Global Warming is a hoax.

[MIKolbe]

why you gotta call me fat?

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305320266' post='2241008']
hippie
[/quote]


[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gwiXbQ4HapM/TKC4tfHRDnI/AAAAAAAABj0/ALlW1XRrXCo/s1600/punch-hippie-monkey-face.jpg[/img]

[4588686]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1305320542' post='2241014']
why you gotta call me fat?
[/quote]


You know I'm proud of your accomplishment.

[img]http://gallery.viperclub.org/data/500/i-beat-anorexia.jpg[/img]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305320040' post='2241007']
Everything I posted was the pervailing, accepted idea in the scientific community at one time or another, all were wrong. This is no different, the cause of the temperture rising may well indeed be human activity, but it is just bad science to say that as if it were proven at this point.

The teating of global warming as if it were a crisis is beyond bad science. A rise in temp of 1 or 2 degrees C is not a terrible event, in fact history has shown that humans do better at such temperatures.

That is not a scientific question but a historical fact.
A concerned scentific community should be saying things like: Science CO2 keeps the earth warmer, since the Earth is currently warming we should limit our greenhouse gases to minimize the heat increase.

See that has no judgement about cause, becuase cause has not been scientifically established, but it adresses the real concern of a serious warming ( 4 or 5 degrees C) and helps limit the roblem if humans are indeed the cause.

I simply object to the way people act like this is established sciencetfic fact when it is not.
[/quote]
Alright, I'll play a little bit.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305315986' post='2240985']
Yes yes the scientific community always knows what its doing doesn't it.[/quote]
Advancements in scientific understanding confirm the validity of science. What's your point? Ignorant suspicion-mongering? Rational skepticism and denialism are not equivalent. Replace global warming with evolution and you're a fundie creationist.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305315986' post='2240985']So how that ether as the medium for electromagnetic waves holding up for you?[/quote]
I doubt you actually read my posts but I find it interesting that I used the luminiferous ether as an example a couple posts back. Funny coincidence.

Anyway, I used it as an example of a hypothesis being overturned quite swiftly (Michelson-Morley experiment, relativity, etc). For those who aren't familiar this is a matter of pre-20th century theoretical physics (first thought up in the freakin 1600's, so yeah), not even remotely pertinent to global warming. But even so, it actually demonstrates good science. Not all hypotheses are on equal grounds. When science developed to the point that experiment was able to test the ether hypothesis and a better theory was developed the hypothesis was disposed of. It wasn't the crushing downfall of an entire scientific field.

Obviously the ether is a pitiful analog to global warming and you've not really made a legitimate point. The luminiferous ether was a protoscientific hypothesis based on the limitations of pre-Einsteinian physics, suggested on deductive grounds; global warming is an inductive theory based upon empirical data.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305315986' post='2240985']And Eugenics, they were fan-freaking-tastic, the scientific community hit it right on the nose with that one.[/quote]
Again, maybe you don't read my posts but I already talked eugenics above. "One can insinuate that the scientific community is in some way analogous to the eugenics movement but without evidence this is pretty meaningless, and probably slanderous. More anti-science fear-mongering?" Do you compare every scientific field to eugenics or just climatology? Weathermen are off the hook right? lol.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305315986' post='2240985']oh I know how about that global cooling, you know the fact that all the coal dust was causing global temperature to drop, that was pervasive enough to hav made it into my middle school science book. On no burning all the fossil fuels is going to cool the Earth too much![/quote]
Let me guess, you teach creationism too. Global cooling was a minority hypothesis back in the '70s. Gee, we haven't been launching space craft, developing supercomputer technology, growing research institutions, doing vast paleoclimatological work, etcetera, etcetera, since then, right? Insulting. Sounds like you're using a Jack Chick tract of a science textbook.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305315986' post='2240985']Low fat diet high carb diets ...they are great for you, you don't need meat, thats why you fleash cutting teeth and the eyes in the front of your head![/quote]
Fad diets: therefore, global warming is a hoax.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305315986' post='2240985']The Scientific community makes mistakes, sometimes big giant ones. They hardly know what they're doing, and its a good thing, science would be crippled if they always went with the established "correct" theory.[/quote]
Humoring you for a minute, why should I think this is the case with contemporary climatology? What evidence do you have that climatology is comparable to eugenics, fad diets, luminiferous ether, or forty year old minority theories? Oh, and please try not to regurgitate canards that have already been refuted in this thread (at least in the past few pages, I realize it is tl;dr).

