Simon Belmont wrote:Remember in the 1970s when everyone was worried about Global Cooling? You have to love the solid doctrines of science!
How is changing ones mind to fit the available evidence a disadvantage? When did science ever claim to be solid doctrine? Its strength is that its models are scrutinized over an over again, but having been through the public school system (I am assuming you are american) you surely have learned this, and are just trolling.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
Some Schmo wrote:Here's a question to ask yourself: what do scientists in particular have to gain from pretending that AGW is real?
And on the flipside, what do conservative capitalists have to gain by denying it?
I would think that the answers to those two questions should tell anyone what they need to know to determine the truth of the matter.
Don't scientists get funding for doing climate research? If there is nothing to worry about then they won't get funding.
I actually think oil companies are ok with promoting climate change. They get CO2 grants from the government and there able to recover oil that was not recoverable before.
Shell for some reason is promoting people to cut back on there energy use. There has been commercials lately on TV. Makes no sense to me. This is like mcdonalds telling you not to eat hamburgers. What the hell is Shells hidden agenda....
Jhall118 wrote: Rambo: The amount of C02 a volcano produces is very small compared to the amount of CO2 humans produce. Again, it is always best to look at the data.
Fair enough, I haven't looked at this issue for a while.
Jhall118 wrote:How is changing ones mind to fit the available evidence a disadvantage? When did science ever claim to be solid doctrine? Its strength is that its models are scrutinized over an over again, but having been through the public school system (I am assuming you are american) you surely have learned this, and are just trolling.
I really suspect how scientist model the whole earths climate. I do modeling of oil reservoirs, which is much smaller and has way less variables than the whole earth. Modeling is a good tool but it is not right all the time.
GW is not necessarily dead, though there is a good chance it might have died in the late 90's. But AGW consistently has had no basis in fact; just the notion that CO2, being a greenhouse gas and lots being put into the air must mean it's causing GW. However, even the recent CERN discoveries show that these calculations must be significantly revised because the data doesn't show it.
The connection to Mormonism here is of course that denial of mainstream climate science has become part of Mormon culture. Droopy is, of course, an extreme example of this and is often claiming that the whole thing has been debunked long ago and is already dead. Unfortunately for him, this is not the case. Far far from it.
GW is not necessarily dead, though there is a good chance it might have died in the late 90's. But AGW consistently has had no basis in fact; just the notion that CO2, being a greenhouse gas and lots being put into the air must mean it's causing GW. However, even the recent CERN discoveries show that these calculations must be significantly revised because the data doesn't show it.
This study and many others say the opposite.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Notice that the group was funded by groups hoping to debunk GW. LOL Oops!
The data just spoke too loudly. Muller and his group had some integrity after all.
"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller.
"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Rambo wrote:Don't scientists get funding for doing climate research? If there is nothing to worry about then they won't get funding.
So your contention is that they are reporting the opposite of their findings (that is, everyone who's in on this big conspiracy) in order to get further funding for further research? Really?
Just think about that, man. Seriously consider the implications of that idea.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.