| 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 |
02 Aug 2006 07:43:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
wrote:
Democrats have absurd religious beliefs in medicine, thinking that non
drug using, non homosexual people are at risk of AIDS.
CLUE: They are.
It's even becoming a plague in nursing homes & retirement communities
in the US.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 05:45:34 AM |
|
|
Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
wrote:
Democrats have absurd religious beliefs in medicine, thinking that non
drug using, non homosexual people are at risk of AIDS.
CLUE: They are.
It's even becoming a plague in nursing homes & retirement communities
in the US.
Thanks, for being a sample.
Q.E.D.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 02:11:22 PM |
|
|
Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
wrote:
Democrats have absurd religious beliefs in medicine, thinking that non
drug using, non homosexual people are at risk of AIDS.
CLUE: They are.
It's even becoming a plague in nursing homes & retirement communities
in the US.
--
Cliff
I'm pretty sure that he accidentally left the word 'only' out of his
post.
"Democrats have absurd religious beliefs in medicine, thinking that
ONLY non
drug using, non homosexual people are at risk of AIDS."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 07:40:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
wrote:
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.
You flunked an IQ test again?
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 07:46:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
wrote:
Then there is this bogus anthropomorphic global warming "theory" that no
real climatologist believes.
LOL .... he DID flunk the IQ tests again !!
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 07:48:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
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.
Unlike what the data shows, eh?
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 07:51:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
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!
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.
"Off yer meds again?" - Hoyt McKagen
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Coppock" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 10:28:33 AM |
|
|
Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
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!
Classic fossil fool/tobacco lobby/creationist/Ku Klux Klan
argument style creates strawmen by excluding facts.
With ice cores, they intentionally ignore the fact that the
O18 temperature proxy has a delay over the CO2 deposit
in ice cores. Oxygen isotope ratios take time to react to
the temperature. CO2 directly deposits into the ice core
from the ancient atmosphere. When the O18 delay is
accounted for, temperature follows the CO2 in the ice cores.
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.
"Off yer meds again?" - Hoyt McKagen
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 07:51:49 AM |
|
|
Roger Coppock wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
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!
Classic fossil fool/tobacco lobby/creationist/Ku Klux Klan
argument style creates strawmen by excluding facts.
Ah, the bad company fallacy, and a false one at that!
With ice cores, they intentionally ignore the fact that the
O18 temperature proxy has a delay over the CO2 deposit
in ice cores. Oxygen isotope ratios take time to react to
the temperature. CO2 directly deposits into the ice core
from the ancient atmosphere. When the O18 delay is
accounted for, temperature follows the CO2 in the ice cores.
First, I'd like to thank you for proving my point about how politics of
both sides tend to pervert science. Your reply is a perfect example. :-)
Now, as to the left wing religious belief in man made global warming:
If what you say is true, then you would have to admit that it cannot be
claimed that CO2 levels have not been higher in X years, because by this
theory, such resolutions of CO2 in the ice cores would not be possible.
This would conflict with the anthropogenic GW theory.
IF what you say is not true, then the anthropogenic GW theory is
debunked by simple temporal causality.
Even asside from this, you fail to address that the data clearly shows a
history of many warming and cooling periods, all without any impact from
man. It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now. There is
no reason to even suspect humans are the cause. CO2 contributions to the
greenhouse effect are trivial; contrived models use CO2 to "leverage"
H2O in order to predict the desired warming. These computer models fail
on the face of it because such an feedback system would be entirely
unstable - we would have gone venus the first time the earth warmed.
Such models are not scientific - the validation of a hypothesis is
experiment and observation, NOT computer models. Such thinking is
Circulus in Probando, you form the hypothesis, you put the hypothesis
into the model, the model then "predicts" the hypothesis, so you feel
the hypothesis is now a supported theory. Not logical.
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.
"Off yer meds again?" - Hoyt McKagen
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hawke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 12:31:47 AM |
|
|
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SIednYueld8eVU3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Roger Coppock wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey
<stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
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!
Classic fossil fool/tobacco lobby/creationist/Ku Klux Klan
argument style creates strawmen by excluding facts.
Ah, the bad company fallacy, and a false one at that!
With ice cores, they intentionally ignore the fact that the
O18 temperature proxy has a delay over the CO2 deposit
in ice cores. Oxygen isotope ratios take time to react to
the temperature. CO2 directly deposits into the ice core
from the ancient atmosphere. When the O18 delay is
accounted for, temperature follows the CO2 in the ice cores.
