So how much money do those evil conniving climate scientists make anyway?

[SSDD]

What about "the present state of evolutionary theory" do you find questionable?

For starters, during the pre- biologic period of evolution, Darwinian competition simply can not facilitate the evolutionary process. Natural selection as the term is accepted today requires the presence of at least some rudimentary form of life. This means that there is simply an assumption that processes which were completely unguided spontaneously resulted in an entity capable of both encoding information and self replication. A self replicating organism exceeds the inert matter from which it theoretically arose.

This suggests an underlying natural tendency towards complexity that Darwinism simply can not explain and for that matter the present state of either chemistry or biology can explain The discussion gets more complex from there. I doubt that the final incarnation of the theory will be anywhere as primitive as it is today.

 

[SSDD]

So you are prejudiced against people of faith

Sometimes.

SSDD if you honest to your God aren't arguing in bad faith, well, I don't see how, but I apologize. I started to get shitty with you because I really think this is about politics and because of that I don't see progress with you as possible. Your views are annoying and progress is impossible so I decided to **** with you instead.

I never operate in bad faith. Lying and deception simply is not my style..I find it both intellectually and ethically offensive. if a scientific hypothesis involving an entity as eminently observable and measurable as the atmosphere, and energy movement through it can not be supported with observed, measured evidence, I believe those proclaiming it to be true and correct are operating for whatever reason on bad faith.

Your apology is accepted...thank you.

 

[Crick]

What about "the present state of evolutionary theory" do you find questionable?

For starters, during the pre- biologic period of evolution, Darwinian competition simply can not facilitate the evolutionary process. Natural selection as the term is accepted today requires the presence of at least some rudimentary form of life. This means that there is simply an assumption that processes which were completely unguided spontaneously resulted in an entity capable of both encoding information and self replication. A self replicating organism exceeds the inert matter from which it theoretically arose.

This suggests an underlying natural tendency towards complexity that Darwinism simply can not explain and for that matter the present state of either chemistry or biology can explain The discussion gets more complex from there. I doubt that the final incarnation of the theory will be anywhere as primitive as it is today.

The term "Darwinian competition" has no specific meaning. You just pulled that out of your ass.

Self-replication was not created by evolution. It was the other way around. As soon as a self-replicating structure appeared, natural selection began to drive it towards reproductive success. That process inevitably led to increased complexity. There is no theoretical failure and there is no paradox.

 

[cnm]

As previously noted, I know parsing, qualifying, straight-up deceitful language when I see it....I recognize when people are lying to others and themselves.

Now that's authoritative.

 

[SSDD]

The term "Darwinian competition" has no specific meaning. You just pulled that out of your ass.

My bad...for a second there I forgot that you only understand if you are spoken to in the most rudimentary manner.. What do you think natural selection is, if not a competition to survive?

Here...as if giving you information suggests that you would actually learn something from it.

The Janus face of Darwinian competition

Natural selection - Wikipedia

clip: In 1881, the embryologist Wilhelm Roux published Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus (The Struggle of Parts in the Organism) in which he suggested that the development of an organism results from a Darwinian competition between the parts of the embryo, occurring at all levels, from molecules to organs.[121] In recent years, a modern version of this theory has been proposed by Jean-Jacques Kupiec. According to this cellular Darwinism, random variationat the molecular level generates diversity in cell types whereas cell interactions impose a characteristic order on the developing embryo.[122]"


Should have known that you really wouldn't have a clue....your knowledge on any given topic seems to me nanometers deep...

Self-replication was not created by evolution.

Do you actually think about anything? Ever? How many generations do you think a given life form will endure if it does not spring forth with the ability to encode information and self replicate? After an entity is alive, it is a bit late to start trying to evolve the ability to replicate itself.

As soon as a self-replicating structure appeared, natural selection began to drive it towards reproductive success.

Like I said...Evolution in its present primitive state requires the assumption that there is some sort of life already present. Tell me, you idiot, do you think entropy drove hydrogen, which according to physics was the only element in existence at the time of the big bang to forming all of the 92 elements that we know of that presently exist in nature? Entropy, as we understand it would have been perfectly happy with there being nothing but hydrogen...that is about as high a level of disorganization as is possible without breaking the atoms down to their constituent parts

You think entropy drove the development of more complex elements from simpler ones? You think entropy drove the unimaginable number of molecular combinations resulting from those elements? You think entropy drove the evolution of increasingly complex molecules from the limited palate of basic elements to form the necessary "parts" for a self replicating organism to spring forth from inert matter? You really think entropy is responsible for that?

That process inevitably led to increased complexity.

