Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: GarMan on February 05, 2008, 11:42:14 AM
-
Global Warming ravages China.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22993177
No wait... It's Global Cooling today. We'll just call it Global Climate Change and use it for everything... droughts, floods, wind, rain, earthquakes, volcanoes, comets and even meteors. I feel so enlightened now.
-
Global Warming ravages China.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22993177
No wait... It's Global Cooling today. We'll just call it Global Climate Change and use it for everything... droughts, floods, wind, rain, earthquakes, volcanoes, comets and even meteors. I feel so enlightened now.
It far worse than global warming.
http://youtu.be/b7mLUIDGqmw#t=10s
-
I blame Bush.
-
I blame God, if that's not too much. Yeah, when there are not any explanations left then it is better to say that it's global warming. :classic:
-
This topic.
One of the reasons I can't refer to myself as a Republican.
The "derp, we're breaking record highs and record lows, so obviously climate change isn't a thing!!!" argument is to completely misunderstand the warnings about climate change from day one.
Global warming refers to the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. This was idea introduced in the 1970s. Climate Change refers to a long-term change in the Earth’s climate. This idea predates Global Warming.
Maybe the idiots at NASA can explain it in a digestible way.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1
Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?
For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.
The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3
In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
During the late 1980s one more term entered the lexicon, “global change.†This term encompassed many other kinds of change in addition to climate change. When it was approved in 1989, the U.S. climate research program was embedded as a theme area within the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.
But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.
But yeah, yeah, what does science know?
If there was ever an intentional switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", it's to try to help simpletons understand that the phenomenon is not exclusively contained to unseasonably warm weather.
I can level with Republicans on the, "Ok, now that we accept it's happening, what can be done about it? Very little." front. If you could just get over that hurdle that is essentially on par with denying the holocaust, then we can talk about what can be done.
-
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Doesn't exist. Earth goes through periods of change and has for centuries, eons and whatever longer term there is out there.
We didn't do anything.
-
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Doesn't exist. Earth goes through periods of change and has for centuries, eons and whatever longer term there is out there.
We didn't do anything.
Says the scientist...
You might as well have just said:
"PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Hydrogen doesn't exist. I've never seen it."
-
The climate has been changing in temps since they've been studying it way before auto and mill emissions. I think it's cyclical. In fact, it has to be. The earth goes through natural cycles on its own. And we're going through one now.
Go read some of Joe Bastardis articles on how tornados are actually caused. It isn't global warming. He also cites how we've had this same warming and cooling phenomenon before, during the middle ages and wait for it - the ice age.
Also look up a research paper that was published 2 years ago titled "a chronological listing of weather events. Looking at trends between 1AD and 1900AD, extreme weather events are actually down since the industrial age.
You'll also find there is a lot of money behind the man made climate change myth. Seriously, go look this stuff up.
-
The climate has been changing in temps since they've been studying it way before auto and mill emissions. I think it's cyclical. In fact, it has to be. The earth goes through natural cycles on its own. And we're going through one now.
Go read some of Joe Bastardis articles on how tornados are actually caused. It isn't global warming. He also cites how we've had this same warming and cooling phenomenon before, during the middle ages and wait for it - the ice age.
Also look up a research paper that was published 2 years ago titled "a chronological listing of weather events. Looking at trends between 1AD and 1900AD, extreme weather events are actually down since the industrial age.
You'll also find there is a lot of money behind the man made climate change myth. Seriously, go look this stuff up.
He basically said PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
Just more eloquently. All of what he says is my position.
Basically PFFFFFFTTTTTTT!! on the whole concept. When I was in high school everybody was freaking out because we'd unleashed global cooling on the earth with our emissions and there was soon to be an ice shield that would cover most of North America. Penguins and polar bears would live in Ohio.
-
The climate has been changing in temps since they've been studying it way before auto and mill emissions. I think it's cyclical. In fact, it has to be. The earth goes through natural cycles on its own. And we're going through one now.
Go read some of Joe Bastardis articles on how tornados are actually caused. It isn't global warming. He also cites how we've had this same warming and cooling phenomenon before, during the middle ages and wait for it - the ice age.
