| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Stuart Grey" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2006 06:46:24 PM |
| Object: |
Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
Cliff wrote:
"the stacking of scientific advisory committees"
"forces existed in American society that were at war with science, and
especially the theory of evolution"
"the GOP had consistently humored private industry's attempts to undermine
science so as to stave off unwelcome government regulation"
Oh hell! I thought you were talking about the Democrats....
The don't believe in Evolution either - they have a "belief" that all
racial groups have exactly the same distributions of intelligence. This
flies in the face of known evolutionary theory! They have an entire
"diversity science" that is every bit as loony as the right wing
"creation science".
Democrats also don't believe in the science of anthropology, which has
shown that cultures, like creatures, has evolved to help give man a
survival advantage.
Democrats have absurd religious beliefs in medicine, thinking that non
drug using, non homosexual people are at risk of AIDS.
Then there is this bogus anthropomorphic global warming "theory" that no
real climatologist believes. These cycles have happened many times in
the past, and CO2 LAGS the rise in global temperatures. True scientist
also understand the size of the Carbon cycle system, and that we humans
have added trivial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, the real addition
of CO2 is due to the warming itself!
So, to put it bluntly, most of you non-scientist politcal hacks are
waging war on science - those on the left as well as the right. You'd do
well to not call the kettle black, unless you're willing to admit that
science often debunks a beautiful theory with ugly facts.
BTW, the stem cell debate has nothing to do with science, but rather
ethics. There is no science in dispute.
.
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 07:44:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:31:47 -0700, "Hawke" <desmithe@c-zone.net> wrote:
The only question is whether man's activities are causing it. On this
question the vast majority of experts on climatology believe that man's
activities are causing this warming to at least some degree.
Most of it.
While there are natural cycles those operate on a scale of hundreds
to many thousands of years, not decades, and don't seem to be nearly
as severe in their effects as this.
The last ice age was about 3 degrees F cooler IIRC. We are looking
at 10 degrees F hotter within 50 to 100 years, probably at best, depending
on how bad the feedback cycles get I gather.
That feedback could get really nasty and than there's beyond that 50 to
100 year (brief) period ..
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 08:18:29 AM |
|
|
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:31:47 -0700, "Hawke" <desmithe@c-zone.net> wrote:
The only question is whether man's activities are causing it. On this
question the vast majority of experts on climatology believe that man's
activities are causing this warming to at least some degree.
Most of it.
Baseless assertion. Prove it.
While there are natural cycles those operate on a scale of hundreds
to many thousands of years, not decades, and don't seem to be nearly
as severe in their effects as this.
The "natural cycles" have been known to cause changes on the scale of
decades. For example, the written records of the glaciation of
Greenland. THe ice core data indicates that the temperature peak to peak
changes have been on the order of 8 C.
You are wrong in both your objective facts.
The last ice age was about 3 degrees F cooler IIRC. We are looking
at 10 degrees F hotter within 50 to 100 years, probably at best, depending
on how bad the feedback cycles get I gather.
Yes, much hotter according to unproven and untested models that the
authors know that they will never be held accountable.
That feedback could get really nasty and than there's beyond that 50 to
100 year (brief) period ..
If the positive feedback worked the way they claimed, then the earth
would have gone Venus a billion years ago. It didn't. Ergo, the positive
feedback theory is debunked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hawke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 04:14:22 PM |
|
|
The only question is whether man's activities are causing it. On this
question the vast majority of experts on climatology believe that man's
activities are causing this warming to at least some degree.
Most of it.
Baseless assertion. Prove it.
While there are natural cycles those operate on a scale of hundreds
to many thousands of years, not decades, and don't seem to be nearly
as severe in their effects as this.
The "natural cycles" have been known to cause changes on the scale of
decades. For example, the written records of the glaciation of
Greenland. THe ice core data indicates that the temperature peak to peak
changes have been on the order of 8 C.
You are wrong in both your objective facts.
The last ice age was about 3 degrees F cooler IIRC. We are looking
at 10 degrees F hotter within 50 to 100 years, probably at best,
depending
on how bad the feedback cycles get I gather.
Yes, much hotter according to unproven and untested models that the
authors know that they will never be held accountable.
That feedback could get really nasty and than there's beyond that 50
to
100 year (brief) period ..
If the positive feedback worked the way they claimed, then the earth
would have gone Venus a billion years ago. It didn't. Ergo, the positive
feedback theory is debunked.
