Page 89 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3979848586878889909192939499 ... LastLast
Results 1,761 to 1,780 of 2209
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1761  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Yes, folks who are on the right - and who receive talking points from the industry leaders who stand to benefit from not addressing climate issues - think that one set of data comprises all of the data ever collected on climate change.

    It's all part of the "we don't use science or logic, we lead from our gut" management style that the Bush administration relied on, and which contines the feudal arrangement of the rich lording over the compliant poor.
    Yes, people from both sides parrot evidence that they do not completely understand in order to support their own presuppositions. However, the thought of many that global warming is just another man-made hysteria designed by an "apolitical" organization to push a specific political agenda is not completely unfounded. The WHO's stance on swine fly and climate change comes to mind.
  2. #1762  
    Ok I should of read all 89 pages. But I dont have all night. So here are my two cents. Yes man kind plays a part in it. How much? I dont know and dont care. Global warming happens every few thousand years or so. And it will continue to do so untill some big @** rock comes flying from outer space and takes us all out. For one the earth sits on a 23.5 degree axis. Which is slowly changing. Kinda like one of those toy tops that you had when you was a child. You would think with the earth just wobling in space, that would have a effect on our climate. And did any one know that our polar fields are changing as well. The change is caused by the flow of the earths core and the suns gravity tug. Now the earth depends on the polar fields to take in the suns solar winds which contain high amounts of radiation. This is how auroras are made.
  3. #1763  
    And the vast majority of scientists disagree with your conclusion that this is just another cyclical warming trend. But there's no need to base decisions on scientific consensus, when anyone can just throw in their opinion, based on their gut reaction.
  4. #1764  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    And the vast majority of scientists disagree with your conclusion that this is just another cyclical warming trend. But there's no need to base decisions on scientific consensus, when anyone can just throw in their opinion, based on their gut reaction.
    Could you post the list of the vast majority? I'd like to call and do some fact checking.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  5. #1765  
    Global warming and Global cooling has happened many times through out earth's life span. That is a fact and has been proven. Not saying that todays problems are not man kinds doings. But sure they have an affect. Now if the earth can go from a blanket of snow and ice. And wipe out almost every living organism. And some how pull out of it. Now that would be what just about everyone I know would call a natural accuring phenomenon. Ice ages come and go. Either way it dont matter. I dont see mankind doing anything in time to stop rising temperatures. If they really are. Maybe its just the cycle of nature renewing itself or something. But according to the Mayan calender and many other sivilizations calenders the world will come to an end as we know it in
    on 12 23 2012. lol so is global warming going to be the end or the alignment of the galaxy?
  6. #1766  
    The Kool-Aid must be particularly strong these days.
  7. #1767  
    lol ah the point is no one knows what is going to happen. The question is can man kind actually stop something like global warming. I know I will keep on driving my 64 mpg metro geo and not panic about something that I think is unstopable.
  8. #1768  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Yes, folks who are on the right - and who receive talking points from the industry leaders who stand to benefit from not addressing climate issues - think that one set of data comprises all of the data ever collected on climate change.
    Is this really a left/right issue? Might want to check out the amout of monetary benefits for the AGW proponents as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It's all part of the "we don't use science or logic, we lead from our gut" management style that the Bush administration relied on, and which contines the feudal arrangement of the rich lording over the compliant poor.
    Why would anyone use the science if some of it was fudged (which tends to make it all fudged).

    Just wait till you see what this feudal arrangement looks like if all this crap goes through.
  9. #1769  
    To be fair, there's money on both sides. I would suggest the money on the pro-AGW side is not insignificant.
  10. #1770  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Could you post the list of the vast majority? I'd like to call and do some fact checking.
    Sure. Calling all of these organizations may take some time, but feel free. All have taken official positions on the scientific consensus concerning climate change and man's contribution.

    You can start with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union,American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy,American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association,Association of Ecosystem,Research Centers,Botanical Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

    If you get cheap international rates, you can call the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nacionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nacionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

    If you need more after that, you can probably find others here:

    Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It should be noted that not a single major scientific organization disputes the scientific consensus. So folks can state one issue of tainted data and pretend that it invalidates the entire scientific consensus, but that's simply ignorant of scientific methodology...it's thinking with your gut and not with logic.
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/08/2009 at 08:54 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  11. #1771  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Sure. Calling all of these organizations may take some time, but feel free. All have taken official positions on the scientific consensus concerning climate change and man's contribution.