Also look up a research paper that was published 2 years ago titled "a chronological listing of weather events. Looking at trends between 1AD and 1900AD, extreme weather events are actually down since the industrial age.
You'll also find there is a lot of money behind the man made climate change myth. Seriously, go look this stuff up.
So if we are experiencing a phenomenon similar to the Ice Age, should it not be addressed? Should we not try to prevent it from decimating human existence? No, it won't come to that in our lifetime, but at the rate in which the climate is changing, it could affect your grandchildren.
What happened to the old conservative approach of "Back in my day, we had a clear Summer from June through August. Fall weather from September through November. Winter from December through February, and Spring from March through May. That's the way it was, and that's the way it should be." If you perceive a War on Christmas, and a War on Moral Values on television, then why not look at this like the War on Traditional Weather Patterns?
Look, I'm not even arguing that it is man made.
Just that it is happening. And if we can do something about it, then we should. In my opinion, things like lowering the cost of efficient energy sources, and letting the free market bare it out is the way to go about it. If recycling helps, incentive people to recycle monetarily. Not bureaucratically shove regulations down people's throats. I even agree that the Al Goreian hysteria is far overblown. But we can't even have that discussion until we can all agree that it's a real phenomenon that is really happening, and it is problematic.
-
If we're not directly causing climate change to happen, then it's highly improbable that we have the capability of stopping it when it's already in process.
-
If we're not directly causing climate change to happen, then it's highly improbable that we have the capability of stopping it when it's already in process.
Thanks for writing it for me.
Humankind thinks a lot of itself sometimes. Mother nature finds it hilarious.
-
So if we are experiencing a phenomenon similar to the Ice Age, should it not be addressed? Should we not try to prevent it from decimating human existence? No, it won't come to that in our lifetime, but at the rate in which the climate is changing, it could affect your grandchildren.
I'll be dead. So I won't care.
If they want to manage the weather they can pretend to be God. I got other things to do. Like pollute.
-
Says the scientist...
You might as well have just said:
"PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Hydrogen doesn't exist. I've never seen it."
Show me some data from a million years ago. 500,000. 100,000. 10,000. 5,000. Hell 200 years ago.
The problem is that we want to create blame in order to create false fear. Is the earth changing? Of course. It's been changing for a long time. Is it man's fault? HELL NO!
Is it prudent to be good to the environment? Sure. Is it prudent to approach this like a religion? Once again, HELL NO!
-
I think the other issue here is believing that the government and other interests groups really have the planet's best interests in mind when preaching global warming apocalypse.
-
I think the other issue here is believing that the government and other interests groups really have the planet's best interests in mind when preaching global warming apocalypse.
Well said. There is no doubt in my mind that a geo-political agenda is a very large part of anthropogenic climate change supporters claims (and hysteria). Until a dialog can start with "People are THE most valuable resource..." then I won't take anything they say seriously. I appreciate the science, of course, as any rational person should. As a Republican, I think it's in the country's interest to discuss this issue but take the politics out of it. Let's talk about conservation and using advanced science and technologies to protect the natural resources AND create progress along with efficiency in manufacturing, energy production, and economic development. Implying that all Republicans are knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Luddites when it comes to science and the environment is not justified. Just my 2 cents anyway.
-
Well said. There is no doubt in my mind that a geo-political agenda is a very large part of anthropogenic climate change supporters claims (and hysteria). Until a dialog can start with "People are THE most valuable resource..." then I won't take anything they say seriously. I appreciate the science, of course, as any rational person should. As a Republican, I think it's in the country's interest to discuss this issue but take the politics out of it. Let's talk about conservation and using advanced science and technologies to protect the natural resources AND create progress along with efficiency in manufacturing, energy production, and economic development. Implying that all Republicans are knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Luddites when it comes to science and the environment is not justified. Just my 2 cents anyway.
NO. FUCK YOU.
Here, buy some carbon credits.
-
NO. FUCK YOU.
Here, buy some carbon credits.
If it'll make you "feel" better about the environment I will...and can I get a box of "Do-Si-Dos" and "Samoas" to go with my carbon credits?
