Republicans Against Science

[Oddball]

All I'm looking for here are basic math skills.

If you can't pull it off either, I understand....Gubmint schools and all...

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you miss this?

[/IMG]

where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[6] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Want to discuss the "equation" -- (well it's AN equation)? or how it was derived? or what it means? Seems like some people just want to bluster and fight.

 

[Texanmike]

Try: "I can't do the problem and show my work".

Because if you could, you would have done so by now.

Strawman

Konrad, don't feel bad. Oddball got busted up in my thread earlier today when he repeatedly showed us he lacks basic reading comprehension skills. When he was shown to be wrong, he moved the goal posts, used insults and bailed out on the thread completely. He's a one trick pony. He isn't worth your time.

I'll bet that your foundation is ideological as well. Both sides are, for the most part, sheep.

Mike

 

[RDD_1210]

Strawman

Konrad, don't feel bad. Oddball got busted up in my thread earlier today when he repeatedly showed us he lacks basic reading comprehension skills. When he was shown to be wrong, he moved the goal posts, used insults and bailed out on the thread completely. He's a one trick pony. He isn't worth your time.

I'll bet that your foundation is ideological as well. Both sides are, for the most part, sheep.

Mike

I am no a climate scientist, nor do I claim to be one. So when it comes to the climate I will read the opinions of those who are experts in the field. I've repeatedly read that Global Warming is in fact a real issue facing the planet and that the actions of man has had an impact on this warming trend. I've also seen plenty of sites that try to debunk and discredit this research but typically it's not from people I would consider to be experts. Yes, politics is in play, but logic tells me what when scientists around the world generally agree on something, there is probably some merit to it. I have a hard time believing this is a world wide conspiracy.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

When I was a youngster and going into college for the first time in 1972 (yep, eons ago), I had this high school science teacher that got me started in Anthropology. Specifically, early man such as Austrolopithicus who was discovered in the Olduvia gorge in Africa by the Leakeys. I thought there was NOTHING more incredible than the pursuit of scientific knowledge. And of course, at the time I absolutely KNEW that religion was a mix of old wives tales and stories, conceived by those trying to explain the then unexplainable. And then I went to college and I had a professor of Anthropology who actually worked with the Leakeys and who actually made us THINK.

His question: What about religion, and more specifically Christianity, specifically says that evolution cannot be a 'tool' of creationism? Or that God did not have a guiding hand in evolution? Does it not say that a day to God can be a thousand years to us? Why not a million years, or several million years? And, it says that God created the animals, but it doesn't say that He didn't change them or even let some of them disappear, in the case of the dinosaurs.

A person who believes that they have the definitive answer to evolution AND to the changing climate of this planet is a bloviating fool. The only person who believes that there are 'experts' who can explain away everything with scientific theory and hypothesis, is not a person with whom you would want to try and have an in-depth conversation with. In the words of that professor, "They are more of a fool than all of us." There is mystery and the unknown enough to go around. The more we discover, the more those discoveries give rise to more questions. It's almost like a geometrical progression of sorts. The only concrete fact is that we are incredibly minute, incredibly ignorant, and unbelievably self-centered creatures.

War interrupted that first trip to college. But I will never forget that professor. I do believe that religion, more specifically Christianity and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact I believe that they may be complementary theories that may explain some of the 'holes' in each.

By the way, I was so moved to see that the Academy of Science of Uganda had signed onto the Global Warming Theory. Man, until they were on board, I was just kind of holding back.

 

[Texanmike]

Konrad, don't feel bad. Oddball got busted up in my thread earlier today when he repeatedly showed us he lacks basic reading comprehension skills. When he was shown to be wrong, he moved the goal posts, used insults and bailed out on the thread completely. He's a one trick pony. He isn't worth your time.

I'll bet that your foundation is ideological as well. Both sides are, for the most part, sheep.

Mike

I am no a climate scientist, nor do I claim to be one. So when it comes to the climate I will read the opinions of those who are experts in the field. I've repeatedly read that Global Warming is in fact a real issue facing the planet and that the actions of man has had an impact on this warming trend. I've also seen plenty of sites that try to debunk and discredit this research but typically it's not from people I would consider to be experts. Yes, politics is in play, but logic tells me what when scientists around the world generally agree on something, there is probably some merit to it. I have a hard time believing this is a world wide conspiracy.