    You can start with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union,American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy,American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association,Association of Ecosystem,Research Centers,Botanical Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

    If you get cheap international rates, you can call the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nacionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nacionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

    If you need more after that, you can probably find others here:

    Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It should be noted that not a single major scientific organization disputes the scientific consensus. So folks can state one issue of tainted data and pretend that it invalidates the entire scientific consensus, but that's simply ignorant of scientific methodology...it's thinking with your gut and not with logic.
    Wow. Thanks. I'll make some calls. Would it be safe to assume that since a society or council is listed that EVERY member is on board with the climate change stuff?
    You know like the American Medical Association and how they speak for all doctors. Oh wait they don't.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1772  
    Hello Everyone,

    First--anyone who talks about "consensus" science is an *****, and has no understanding of science. Science isn't an opinion and it isn't democracy. If you are so pathetically stupid to believe this propaganda, then nothing can be done to help you. These utter morons who say "the debate is settled" in regards to Science...should be laughed out of the room. Science is NEVER settled--its just waiting for more information to come to light. Of course, we now have proof that these so-called scientists intentionally destroy and obscure and manipulate information in order to CREATE "facts."

    Global Warming Propagandists--many of which make their living by draining the public of money to study such things have a vested interest in convincing people of this--whether it is true or not.

    What this e-mail scandal points out isn't whether or not Global Warming has or is occurring, but rather that they are willing to lie and falsify data in order to make sure that is the conclusion. In other words--this is a violation of science.

    Let everyone be clear about this--it isn't about science, that is simply the hard-to-understand shadow that these international criminals hide behind in order to use FEAR MONGERING (oh no--that is the worst thing anyone can ever do--Ref: Health Care debate) to threaten an ignorant public into buying into the biggest scheme every perpetrated on the world.

    These e-mails don't DISPROVE global warming--or do much of anything to do with Science. They merely expose two-bit propagandists as what they are. Of course all the mindless little Flavor-aid drinkers are going to line up behind them and just double their propaganda efforts. And given that those who they are pandering to are also morons, it will probably work.

    However, for those who have a desire to actually look at things objectively, there are some relevant issues. What is being side-stepped here is that the entire claim of the AGW folks is already proven false.

    That claim and prediction is that temperatures will get warmer and warmer and warmer--caused by Carbon Dioxide Concentrations. Well, that's factually false. CO2 Levels have continued to increase and temperatures have not--for nearly 10 years. THAT is science proving that theory to be false.

    Let's stop and realize the facts here. THAT THEORY IS FALSE. Now, of course the propagandists change their tune, and say, well, the long term trends continue to rise, and change "global warming" to "Climate change." All very clever, and some of it might even be true. However, it is all an effort to sidestep the FACT that that Theory is in fact false. Let me be clear--what is false is that CO2 is THE factor that has led to Global Warming.

    It is Obvious scientific fact for anyone who isn't a dedicated AGW Cultist--that this is proven to be false. Global Temperatures have in fact not risen in line with CO2--that theory is false. I'm repeating myself because this is very important. What this says is that some OTHER factor is overwhelming CO2 as a contributor to Global Temperatures. Anyone who has a shred of honesty must acknowledge this.

    Now, does this mean that CO2 and Global Temperatures are totally unrelated? No, of course not. However, what one must realize is that this FACT unravels the entire scheme. The entire propagandist theory that sought to link these two things (CO2 and Absolute Global Temperature) is False.

    The fact is that other Factors (likely the Sun) overwhelm CO2 concentrations, and they do it essentially overnight. The AGW Propagandist criminals RELY on the lie that only human action can lead to such changes, but Science is actually demonstrating right now--in our lifetimes in the span of a few years that NATURE is in fact overwhelming all of those influences that are being blamed on humanity.

    Surely others understand this, and that's why the rhetoric and propaganda is rising to obscure this fact. Fear Mongering--to the level where they are predicting extinction of the species in some cases, and DEMANDING that action be taken now--tomorrow will be too late.