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305315986' post='2240985']The fact remains that such temperture variations are normal parts of climate in the last 14,000 years. Ths is not an abnormal unique phenomena. It is an established part of the normal climate of the Earth, and as such it is scientificly irresponsable to declare that a novel cause is causa until all established causes have been identified and eliminated. They have not.
[/quote]
Climatology: the ultimate waste of time and money. They should just get you on the phone when they have questions. Who needs research. lol.

Btw, where do you get your information? You're obviously not parroting the IPCC reports. Maybe you do it all impromptu? You're just that good.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305320701' post='2241017']
You know I'm proud of your accomplishment.

[img]http://gallery.viperclub.org/data/500/i-beat-anorexia.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
was I supposed to notice the fat guy?

[4588686]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305323826' post='2241030']
was I supposed to notice the fat guy?
[/quote]


WHATEVER DO YOU MEAN???

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305318807' post='2241000']
Everything I posted was the pervailing, accepted idea in the scientific community at one time or another, all were wrong. This is no different, the cause of the temperture rising may well indeed be human activity, but it is just bad science to say that as if it were proven at this point.[/quote]
1. All of your "examples" were very different among themselves, and yes, global warming is "very different." You're conflating pretty hardcore dude. This is how bad your logic looks: Galileo was a scientist. Galileo was wrong about many things. Therefore climate scientists are wrong about global warming.

Anyway, I don't remember ever saying that global warming was "proven" and I can't imagine myself ever saying such a thing. The global warming consensus is a fact, but sure, hypothetically speaking the science could change considerably. This property of science doesn't justify any of your denialist positions I'm afraid. Do you think that it does?

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305318807' post='2241000']The teating of global warming as if it were a crisis is beyond bad science. A rise in temp of 1 or 2 degrees C is not a terrible event, in fact history has shown that humans do better at such temperatures.[/quote]
First I'm supposed to be ridiculously skeptical of the incredulous science of climate, and now you're dogmatically pontificating about it as if you have super-scientific insight into reality. Just for fun let me ask: where is your evidence? What are your sources? Why should I believe you? Does your theory explain the preponderance of evidence? Does your theory of climate make predictions like the leading models of climate science? Etcetera.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305318807' post='2241000']That is not a scientific question but a historical fact.
A concerned scentific community should be saying things like: Science CO[sub]2 [/sub] keeps the earth warmer, since the Earth is currently warming we should limit our greenhouse gases to minimize the heat increase.[/quote]
Oh, I see, just a historical fact. Off-limits to science. I'll just take your word for it then. You're obviously an expert on all this. You should write some letters to the editor of teh major journals. Do it man!

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305318807' post='2241000']See that has no judgement about cause, becuase cause has not been scientifically established, but it adresses the real concern of a serious warming ( 4 or 5 degrees C) and helps limit the roblem if humans are indeed the cause. [/quote]
You have to include this insight in your report too. The world must know.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305318807' post='2241000']I simply object to the way people act like this is established sciencetfic fact when it is not.[/quote]
Yeah. It's just crank pseudoscience.

smh...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305240035' post='2240658']
Everything you just said is irrelevant and you haven't actually engaged anything that I put forth. The political discourse isn't the science and the problem is that people like you don't seem to realize that (or thrive on obfuscation). I have no tolerance for people who act as though the proclamations of their favorite think tank and pundits are equal to the scientific community. It isn't that hard to discern real science from junk science. The fact that the guy on First Things who often blogs about climate is a member of the Discovery Institute kind of says a lot. lol. I pray that you people get a clue.
[/quote]
All if you put forth was a link dump with disparaging comments and denunciations of people whom you disagree with (including implicitly questioning the Catholicity of Catholic writers who have worked with think tanks advocating the free market).