-
If it'll make you "feel" better about the environment I will...and can I get a box of "Do-Si-Dos" and "Samoas" to go with my carbon credits?
Nothing like creating an industry for third world country dictators.
-
Well said. There is no doubt in my mind that a geo-political agenda is a very large part of anthropogenic climate change supporters claims (and hysteria). Until a dialog can start with "People are THE most valuable resource..." then I won't take anything they say seriously. I appreciate the science, of course, as any rational person should. As a Republican, I think it's in the country's interest to discuss this issue but take the politics out of it. Let's talk about conservation and using advanced science and technologies to protect the natural resources AND create progress along with efficiency in manufacturing, energy production, and economic development. Implying that all Republicans are knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Luddites when it comes to science and the environment is not justified. Just my 2 cents anyway.
I think if I parse through all of the obfuscating language in here, we agree.
All I was saying in my first post, is that Republicans have got to stop beginning this discussion with "PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT" if they want to be taken seriously. And I don't mean that exclusively literally. 100% with you on your proposed solutions. Just come right out and say "Climate change is real," and don't dance around that scientific fact before starting the conversation. All I'm saying.
And, by the way, I saw another article today that is somewhat on-topic, and might as well be introduced to this discussion.
Yes, the blog in which I'm linking to is liberally biased. Get that out of the way up front. But are they wrong on this?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/04/1191469/-Anti-modernity-GOP-wants-to-catch-up-to-Dems-on-technology
Anti-modernity GOP wants to catch up to Democrats on technology
Good luck with this, neanderthals ...
After last year’s blowout election, the Republican digital strategist Patrick Ruffini went on a not-so-secret mission to find out how to fix what was wrong with his party. “In less than 12 hours, the #infiltration begins,†he tweeted, the day before the start of RootsCamp, an annual conference for Democratic digital, data and grassroots strategists that is held by a liberal non-profit group called the New Organizing Institute.
What he found at the event came as a sort of revelation: A vast liberal brain trust bursting with young talent who had advanced far beyond Republicans in the art and science of using data, analytics and voter outreach. He live-tweeted his observations, and then began meeting with other young strategists in his party [...]
They decided that the conservative movement simply did not have what liberals did: An infrastructure to train and nurture the next generation of campaign operatives and develop cutting-edge techniques. So they decided to take a shot at filling the void [...]
The first part of that ecosystem, for which incorporation papers were filed last week, will be called the Empower Action Group. It is envisioned as a conservative answer to the New Organizing Institute, a place for training and connecting young conservative talent. It will aim to increase the ranks of people with digital, data and organizing know-how working for the GOP. “We are just hoping to create more people who can go out and implement,†Ruffini said.
There's a reason that conservatives have fallen so far behind liberals on the technology front, and it truly is cultural. Go read Wired or Ars Technica or The Verge or any gadget blog and note how overwhelmingly liberal the publications are—pro-science, pro-progress and pro-net neutrality. They don't believe that AT&T would provide better service without government regulations or interference. They loathe our current intellectual property regime (both copyright and trademark). They want something done about global climate change (that science stuff) and stem cell research (more of that science stuff).
They are not happy that the sequester will gut science and research and cause incalculable damage to our nation's R&D efforts. They are not suspicious of government agencies, and in fact would rather see the FCC and FTC take a more proactive role against our too-big-to-fail communications corporations.
They would love to have the government provide national free wi-fi, or failing that, let cities do the same despite the protestations of the incumbent internet providers. They think gay people are fabulous. Multiculturalism is an unremarkable fact of life, and racism really chafes. The anti-education, anti-university chatter from the ignoramuses doesn't exactly sell with engineers and other tech professionals. And to top it all off, this crowd is very secular, and heavily atheist, for that matter.
Employees at Silicon Valley's top technology companies gave to President Barack Obama over Romney by over 2-1. Ninety-one percent of Apple employees who gave to a campaign gave to the president. Obama won Santa Clara County (San Jose, the capital of Silicon Valley) 70-28, San Mateo County 71-27, and San Francisco 83-13. The rest of the Bay Area was equally lopsided in favor of Obama, as was other tech hotbets such as Boston, NYC, the North Carolina Research Triangle and Austin.