    The bottom line--the actual science that is DEMONSTRATED is that other factors in Nature (which include the sun, other weather events, etc, etc) are able to overwhelm CO2 Concentrations in terms of Global Temperatures.

    These idiots put all their eggs in one basket, and that has been proven false--Demonstrated in fact, and it didn't require criminal manipulation of Data or any thing like that. Global Temperatures did not rise as they predicted--and in fact, they reduced somewhat--CONTRARY to the theory that they have forwarded, DISPROVING that theory.

    It is a scientific reality that a theory is disproved by ONE false example, and we have that--scientifically demonstrated. Yet, these criminals who hide and destroy data deny this fact in order to keep pushing the lies that they've conspired to create for decades.

    It is so interesting that those who call other people "deniers" are in fact in denial of reality, in which their central propaganda driven theory is false, and they lack the scientific ethics to admit this.

    Now, the real arrogance in this--for the "True believer" is that if Global Warming continues at some point (and it very well might), is that they think they can do something about it. They cling to the false premise that Mankind has created this issue and that they can do something about it, even after its been proven that Nature Overwhelms EVERYTHING we've done, or likely can ever do.

    SCIENCE is telling us that Nature can and has overwhelmed man's influence--we've seen it, we are living through it right now. PROPAGANDISTS are spending billions of your dollars and burning untold energy to keep telling you the opposite--that mankind is more powerful than nature. We aren't and aren't likely to gain that power anytime soon. Yet, to fulfill these cultists fantasies, we are going to spend billions and trillions of dollars--all Contrary to Science and fact...and reality.

    If you want to be scared about something--that's something to be scared about--that propaganda has near-complete control over our lives.

    KAM
  13. #1773  
    Suspect results already. Just looking up the contact info for

    American Association for the Advancement of Science

    From their website:
    As a member of AAAS your involvement actively supports programs that:

    * Help governments formulate science policy (Learn More)
    * Promote advancements in science education (Learn More)
    * Increase diversity in the scientific community (Learn More)
    * Use science to advance human rights (Learn More)
    * Assist individual scientists in developing their careers (Learn More)
    * Communicate the value of science to the general public (Learn More)
    and when we look at membership categories

    Member Categories
    Join and support the voice of science - AAAS [Photograph of a man in shirt and jacket, reading Science magazine]

    Membership in AAAS is open to all individuals who support the goals and objectives of the Association and are willing to contribute to the achievement of those goals and objectives. Membership in AAAS provides individual rights and benefits and are, therefore, not transferable. All memberships listed below include a subscription to Science magazine. Science is published weekly, except the last week in December.

    Membership Categories:

    * Professional Membership
    * Postdoc Membership (Requires proof of postdoc affiliation)
    * Student Membership (Requires proof of full-time undergraduate or graduate student status)
    * Emeritus Membership (For retired members of the association)
    * K12 Teacher Membership (Requires verification of teaching status)
    * K12 Teacher with Science Books & Films Includes one year (nine issue) subscription to Science Books & Films. (Requires verification of teaching status)

    Patron Membership

    Members who desire the highest level of involvement with the activities of the association can opt for Patron Membership. In addition to receiving all the individual member benefits and services, Patron members also receive the AAAS Annual Report and regular executive briefings on the activities of the association.

    See a list of AAAS Patrons.

    Institutional subscriptions to Science are also available for libraries and institutions. Please contact the Membership Office for more information on subscription rates.

    Sounds like a group dedicated to the unbiased scientific pursuit of facts to me....NOT!! These folks have an agenda. This is not a scientific organization. It's a PAC.

    Any bets on how much of Bujin's list fit that category?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1774  
    Hello Everyone,

    I realize that my earlier post was repetitive--that is needed for some people. For others who respond better to simple statements here is it in another way.

    CO2 Concentrations have continued to rise.
    Global Temperatures under those CO2 conditions have Risen and fallen (over the last 10-11 years).

    This demonstrates that CO2 Concentrations and Global Temperatures are not dependent on each other. OTHER factors have been demonstrated (as measured by a decline in temperatures while CO2 continues to be high) to have more influence.

