Those crazy liberal scientists, actually doing things to protect our environment

[Compugasm]

Quote by: xyzer Send me the formula.

Ok, for $20.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Sonart . Yet all seven of those years followed 1998, which was, until 2005, the hottest year on record, and each year from '99 and '04 was among the 10 hottest years on record, culminating with 2005, the very hottest year on record... soon to be followed by 2006, which is on track to be yet another record hottest year ever. It's like the stock market, xyzer... there's monthly and yearly ups and downs, but longterm it just keeps going up. You truly are a monumental fool. .

I don't think he understands the concept of cycles within cycles, or he wouldn't keep bringing it up.

Some things like that really do confuse some people. Perhaps math is not his strong point.



Xyzer...

I want a straight answer out of you:

Are you saying that the evidence we have that shows that past global temperatures were lower, and that we are experiencing a dramatic rise in global temperature, is bad evidence and thus can be dismissed?

[xyzer]

Yet all seven of those years followed 1998, which was, until 2005, the hottest year on record, and each year from '99 and '04 was among the 10 hottest years on record, culminating with 2005, the very hottest year on record... soon to be followed by 2006, which is on track to be yet another record hottest year ever.

Now you are talking sonart...I think you are missing one point..Which is, during a period in which human caused emissions were increasing global temps dipped..can we make a logical assumption that human caused emissions are not as important as Al Gore claims or may not even be the cause?

I don't give rats rear what the temp was in 05..I've conceded there is a general warming trend. Don't get carried away by that admission its tempered by the fact that we have only recently become able to meaure gobal temps and climates. What I haven't conceded is its caused by human activity. What I am trying to drill into the wooden headed alarmist crowd is that there are many other important factors in climate change...most much more persuasive that the human emissions argument.

[RickSp]

As I recall xyzer supports teaching "intelligent design", so called, in science class. Arguing science with him is obviously not a particularly productive endeavor.

[xyzer]

As I recall xyzer supports teaching "intelligent design", so called, in science class. Arguing science with him is obviously not a particularly productive endeavor.

There you go again Rick..When your illogical, and often feeble contentions, are refuted by valid logic . or your opinions challenged...you resort to ad hominem nonsense. This arouses suspicion as to your intellectual background IMNSHO.

Yes I see no harm in the teaching the intelligent design concept because it is a rather strong belief in a large majority of our population. It's a belief system held by a lot of people why not mention it as a possible alternative in the puzzle of metaphysics?

Obviously evolution is going on and that can be observed while intelligent design cannot. While there is no scientific evidence yet available to prove/disprove the creation and intelligent design theories would you prohibit mentiong that fact to youngsters? If so you are as bigoted as those you criiticize for propounding such theories. You could be classified as a member of the 'burn the books crowd'.right?
They are the ones who would prohibit inquisitive thought . The ones like the mullahs of Islam who insist on one belief?

As a one time teacher I found kids are interested in other theories and thoughts about events. It stimulates curiousity, and usually provokes discussion, and occasionally drives some to look it up for themselves before they make judgements. Its part of the education process. To prohibit teaching about all the thought and theory available is censorship! And as you obviouly are aware dulls the thought processes.

[Captain Chaos]

Intelligent design belongs in a class on comparitive religion, or metaphysics, not in a class on science.

[xyzer]

Intelligent design belongs in a class on comparitive religion, or metaphysics, not in a class on science.

Really? Does that mean I can't mention it where and when I want to in the classroom? As I recall the issue at the time was that a school board said the concept couldn't be taught(I assume mentioned) by a teacher? That is a violation of academic freedom and puts a damper on developing thought .

Teachers,whether in the science classroom or elsewhere have a responsibility to interest their students and stimulate their interest by whatever means best suits the situation.
Such interference suppresses the academic environment.

[Captain Chaos]

Teachers,whether in the science classroom or elsewhere have a responsibility to interest their students and stimulate their interest by whatever means best suits the situation. Such interference suppresses the academic environment.

Personally, I do not object to science teachers discussing ID if they want to - but only if it is a philosophical discussion. They should not teach it as science. It is metaphysics. That does not mean it is wrong, just that it has nothing to do with the science of biology.

If evolution is the result of God's manipulations, we have no way of documenting it - at least not yet. Thus, it does not belong in a science curriculum.

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer There you go again Rick..When your illogical, and often feeble contentions, are refuted by valid logic . or your opinions challenged...you resort to ad hominem nonsense. This arouses suspicion as to your intellectual background IMNSHO.

Yawn. My statement was factual, unlike so many of yours.

Quote by: xyzer Yes I see no harm in the teaching the intelligent design concept because it is a rather strong belief in a large majority of our population. It's a belief system held by a lot of people why not mention it as a possible alternative in the puzzle of metaphysics?