You presented no argument to debate.

So pardon me if my response was something less than sweetness and light.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305239140' post='2240654']
I don't believe that's justified at all.
[/quote]


[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1305304338' post='2240895']
i was with you up until this point.
[/quote]
I apologize for being a jackass yesterday.

I do still have issues with L_D's posting, but my last remark was unwarranted. Mods can delete it if they see fit.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems like laud is becoming more intense than he used to be
at least i dont remember that much intensity

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1305289638' post='2240800']
[img]http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide1.png[/img]

Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea. The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.
[/quote]

that's actually pretty compelling
if we aren't even reaching the tops of what's been topped in relatively recent times... what's the fuss about?
course that doesn't mean we're not exacerbating the situation, but it's not like it's something that terrible.
i do question whether this is true though, cause i've never seen it. and i'm pretty sure the ice cap that just melted a few years ago on the north pole was there far back longer than that chart displays. meaning we werent really that warm. or something

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305325291' post='2241039']
All if you put forth was a link dump with disparaging comments and denunciations of people whom you disagree with (including implicitly questioning the Catholicity of Catholic writers who have worked with think tanks advocating the free market).[/quote]
No need to read all that into it. The main idea was this: "I have no tolerance for anti-science activists marketing themselves and their agendas in Catholic terms." You feel differently about it, fine. But I wasn't making a sweeping statement about individuals who have worked with think tanks advocating the free market. I don't give a rat's a[s]ss about that stuff. I hate that most of the conservative Catholics I know seem to think that global warming denial and THE Catholic position, otherwise you're a liberal, and I believe magazines like [i]First Things[/i] contribute to this impression. Is it deliberate? I don't know. I don't care. I was just venting.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305325291' post='2241039']You presented no argument to debate.
So pardon me if my response was something less than sweetness and light.
[/quote]
Whatever. I'll rip you a new one some time if you make me pist. Fair?


The main point of that link-heavy post was to provide a collection of resources for people actually interesting in learning about climate science and not just learning talking points for "debunking" global warming. Because of scientific illiteracy many people are preyed upon by peddlers of misinformation. I'm pist about this.

I also added this snide remark:

"If you are unfamiliar with these journals, or unable to follow their contents, you really don't know anything about climate science. Sorry. You're still free to talk about of course, but please, have a little respect for those who have acquired the education and are doing the research."

I stand by this. I'm sick and tired of randos presuming to "critique" and "refute" a scientific consensus with a few canned factoids. This isn't directed at you, so no need to get pist, but this thread is full of it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305325792' post='2241043']
[b]that's actually pretty compelling[/b]
if we aren't even reaching the tops of what's been topped in relatively recent times... what's the fuss about?
course that doesn't mean we're not exacerbating the situation, but it's not like it's something that terrible.
i do question whether this is true though, cause i've never seen it. and i'm pretty sure the ice cap that just melted a few years ago on the north pole was there far back longer than that chart displays. meaning we werent really that warm. or something
[/quote]
You might want to actually read my response to taht post above.

You know, it is easy for people to say, "waa, how dare you link dump!", but if you really want to know jack about a topic, and want to have even a shred of justified opinion entitlement, you have to freakin read stuff, and lots of it. So too bad. (Not you dairy, I know you read stuff, just venting, sorry.) That post served to concretize many of the things I had said prior and is not a challenge to the actual science.

edit: to say "not you dairy..."

Edited May 13, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305325516' post='2241042']
it seems like laud is becoming more intense than he used to be
at least i dont remember that much intensity
[/quote]
Certain topics have been setting me off lately. Homeopathy, creationism, intelligent design theory, global warming denialism, abortion (well, abortion has always set me off), some other stuff. These issues seem to make me cynical and rob me of my faith in humanity (some more than others obviously). Sorry for being teh dbag.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

This isn't meant as part of the debate or anything, just thought it might be good to post.

'Tis a pretty cool environmental science course that could be useful to homeschoolers and the like.

[url="http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/index.html"]The Habitable Planet: A Systems Approach to Environmental Science[/url]