Except the process began long before life ever came into existence and competition does not exist among atoms and molecules of inert matter. ....moving from nothing but hydrogen, to the building blocks of life implies ever increasing complexity, and there was nothing to drive that increasing complexity in the void, other than entropy...

There is no theoretical failure and there is no paradox.

I suppose that might be true for the sort of person who simply accepts what he is told without question...Thinking people on the other hand question everything...and in questioning, find flaws that people like you never even consider. Without ever having thought of it, you give entropy the credit for moving a universe formed of nothing but hydrogen inexorably towards our development....and really skid mark...how astonishingly stupid is that?

The very fact of the development of all the known elements, and the unimaginable number of molecules that are known and unknown from a young universe composed of nothing but hydrogen, implies on its face, some unknown natural drive towards complexity operating in the face of entropy...some unknown property that provides the potential, and possibility of evolution.

No skidmark...in the end, if we ever figure out how we came to be, the story will bear little resemblance to Darwinian Evolution...Darwin possibly provided, the "My First Book" version of how we came to be...and we haven't moved much past that at this point....but the adult version, the one that tells the real story, will bear about as much resemblance to Darwin as the collected works of Shakespeare do to Where the Wild Things Are.

 

[Confounding]

Thinking people on the other hand question everything

Thinking people also know when to listen to those with much greater knowledge. I'm just amazed that you can think millions of hours of research done by some of the brightest minds we have is complete BS. You haven't done enough/don't know enough to compete with the combined knowledge and understanding of the scientific community. There are people a lot smarter than us that know a lot more about this than we do. You have to understand that. There are people that have been working in this field for 50 years. You cannot compete with their level of knowledge and context.

 

[Oddball]

Thinking people on the other hand question everything

Thinking people also know when to listen to those with much greater knowledge. I'm just amazed that you can think millions of hours of research done by some of the brightest minds we have is complete BS. You haven't done enough/don't know enough to compete with the combined knowledge and understanding of the scientific community. There are people a lot smarter than us that know a lot more about this than we do. You have to understand that. There are people that have been working in this field for 50 years. You cannot compete with their level of knowledge and context.

Those "brightest minds" are a closed cabal, hand picked by political hacks to give them the results they want.

 

[SSDD]

Thinking people also know when to listen to those with much greater knowledge. I'm just amazed that you can think millions of hours of research done by some of the brightest minds we have is complete BS.

You keep saying that as if you have an inkling of what I know. If you are placing constraints on what I know, based on what you know, then you really have no idea. I have been reading the literature voraciously for about 30 years now. There is a reason that I can make claims of a lack of evidence with perfect confidence that no one is going to deliver said evidence and embarrass me with it.

You haven't done enough/don't know enough to compete with the combined knowledge and understanding of the scientific community.

Climate science doesn't represent the "scientific community" Climate science is a very small branch of the scientific community and what science it produces is soft science...equivalent to the output of the hard sciences in roughly the same manner as graphic novels are equivalent to the classics....and as I said, I have been devouring the literature produced by the climate science community now for more than 3 decades. Plenty of time to have a firm handle on what the field can rightly claim, and what is political hyperbole...

There are people a lot smarter than us that know a lot more about this than we do.

Speak for yourself...I wager that I have consumed more of the literature than most of the climate science community.

You have to understand that.

Sorry that you think practitioners of a soft science like climate science are so much more intelligent than you...and I can't imagine what sort of esoteric knowledge you believe they possess that anyone with a decent education in the sciences can't understand. You don't seem to be willing to say what that is.

There are people that have been working in this field for 50 years. You cannot compete with their level of knowledge and context.

The bulk of climate "scientists" are kids...and quite a large number of those who have been in the field have been discredited beyond redemption...james hansen, michael mann, trenberth...their ideas have proven to be wrong...that's the problem with hanging out to long supporting a very weak hypothesis...your predictions have time to come home to roost...their failures haunt them. Look at michael mann...millions spent trying to keep his data and methods secret...he knows that should they become public knowedge, that his career and fame will come to an end due to sloppiness, and outright fraud...

 

[SSDD]

Thinking people on the other hand question everything

Thinking people also know when to listen to those with much greater knowledge. I'm just amazed that you can think millions of hours of research done by some of the brightest minds we have is complete BS. You haven't done enough/don't know enough to compete with the combined knowledge and understanding of the scientific community. There are people a lot smarter than us that know a lot more about this than we do. You have to understand that. There are people that have been working in this field for 50 years. You cannot compete with their level of knowledge and context.

Those "brightest minds" are a closed cabal, hand picked by political hacks to give them the results they want.

I always get a chuckle from people who believe that the "best and brightest" are working for government....one can only wish that were true...government is the land of the low bid...