The issue is specifically whether religion, in the form of "intelligent design", should be taught in science class. Why would one teach metaphysics in science class? Makes as much sense as teaching calculus in Sunday school.

Quote by: =xyzer Obviously evolution is going on and that can be observed while intelligent design cannot. While there is no scientific evidence yet available to prove/disprove the creation and intelligent design theories would you prohibit mentiong that fact to youngsters? If so you are as bigoted as those you criiticize for propounding such theories. You could be classified as a member of the 'burn the books crowd'.right? They are the ones who would prohibit inquisitive thought . The ones like the mullahs of Islam who insist on one belief?

So now because I oppose religious zealots interjecting religion into my kid's school, I am a bigot. That is a remarkably stupid remark as is your suggestion that those of us who do not buckle before zealotry are "book burners," with the obligatory reference to Islamic mullahs thrownin. LOL. (You may deserve points for the over-the-top absurdity of the your slurs.)

The entire "ID" movement was a well planned, completely cynical "creationist" con game that has collapsed under its own lunacy. The Wedge stategy was an obvious attempt to dress up creationism as science. The appearance of the Wedge document on the internet, as well as court proceedings where the "experts" of the ID movement admitted under oath that ID is no more scientific than astrology or fortune telling have effectively exposed the con game for what it was. Your continued willingness to support it implies either a certain gullibity or lack of honesty.

Quote by: xyzer As a one time teacher I found kids are interested in other theories and thoughts about events. It stimulates curiousity, and usually provokes discussion, and occasionally drives some to look it up for themselves before they make judgements. Its part of the education process. To prohibit teaching about all the thought and theory available is censorship! And as you obviouly are aware dulls the thought processes.

Yadda, yadda yadda. Choosing to teach only science in a science class is not "censorship". It is common sense. If you wish to teach the Christian, Aztec, Nordic or any other of the myriad creation myths they would fit nicely in a comparative religion class or even as literature.

So I guess it isn't surprising that one still willing to defend the ID con game is also prepared to deny the obvious regarding global warming. In both cases the science is against you and you could obviously care less.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: xyzer Now you are talking sonart...I think you are missing one point..Which is, during a period in which human caused emissions were increasing global temps dipped..can we make a logical assumption that human caused emissions are not as important as Al Gore claims or may not even be the cause?

For the 110th time... it's not Al Gore who's making the claims. He's just presenting them in a high profile manner. It's 99% of the world's scientists who are studying the issue. This is not about anyone's agenda, xyzer. I'm not sourcing the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or the Earth Liberation Front. This is based on researched data from the most authoritative scientific expertise on the planet.

Quote by: xyzer What I haven't conceded is its caused by human activity. What I am trying to drill into the wooden headed alarmist crowd is that there are many other important factors in climate change...most much more persuasive that the human emissions argument.

And what I'm trying to drill into your head-in-the-sand is that scientists far, far more knowledgable than you or me or Al Gore or anyone else here have been looking into those "many other factors" for the past 25 years and that almost unanimously, even among former naysayers, they are now convinced that global warming is happening, we caused it, and it's happening faster than predicted.

Quote by: xyzer Yes I see no harm in the teaching the intelligent design concept because it is a rather strong belief in a large majority of our population. It's a belief system held by a lot of people why not mention it as a possible alternative in the puzzle of metaphysics?

A lot of people believe in Astrology too. That doesn't make it science.

Quote by: xyzer There is still not proof that human action causes or has caused warming.

Yes, there is. They ran a huge experiment... perhaps you heard of it.

The concept of global warming -- the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and historic global temperatures -- was first proposed back in the 1890's. In the 1950's American scientists explored this this, having noticed an increase in global temperatures and a clearly understanding of prehistoric global temperatures. So they ran an experiment.

The experiment went like this.... if humans artificially created vast amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases -- now around 24 billion tons of CO2 a year -- and released it into the atmosphere, the theory suggested that global temperatures should increase. Well, we're about 200 years into the experiment, and guess what.... temperatures are increasing.


.

[xyzer]

If evolution is the result of God's manipulations, we have no way of documenting it - at least not yet. Thus, it does not belong in a science curriculum.

I never said it belongs in the curriculum, did I? I pointed out that it could be mentioned as another theory in the metaphysical world. You and others on this thread instantly indicated that mentioning it was akin to teaching such a theory and adding it to the science curriculum? Nonsense. There is nothing to really teach is there. I thought I indicated that to tell teachers they cannot cover a specific in their classrooms is tantamont to censorship.