First, I'd like to thank you for proving my point about how politics of
both sides tend to pervert science. Your reply is a perfect example. :-)
Now, as to the left wing religious belief in man made global warming:
If what you say is true, then you would have to admit that it cannot be
claimed that CO2 levels have not been higher in X years, because by this
theory, such resolutions of CO2 in the ice cores would not be possible.
This would conflict with the anthropogenic GW theory.
IF what you say is not true, then the anthropogenic GW theory is
debunked by simple temporal causality.
Even asside from this, you fail to address that the data clearly shows a
history of many warming and cooling periods, all without any impact from
man. It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now. There is
no reason to even suspect humans are the cause. CO2 contributions to the
greenhouse effect are trivial; contrived models use CO2 to "leverage"
H2O in order to predict the desired warming. These computer models fail
on the face of it because such an feedback system would be entirely
unstable - we would have gone venus the first time the earth warmed.
Such models are not scientific - the validation of a hypothesis is
experiment and observation, NOT computer models. Such thinking is
Circulus in Probando, you form the hypothesis, you put the hypothesis
into the model, the model then "predicts" the hypothesis, so you feel
the hypothesis is now a supported theory. Not logical.
Nice try. But too many scientists from all over the world all have come to
the same conclusion: the planet is warming. Of this there is no debate among
them. 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. Many of them
think we are having a big effect on the earth's climate. But it's not really
a matter of whether they are completely right or not. The point is that if
we are negatively impacting the weather then we should do something about
it. A prudent person would act on the possibility of harm rather than
waiting until one is completely certain of the harm but then is too late to
do anything about it. It's really simple. We should proceed as if we are to
blame for the global warming. If we are wrong then no harm is done. If we
are right then the lives we saved will be our own. Why argue we should do
nothing and take the chance of doing irreparable harm to the planet? That's
just plain stupid.
Hawke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
02 Aug 2006 10:08:07 PM |
|
|
Hawke wrote:
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SIednYueld8eVU3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Roger Coppock wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:46:24 -0400, Stuart Grey
<stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
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!
Classic fossil fool/tobacco lobby/creationist/Ku Klux Klan
argument style creates strawmen by excluding facts.
Ah, the bad company fallacy, and a false one at that!
With ice cores, they intentionally ignore the fact that the
O18 temperature proxy has a delay over the CO2 deposit
in ice cores. Oxygen isotope ratios take time to react to
the temperature. CO2 directly deposits into the ice core
from the ancient atmosphere. When the O18 delay is
accounted for, temperature follows the CO2 in the ice cores.
First, I'd like to thank you for proving my point about how politics of
both sides tend to pervert science. Your reply is a perfect example. :-)
Now, as to the left wing religious belief in man made global warming:
If what you say is true, then you would have to admit that it cannot be
claimed that CO2 levels have not been higher in X years, because by this
theory, such resolutions of CO2 in the ice cores would not be possible.
This would conflict with the anthropogenic GW theory.
IF what you say is not true, then the anthropogenic GW theory is
debunked by simple temporal causality.
Even asside from this, you fail to address that the data clearly shows a
history of many warming and cooling periods, all without any impact from
man. It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now. There is
no reason to even suspect humans are the cause. CO2 contributions to the
greenhouse effect are trivial; contrived models use CO2 to "leverage"
H2O in order to predict the desired warming. These computer models fail
on the face of it because such an feedback system would be entirely
unstable - we would have gone venus the first time the earth warmed.
Such models are not scientific - the validation of a hypothesis is
experiment and observation, NOT computer models. Such thinking is
Circulus in Probando, you form the hypothesis, you put the hypothesis
into the model, the model then "predicts" the hypothesis, so you feel
the hypothesis is now a supported theory. Not logical.
Nice try. But too many scientists from all over the world all have come to
the same conclusion: the planet is warming.
1) Straw dog. I never said the earth wasn't warming. You mistate my
argument and then rebutt your own mistatement.
2) Argumentum ad Populum.
Of this there is no debate among
them. The only question is whether man's activities are causing it.
1) Duh.
On this
question the vast majority of experts on climatology believe that man's
activities are causing this warming to at least some degree.
2) Argumentum ad Populum, and a false one at that. .
Many of them
think we are having a big effect on the earth's climate. But it's not really
a matter of whether they are completely right or not. The point is that if
we are negatively impacting the weather then we should do something about
it. A prudent person would act on the possibility of harm rather than
waiting until one is completely certain of the harm but then is too late to
do anything about it.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam. The goodness or badness of a consequence
does not prove the underlying assertion.