As one techie put it after the election:
"We all work on evidence-based reasoning, and that's much more of a Democratic mindset than a Republican mindset," said Johnvey Hwang, 34, a San Francisco software engineer who volunteered with the Obama campaign. "It's hard to side with a party that's still trying to reach out to their base of creationists."
There's a reason there's no such thing as a tech industry in Mississippi or Alabama. Conservatism is simply at odds with the forward-thinking preferred by those involved in the technology ecosystem. So yes, conservatives should be freaked out that we're kicking their ass on the technology front, but they won't be catching up until they evolve as a party. And as we've seen, they're not very good at the "evolution" thing.
-
NO. FUCK YOU.
Here, buy some carbon credits.
Another thing here comes to my mind with your post, Sani; purely personally and admittedly anecdotal on my part: "educated" liberals, Democrats, and "environmentalists" gee-haw about being fair-minded, flexible, open-minded, and tolerant about this subject but it's been my experience that they are the exact opposite (and it's the same with matters of faith, I don't have a problem with someone being agnostic or even atheist, whatever blows your skirt up, but don't mock and deride my faith either...that's another story for another forum).
-
I think if I parse through all of the obfuscating language in here, we agree.
All I was saying in my first post, is that Republicans have got to stop beginning this discussion with "PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT" if they want to be taken seriously. And I don't mean that exclusively literally. 100% with you on your proposed solutions. Just come right out and say "Climate change is real," and don't dance around that scientific fact before starting the conversation. All I'm saying.
And, by the way, I saw another article today that is somewhat on-topic, and might as well be introduced to this discussion.
Yes, the blog in which I'm linking to is liberally biased. Get that out of the way up front. But are they wrong on this?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/04/1191469/-Anti-modernity-GOP-wants-to-catch-up-to-Dems-on-technology
I'll take that as a compliment and it must be another cold day in hell that we might be even near agreeance.
As I see it environmentalists and liberals don't even allow us to help set the table on this topic with some healthy criticism of their "science" to begin with and that is the crux of the problem. Anthropogenic climate change is not science fact and that's where they all seem to want to begin.
I'll read through the article but its going to take me a little time to do this afternoon...got work pressures so don't be offended if I'm slow to respond.
-
Just come right out and say "Climate change is real," and don't dance around that scientific fact before starting the conversation. All I'm saying.
Ok. So it's real. But it's natural and cyclical. It isn't my fault. I didn't do it.
It's nature.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts... all that's real too. Not meant to be stopped.
-
Ok. So it's real. But it's natural and cyclical. It isn't my fault. I didn't do it.
It's nature.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts... all that's real too. Not meant to be stopped.
You just took a big step by admitting the science isn't patently false. Would have been nice if the conversation started that way.
I agree, it is as natural as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts. So you don't believe that any of these phenomena are worthy of preparing for and/or safeguarding against? You don't believe in building dams? (Insert insulting New Orleans joke here)
-
You just took a big step by admitting the science isn't patently false. Would have been nice if the conversation started that way.
I agree, it is as natural as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts. So you don't believe that any of these phenomena are worthy of preparing for and/or safeguarding against? You don't believe in building dams? (Insert insulting New Orleans joke here)
Blocking a river is far different from some magic machine that can test when and where a tornado will spawn, prevent the tornado from forming, and preserve the integrity of our planet's weather system.
We don't have enough sample data to predict how the earth is going to act in the ongoing climate change nor do we have enough sample data to predict how the earth will respond if we actually could control climate change.
-
Blocking a river is far different from some magic machine that can test when and where a tornado will spawn, prevent the tornado from forming, and preserve the integrity of our planet's weather system.
We don't have enough sample data to predict how the earth is going to act in the ongoing climate change nor do we have enough sample data to predict how the earth will respond if we actually could control climate change.
Damnit! Bush did it. You had better start towing the company line.
-
I think if I parse through all of the obfuscating language in here, we agree.