One must be careful to define the issue or its slips past the bigots minds and becomes reality. We are not talking about teaching ID as a scientifically proved concept ...it isn't! It's a belief. You and others are so caught up in the dangers of religion and even mentioning it in a government funded entity that you begin to lose some of your reason. You'r bound up in absolutes and that is a dangerous place to find oneself!

We are talking about allowing the teacher to mention any theory or belief to stimulate interest and to broaden the students horizons. There are peculiarities in the evolutionary process that some scientists question? How did the eye develop? How about the development of the rational human mind as opposed to the smaller or larger brains of other mamals? Why are there some noticeable gaps in the evolutionary development of sime crustaceans

[xyzer]

The experiment went like this.... if humans artificially created vast amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases -- now around 24 billion tons of CO2 a year -- and released it into the atmosphere, the theory suggested that global temperatures should increase. Well, we're about 200 years into the experiment, and guess what.... temperatures are increasing.

I wont even bother to respond to this bit of nonsense..but I have emboldened some of the key words..you get my meaning I'm sure? If you base your beliefs on hypothetical theories tested on computers you are beyond redemption. Revel in the demagoguery of that mouthpiece Al Gore. I don't!

[xyzer]

So now because I oppose religious zealots interjecting religion into my kid's school, I am a bigot. That is a remarkably stupid remark as is your suggestion that those of us who do not buckle before zealotry are "book burners,"

Wow..
You have just redefined the issue Rick? I wasn't aware that a teacher who mentions the intelligent design theory would automatically be classified as a religious zealot!
I wasn't aware that anyone propounding the theory that there are some unexplained anomalies in the evolutionary process ..and referring to them as the result of intelligent design.. Was a religious zealot?I haven't considered them as religious in nature. I leave that to the bigots who invent truth rather than seek it. Is that shoe comfortable?

[RickSp]

Yah xyzer, I know your mantra. Asking a teacher not to teach religion in science class is censorship and anyone who would do such a thing is obviously a bigot. Yah right. And wet streets cause rain.

You defend creationism and a deny of global warming. A certain absurdist consistency there.

[xyzer]

You defend creationism and a deny of global warming. A certain absurdist consistency there.

Your doing the last word thing again Rick. Are you reading my posts or just enjoying the thrill of trying to get in the last word?
How many times have I agreed we are in a global warming period? Your not digesting my posts! Is the veil of bigotry so thick as to obscure your reason?
I haven't defended creationism(I prefer the expression intelligent design) either..I have defended the right of a teacher to mention it in the classroom ?And I have pointed out that intelligent design is not necessarily religious! It is a theory some have propounded to explain that which we cannot prove.
You didn't answer my question..are the shoes comfortable?

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer I leave that to the bigots who invent truth rather than seek it. Is that shoe comfortable?

OK, xyzer, now you are back to calling me a bigot. Very boring. I have wasted enough time with your foolishness.

I am happy to let you have the last word. The village idiot often does.

[RickSp]

Duplicate post. Now sure how that happened.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Sonart The experiment went like this.... if humans artificially created vast amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases -- now around 24 billion tons of CO2 a year -- and released it into the atmosphere, the theory suggested that global temperatures should increase. Well, we're about 200 years into the experiment, and guess what.... temperatures are increasing.

Quote by: xyzer If you base your beliefs on hypothetical theories tested on computers you are beyond redemption. Revel in the demagoguery of that mouthpiece Al Gore. I don't!

You just quoted, and belittled, a description of the scientific process, the process by which all scientific knowledge we now accept as fact came to be. Observation, hypothesis, experiment to test the hypothesis, observation, written conclusion, peer review.

And I have not once quoted or sourced Al Gore, but rather, among many others, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the National Climate Data Center, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the Massechussetts Institute of Technology, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and the Woods Hole Research Center.

So why don't you set aside your specious, partisan strawman and declare outright; are you saying the scientific organizations I listed above don't know what they're talking about?

.

[xyzer]

You just quoted, and belittled, a description of the scientific process, the process by which all scientific knowledge we now accept as fact came to be. Observation, hypothesis, experiment to test the hypothesis, observation, written conclusion, peer review. And I have not once quoted or sourced Al Gore, but rather, among many others, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the National Climate Data Center, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the Massechussetts Institute of Technology, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and the Woods Hole Research Center. So why don't you set aside your specious, partisan strawman and declare outright; are you saying the scientific organizations I listed above don't know what they're talking about?