This is the same illogic used by lynch mobs: it was a terrible murder,
so we should hang Mr. X. Howenver, the horrific nature of the crime does
not prove Mr. X did it, it very well could have been Mr. Y.
It's really simple. We should proceed as if we are to
blame for the global warming. If we are wrong then no harm is done.
False assertion. The Kyoto accords moves vast amounts of wealth from the
industrialized nations to the 3rd world. History has shown that this
money, more often than not, ends up in the pockets of petty dictators.
This depleats the wealth of industrialized nations at a time when they
need to help counter the effects of Global warming.
If we
are right then the lives we saved will be our own. Why argue we should do
nothing and take the chance of doing irreparable harm to the planet? That's
just plain stupid.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Gardner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 03:24:52 PM |
|
|
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lfGdnbwCxuOtDEzZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
2) Argumentum ad Populum.
2) Argumentum ad Populum, and a false one at that. .
Argumentum ad Consequentiam. The goodness or badness of a consequence does
not prove the underlying assertion.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
Oh no...you can't point out faulty logic to the illogical left, they don't
like it! I wonder if any lib anywhere ever took a debate class?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 03:32:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:24:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lfGdnbwCxuOtDEzZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
2) Argumentum ad Populum.
2) Argumentum ad Populum, and a false one at that. .
Argumentum ad Consequentiam. The goodness or badness of a consequence does
not prove the underlying assertion.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
Oh no...you can't point out faulty logic
He'd have to have some first <G>.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
04 Aug 2006 05:46:58 PM |
|
|
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lfGdnbwCxuOtDEzZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
2) Argumentum ad Populum.
2) Argumentum ad Populum, and a false one at that. .
Argumentum ad Consequentiam. The goodness or badness of a consequence does
not prove the underlying assertion.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
Oh no...you can't point out faulty logic to the illogical left, they don't
like it! I wonder if any lib anywhere ever took a debate class?
It is ironic that a "liberal education" is one that is first based on
the Trivium - grammar, logic and rhetoric. You don't see too many
liberals who know logic and rhetoric. It seems a misnomer to call them
liberals.
I suspect it is just propaganda. Communist changed their name to
socialist, then to liberal, and now "progressives". Progress is
reverting back to a feudal society where the government effectively owns
all the means of production, including the serfs themselves? I think
not! That's a massive step backwards. .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
06 Aug 2006 02:20:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:46:58 -0400, Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net>
wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lfGdnbwCxuOtDEzZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
2) Argumentum ad Populum.
2) Argumentum ad Populum, and a false one at that. .
Argumentum ad Consequentiam. The goodness or badness of a consequence does
not prove the underlying assertion.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
Oh no...you can't point out faulty logic to the illogical left, they don't
like it! I wonder if any lib anywhere ever took a debate class?
It is ironic that a "liberal education" is one that is first based on
the Trivium - grammar, logic and rhetoric. You don't see too many
liberals who know logic and rhetoric. It seems a misnomer to call them
liberals.
I suspect it is just propaganda. Communist changed their name to
socialist, then to liberal, and now "progressives". Progress is
reverting back to a feudal society where the government effectively owns
all the means of production, including the serfs themselves? I think
not! That's a massive step backwards. .
Are you done with the gibbering yet?
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hawke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 04:02:32 PM |
|
|
Even asside from this, you fail to address that the data clearly shows a
history of many warming and cooling periods, all without any impact from
man. It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now. There is
no reason to even suspect humans are the cause. CO2 contributions to the
greenhouse effect are trivial; contrived models use CO2 to "leverage"
H2O in order to predict the desired warming. These computer models fail
on the face of it because such an feedback system would be entirely
unstable - we would have gone venus the first time the earth warmed.
Such models are not scientific - the validation of a hypothesis is
experiment and observation, NOT computer models. Such thinking is
Circulus in Probando, you form the hypothesis, you put the hypothesis
into the model, the model then "predicts" the hypothesis, so you feel
the hypothesis is now a supported theory. Not logical.
Nice try. But too many scientists from all over the world all have come
to
the same conclusion: the planet is warming.
1) Straw dog. I never said the earth wasn't warming. You mistate my
argument and then rebutt your own mistatement.
Not so. You may not have said the earth wasn't warming but you did state
this: "It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now." That is
true. "There is no reason to even suspect humans are the cause." That is
false. There is massive evidence that humans are the cause of the current
rise in earth's temperature. At least that is what the leading scientists
say.