I'm not waying you have to be a climate scientist. Hell I'm not one either but I don't take anything that anyone says at face value. Maybe you're right, in fact its likely that you are right, that there is no conspiracy. But the lack of conspiracy doesn't mean that they are right. That's my point. Can you name a few of the holes in the theory? Can you tell me what doesn't make sense? It is a theory and even the scientists don't proclaim to know everything about the process but most proponents can't name any of the potential flaws.

Mike

 

[pinqy]

War interrupted that first trip to college. But I will never forget that professor. I do believe that religion, more specifically Christianity and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact I believe that they may be complementary theories that may explain some of the 'holes' in each.

I'm not aware of any (well maybe a couple) of people on the evolution side who think they are mutually exclusive (except that science is the study of the natural world, not the spritual). HOWEVER, since religion is a matter of faith and not science and cannot give real explanations (Goddidit doesn't really explain anything), it's not useful in addition.

Here's how I see it...
Straight Biblical Creation: "I believe the Bible, do not know nor want to know the science, nor feel the need to claim science supports the Bible." This is pure faith, and not much of an issue as these folks aren't trying to claim it is science or that it belongs in schools.

Creation Science: "The Bible is true and science supports it completely and any evidence that disagrees is false, by definition." This is more dangerous as they're claiming Creationssm is science and should be in schools.

Intelligent Design: "Evoulution is mostly true, but requires a God and we can prove this." Mostly dressed up Creation Science. Definitley not real science despite it's trappings.

Theological Evolution: "Evolution is correct, but as a matter of faith I believe that God was involved, though this cannot be scientifically demonstrated." Many biologists and other scientists hold this position. The Catholic Church and many mainstream Protestant churches also hold a similar posisition.

Evolution: "God isn't part of the discussion, just the evidence." Doesn't require no God, just considers God out of scope.

There are perhaps a few people who claim the Evolution disproves God, but these are not mainstream.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'll bet that your foundation is ideological as well. Both sides are, for the most part, sheep.

Mike

I am no a climate scientist, nor do I claim to be one. So when it comes to the climate I will read the opinions of those who are experts in the field. I've repeatedly read that Global Warming is in fact a real issue facing the planet and that the actions of man has had an impact on this warming trend. I've also seen plenty of sites that try to debunk and discredit this research but typically it's not from people I would consider to be experts. Yes, politics is in play, but logic tells me what when scientists around the world generally agree on something, there is probably some merit to it. I have a hard time believing this is a world wide conspiracy.

I'm not waying you have to be a climate scientist. Hell I'm not one either but I don't take anything that anyone says at face value. Maybe you're right, in fact its likely that you are right, that there is no conspiracy. But the lack of conspiracy doesn't mean that they are right. That's my point. Can you name a few of the holes in the theory? Can you tell me what doesn't make sense? It is a theory and even the scientists don't proclaim to know everything about the process but most proponents can't name any of the potential flaws.

Mike

I agree, lack of it being a conspiracy doesn't mean they are automatically right. But because their evidence isn't completely fool-proof doesn't mean it's not correct either. And that's part of my point. The most convincing data I've seen as been by people who are working to show that this is an issue through the use of scientific testing. The deniers are looking to pick the data apart in any way possible which they will have you believe negates the entire idea of man made global warming.

There are certainly flaws with any theory until it has time to be thoroughly tested. That right there is certainly one of the issues, time...in the global scheme of things this research is looking at only a small time period (relatively speaking).

 

[rdean]

Must be difficult for Republicans living in a world where science is a "belief" equal to the "supernatural". That means that computers, large screen TV's, organ transplants, electron microscopes and so on are all "magical" in nature.

 

[Flopper]

Has it been bench tested in the context of an infinitely dynamic ecosystem?

Can you, with any kind of accuracy, determine that; X amount of CO2 = Y amount of ambient temperature increase?

Nope.

infinitely dynamic ecosystem?
Real bull shit this time.

Really?

You mean to say that millions upon millions of different flora, fauna, the land masses, microclimates and weather systems (at the very least), interacting with the various atmospheric elements and conditions, interacting with varying inputs like solar radiation, the magnetosphere, cloud cover, cosmic rays, planetary wobble, elliptical orbital paths, the moon and numerous other variables add up to a definitely numerable total of possible outputs?