sonart you are 'full of it'! You have not sourced any of the agencies you mention. You just post what they are alleged to have said or written!? There is a difference..and sometimes a single quote can be taken out of the context of an article or statement itself. Our media is good at that! Our politicians are probably best at that subterfuge. Dont try it on me..as you know I'm a skeptic:)
Another bit of manufactured ad hominem nonsense is your claim that I belittled the scientific process. Does disagreement with speculative conclusions lacking substantial proof constitute belittlement? I don't think so? I think I even referred you to a recent statement by an expert in the climate field whose conclusion was "we just dont know"! Is his statement a belittlement of the scientific process? Or was it a non inflated objective statement?
I just watched a program on national geo which postulated that the global warming we are experiencing may cause a change in the temp of the deepwater welling up in the oceans currents which some scientists say will cause the start of a new 'ice age' England will see temps of 30 below zero..so beware!
I haven't figured out why it bothers you and Rick so much that I don't believe what you believe? IMNSHO your reactions are strange?Can't others come to different conclusions than you do on a subject? Ism't this an opinion forum?
Anyway I remain a skeptic!Please read this provocative article...British Journalism Review - Blog It is a good summation of what makes me a skeptic...
Here is another recent discussion of "Climate porn"
TCS Daily - Saying No to 'Climate Porn'?

[Matt W]

Quote by: Sonart . Because, as y'all keep saying over and over and over and over, the climate fluctuates due to a variety of random variables. But like the stock market, which will rise and fall from month to month and year to year but always continues to trend upward, the climate fluctuates but continues to trend upward... dramatically. This century is the hottest in the past ten centuries, 1999 through 2004 were still among the 10 hottest years on record, and 2005 was the hottest year on record, according to NASA, and 2006 is shaping up to be the warmest year yet in the U.S. You mean like... The American Meteorological Society The National Weather Association The American Geophysical Union the National Center of Atmospheric Research the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the U.S. Academy of Sciences the Scripps Institute of Oceanography The Woods Hole Research Center and NASA? It's a crack up to watch your knee jerk spazmotically, characterizing this as "Gore theorists". Al Gore is just the messanger. It's also that Gore, as he was with the Internet, was genuinely visionary about this, 20 years ahead of the curve, It galls you into near apoplexy, doesn't it, that Gore, whom your side so loved to ridicule, has gained national attention explaining what science has been telling us for years. As to who profits, that would be the likes of the American Petroleum Institute, the Competitive Enterprise institute and the American Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute, who are desperately trying to defend free-market corporate profits from regulation by muddying the water about the truth of global warming. Sorta like Big Tobacco did a few years back. Because the hole in the ozone layer was not created by greenhouse gases, but by chloroflourocarbon gases (CFCs), which stopped being produced in the U.S. and Europe in 1996... 10 years ago. However, the hole ozone has not, as you suggest, "filled in". Antarctic Ozone Hole Dying Hard --"Despite widespread international reductions in ozone destroying chemicals, the Antarctic ozone hole will likely continue its annual appearance for another 60 years, say atmospheric scientists – 20 years longer than previous estimates."-- Actually, based on historic climate fluctuations, we should be in a cooling trend right now. Global climate have been going through 75 to 100 thousand year Ice Age cycle for eons. In each case, at the bottom of the Ice Age, CO2 and temperatures spike dramatically over about a 10 thousand year stretch, and then almost immediately plunges back down, then fluctuates up and down, inveriably cooling back to the low point of an Ice Age, whereupon it shoots back up again in another cycle. Since the temperatures spiked back up to a high point 10,000 years ago, the climate should be cooling off again. As it was after the Medieval Warming Period. What's often called the 'Little Ice Age' was simply a low point (in Europe and the northern hemispere) in what's been a long cooling trend that ended... (gasp) dramatically in the early 1900's, following the onset of global industrialization. I remember joking with a friend last fall, during a discussion of global warming and the recent all time record 2005 hurricane season. "Just watch," I muttered cynically. "This summer we won't have any hurricanes at all." 25 years ago, when scientists first began modeling predictions about anthropogenic global warming -- predictions that have not only been correct but ahve actually underestimated the increases in global warming -- they predicted that increasing temperatures would, among other things, lead to increasingly severe weather events. This seemed to be born out in http://<b><u>2004 hurricane season, ...record</u></b>. When this was followed by 2005, which blew the records off the charts, it became perhaps too easy to tie it to global warming, even though climatologists cautioned that storm activity was difficult to predict. Especially when you consider that we're also experiencing records in such things as tornado activity. On the other hand, don't be too quick to point out the so far quiet hurricane season. I'm reminded of Rush Limbaugh on his TV show, back in the mid-90's. When climatologists predicted massive California rains due to a large El Nino condition over the Pacific, Limbaugh came on his show and ridiculed the prediction. "Is it raining yet?" Limbaugh mugged... ...exactly one day before California was drenched in a non-stop series of massive rain storms, resulting in disastrous flooding and mudslides. .

You appear to have a short-term memory, xyzer....