2) Argumentum ad Populum.
Of this there is no debate among
them. The only question is whether man's activities are causing it.
1) Duh.
On this
question the vast majority of experts on climatology believe that man's
activities are causing this warming to at least some degree.
2) Argumentum ad Populum, and a false one at that. .
Unfortunately for you, it is easy enough to find out what the consensus is
among the top climatologists on the subject of global warming. Although you
may be ignorant as to what they believe I am not. For your information, as
of today the majority of climatologists share the view that human activity
is causing the warming we are now seeing. So your logical analysis is
incorrect. This was no argumentum ad populum, it was an observation of fact
concerning the view of the scientific community.
Many of them
think we are having a big effect on the earth's climate. But it's not
really
a matter of whether they are completely right or not. The point is that
if
we are negatively impacting the weather then we should do something
about
it. A prudent person would act on the possibility of harm rather than
waiting until one is completely certain of the harm but then is too late
to
do anything about it.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam. The goodness or badness of a consequence
does not prove the underlying assertion.
That would be true if that is what I was saying. It was not. Let me clarify
it for you. If there are two courses of action to take and one may prevent a
negative consequence and the other will not, it is reasonable to take the
former action rather than the latter. Since the underlying assertion is not
a 100% certainty is it simple prudence to act like it is considering the
possible negative consequences.
This is the same illogic used by lynch mobs: it was a terrible murder,
so we should hang Mr. X. Howenver, the horrific nature of the crime does
not prove Mr. X did it, it very well could have been Mr. Y.
That dog won't hunt. Your analogy isn't even close.
It's really simple. We should proceed as if we are to
blame for the global warming. If we are wrong then no harm is done.
False assertion. The Kyoto accords moves vast amounts of wealth from the
industrialized nations to the 3rd world. History has shown that this
money, more often than not, ends up in the pockets of petty dictators.
False assertion! It is not a fact that following the Kyoto accords will
transfer vast amounts of wealth to the third world. In fact nothing to date
has done so and it is unlikely anything in the future will either. It's true
that third world dictators usually skim off any money destined for the
public but there is no evidence that following the Kyoto accords will hand
them billions of dollars of industrialized world money. That is a scare
tactic on the part of business interests. I can't believe you fell for it.
This depleats the wealth of industrialized nations at a time when they
need to help counter the effects of Global warming.
Nobody is depleting the wealth of the industrialized nations. If we did they
would not be of any use to anyone if they were broken financially. That will
never happen. The US produces 25% of the worlds pollution. The businesses
that do that don't want to change their ways. They are putting out as much
propaganda as possible to maintain things as they are right now. Sooner or
later they will be forced to change though as the evidence that our
polluting is doing irreparable damage to the environment continues to mount.
If we
are right then the lives we saved will be our own. Why argue we should
do
nothing and take the chance of doing irreparable harm to the planet?
That's
just plain stupid.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
Wrong. I live in Northern California where it is very hot in the summer.
It's like 100 degrees around here all summer long. The fire dept. comes
around every year and tells everyone to clear a zone free of combustible
materials around their homes of at least 100 feet. That way if a fire comes
it won't burn your house down. By your logic that is not rational. Clearing
a space around your home so it won't burn down is the same as taking steps
to make sure we are not making our planet so hot many of us will die. It is
not an argumentum ad consequentiam. The underlying argument that there is a
real possible of a bad consequence from not acting is nothing more than a
warning. If you think that is a weak argument then you don't know the
difference between argument and caveat.
Hawke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Gardner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 10:58:52 PM |
|
|
Doesn't Kyoto provide for purchasing carbon credits from third world areas
that have almost unlimited credits? Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years. Anything mankind can do
short term is a drop in the ocean. The technology will come for cleaning-up
fossil fuels as it becomes economically advantageous. Remember the *****
about Freon? All lies and I can prove it. Follow the money in the "Global
Warming" show!
"Hawke" <desmithe@c-zone.net> wrote in message
news:12d4p2s3mpnpd29@corp.supernews.com...
Even asside from this, you fail to address that the data clearly shows
a
history of many warming and cooling periods, all without any impact
from
man. It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now. There is
no reason to even suspect humans are the cause. CO2 contributions to
the
greenhouse effect are trivial; contrived models use CO2 to "leverage"
H2O in order to predict the desired warming. These computer models fail
on the face of it because such an feedback system would be entirely
unstable - we would have gone venus the first time the earth warmed.