All I was saying in my first post, is that Republicans have got to stop beginning this discussion with "PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT" if they want to be taken seriously. And I don't mean that exclusively literally. 100% with you on your proposed solutions. Just come right out and say "Climate change is real," and don't dance around that scientific fact before starting the conversation. All I'm saying.
And, by the way, I saw another article today that is somewhat on-topic, and might as well be introduced to this discussion.
Yes, the blog in which I'm linking to is liberally biased. Get that out of the way up front. But are they wrong on this?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/04/1191469/-Anti-modernity-GOP-wants-to-catch-up-to-Dems-on-technology
The Dems (and probably Libertarians) are well-ahead of Republicans in utilizing technology for electioneering there's no doubt about that in my experience, but characterizing the Republicans and conservatives as "anti-modernity", "anti-science" and "anti-progress" (not to be confused with Progressivism) is utterly disingenuous. Further, a reasoned discussion can be made on the topic of the article without mocking my faith which is exactly what the writer(s) do. Ref. my posted reply to Saniflush before I even read this article.
-
The Dems (and probably Libertarians) are well-ahead of Republicans in utilizing technology for electioneering there's no doubt about that in my experience, but characterizing the Republicans and conservatives as "anti-modernity", "anti-science" and "anti-progress" (not to be confused with Progressivism) is utterly disingenuous. Further, a reasoned discussion can be made on the topic of the article without mocking my faith which is exactly what the writer(s) do. Ref. my posted reply to Saniflush before I even read this article.
Wow, that article mocked your faith? How exactly? That is a stretch.
I didn't see the word "Christian" or "God", or anything of the sort.
Please elaborate. Seems like a deflection to me. Or is any endorsement of science considered a mockery of your religion?
-
Wow, that article mocked your faith? How exactly? That is a stretch.
I didn't see the word "Christian" or "God", or anything of the sort.
Please elaborate. Seems like a deflection to me. Or is any endorsement of science considered a mockery of your religion?
Now who's deflecting? I'm not parsing words with you on this, you're a smart guy; you know EXACTLY what these writers mean and if you don't see this for what it is there's no reason for me to continue this discussion (again, see my reply to Saniflush before I even read this article):
...
"It's hard to side with a party that's still trying to reach out to their base of creationists."
...
...
There's a reason there's no such thing as a tech industry in Mississippi or Alabama. Conservatism is simply at odds with the forward-thinking preferred by those involved in the technology ecosystem. So yes, conservatives should be freaked out that we're kicking their ass on the technology front, but they won't be catching up until they evolve as a party. And as we've seen, they're not very good at the "evolution" thing.
...
-
Now who's deflecting? I'm not parsing words with you on this, you're a smart guy; you know EXACTLY what these writers mean and if you don't see this for what it is there's no reason for me to continue this discussion (again, see my reply to Saniflush before I even read this article):
So evolution is bullshit, in your estimation.
It's valid to the discussion. It's not saying "Haha, stupid Christians" just to offend your delegate sensibilities.
If you outright reject evolution as a scientific principle, you are exactly what the article was referring to. It's not up for debate. Not amongst actual scientists.
-
Global warming is God's fault.
-
So evolution is bullshit, in your estimation.
It's valid to the discussion. It's not saying "Haha, stupid Christians" just to offend your delegate sensibilities.
If you outright reject evolution as a scientific principle, you are exactly what the article was referring to. It's not up for debate. Not amongst actual scientists.
My "delicate" sensibilities are not offended here; I think religious bigotry and the creation v. evolution debate is not germane to topic.
Global warming is God's fault.
And Bush's
-
So evolution is bullshit, in your estimation.
It's valid to the discussion. It's not saying "Haha, stupid Christians" just to offend your delegate sensibilities.
If you outright reject evolution as a scientific principle, you are exactly what the article was referring to. It's not up for debate. Not amongst actual scientists.
And I know as we speak you're furiously typing up something about how how "enlightened" "open minded" people are in fact the most closed minded of all.
