Groo the Wanderer Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 i think that people that resurrect old threads should be shot...then fed to the global warming dragons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1300215920' post='2220918'] i think that people that resurrect old threads should be shot...then fed to the global warming dragons [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Isn't it considered better forum etiquette to post in an older, relevant thread, rather than starting a new redundant one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The problem is when dealing with science-based threads the info could have changed, so I think a new thread is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 My face is a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1300223988' post='2220950'] The problem is when dealing with science-based threads the info could have changed, so I think a new thread is better. [/quote] Seems like Groo is just mad that the same debate for resurrected. Iunno, just how I read it. Information can be corrected. Probably better that it is, rather than let it just sit in its wrongness and be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 [quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1300150347' post='2220769'] yes, its no good to be an alarmist about it [/quote] If you're ever bored you might give this a watch. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFAhW_ZmV8[/media] Some highlight from the first few minutes. Why we should reject global warming/climate change. Global Warming Accomplishes: 1. Population control 2. Global governmental cooperation 3. Earth worship instead of God worship "Catholic leaders must recognize global warming for what it is: Global warming is a government power grab via population reduction. Pseudoscience and hyper-sensationalism are being used to promote the global warming agenda, just as they were in teh early 20th century eugenics movement. Global warming is the natural evolution of the early eugenics programs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1300143511' post='2220740'] oh my.... Climate Change is accepted by the majority of scientist who bother to look into it... there are piles of evidence, including changes in plant phenology and insect emergence. And it appears to be occurring at a rate that is faster than one would predict from natural heating/cooling events... Please, please don't get your science from Glenn Beck [/quote] [left]If global warming….ah I mean climate change is true fact, then why are the "scientists" that are doing the research hiding their research and fudging the numbers? The reason is b/c the research is not creating the evidence. A global consensual fraud is one in which just about everybody is involved. Scientists, politicians, educators, academics, publishers, journalists, commentators, the intellectual elites, entertainers, the movie industry, celebrities – the list is endless. The success, and the very existence of colossal world-wide frauds proves that science has, in general, degenerated into a simple matter of achieving scientific consensus, and that the honorable scientific method is just about dead. [/left] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudreyGrace Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1300373246' post='2221388'] [left]If global warming….ah I mean climate change is true fact, then why are the "scientists" that are doing the research hiding their research and fudging the numbers? The reason is b/c the research is not creating the evidence. A global consensual fraud is one in which just about everybody is involved. Scientists, politicians, educators, academics, publishers, journalists, commentators, the intellectual elites, entertainers, the movie industry, celebrities – the list is endless. The success, and the very existence of colossal world-wide frauds proves that science has, in general, degenerated into a simple matter of achieving scientific consensus, and that the honorable scientific method is just about dead. [/left] [/quote] Well... there is research out there that does display climate change patterns and what's going on today. But I do agree with what you say about how a lot of science is becoming "proven by general concensus". If JBeebs starts rallying against global warming, then it MUST be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1300373502' post='2221389'] Well... there is research out there that does display climate change patterns and what's going on today. But I do agree with what you say about how a lot of science is becoming "proven by general concensus". If JBeebs starts rallying against global warming, then it MUST be an issue. [/quote] Yes, I agree that there is climate change...it is called the Seasons. Seriously though, there is climate change, which is nothing new and in fact is as old as the Earth is. It is the alarmists stating everything is induced by mankind that I have issue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudreyGrace Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1300377995' post='2221404'] Yes, I agree that there is climate change...it is called the Seasons. Seriously though, there is climate change, which is nothing new and in fact is as old as the Earth is. It is the alarmists stating everything is induced by mankind that I have issue with. [/quote] Yes. Our impact is pretty small, but since climate change is occuring at an increased pace, there are some small things we can do to TRY to "slow it down". Will it significantly help? Maybe, maybe not. Particularly when it comes to energy use and natural resources. It's always good to be kind to nature and God's earth, though. P.S. The seasons aren't climate change... it's all about Earth's distance from the sun. Closer to the sun, summer and spring. Farther, winter and fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 In the past, before coal and evil, horrible oil companies, climate changed so quickly across the globe that it extinctified dinosaurs. We are not causing climate change, nor is it proven that we are accelerating it to any great degree. Pollution is bad. One day, we will run out of dead dinosaur. Democrats make crappy fuel and don't reproduce in great enough numbers, so they cannot replace dead dinosaur. Alternative energy is important, but we don't need to freak out, shut down oil production or tax people back to the stone age to fund rapid alternative energy development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Disclaimer: I'm not a climate scientist and I've certainly not published any peer-reviewed research in the field but I do read things here and there as an interested layman. I would dare say this: The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is strongly supported by the overwhelming majority of current scientific research. Further, the validity of the hypothesis can be described as a "scientific consensus" but this is only to throw into sharp relief the hyperbolic nature of the political controversy and is not itself a scientific principle. Scientific methodology is not about authority and dogmas. Beyond the strictly scientific question I don't really have a whole lot to say other than [i]oy vey[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1300491214' post='2221616'] Disclaimer: I'm not a climate scientist and I've certainly not published any peer-reviewed research in the field but I do read things here and there as an interested layman. I would dare say this: The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is strongly supported by the overwhelming majority of current scientific research. Further, the validity of the hypothesis can be described as a "scientific consensus" but this is only to throw into sharp relief the hyperbolic nature of the political controversy and is not itself a scientific principle. Scientific methodology is not about authority and dogmas. Beyond the strictly scientific question I don't really have a whole lot to say other than [i]oy vey[/i]. [/quote] The concensus is manufactured. Anyone disagreeing with this is shouted down in the scientific community and in the media. The same thing happened with those thugs who deplaneted Pluto, those bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpence Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 i like manufacturing consensuses (consensi?) i think I'll manufacture one right now.... scientists agree that I am super great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now