Such models are not scientific - the validation of a hypothesis is
experiment and observation, NOT computer models. Such thinking is
Circulus in Probando, you form the hypothesis, you put the hypothesis
into the model, the model then "predicts" the hypothesis, so you feel
the hypothesis is now a supported theory. Not logical.
Nice try. But too many scientists from all over the world all have come
to
the same conclusion: the planet is warming.
1) Straw dog. I never said the earth wasn't warming. You mistate my
argument and then rebutt your own mistatement.
Not so. You may not have said the earth wasn't warming but you did state
this: "It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now." That is
true. "There is no reason to even suspect humans are the cause." That is
false. There is massive evidence that humans are the cause of the current
rise in earth's temperature. At least that is what the leading scientists
say.
2) Argumentum ad Populum.
Of this there is no debate among
them. The only question is whether man's activities are causing it.
1) Duh.
On this
question the vast majority of experts on climatology believe that man's
activities are causing this warming to at least some degree.
2) Argumentum ad Populum, and a false one at that. .
Unfortunately for you, it is easy enough to find out what the consensus is
among the top climatologists on the subject of global warming. Although
you
may be ignorant as to what they believe I am not. For your information, as
of today the majority of climatologists share the view that human activity
is causing the warming we are now seeing. So your logical analysis is
incorrect. This was no argumentum ad populum, it was an observation of
fact
concerning the view of the scientific community.
Many of them
think we are having a big effect on the earth's climate. But it's not
really
a matter of whether they are completely right or not. The point is that
if
we are negatively impacting the weather then we should do something
about
it. A prudent person would act on the possibility of harm rather than
waiting until one is completely certain of the harm but then is too
late
to
do anything about it.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam. The goodness or badness of a consequence
does not prove the underlying assertion.
That would be true if that is what I was saying. It was not. Let me
clarify
it for you. If there are two courses of action to take and one may prevent
a
negative consequence and the other will not, it is reasonable to take the
former action rather than the latter. Since the underlying assertion is
not
a 100% certainty is it simple prudence to act like it is considering the
possible negative consequences.
This is the same illogic used by lynch mobs: it was a terrible murder,
so we should hang Mr. X. Howenver, the horrific nature of the crime does
not prove Mr. X did it, it very well could have been Mr. Y.
That dog won't hunt. Your analogy isn't even close.
It's really simple. We should proceed as if we are to
blame for the global warming. If we are wrong then no harm is done.
False assertion. The Kyoto accords moves vast amounts of wealth from the
industrialized nations to the 3rd world. History has shown that this
money, more often than not, ends up in the pockets of petty dictators.
False assertion! It is not a fact that following the Kyoto accords will
transfer vast amounts of wealth to the third world. In fact nothing to
date
has done so and it is unlikely anything in the future will either. It's
true
that third world dictators usually skim off any money destined for the
public but there is no evidence that following the Kyoto accords will hand
them billions of dollars of industrialized world money. That is a scare
tactic on the part of business interests. I can't believe you fell for it.
This depleats the wealth of industrialized nations at a time when they
need to help counter the effects of Global warming.
Nobody is depleting the wealth of the industrialized nations. If we did
they
would not be of any use to anyone if they were broken financially. That
will
never happen. The US produces 25% of the worlds pollution. The businesses
that do that don't want to change their ways. They are putting out as much
propaganda as possible to maintain things as they are right now. Sooner or
later they will be forced to change though as the evidence that our
polluting is doing irreparable damage to the environment continues to
mount.
If we
are right then the lives we saved will be our own. Why argue we should
do
nothing and take the chance of doing irreparable harm to the planet?
That's
just plain stupid.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
Wrong. I live in Northern California where it is very hot in the summer.
It's like 100 degrees around here all summer long. The fire dept. comes
around every year and tells everyone to clear a zone free of combustible
materials around their homes of at least 100 feet. That way if a fire
comes
it won't burn your house down. By your logic that is not rational.
Clearing
a space around your home so it won't burn down is the same as taking steps
to make sure we are not making our planet so hot many of us will die. It
is
not an argumentum ad consequentiam. The underlying argument that there is
a
real possible of a bad consequence from not acting is nothing more than a
warning. If you think that is a weak argument then you don't know the
difference between argument and caveat.
Hawke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 11:57:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Anything mankind can do
short term is a drop in the ocean.
Which are also warming & expanding ..
The technology will come for cleaning-up
fossil fuels as it becomes economically advantageous.
The CO2 FROM them is the major problem !!!