No, but I'm not going to have a debate about science with someone who refuses to believe in evolution. Just as I can't get anywhere in this discussion with someone who believes in Dragons or magic or ghosts or that Santa Clause delivers presents to children via flying reindeer.
Find a scientific text that rejects evolution, or even raises doubts about it, and we'll talk.
-
My "delicate" sensibilities are not offended here; I think religious bigotry and the creation v. evolution debate is not germane to topic.
It is. It's exactly the topic.
Do you believe in the unanimous opinion of the scientific community or do you write it off as gobbledy gook from "elitist know-it-alls".
The answer to that, is exactly what we're talking about here.
-
And I know as we speak you're furiously typing up something about how how "enlightened" "open minded" people are in fact the most closed minded of all.
No, but I'm not going to have a debate about science with someone who refuses to believe in evolution. Just as I can't get anywhere in this discussion with someone who believes in Dragons or magic or ghosts or that Santa Clause delivers presents to children via flying reindeer.
Find a scientific text that rejects evolution, or even raises doubts about it, and we'll talk.
I like your wording there; belief. Again, not germane to the topic and, yes, you are illustrating exactly what I mentioned in my reply to Sani; no offense.
-
You just took a big step by admitting the science isn't patently false. Would have been nice if the conversation started that way.
I agree, it is as natural as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts. So you don't believe that any of these phenomena are worthy of preparing for and/or safeguarding against? You don't believe in building dams? (Insert insulting New Orleans joke here)
"So it's real" was a hypothesis. I'm not accepting the currently proposed model of "global warming" in any way.
Natural stuff happens. I'm not worried about it at all. Things will get cooler, they'll get warmer. One day it will all be gone. I won't be here to see it so I don't much care.
-
"So it's real" was a hypothesis. I'm not accepting the currently proposed model of "global warming" in any way.
Natural stuff happens. I'm not worried about it at all. Things will get cooler, they'll get warmer. One day it will all be gone. I won't be here to see it so I don't much care.
But see there is no money to be made off that kind of thinking.
-
It is. It's exactly the topic.
Do you believe in the unanimous opinion of the scientific community or do you write it off as gobbledy gook from "elitist know-it-alls".
The answer to that, is exactly what we're talking about here.
No, it's not.
The topic is global climate change and whether it exists first of all then is it anthropogenic or natural; secondly, what degree the use of technology helped the Democrats and the Obama campaign win the election and/or why it helped the Republicans lose it because they didn't utilize it more (since they are "neanderthals"). The rest of this is an absolute red herring.
Broadly, I study science theories along with facts and so-called "facts" (also, certain religious dogma too by the way) as a skeptic but not an agnostic (not to be disrespectful of someone who holds that belief/practice). I don't fit inside your stereotype of a conservative Republican; I would have thought that you would know that by now.
"There are more things to heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-
Do you believe in the unanimous opinion
I'm still laughing. We can't even get people to agree that the sky is blue, yet you have found a unanimous opinion......
-
Unanimous? James Spann says it's full of crap. But since he isn't
(http://johnnycirucci.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Chicken-Little.jpg)
he's obviously a lunatic.
-
No, it's not.
The topic is global climate change and whether it exists first of all then is it anthropogenic or natural; secondly, what degree the use of technology helped the Democrats and the Obama campaign win the election and/or why it helped the Republicans lose it because they didn't utilize it more (since they are "neanderthals"). The rest of this is an absolute red herring.
Broadly, I study science theories along with facts and so-called "facts" (also, certain religious dogma too by the way) as a skeptic but not an agnostic (not to be disrespectful of someone who holds that belief/practice). I don't fit inside your stereotype of a conservative Republican; I would have thought that you would know that by now.
"There are more things to heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Ok.
Well then, secondarily, to me at least, it's about how, while I agree with a lot of things about the Republican party, I cannot relate on this issue, nor any other issue in which basic scientific principles are rejected outright as philosophical nonsense. That was the main focus of the Tech article that you acknowledged, which is why I entered it into the conversation. There is a cultural resistance to anything related to science within the Republican party, and I take real issue with that.
-
Allow me to ratify my previous statement and clear things up a bit:
Scientifically speaking, global warming is God's fault.