Actually your whole argument doesn't hold water. Anyone that has any
knowledge about the geological history of the planet understands that over
millions or billions of years the climate has varied radically. Your arguing
that because the climate has been much hotter and much colder at different
times and it had with nothing to do with mankind's actions is irrelevant to
the current debate.
The question now is this; is man's polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse
gases to blame for the sudden rise in earth's temperatures? There is a huge
amount of empirical evidence that has been gathered in the last decade that
says the answer is yes. Some people, for their own reasons don't want to
accept this. For the scientists and the rest of us it's only sensible to
take steps to ensure our future by not allowing our pollution to overheat
the planet. If you find that a foolish thing to do then I think you need
help in the logic/intellect department.
Hawke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 11:58:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:14:22 -0700, "Hawke" <desmithe@c-zone.net> wrote:
Actually your whole argument doesn't hold water. Anyone that has any
knowledge about the geological history of the planet understands that over
millions or billions of years the climate has varied radically. Your arguing
that because the climate has been much hotter and much colder at different
times and it had with nothing to do with mankind's actions is irrelevant to
the current debate.
At some point the sun will go Nova too.
Hence a few Nukes down the bunkers of a few wingers would do no harm.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 02:09:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:18:29 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:31:47 -0700, "Hawke" <desmithe@c-zone.net> wrote:
The only question is whether man's activities are causing it. On this
question the vast majority of experts on climatology believe that man's
activities are causing this warming to at least some degree.
Most of it.
Baseless assertion. Prove it.
Been done. Your claims are vapid.
While there are natural cycles those operate on a scale of hundreds
to many thousands of years, not decades, and don't seem to be nearly
as severe in their effects as this.
The "natural cycles" have been known to cause changes on the scale of
decades. For example, the written records of the glaciation of
Greenland. THe ice core data indicates that the temperature peak to peak
changes have been on the order of 8 C.
You are wrong in both your objective facts.
You have none.
The last ice age was about 3 degrees F cooler IIRC. We are looking
at 10 degrees F hotter within 50 to 100 years, probably at best, depending
on how bad the feedback cycles get I gather.
Yes, much hotter according to unproven and untested models that the
authors know that they will never be held accountable.
Rubbish.
That feedback could get really nasty and than there's beyond that 50 to
100 year (brief) period ..
If the positive feedback worked the way they claimed, then the earth
would have gone Venus a billion years ago. It didn't. Ergo, the positive
feedback theory is debunked.
And you claim this why?
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Lander" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 02:03:05 PM |
|
|
Stuart Grey wrote:
Then there is this bogus anthropomorphic global warming "theory" that no
real climatologist believes. These cycles have happened many times in
the past, and CO2 LAGS the rise in global temperatures. True scientist
also understand the size of the Carbon cycle system, and that we humans
have added trivial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, the real addition
of CO2 is due to the warming itself!
You fool, guess who made you aware of all those natural cycles? The
same scientists who are now telling you that THIS one is not natural.
What can you know that they haven't accounted for? Look at all the
other ways Man has "enhanced" natural processes, like erosion,
desertification, extinction rates, and even earthquake fault-slippage
through fluid injection or nuclear testing.
Think about your own home or apartment. It can be heated by natural
sunlight coming in through the windows, or it can be heated with
additional input from a man-made furnace. Nothing restricts the heating
process to being an "all natural" event. Likewise, Man is contributing
just enough unnaturally-generated gases to tip the global heat balance.
There is nothing mysterious or convoluted about this.
Don't tell us that you doubt it for scientific reasons. Dishonest
conservatives only paint Man as ineffectual when it suits their narrow
skepticism. We, who can sterilize the surface of the planet with
nuclear bombs can't possibly raise the average temperature in slow
increments?
R. Lander
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 11:27:47 AM |
|
|
R. Lander wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:
Then there is this bogus anthropomorphic global warming "theory" that no
real climatologist believes. These cycles have happened many times in
the past, and CO2 LAGS the rise in global temperatures. True scientist
also understand the size of the Carbon cycle system, and that we humans
have added trivial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, the real addition
of CO2 is due to the warming itself!
You fool, guess who made you aware of all those natural cycles? The
same scientists who are now telling you that THIS one is not natural.
1) Irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.
2) Irrelevant to my thesis that political people of both sides
bastardize science.
3) You're making a blatant appeal to authority. All arguments have to
stand on their own, based on the data.
