabus for a graduate level class.

So, your vaunted climatologists really aren't that special.

You are not a scientist, but thanks for offering your amateur opinions.

Wrong again bucko, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born.

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

So, in your "mind", no scientist is a good or valid scientist unless he has published papers in every single scientific disipline there is?

You are an idiot.

 

[Discombobulated]

Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?

In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

You are a ******* moron.

Must be one of the 42%.

I'm still waiting for you to show me the data that says man is causing climate change. What's the hold up? Or were you just talking out of your ignorant ass?

As though scientific information of any kind would have significance for you.

Actually, I'm a great fan of science. Mostly the Bio-sciences. I'm in medicine, have been for 32 years.

Congratulations, you have extensive knowledge of an almost, practically, sort of, nearly relevant field of science.

 

[westwall]

Oh, so you're falling back on that old "we must obey what our high priests tell us" mumbo jumbo. I hate to inform you of this, but that's not science, that's witchcraft. Science says that anyone who wishes too, may have your data so that your results can be checked. That is the definition of the scientific method. Climatologists universally NEVER release their data so that it can be checked by others.

No doubt you will then run to the old meme "but only climatologists can understand what they're doing" and I will counter with, if it's good science, any scientist can understand it. But, more importantly, climatology is a "soft" science. Which means I as a PhD in a "hard" science can teach any climatology class there is. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would be totally lost in any classes beyond third year geology (my discipline), and unable to even put together a syllabus for a graduate level class.

So, your vaunted climatologists really aren't that special.

You are not a scientist, but thanks for offering your amateur opinions.

Wrong again bucko, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born.

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

I've been retired for over a decade and a half and I am published in many Journals thank you very much.

 

[Flopper]

Luddization? I have no idea what you're babbling about.

One of the more ridiculous religious groups of the last 300 years were the Luddites who believed that technology was evil. Thus they destroyed machinery whenever they were able to do so. You AGW cultists are the modern day Luddites. You feel that mankind needs to devolve back to a more pastoral existence and strive for "sustainability".

The problem with sustainable societies is they work fine till there is a disaster, then they die.

Zero emission motor vehicles, high efficiency electrical devices, and sustainable fuel sources don't require we return to the stone age. In fact, just the opposite is true. A society that becomes more efficient is a society that will be more productive.

The problem is none of the alternatives are as efficient as the fossil fuels they wish to replace. Right now the absolute height of electrical vehicles is in racing. The Isle of Man TT is the worlds oldest motorcycle race. The riders make 6 trips around the island at speeds of 130 plus miles per hour. They race at full blast for two laps, then refuel and replace the rear tire. Then two more laps and repeat. The electric bikes can only manage one lap. That's it. And, they're 25 mph slower for the overall speed.

If a EV wanted to race in the 24 Hours of Le Mans, they would have to have multiple cars and multiple batteries. To the point where you could have 9 complete teams, and all the fuel they would need, to support a SINGLE EV race team. You really think that's efficient?

And here's the ultimate goal of the green Luddites....


"It's a message no one wants to hear: To slow down global warming, we'll either have to put the brakes on economic growth or transform the way the world's economies work. That's the implication of an innovative University of Michigan study examining the most likely causes of global warming."


Global warming New research blames economic growth -- ScienceDaily

Well, if most fossil fuels were used for racing then maybe you would have a point. The fact is the internal combustion engine is incredibly inefficient. Only 18% to 25% of the energy actually makes it to the wheels. Most of the energy, 58% to 62% is expended as heat.

Concern over pollution, global warming, and fuel cost has created a demand for more efficient cars. Hybrids boast an efficiency of about 40%. Electric motor efficiency is 75% to 99%. The Hydrogen Ion efficiency exceeds 75%, However a supporting infrastructure will have to be developed for electric cars and hydrogen ions cars..

Except in special applications, alternative fuel sources have a long ways to go. A number of potential energy sources such as fusion has not been developed for practical use. However, given time, one or more of these alternative fuels sources will replace fossil fuels as a primary fuel source. It may take a hundred years, but it will happen because the problems we have now with global warming, pollution, and geopolitical problems over petroleum are going to continue to increase along with development and improvement of the cost effectiveness of alternative energy sources.

We have no problem with "global warming" that is a fraud. Pollution IS a problem but none of the "solutions" to control CO2 emissions have the slightest provision to control pollution you just have to pay more to do it. A thinking person would wonder why it was OK to continue to pollute with all the terrible things that will supposedly happen.

So you claim zero emission vehicles and hybrids pollute more than fossil fuel vehicles?

 

[westwall]

Oh, so you're falling back on that old "we must obey what our high priests tell us" mumbo jumbo. I hate to inform you of this, but that's not science, that's witchcraft. Science says that anyone who wishes too, may have your data so that your results can be checked. That is the definition of the scientific method. Climatologists universally NEVER release their data so that it can be checked by others.

No doubt you will then run to the old meme "but only climatologists can understand what they're doing" and I will counter with, if it's good science, any scientist can understand it. But, more importantly, climatology is a "soft" science. Which means I as a PhD in a "hard" science can teach any climatology class there is. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would be totally lost in any classes beyond third year geology (my discipline), and unable to even put together a syllabus for a graduate level class.

So, your vaunted climatologists really aren't that special.

You are not a scientist, but thanks for offering your amateur opinions.

Wrong again bucko, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born.

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

The more time you spend trying to establish your credentials the less I believe you.

If I cared that might hurt my feelings!, but that still doesn't affect the facts. Facts are on the side of science, not the side of religious fruitcakes such as yourself.