-
And Bush's. Scientifically speaking.
-
Let's just fucking call it climate changes and drop the whole fucking issue before the UN taxes us out of the other 50% of our income the government doesn't get, yet. Because after they get that passed, then the UN will claim firearms are responsible for climate change, at which time they will then be shot.
-
Has anyone thought about the aliens and what they are doing to our atmosphere?
Polluting, that's what.
(http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w512/JesalBrah/ancient-aliens-guy-1.png)
-
So evolution is bullshit, in your estimation.
It's valid to the discussion. It's not saying "Haha, stupid Christians" just to offend your delegate sensibilities.
I'm gonna need a ruling.
WTF is this and did God still make it?
-
I'm gonna need a ruling.
WTF is this and did God still make it?
No, it evolved from those cheating saints.
-
For what it's worth, I could give a shit about what you believe.
It's what you don't believe that I take issue with. You can believe in God and still realize that evolution is as much a scientific fact of nature as gravity, or the Earth revolving around the Sun.
If you want to believe the Earth is flat because "Them science folk is a bunch of liars", then so be it. But don't expect me to bend to your delusion. And don't call it closed mindedness when I don't.
If you choose to look at the world in the same way as the Insane Clown Posse, go right ahead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
That is, by far, the worst song I have ever hear in my life. And my 18 month old is into the Wiggles right now...
-
No, it evolved from those cheating saints.
:classic:
-
And my 18 month old is into the Wiggles right now...
I will be praying for you.
-
It's what you don't believe that I take issue with. You can believe in God and still realize that evolution is as much a scientific fact of nature as gravity, or the Earth revolving around the Sun.
Are you talking about micro-evolution or macro-evolution? Those are two different things. One is real and not up for debate (IMHO). The other is far from 'fact' and is completely up for debate.
-
Ok.
Well then, secondarily, to me at least, it's about how, while I agree with a lot of things about the Republican party, I cannot relate on this issue, nor any other issue in which basic scientific principles are rejected outright as philosophical nonsense. That was the main focus of the Tech article that you acknowledged, which is why I entered it into the conversation. There is a cultural resistance to anything related to science within the Republican party, and I take real issue with that.
I'll try to stay brief.
I do understand that people in your age demographic don't relate to the Republican Party on these issues. I can't speak for the Party as a whole; I'm simply identifying to you that there are those like me who think differently within the party; maybe we're a dying breed. I think we agree that the Republicans must set aside cultural resistance based on religious dogma (and intolerance) and use technology to the greatest extent possible in electioneering. The Dems have shown that this is how to reach the grass roots and win elections.
Science, in general: I think one can't outright reject basic scientific principles if those principles are founded on empirical evidence. If a "basic scientific principle" is founded on consensus agreement of a theory then, in my opinion, it is wide open for challenge especially anthropogenic global warming. Just because a plurality or majority of scientists agree that a theory is truth does not make it truth.
Climate change: I don't know how many glaciers that you have actually been to but I've been to three several times over a 12 year period beginning in 1989. I have hiked up the Gornergrat and down to the Gorner Glacier, I have hiked up to and been on and in the Rhon Glacier and I've flown by helicopter over the Grenz Glacier a couple of times. Despite seasonal ice and snow accumulation they are observably and measurably retreating. Small examples, I know, but it suggests to me that we are in a real warming cycle. To the extent that this is caused by human activity is inconclusive other than consensus in a theory and that is not science in my opinion.
Sorry to go on so long; tl:dr...
-
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
Merciful Buddha. I cannot relate to this music. It's horrible. Just my humble opinion.
-
Are you talking about micro-evolution or macro-evolution? Those are two different things. One is real and not up for debate (IMHO). The other is far from 'fact' and is completely up for debate.
I'll concede that. Fair enough.
So then, when the topic of evolution is brought up, rather than responding with mockery, perhaps make that distinction upfront, if you must. But don't pretend that the entire concept is gobbldy gook, without at least making that distinction.