Remember the *****
about Freon? All lies and I can prove it.
Nope. Not even with Rush & Faux "news" holding
your hand & whispering in your ear.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
03 Aug 2006 11:54:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Gardner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
04 Aug 2006 09:20:50 AM |
|
|
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
Oh, No..."Top Scientists" say so, so it MUST be true!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Gardner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
04 Aug 2006 07:44:10 AM |
|
|
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Ashmore" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
04 Aug 2006 11:36:59 AM |
|
|
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uiHAg.936$o27.869@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
Most references I have found estimate that human generated CO2 emissions
exceed volcanic emissions by 150 times. In other words volcanoes contribute
about 0.66% of the total. The most generous estimate I found was 3% in this
site: Per Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii and Steve Mattox, University
of North Dakota
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per
year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling
maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15
kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively
increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism
produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made
sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of
Sedimentary Carbonates"
Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and Bornhorst,
T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman, P.W.,
and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens,
Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p. 3-15.
For further reference: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Gardner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
04 Aug 2006 01:10:49 PM |
|
|
"Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MIKAg.8421$ok5.7072@dukeread01...
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uiHAg.936$o27.869@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
Most references I have found estimate that human generated CO2 emissions
exceed volcanic emissions by 150 times. In other words volcanoes
contribute about 0.66% of the total. The most generous estimate I found
was 3% in this site: Per Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii and Steve
Mattox, University of North Dakota
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per
year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling
maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15
kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a
progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97%
coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie,
1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates"
Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and Bornhorst,
T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman,
P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p.
3-15.
For further reference: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
You know, I have a tendency to believe you Glenn, imagine...SOME scientists
ARE full of *****!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hawke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
05 Aug 2006 12:33:28 AM |
|
|
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:J4MAg.3315$gY6.1500@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MIKAg.8421$ok5.7072@dukeread01...
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uiHAg.936$o27.869@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
Most references I have found estimate that human generated CO2 emissions
exceed volcanic emissions by 150 times. In other words volcanoes
contribute about 0.66% of the total. The most generous estimate I found
was 3% in this site: Per Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii and Steve
Mattox, University of North Dakota
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per
year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass
cycling
maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about
2.2X10^15
kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a
(net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a
progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97%
coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie,
1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates"
Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and
Bornhorst,
T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman,
P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p.
3-15.
For further reference: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
You know, I have a tendency to believe you Glenn, imagine...SOME
scientists
ARE full of *****!
That's why it's better to go with what the majority of them say instead of
what a few exceptions say. Which is what the global warming deniers have
been doing along. As long as they can find one or two reputable scientists
that say it doesn't exist they act as if that is the view of the scientific
community. But as many of us have been saying for a long time the majority
of climate related scientists all are in agreement. Man's combusting of
fossil fuels is having an impact on the temperature of the planet. Time to
get on board instead of fighting the facts for political reasons.
Hawke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Gardner" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
05 Aug 2006 09:23:50 AM |
|
|
"Hawke" <desmithe@c-zone.net> wrote in message
news:12d8bcr24af7560@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:J4MAg.3315$gY6.1500@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MIKAg.8421$ok5.7072@dukeread01...
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or
lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uiHAg.936$o27.869@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
Most references I have found estimate that human generated CO2
emissions
exceed volcanic emissions by 150 times. In other words volcanoes
contribute about 0.66% of the total. The most generous estimate I
found
was 3% in this site: Per Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii and Steve
Mattox, University of North Dakota
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per
year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass
cycling
maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about
2.2X10^15
kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a
(net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a
progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97%
coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie,
1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates"
Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and
Bornhorst,
T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman,
P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p.
3-15.
For further reference: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
You know, I have a tendency to believe you Glenn, imagine...SOME
scientists
ARE full of *****!
That's why it's better to go with what the majority of them say instead of
what a few exceptions say. Which is what the global warming deniers have
been doing along. As long as they can find one or two reputable scientists
that say it doesn't exist they act as if that is the view of the
scientific
community. But as many of us have been saying for a long time the majority
of climate related scientists all are in agreement. Man's combusting of
fossil fuels is having an impact on the temperature of the planet. Time to
get on board instead of fighting the facts for political reasons.