    In other words--global warming may have been occurring and may occur again, and CO2 might even be ONE element in that, but it is not the only element, and this Ideologically based push to focus on Manmade CO2 is an incorrect (proven) focus. The theory that this is the key to controlling the Global Climate (a fallacy) is PROVEN FALSE.

    The Conclusion: Factors, other than Manmade CO2 are a larger influence. It stands to reason that even if CO2 Concentrations come down, that these other (larger) factors might lead to a rise in Global Temperatures. Of course that is obvious to people not blinded by their own ideological views and propaganda, and has been for a long time.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 12/08/2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason: wording change
  15. #1775  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    First--anyone who talks about "consensus" science is an *****, and has no understanding of science.
    Anyone who doesn't understand that "scientific consensus" is a widely accepted term in the scientific community isn't necessarily an *****, but has no understanding of scientific methodology or terminology.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. #1776  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Sounds like a group dedicated to the unbiased scientific pursuit of facts to me....NOT!! These folks have an agenda. This is not a scientific organization. It's a PAC.

    Any bets on how much of Bujin's list fit that category?
    Sounds like the typical response of someone who doesn't want to face the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is on one side of this issue. Can you find one reputable national or international organization that disputes the prevailing argument for global warming, or are you just going to try to state that every one of those organizations are biased? One would be a start.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1777  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Yes, folks who are on the right - and who receive talking points from the industry leaders who stand to benefit from not addressing climate issues - think that one set of data comprises all of the data ever collected on climate change.

    It's all part of the "we don't use science or logic, we lead from our gut" management style that the Bush administration relied on, and which contines the feudal arrangement of the rich lording over the compliant poor.
    You've made a fine demonstration here of doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing. You are parroting the talking points of leftists propagandists, claiming to be champions of science (while trampling it), and laughably attacking others from "leading from their gut" while your apparent heroes (those politicians who are in power currently) are utterly ignoring science.

    Science is merely another propaganda tool for them, and they (nor you) are honest enough to admit it. These petty little ideological cowards wants are so weak that they cannot let them stand on their own, so they co-opt "Science" (aka Consensus) to prop up their schemes.

    How dare these propagandists claim the mantle of science, while they whiz all over it--right out in the open for everyone with a brain to see. The arrogance and lack of ethics is amazing. Only with mindless followers (such as they enjoy) can this audacity continue.

    KAM
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1778  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Anyone who doesn't understand that "scientific consensus" is a widely accepted term in the scientific community isn't necessarily an *****, but has no understanding of scientific methodology or terminology.
    Terminology isn't the issue--what these words represent is, and how they are being used to perpetuate falsehoods is what's relevant. Science is not opinion, and if you believe it is, then you sure as heck have no grounds to lecture me on the subject.

    99.999% of the world can hold the OPINION and form scientific "consensus" and all it takes is ONE scientific example to PROVE that "consensus" wrong.

    It is very clear that propagandists want to obscure this fact, and keep stating "consensus" as if it trumps evidence. They pretend that Consensus is formed from Evidence, and while it may be, it is clear in the case of AGW that other factors (including intimidation, money, politics, and groupthink) are really much more important factors.

    Just as a reference--since some people like that--from a common one (wikipedia)
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

    Note the bolded and underlined section. Consensus is not part of the Scientific Method. Obviously not.

    KAM
  19. #1779  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Science is merely another propaganda tool for them, and they (nor you) are honest enough to admit it. These petty little ideological cowards wants are so weak that they cannot let them stand on their own, so they co-opt "Science" (aka Consensus) to prop up their schemes.
    Yes, I'm sure that all of these organizations, throughout the entire world, are part of a vast left-wing scheme, just to take your money:

    Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20. #1780  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    It is very clear that propagandists want to obscure this fact, and keep stating "consensus" as if it trumps evidence. They pretend that Consensus is formed from Evidence, and while it may be, it is clear in the case of AGW that other factors (including intimidation, money, politics, and groupthink) are really much more important factors.
    Ummm....scientific consensus actually is formed from evidence. That's the whole point.

    If you can provide actual evidence that is accepted by a majority of the experts in the field, then you'll have a point. Until then, I choose to believe the scientific consensus over the conspiracy theorists.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G

Posting Permissions