 

[Confounding]

Climate science doesn't represent the "scientific community"

The scientific community agrees with the climate scientists. Again, find me one scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW.

 

[SSDD]

Climate science doesn't represent the "scientific community"

The scientific community agrees with the climate scientists. Again, find me one scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW.

Typical argument...terribly flawed, but typical. The heads of scientific institutions walk in lock step with the consensus because the heads of institutions, gather a lot of money by doing so. They don't poll their membership in order to determine what the stance of the institution will be on the topic of climate science....and it is the membership that are the working scientists... Only one scientific institution dared to poll its membership regarding their views on climate change...The American Physical Society...the most prestigious of the bunch, and it turned out to be a disaster for them...they were bombarded with statements from their membership going against what the political head of the organization wanted to say..it became very clear, very quickly that the membership...the actual body of scientists did not agree with the position of the political head of the organization...and in the end, they still went against what the membership told them.

So no...the vast majority of scientists are not on board the AGW wagon..the political heads of the organizations are....there is a difference.

 

[Crick]

Thinking people also know when to listen to those with much greater knowledge. I'm just amazed that you can think millions of hours of research done by some of the brightest minds we have is complete BS. You haven't done enough/don't know enough to compete with the combined knowledge and understanding of the scientific community. There are people a lot smarter than us that know a lot more about this than we do. You have to understand that. There are people that have been working in this field for 50 years. You cannot compete with their level of knowledge and context.[/QUOTE]
Those "brightest minds" are a closed cabal, hand picked by political hacks to give them the results they want.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, the UN is a political organization and when the IPCC was first formed, its members were hand-selected by their governments. But the idea that all those governments had the same aims is ludicrous. What they did have in common was a fairly strong desire not to rock the boat. The first two IPCC assessment reports were made more conservative by political influences. That is, the science supported more alarm than the politicians wanted to publish.

However, the world was getting data from other places as well. The IPCC funds NO science. Everything they use is science published on its own right in the normal science publications. Through those normal channels, the world began to assimilate the idea that man-made global warming was more dangerous than the IPCC was telling them. This empowered the scientists working for the UN and political biases towards threat minimization almost disappeared.

The paranoid fantasies that we see from deniers here; that the IPCC wants to take over the world or destroy the world or whatever nonsense they are spouting today is patently absurd. You will frequently see people chastizing the critical thinking of their opponents here. If you, yourself wish to be critical in your evaluations of these various claims, your first step ought to be to eliminate those claims that do not pass a simple sanity check. That every single man-jack of the thousands of the world's climate scientists is involved in a perfectly secure, perfectly functioning, decades long conspiracy to deceive the public in order to... who knows, does NOT pass a simple sanity check. That the IPCC has some political motivation that drives all their work is just another variation of the same failed nonsense.

 

[Oddball]

Obviously, the UN is a political organization and when the IPCC was first formed, its members were hand-selected by their governments. But the idea that all those governments had the same aims is ludicrous. What they did have in common was a fairly strong desire not to rock the boat. The first two IPCC assessment reports were made more conservative by political influences. That is, the science supported more alarm than the politicians wanted to publish.

However, the world was getting data from other places as well. The IPCC funds NO science. Everything they use is science published on its own right in the normal science publications. Through those normal channels, the world began to assimilate the idea that man-made global warming was more dangerous than the IPCC was telling them. This empowered the scientists working for the UN and political biases towards threat minimization almost disappeared.

The paranoid fantasies that we see from deniers here; that the IPCC wants to take over the world or destroy the world or whatever nonsense they are spouting today is patently absurd. You will frequently see people chastizing the critical thinking of their opponents here. If you, yourself wish to be critical in your evaluations of these various claims, your first step ought to be to eliminate those claims that do not pass a simple sanity check. That every single man-jack of the thousands of the world's climate scientists is involved in a perfectly secure, perfectly functioning, decades long conspiracy to deceive the public in order to... who knows, does NOT pass a simple sanity check. That the IPCC has some political motivation that drives all their work is just another variation of the same failed nonsense.

Riiiiiight...."Scientists" hand picked by politicians aren't going to give their benefactors exactly the results that they want to get.

Wanna buy some seaside property in Arizona?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Climate science doesn't represent the "scientific community"

The scientific community agrees with the climate scientists. Again, find me one scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW.

Find the evidence that the per decade warming TREND has reached the minimum IPCC rate.

Find the evidence for the Tropospheric "hot spot" the IPCC projected 18 years ago.

Find the evidence that the CO2 backed positive feedback exist.

Snicker...………….

 

[SSDD]

Climate science doesn't represent the "scientific community"

The scientific community agrees with the climate scientists. Again, find me one scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW.