Hawke
The "scientists" all know that they only get funding and grants if they
spout the popular retoric. It's already been proven that the computer
models they use as assumptions are wrong. Stay with the times!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hawke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
06 Aug 2006 02:12:12 AM |
|
|
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or
lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uiHAg.936$o27.869@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
Most references I have found estimate that human generated CO2
emissions
exceed volcanic emissions by 150 times. In other words volcanoes
contribute about 0.66% of the total. The most generous estimate I
found
was 3% in this site: Per Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii and
Steve
Mattox, University of North Dakota
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2
per
year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass
cycling
maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about
2.2X10^15
kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a
(net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a
progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of
CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other
97%
coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and
Mackenzie,
1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates"
Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and
Bornhorst,
T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman,
P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250,
p.
3-15.
For further reference: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
You know, I have a tendency to believe you Glenn, imagine...SOME
scientists
ARE full of *****!
That's why it's better to go with what the majority of them say instead
of
what a few exceptions say. Which is what the global warming deniers have
been doing along. As long as they can find one or two reputable
scientists
that say it doesn't exist they act as if that is the view of the
scientific
community. But as many of us have been saying for a long time the
majority
of climate related scientists all are in agreement. Man's combusting of
fossil fuels is having an impact on the temperature of the planet. Time
to
get on board instead of fighting the facts for political reasons.
Hawke
The "scientists" all know that they only get funding and grants if they
spout the popular retoric. It's already been proven that the computer
models they use as assumptions are wrong. Stay with the times!
Hate to break the news to you but the scientific community hasn't put all
its eggs in one basket on global warming. There is a lot more evidence than
simple computer models. In fact the weather is so complicated that even the
best computers are not that valuable, and they know it. It's good old
fashioned science that is what's behind much of the world view on global
warming. There is a lot of science based on observation and experimentation
that is behind what the climatologists say about global warming. Why else do
you think so many scientists from so many different places are all saying
similar things? Someone paying them all?
Hawke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
06 Aug 2006 12:52:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:23:50 GMT, "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
The "scientists" all know that they only get funding and grants if they
spout the popular retoric.
And global warming is VERY popular with the neocons, right?
It's already been proven that the computer
models they use as assumptions are wrong.
Oh? Sez who?
BTW, Computer models are NOT assumptions.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
05 Aug 2006 06:19:19 PM |
|
|
Hawke wrote:
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:J4MAg.3315$gY6.1500@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MIKAg.8421$ok5.7072@dukeread01...
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uiHAg.936$o27.869@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
Most references I have found estimate that human generated CO2 emissions
exceed volcanic emissions by 150 times. In other words volcanoes
contribute about 0.66% of the total. The most generous estimate I found
was 3% in this site: Per Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii and Steve
Mattox, University of North Dakota
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per
year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass
cycling
maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about
2.2X10^15
kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a
(net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a
progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97%
coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie,
1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates"
Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and
Bornhorst,
T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman,
P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p.
3-15.
For further reference: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
You know, I have a tendency to believe you Glenn, imagine...SOME
scientists
ARE full of *****!
That's why it's better to go with what the majority of them say instead of
what a few exceptions say. Which is what the global warming deniers have
been doing along. As long as they can find one or two reputable scientists
that say it doesn't exist they act as if that is the view of the scientific
community. But as many of us have been saying for a long time the majority
of climate related scientists all are in agreement. Man's combusting of
fossil fuels is having an impact on the temperature of the planet. Time to
get on board instead of fighting the facts for political reasons.
Hawke
Consensus is for people who can't understand the subject themselves;
people who need to be told what to think. Appeal to consensus is a well
known logical fallacy.
Worse, it isn't even true that there is consensus.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
"More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist
Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database
for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change"
produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she
referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny
Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928
articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913
explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually
opposed it."
Most of the claims about consensus seem to be due to bad methods, and
probably intentional lies.
So, this consensus argument is not only a logical fallacy, it isn't even
true. Amusing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hawke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
06 Aug 2006 06:03:50 PM |
|
|
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LaOdnWFIhPqYzUjZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Hawke wrote:
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:J4MAg.3315$gY6.1500@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MIKAg.8421$ok5.7072@dukeread01...
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or
lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uiHAg.936$o27.869@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
Most references I have found estimate that human generated CO2
emissions
exceed volcanic emissions by 150 times. In other words volcanoes
contribute about 0.66% of the total. The most generous estimate I
found
was 3% in this site: Per Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii and Steve
Mattox, University of North Dakota
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per
year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass
cycling
maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about
2.2X10^15
kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a
(net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a
progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97%
coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie,
1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates"
Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and
Bornhorst,
T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman,
P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p.
3-15.