What can you know that they haven't accounted for? Look at all the
other ways Man has "enhanced" natural processes, like erosion,
desertification, extinction rates, and even earthquake fault-slippage
through fluid injection or nuclear testing.
They have no explanation of past warming.
They have not estimated the proper size of the carbon dioxide system.
They leave no explanation for Mars or Jupiter warming.
Their whole argument is a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Think about your own home or apartment. It can be heated by natural
sunlight coming in through the windows, or it can be heated with
additional input from a man-made furnace. Nothing restricts the heating
process to being an "all natural" event. Likewise, Man is contributing
just enough unnaturally-generated gases to tip the global heat balance.
There is nothing mysterious or convoluted about this.
The fallacy of the bad analogy, and circular logic.
Don't tell us that you doubt it for scientific reasons.
I doubt it because it is not proved to be man made. Global warming has
been proved to exist. There are various arguments about the effect of
global warming that are neither here nor there wrt to the issue of the
cause of the warming. There is no scientifically gathered data to show
it is man made.
What you don't wish to be told is not an argument.
Dishonest
conservatives only paint Man as ineffectual when it suits their narrow
skepticism. We, who can sterilize the surface of the planet with
nuclear bombs can't possibly raise the average temperature in slow
increments?
The fallacy of the bad analogy, and the you're making the assumption
that because we can (and that is unproven) that we have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 03:54:49 PM |
|
|
R. Lander wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:
You fool, guess who made you aware of all those natural cycles? The
same scientists who are now telling you that THIS one is not natural.
1) Irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.
2) Irrelevant to my thesis that political people of both sides
bastardize science.
3) You're making a blatant appeal to authority. All arguments have to
stand on their own, based on the data.
So, we should be appealing to YOU as the big authority on climate
science, not the people doing real work in the field? I missed that
news item.
false claim of appeal to authority. I do not argue from authority. I
point out that Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc is not a logical argument,
that is, just because the earth is warming and CO2 levels are rising
does not mean that one causes the other. The possibilities are:
1) Random Coincidence
2) Warming causes CO2.
3) CO2 causes warming
4) A common cause for both CO2 and warming.
So far, there has been no proof of anthropogenic global warming.
There is good reason to believe it isn't anthropogenic. If there is a
common cause, say solar, we'd expect to see other effects of warming in
the solar system, and we do: warming on Mars, storms on Jupiter.
Another good reason is that the size of the CO2 system is vast, far
bigger than the amount of CO2 released by man's actions. Equilibruim
with seawater would indicate that most of the man made CO2 would be
absorbed in a trivial fashion, that the equilibrium constant changed is
indication that the heating came first and the heating is causing the CO2.
Another good reason is that while there is fair correlation between CO2
and warming (probably due to shifts in the ocean/atmosphere equilibrium)
there hss been even stronger correlation of global temperature with
solar cycles. Solar cycles clearly cannot be caused by global warming or
atomosphereic CO2 levels.
Another good reason is that there is strong indications, via ice core
data, of several global warming cycles in the past. There is written
evidence of the Greenland glaciation, for example, and it was fairly
sudden.
Let's go over this again: The same REAL scientists who collected DATA
and told your dumb ***** about those natural cycles are now telling your
dumb ***** that the current warming is NOT natural, based on DATA they've
collected. You say you want data, right? Where else are you getting
climate data from? It's all made up, you say? Was the Moon landing
faked as well?
1) Irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.
2) You're making a blatant appeal to authority. All arguments have to
stand on their own, based on the data.
3) ARgument by repetition of fallacies is yet another fallacy.
4) That there is warming is not in dispute, not by me anyway, so that
argument is the fallacy of the red herring.
5) moon landing, fallacy of irrelevant thesis.
What can you know that they haven't accounted for? Look at all the
other ways Man has "enhanced" natural processes, like erosion,
desertification, extinction rates, and even earthquake fault-slippage
through fluid injection or nuclear testing.
They have no explanation of past warming.
They have not estimated the proper size of the carbon dioxide system.
They leave no explanation for Mars or Jupiter warming.
Those "have no's" are manufactured in your own head. You could learn
the details right now with a little Web searching - or maybe read an
actual textbook. I'd post a link but you'd ignore it. There are a
million things you could learn if you stepped out of willful-ignorance
mode.
And yet, you cannot provide this proof. If it existed, the debate would
be over.