Now, this I'd like to hear.

More B.S.

Why not tell us about the Co2 experiment that disproves global warming?

 

[Oddball]

infinitely dynamic ecosystem?
Real bull shit this time.

Really?

You mean to say that millions upon millions of different flora, fauna, the land masses, microclimates and weather systems (at the very least), interacting with the various atmospheric elements and conditions, interacting with varying inputs like solar radiation, the magnetosphere, cloud cover, cosmic rays, planetary wobble, elliptical orbital paths, the moon and numerous other variables add up to a definitely numerable total of possible outputs?

Now, this I'd like to hear.

More B.S.

Why not tell us about the Co2 experiment that disproves global warming?

Claiming BS doesn't refute the fact that we live in a dynamic ecosystem, with too many organic and inorganic influences on that ecosystem, from both within and without, to number.

It's neither scientific nor logical to demand that someone prove negatives...What science -real science, that is- is supposed to do is look for and consider every possible explanation for the given phenomenon, to eliminate that from the list of possible explanations...This is one definition of the term "falsifiability"...If you cannot adequately prove all other plausible inputs (or combinations thereof) as the cause for the given phenomenon, then you cannot, with any scientific credibility at least, claim that yours is proven.

What certainly isn't scientific is a bunch of carefully screened and selected stuffed shirts, with a bunch of letters behind their names, culled from all the "correct" academic institutions, getting together for a semi-annual "peer review" circle jerk, to declare one another correct...i.e. IPCC.

Now, you wouldn't mind taking a stab at:

X amount of atmospheric CO2, over and above the claimed "normal" = Y amount of temperature increase....Solve for X & Y and show your work.

Wouldya?

 

[Flopper]

I'll bet that your foundation is ideological as well. Both sides are, for the most part, sheep.

Mike

I am no a climate scientist, nor do I claim to be one. So when it comes to the climate I will read the opinions of those who are experts in the field. I've repeatedly read that Global Warming is in fact a real issue facing the planet and that the actions of man has had an impact on this warming trend. I've also seen plenty of sites that try to debunk and discredit this research but typically it's not from people I would consider to be experts. Yes, politics is in play, but logic tells me what when scientists around the world generally agree on something, there is probably some merit to it. I have a hard time believing this is a world wide conspiracy.

I'm not waying you have to be a climate scientist. Hell I'm not one either but I don't take anything that anyone says at face value. Maybe you're right, in fact its likely that you are right, that there is no conspiracy. But the lack of conspiracy doesn't mean that they are right. That's my point. Can you name a few of the holes in the theory? Can you tell me what doesn't make sense? It is a theory and even the scientists don't proclaim to know everything about the process but most proponents can't name any of the potential flaws.

Mike

I agree, when it comes to Globial Warming, I wouldn't take what any one person told me for granted, but what about the opinion of the national academies of science of 32 nations. Not good enough?

How about the opinion of the more specialize scientific societies such as the:

American Meteorological Association,
American Institute of Physics,
American Physical Society,
Australian Institute of Physics,
American Chemical Society,
European Physical Society,
European Science Foundation,
American Geophysical Union,
European Federation of Geologists,
Geological Society of America,
Geological Society of Australia,
Geological Society of London,
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics,
National Association of Geoscience Teachers,
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences,
Royal Meteorological Society (UK),
World Meteorological Organization,
American Quaternary Association,
International Union for Quaternary Research,
American Institute of Biological Sciences,
American Society for Microbiology,
Australian Coral Reef Society,
Institute of Biology (UK),
Society of American Foresters,
The Wildlife Society (international),
American Academy of Pediatrics,
American College of Preventive Medicine,
American Medical Association,
Australian Medical Association,
World Health Organization,
American Statistical Association,
International Association for Great Lakes Research.
The above are just for starters. The list is long to include.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not good enough? How about the research of individual scientist that are members of these associations. You'll find their research papers in the journals of the associations. In addition to climate research, there is research on glaciers, ice pack melt, ocean temperature, wild life migration, effects of ocean temperature change on fish, and increasing ultraviolet effects on coral.

Not good enough? How about the fact 97% of the climatologist agree the planet is warming and man is major cause.

Not good enough? Surely the petroleum industry would be united in an all out denial of global warming but not so.