Find the evidence that the per decade warming TREND has reached the minimum IPCC rate.

Find the evidence for the Tropospheric "hot spot" the IPCC projected 18 years ago.

Find the evidence that the CO2 backed positive feedback exist.

Snicker...………….

It isn't polite to ask people to provide evidence to support their quasi religious beliefs...

 

[Crick]

Obviously, the UN is a political organization and when the IPCC was first formed, its members were hand-selected by their governments. But the idea that all those governments had the same aims is ludicrous. What they did have in common was a fairly strong desire not to rock the boat. The first two IPCC assessment reports were made more conservative by political influences. That is, the science supported more alarm than the politicians wanted to publish.

However, the world was getting data from other places as well. The IPCC funds NO science. Everything they use is science published on its own right in the normal science publications. Through those normal channels, the world began to assimilate the idea that man-made global warming was more dangerous than the IPCC was telling them. This empowered the scientists working for the UN and political biases towards threat minimization almost disappeared.

The paranoid fantasies that we see from deniers here; that the IPCC wants to take over the world or destroy the world or whatever nonsense they are spouting today is patently absurd. You will frequently see people chastizing the critical thinking of their opponents here. If you, yourself wish to be critical in your evaluations of these various claims, your first step ought to be to eliminate those claims that do not pass a simple sanity check. That every single man-jack of the thousands of the world's climate scientists is involved in a perfectly secure, perfectly functioning, decades long conspiracy to deceive the public in order to... who knows, does NOT pass a simple sanity check. That the IPCC has some political motivation that drives all their work is just another variation of the same failed nonsense.

Riiiiiight...."Scientists" hand picked by politicians aren't going to give their benefactors exactly the results that they want to get.

Wanna buy some seaside property in Arizona?

The IPCC has been in existence now for almost 31 years. Very few of the original employees are still there and the point of my comment is that governments now put less pressure on scientists than they did and that when they did, their aim was to MINIMIZE the threat the IPCC conclusions saw in global warming. These refute your contentions.

 

[Oddball]

Obviously, the UN is a political organization and when the IPCC was first formed, its members were hand-selected by their governments. But the idea that all those governments had the same aims is ludicrous. What they did have in common was a fairly strong desire not to rock the boat. The first two IPCC assessment reports were made more conservative by political influences. That is, the science supported more alarm than the politicians wanted to publish.

However, the world was getting data from other places as well. The IPCC funds NO science. Everything they use is science published on its own right in the normal science publications. Through those normal channels, the world began to assimilate the idea that man-made global warming was more dangerous than the IPCC was telling them. This empowered the scientists working for the UN and political biases towards threat minimization almost disappeared.

The paranoid fantasies that we see from deniers here; that the IPCC wants to take over the world or destroy the world or whatever nonsense they are spouting today is patently absurd. You will frequently see people chastizing the critical thinking of their opponents here. If you, yourself wish to be critical in your evaluations of these various claims, your first step ought to be to eliminate those claims that do not pass a simple sanity check. That every single man-jack of the thousands of the world's climate scientists is involved in a perfectly secure, perfectly functioning, decades long conspiracy to deceive the public in order to... who knows, does NOT pass a simple sanity check. That the IPCC has some political motivation that drives all their work is just another variation of the same failed nonsense.

Riiiiiight...."Scientists" hand picked by politicians aren't going to give their benefactors exactly the results that they want to get.

Wanna buy some seaside property in Arizona?

The IPCC has been in existence now for almost 31 years. Very few of the original employees are still there and the point of my comment is that governments now put less pressure on scientists than they did and that when they did, their aim was to MINIMIZE the threat the IPCC conclusions saw in global warming. These refute your contentions.

Red herrings refute nothing.

 

[Crick]

Red herrings? Where do you see a red herring?

You and others have claimed that the IPCC is driven by political considerations. I am stating that is no longer the case. Where do you see a red herring Mr Linguist?

 

[Oddball]

Red herrings? Where do you see a red herring?

You and others have claimed that the IPCC is driven by political considerations. I am stating that is no longer the case. Where do you see a red herring Mr Linguist?

Amount of time in existence is proof of nothing....A red herring.

The "intergovernmental" part gives it away as being purely political, not scientific.

 

[Crick]

Wow... you're stretching. A lot.

The amount of time since the IPCC was created is evidence that few of the originally selected scientists are still there. It stands. It is not a red herring.

The "intergovernmental" term in the title indicates that it involves more than one government: for funding, for personnel, for data, for general support. It is an agency of the United Nations, an overtly political organization. You seem to think that folks were trying to hide that. Perhaps you forgot that the IPCC was part of the UN but I don't think anyone else ever did.