Their whole argument is a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Whatever you say, fool. You are committing the logical fallacy of
simply ignoring all evidence which doesn't suit your
Creationist/ultra-capitalist worldview.
1) Fallacy of irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.
2) Fallay of fallacy.
3) untrue facts. I started this thread by agreeing that creationism is
not science.
The implication of your last argumentum ad hominem, of course, is that
you are a socialist, a group that I've explained has a stake in gaining
acceptance of the anthropogenic Global warming theory because it
benefits socialist states.
Think about your own home or apartment. It can be heated by natural
sunlight coming in through the windows, or it can be heated with
additional input from a man-made furnace. Nothing restricts the heating
process to being an "all natural" event. Likewise, Man is contributing
just enough unnaturally-generated gases to tip the global heat balance.
There is nothing mysterious or convoluted about this.
The fallacy of the bad analogy, and circular logic.
You have a laughable understanding of what a logical fallacy really is.
They came up with logical fallacy guidelines to debunk Creationism and
other non-scientific approaches to the world. Arguing from ignorance
(Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) is a fallacy you're committing over and
over.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is where the argument is something like this:
There is no evidence for man made global warming,
Ergo, Man made global warming is false.
My argument has been:
There is no evidence of man made global warming,
Ergo, man made global warming has not been proved.
Further, there is evidence that there is a cause that is not man:
1) Solar cycle correlation.
2) warming of other plaents.
3) Shifts in atmospheric/ocean equilibrium
4) A long history of non-man made warming and cooling cycles.
So, you have made a straw dog argument (a fallacy) and then debunked
your straw dog as a argumentum ad ignorantiam. That was amusing!
Do you know what the word "analogy" means? You can compare things to
other things and draw reasonable conclusions, assuming reasonable minds
are involved. Haven't you heard anyone compare the greenhouse effect to
car windows trapping heat? I could have used that analogy above just as
easily.
Do you know what "reasonable", as in reasonable mind means? It means you
don't make post filled with logical fallacies and argumentum ad hominems.
Btw, the greenhouse effect is a given. I am not arguing that there is no
greenhouse effect. yet another straw dog fallacy. If you cannot even
properly state my arguments, how can you ever hope to refute them?
Don't tell us that you doubt it for scientific reasons.
I doubt it because it is not proved to be man made. Global warming has
been proved to exist. There are various arguments about the effect of
global warming that are neither here nor there wrt to the issue of the
cause of the warming. There is no scientifically gathered data to show
it is man made.
Yes, you'll keep saying "no data" until the end of time, or until your
home is flooded or burned by drought. I can't fix whatever wiring keeps
your brain stuck in first gear.
Fallacies in the above paragraph:
1) Appeal to consequences.
2) Staw dog.
3) irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.
2
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Revere" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 07:52:05 AM |
|
|
YOU could not tell a democrat from that hole in your
head Stuart.
peace
Paul Revere
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:l46dnecsqtjtjU3ZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
: Cliff wrote:
: > "the stacking of scientific advisory committees"
: >
: > "forces existed in American society that were at
war with science, and
: > especially the theory of evolution"
: >
: > "the GOP had consistently humored private
industry's attempts to undermine
: > science so as to stave off unwelcome government
regulation"
:
: Oh hell! I thought you were talking about the
Democrats....
:
: The don't believe in Evolution either - they have a
"belief" that all
: racial groups have exactly the same distributions of
intelligence. This
: flies in the face of known evolutionary theory! They
have an entire
: "diversity science" that is every bit as loony as the
right wing
: "creation science".
:
: Democrats also don't believe in the science of
anthropology, which has
: shown that cultures, like creatures, has evolved to
help give man a
: survival advantage.
:
: Democrats have absurd religious beliefs in medicine,
thinking that non
: drug using, non homosexual people are at risk of
AIDS.
:
: Then there is this bogus anthropomorphic global
warming "theory" that no
: real climatologist believes. These cycles have
happened many times in
: the past, and CO2 LAGS the rise in global
temperatures. True scientist
: also understand the size of the Carbon cycle system,
and that we humans
: have added trivial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere,
the real addition
: of CO2 is due to the warming itself!
:
: So, to put it bluntly, most of you non-scientist
politcal hacks are
: waging war on science - those on the left as well as
the right. You'd do
: well to not call the kettle black, unless you're
willing to admit that
: science often debunks a beautiful theory with ugly
facts.
:
: BTW, the stem cell debate has nothing to do with
science, but rather
: ethics. There is no science in dispute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