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, guys whose future depends on oil production, denied that man had any part in global warming. However in 2007, they revised their stand. The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."

Finally you would think that big oil would stand together against the eventually elimination of their most important product. Not so.

The Shell Oil Co. president, addressing a group in St. Louis Thursday, said as far as the company was concerned, the debate over the science of global climate change is over.
"It's a waste of time to debate it," he said. "Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust."
Oil executive rips U.S. on warming strategy - US news - Environment - msnbc.com

In 1997 BP became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over $1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend $8 billion on renewable sources in the 2005 to 2015 period.
BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When oil companies are committing billions of dollar to develop alternatives to oil, you can bet they see the handwriting on the wall.

 

[flacaltenn]

WTF???

How does the American Medical Association hold an opinion of merit on the accuracy of Global Warming science?

Shall we have the Institute of Electrical Engineers weighing in on the latest JAMA theories of "gene activation by L-gliptein morphosis"???

Hey Flopper -- You forgot the KITCHEN SINK !!!!!!

 

[Flopper]

WTF???

How does the American Medical Association hold an opinion of merit on the accuracy of Global Warming science?

Shall we have the Institute of Electrical Engineers weighing in on the latest JAMA theories of "gene activation by L-gliptein morphosis"???

Hey Flopper -- You forgot the KITCHEN SINK !!!!!!

No, just not enough time. It would take many hours and I stilled wouldn't have a complete list.

Here is a complete list of scientific organizations that deny global warming..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

That's it.

 

[Fyght]

Liberals fear the fact that we were created by God and want to squelch all dissenting opinion. That is how they conduct science, just like they do for global warming. Instead, libs want us to believe that we evolved from monkeys.

 

[Oddball]

WTF???

How does the American Medical Association hold an opinion of merit on the accuracy of Global Warming science?

Shall we have the Institute of Electrical Engineers weighing in on the latest JAMA theories of "gene activation by L-gliptein morphosis"???

Hey Flopper -- You forgot the KITCHEN SINK !!!!!!

No, just not enough time. It would take many hours and I stilled wouldn't have a complete list.

Here is a complete list of scientific organizations that deny global warming..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

That's it.

Verifiable lies will not only get you nowhere, they'll further erode your already thin credibility:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4076776-post128.html

 

[flacaltenn]

This whole GHG debate is conditioned on what question is being asked.

Is it warming? Yes.

Is it warming to the extent the models predicted 20 years ago? No.

Are GHGases responsible? Partly. Not proven that it's the SOLE mover of climate change.

Is CO2 the LARGEST contributor? Don't know. Maybe we've sprung a giant Methane leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

Can we model it with any accuracy? Not Really. Not Yet.

Can we accurately project diff warming scenarios based on assumption of modifying energy consumption? Crudely.

Is man responsible? Possibly. Bears some percentage of responsibility from 0% to 100%.

Could we FIX IT? Not without 400 new nuclear power plants.

Did I get it right? Gee I hope so...

Ask the questions in different ways and you get different classes and types of skeptics. I know one thing -- I don't think Nancy Pelosi or John McCain should make the call at this point that the "science is settled".

 

[daveman]

Indeed.

Now, where has the gullible warming myth been physically bench tested, to the extent that it can be reproduced on demand?

When has it been quantified, to the point that anyone can say; X amount of CO2 = Y temperature increase?

Scientifically inquiring minds want to know.

The ability of CO2 to absorb infra-red radiation has been bench tested. Anyone with a spectrophotometer can do it and it's a relativelty east experiment. A direct measurement of CO2 vs temp hasn't been done, because it's impossible to create an entire climate in the lab. The conclusions of AGW theory are, therefore, based on logic. If More CO2 traps more IR, then more IR will generate more heat. The amount of that extra heat and the time course of warming is debatable, but the basic facts aren't.

So, an experiment in a small box with maybe two variables is an accurate predictor of what will happen in an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables.

That's not science, that's wishful thinking.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yeah that makes sense. Republicans against science. That's because the party is overrun with religious extremists.

 

[daveman]

Republicans say they are FOR science and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

Leftists say they are intelligent and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

I don't know what a leftist says.

Read your own posts.

But I know what Republicans aren't.

Yes, but you know so much that simply isn't so.