Science, in general: I think one can't outright reject basic scientific principles if those principles are founded on empirical evidence. If a "basic scientific principle" is founded on consensus agreement of a theory then, in my opinion, it is wide open for challenge especially anthropogenic global warming. Just because a plurality or majority of scientists agree that a theory is truth does not make it truth.
Climate change: I don't know how many glaciers that you have actually been to but I've been to three several times over a 12 year period beginning in 1989. I have hiked up the Gornergrat and down to the Gorner Glacier, I have hiked up to and been on and in the Rhon Glacier and I've flown by helicopter over the Grenz Glacier a couple of times. Despite seasonal ice and snow accumulation they are observably and measurably retreating. Small examples, I know, but it suggests to me that we are in a real warming cycle. To the extent that this is caused by human activity is inconclusive other than consensus in a theory and that is not science in my opinion.
The problem here is you are using the colloquial terms "fact" and "theory", and not recognizing the scientific meaning of those words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations.[9][10] "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.[11]
A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futuyma [12]
Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[13][14] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[15]
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[16]
Gould also points out that "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution."[17] These two aspects are frequently confused. Scientists continue to argue about particular explanations or mechanisms at work in specific instances of evolution, but the fact that evolution has occurred and is still occurring is undisputed.
A common misconception is that evolution cannot be observed because it all happened millions of years ago and the science does not therefore depend on facts (in the initial sense above). However both Darwin and Wallace, the co-founders of the theory, and all subsequent biologists depend primarily on observations of living organisms; Darwin concentrated largely on the breeding of domesticated animals whereas Wallace started from the biogeographical distribution of species in the Amazon and Malay Archipelago. In the early twentieth century, population genetics had centre stage, and more recently DNA has become the main focus of observation and experimentation.
Philosophers of science argue that we do not know mind-independent empirical truths with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.[18][19]
Merciful Buddha. I cannot relate to this music. It's horrible. Just my humble opinion.
No, I think that one is scientific fact. If not colloquial fact.
-
If you're interested in hearing the flip side of the coin, I'd recommend listening to these lectures put forth at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. Every year he has an Apologetics Conference where he brings in different subject matter experts to discuss the arguments for a particular topic. In 2012 the theme was Creation. I'd start with Lee Strobel's lecture and just work your way down. There are some very compelling arguments which include plenty of scientific data on their own, proving that one can believe in science and God.
Here's the link:
http://www.saddleback.com/resources/apologetics/
-
This nest is full of hornets.
I believe in God. Period. God created this and I know for a fact that He exists. God is as real to me as the desk i'm sitting at.
But that doesn't preclude the fact that things change. They obviously do. Because God made them change.
-
...
No, I think that one is scientific fact. If not colloquial fact.
I'll concede that. We have an accord on that one at least.
As to the rest, you seem to be vexed and/or obsessed about whatever you think that my position is on evolution when I'm commenting on anthropogenic global warming so "we have arrived at an intellectual chaos".
-
I'll concede that. Fair enough.
So then, when the topic of evolution is brought up, rather than responding with mockery, perhaps make that distinction upfront, if you must. But don't pretend that the entire concept is gobbldy gook, without at least making that distinction.
The problem here is you are using the colloquial terms "fact" and "theory", and not recognizing the scientific meaning of those words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
No, I think that one is scientific fact. If not colloquial fact.
Much like snopes, Wikipedia is someone's unofficial opinion of what the facts are. Could be absolutely right. And could be wrong. I just find it ironic.
-
For what it's worth, I could give a shit about what you believe.
It's what you don't believe that I take issue with. You can believe in God and still realize that evolution is as much a scientific fact of nature as gravity, or the Earth revolving around the Sun.
If you want to believe the Earth is flat because "Them science folk is a bunch of liars", then so be it. But don't expect me to bend to your delusion. And don't call it closed mindedness when I don't.
If you choose to look at the world in the same way as the Insane Clown Posse, go right ahead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
Better ICP song..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI6nuK8t3tc
-
Not really proof of anything but I love it every time this stuff happens.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/19965/Snow-postpones-Congressional-global-warming-hearing
Massive snow storm suts down congressional hearing on ........ Global Warming :rofl: