http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_el_pr/obama
Why global warming it a myth:
Doesn’t really seem like much of a kook. And neither of those articles say “why global warming is a myth”, but they do point out that the validity of the evidence has been exagerrated and that politics have imbued the whole affair.
It’s really sad. That American Thinker article is a great one. I’m seeing in my generation (people in their 20s) a distrust of scientific thought reminiscent of the post-modern movement, simply as a reaction to politization of science that has turned a scientific concept like climate change into an ideological one.
At this point, will ANY evidence convince the global warming/anti-global warming crowds to change their minds? Time will tell, I suppose.
thank you for regurgitating information for the Nth time of its existence.
i can tell your a thinker
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
thank you for regurgitating information for the Nth time of its existence.
i can tell your a thinker[/quote]
Actually the news is pretty new, but thanks for your intelligent response. That was sarcasm by the way. Is English your first language?
[quote]Brayton wrote:
Doesn’t really seem like much of a kook. And neither of those articles say “why global warming is a myth”, but they do point out that the validity of the evidence has been exagerrated and that politics have imbued the whole affair.
It’s really sad. That American Thinker article is a great one. I’m seeing in my generation (people in their 20s) a distrust of scientific thought reminiscent of the post-modern movement, simply as a reaction to politization of science that has turned a scientific concept like climate change into an ideological one.
At this point, will ANY evidence convince the global warming/anti-global warming crowds to change their minds? Time will tell, I suppose.[/quote]
The global warming/environmentalist crowd piss me off to no end. In fact, one of the only Democrats that I hated more than Obama was Al Gore; a man with zero scientific credentials who passes off his theories as some kind of new religion, and who seemingly has the power of a pope.
Did you know for example, that the world bank has estimated that corn based ethanol alone has raised food prices 70-75%?
The pope himself is trying to make a buck off of ethanol:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/05/when-will-media-expose-gores-ethanol-investments
Another irony here is that the environmentalist nitwits who pushed so hard for “green fuels” like ethanol have actually created another environmental problem:
FFS, you don’t have to equate ethanol and stupid ideas about it with global warming.
The author of the American Thinker uses the nom de plume of James Lewis. Here is a list of his articles. In Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock - American Thinker he states
This is a difficult position to defend. Einstein’s Nobel Prize was for work in quantum mechanics, not relativity. The statistical mechanics that govern all particles with a integer spin (roughly half of the particles in the universe) is called Bose-Einstein statistics.
He also states
This isn’t obvious to me, rolling dice is usually considered a as a combination not a permutation. He is missing all of those darn factorials, which can quickly become large.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
The author of the American Thinker uses the nom de plume of James Lewis. Here is a list of his articles. In Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock - American Thinker he states
Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us, dammit! Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that.
This is a difficult position to defend. Einstein’s Nobel Prize was for work in quantum mechanics, not relativity. The statistical mechanics that govern all particles with a integer spin (roughly half of the particles in the universe) is called Bose-Einstein statistics. [/quote]
Einstein did reject the Copenhagen Interpretation and the loss of determinism. But to say that he “rejected quantum mechanics” is simply preposterous given all the contributions he made to the field.
Regardless, what’s up with the idiots trying to prove a negative? Whether Global Warming is here or not, there’s nothing anyone can do to prove or disprove it with any substantial level of certainty. It’s like jerking off a dead horse.
And OP, using words such as “kook” to describe the guy does not help your agenda - at all!
Let’s get one thing straight.
Global warming is pretty much a consensus. That doesn’t mean it’s the absolute truth. It isn’t religion, it just means that most smart people, knowledgeable on the subject, educated on the subject, who actually studied the matter, agree with it.
So I have 2 questions for Phil.
Phil, what did you study do have your own opinion on the matter? No, qouting internet sources doesn’t count.
And what did you swallow to call everyone that doens’t agree with you a kook?
You’re the kook here.
Global Warming is a belief nothing more. Since it can’t be proven the sky is falling crowd has morphed the name into “climate change”.
It is anti-PC to disagree that it is happening. Those who do so are deemed heretics. That’s a belief system not science.
The most fanatical benefit from it financially. The more gullible, once again, fall for the latest fad. In 10 years it will be back to global cooling.
Those damn “sky is falling” folks in the Maldives “believe.” For some damn reason they think climate change is serious. What kooks! I wonder why the whole damn country has fallen for this “religion”?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Those damn “sky is falling” folks in the Maldives “believe.” For some damn reason they think climate change is serious. What kooks! I wonder why the whole damn country has fallen for this “religion”?
[/quote]
WOW I’m convinced. Let’s take the world’s industrial economies back to the pre industrial levels of output to save the Maldives!
Realizing that the climate changes and measuring it is science. Believing human beings can change the climate is religion.
In 10 years you will fall for global cooling caused by man, count on it. The liberal mind always falls for the latest fads.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Doesn’t really seem like much of a kook. And neither of those articles say “why global warming is a myth”, but they do point out that the validity of the evidence has been exagerrated and that politics have imbued the whole affair.
It’s really sad. That American Thinker article is a great one. I’m seeing in my generation (people in their 20s) a distrust of scientific thought reminiscent of the post-modern movement, simply as a reaction to politization of science that has turned a scientific concept like climate change into an ideological one.
At this point, will ANY evidence convince the global warming/anti-global warming crowds to change their minds? Time will tell, I suppose.
The global warming/environmentalist crowd piss me off to no end. In fact, one of the only Democrats that I hated more than Obama was Al Gore; a man with zero scientific credentials who passes off his theories as some kind of new religion, and who seemingly has the power of a pope.
Did you know for example, that the world bank has estimated that corn based ethanol alone has raised food prices 70-75%?
The pope himself is trying to make a buck off of ethanol:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/05/when-will-media-expose-gores-ethanol-investments
Another irony here is that the environmentalist nitwits who pushed so hard for “green fuels” like ethanol have actually created another environmental problem:
[/quote]
Blame ethanol on the agricultural sector that lobbied hard for the subsidies. Ralph Nader called ethanol a “a multifaceted monstrosity radiating damage in all directions of the compass.”
You are trying to use ethanol to judge global warming and Al Gore to judge environmentalism. And then you call other people nitwits.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Global Warming is a belief nothing more. Since it can’t be proven…[/quote]
All scientific theory “can’t be proven.” You still don’t understand this?
A lie. The only people using the term “politically correct” are right wing cry babies who want to pretend their views are being censored.
[quote]
Believing human beings can change the climate is religion. [/quote]
Why? In your answer, don’t equivocate “can” with “do.”
[quote]Gael wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global Warming is a belief nothing more. Since it can’t be proven…
All scientific theory “can’t be proven.” You still don’t understand this?
It is anti-PC to disagree that it is happening.
A lie. The only people using the term “politically correct” are right wing cry babies who want to pretend their views are being censored.
Believing human beings can change the climate is religion.
Why? In your answer, don’t equivocate “can” with “do.”[/quote]
If it’s based on a mathematic model it can be proven. Unless it can’t be, then it’s a belief…like global warming. Look up the scientific method on Wikpedia. It’s a simple version that you should be able to follow and understand.
Global Warming is a belief, like religion, it can’t be proven so it is a belief. GW has momentum and has suckered in a lot of like minded people with an agenda…nothing more.
Actually political correctness is a buzzword of the left. PC speak is simply being taken to it’s logical extreme with global warming. Your post is a case in point. It’s non-sensical, offer no argument or facts, and you are passionate about it to the point of fanaticism. Global Warming in a nutshell.
If “do” could be proven you wouldn’t need to believe in the can part. It can’t so global warming remains a myth.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Gael wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global Warming is a belief nothing more. Since it can’t be proven…
All scientific theory “can’t be proven.” You still don’t understand this?
It is anti-PC to disagree that it is happening.
A lie. The only people using the term “politically correct” are right wing cry babies who want to pretend their views are being censored.
Believing human beings can change the climate is religion.
Why? In your answer, don’t equivocate “can” with “do.”
If it’s based on a mathematic model it can be proven. Unless it can’t be, then it’s a belief…like global warming. Look up the scientific method on Wikpedia.[/quote]
Oops, hedo. Science provides theories that are predictive and tentative. Evidence can support theories, but all theories remain provisional. “Proof” is a concept in axiomatic systems, but not science. Scientific theory can be falsified but never proven.
You would do well to stay away from Wikipedia and practice some real learning.
Are you interested in science or in regurgitating right wing talking points?
Anyone who believes that theories based on mathematics models can be proven is beyond ignorant.
Putting aside the rest of your post, you must understand this before any rational discussion can take place.
Oh, and for the record, here’s a quote from the wikipedia article you suggested:
[i]In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4. Galileo (1638) also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences. One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.
Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”[8])[/i]
Take it as free advice, hedo: if you’re going to tell someone to read something, make sure you have at least cursory knowledge of the subject at hand.
Otherwise, you’re a poser.
At one point, the anti global warming crowd was populated with legitimate skeptics and honest thinkers.
Now it is populated with pseudoskeptics who believe, like the creationists, that “it’s just a theory” is a legitimate argument.
[quote]Gael wrote:
At one point, the anti global warming crowd was populated with legitimate skeptics and honest thinkers.
Now it is populated with pseudoskeptics who believe, like the creationists, that “it’s just a theory” is a legitimate argument.[/quote]
Really, who were these legitimate people? When did they change sides/ what convinced them?
The official position of the IPCC is that global warming (the increasing temperature on the surface of the globe) is “very likely” due to Man flunking all sorts of gases in the air. It’s not a belief system. It’s not even a certitude. Merely an educated shot at finding the cause of something that’ll inevitably doom millions of people. It’s quite astonishing that people who wouldn’t know science if it bit them in the ass challenge reports authored by some of the world’s most eminent scientists.
We might not know for sure, but probabilistically speaking, there are better chances of our current lifestyle screwing over the planet than not. Anyone challenging this must then explain why the principle of precaution shouldn’t apply to something that might be catastrophic. Does your right to overconsume and litter trump the right of others (including future generations) to live?
And the term PC is indubitably a buzzword of the right in the US, because of the term’s association with Maoism. It was a strawman back then, and it is still very much a strawman today. To suggest that it’s a “buzzword of the left” is beyond silly. It’s used almost exclusively by conservatives.
You mean guys like Hansen?
He is a worthless corrupt hack. He gives science a bad name.
There are a number of notable skeptics too (some even in the ipcc).
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
I for one don’t believe CO2 does anything to the global climate. A lot of my opinion comes from my EAS buddies I went to school with.
I think there are a lot more important environmental issues than global warming.