For further reference: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
You know, I have a tendency to believe you Glenn, imagine...SOME
scientists
ARE full of *****!
That's why it's better to go with what the majority of them say instead
of
what a few exceptions say. Which is what the global warming deniers have
been doing along. As long as they can find one or two reputable
scientists
that say it doesn't exist they act as if that is the view of the
scientific
community. But as many of us have been saying for a long time the
majority
of climate related scientists all are in agreement. Man's combusting of
fossil fuels is having an impact on the temperature of the planet. Time
to
get on board instead of fighting the facts for political reasons.
Hawke
Consensus is for people who can't understand the subject themselves;
people who need to be told what to think. Appeal to consensus is a well
known logical fallacy.
Worse, it isn't even true that there is consensus.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
"More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist
Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database
for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change"
produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she
referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny
Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928
articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913
explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually
opposed it."
Most of the claims about consensus seem to be due to bad methods, and
probably intentional lies.
So, this consensus argument is not only a logical fallacy, it isn't even
true. Amusing.
So are you willing to say that if the scientific community has a consensus
on global warming it is that there is no such thing? It is one way or the
other. Either the majority of scientists say the planet is warming and they
believe it is caused by man or the majority thinks there is no global
warming and everything is within normal weather cycles. So which is it? On
which side of the issue do most climate experts stand? I know the answer but
you seem confused.
Hawke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - The Republican War on Science |
08 Aug 2006 09:05:07 PM |
|
|
Hawke wrote:
"Stuart Grey" <stuart.grey@mapson.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LaOdnWFIhPqYzUjZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Hawke wrote:
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:J4MAg.3315$gY6.1500@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MIKAg.8421$ok5.7072@dukeread01...
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or
lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:uiHAg.936$o27.869@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nnk5d2pmnqhpj71bqcfgl0sb02u1cqb97m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:52 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
<tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
Top Scientists reported that Mt. Saint
Helens spewed more CO2 than man has in 50 years.
That's yet another quite blatent winger lie.
So was some of the rest of it <g>.
--
Cliff
PROVE IT!
Most references I have found estimate that human generated CO2
emissions
exceed volcanic emissions by 150 times. In other words volcanoes
contribute about 0.66% of the total. The most generous estimate I
found
was 3% in this site: Per Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii and Steve
Mattox, University of North Dakota
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per
year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass
cycling
maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about
2.2X10^15
kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a
(net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a
progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97%
coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie,
1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates"
Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and
Bornhorst,
T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman,
P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p.
3-15.
For further reference: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
You know, I have a tendency to believe you Glenn, imagine...SOME
scientists
ARE full of *****!
That's why it's better to go with what the majority of them say instead
of
what a few exceptions say. Which is what the global warming deniers have
been doing along. As long as they can find one or two reputable
scientists
that say it doesn't exist they act as if that is the view of the
scientific
community. But as many of us have been saying for a long time the
majority
of climate related scientists all are in agreement. Man's combusting of
fossil fuels is having an impact on the temperature of the planet. Time
to
get on board instead of fighting the facts for political reasons.
Hawke
Consensus is for people who can't understand the subject themselves;
people who need to be told what to think. Appeal to consensus is a well
known logical fallacy.
Worse, it isn't even true that there is consensus.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
"More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist
Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database
for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change"
produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she
referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny
Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928
articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913
explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually
opposed it."
Most of the claims about consensus seem to be due to bad methods, and
probably intentional lies.
So, this consensus argument is not only a logical fallacy, it isn't even
true. Amusing.
So are you willing to say that if the scientific community has a consensus
on global warming it is that there is no such thing? It is one way or the
other. Either the majority of scientists say the planet is warming and they
believe it is caused by man or the majority thinks there is no global
warming and everything is within normal weather cycles. So which is it? On
which side of the issue do most climate experts stand? I know the answer but
you seem confused.
Read it again, you illiterate jackass. I said not only is your argument
a fallacy, it's also based on a damned lie.
What part of "Appeal to consensus is a well known logical fallacy...
Worse, it isn't even true that there is consensus." were you too fucking
stupid to understand?
You do understand when I call you a jackass, don't you? I've made the
case you're a jackass by pointing out all the fallacies that you've
gibbered and then by pointing out that you can't even read for
comprehension. Are you really this goddamned stupid, or has your
behavior never advanced beyond that of a bratty juvenile ***** who is
still being difficult?
I'm tired of dealing with you, because you're a damned lying moron who
can't even read.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
