1651 replies to this topic

[Unrequited Lust]

jjf3's consistent inability to distinguish between a prediction like religious Mayan eschatology and modern peer reviewed science is infuriating. I continually try to explain to him the fundamental differences between the two, basically fantasy vs. reality or opinion vs. fact, but to no avail.

Peer review is not a complement of science, it is a component of it. jjf3 is not a religious fundamentalist so he shouldn't reject methodological naturalism. Yet he does. He twists facts to suit his own worldview and makes up facts of his own. It's ridiculous. This forum is not to be a joke to a casual passerby or someone who's thinking about joining. jjf3 MUST understand that there exists objectivity.

[jjf3]

Your not getting what I am saying do you? These people that I mentioned were LAUGHED at in their faces for thinking about things the way they thought about things. If nobody gave them a change their ideas would have remained ideas. Just like what is happening to the experiments or scientists wanting to escape the norm today. It's all throughout history.

Global Warming might as well be a religion, why? It's in a new Godless religion with Carbon as the devil rightfully called Eco-theology.

Here are SOME contradictions in this Eco-Theology.

Religious: You must believe the facts, the science is settled!!! Scientific: Maybe we were wrong lets just see what you have to say. We are open to other theories. Science is never settled.

Religious: When Global Warming destroys the world one day you will be sorry. Scientific: When exactly will the world end due to global warming? How much is being caused by us? Can we do anything to stop it?

Religious: You must take the facts literally!!!! Scientific: But the weather was warmer during the times of the dinosaurs and climate had thousands of times more c02. Religious: Dinosaurs aren't in the bible!!!

Religious: Worship the IPCC Scientific report: The IPCC used fraudulent information.

Religious: We need the Church (government)! Scientific: There are plenty of companies out there that do not need government help to fund their research, projects, or ideas! The tech community is known for its environmental causes.

Religious: Global Warming Exists 100%, Scientific: The Sun can be responsible as well Religious: Heretics/Propaganda!!!

Religious: The world will have peace and utopia once everyone does what we say. Scientific: How exactly will we achieve this?

Tell me if I am sooo stupid and all of my ideas are dumb why are you trying to get a dumb person to believe in your claims? As far as I am aware no science does this, Religion on the other hand has a bunch of idiots worshiping blindly

[jjf3]

jjf3's consistent inability to distinguish between a prediction like religious Mayan eschatology and modern peer reviewed science is infuriating. I continually try to explain to him the fundamental differences between the two, basically fantasy vs. reality or opinion vs. fact, but to no avail.

Peer review is not a complement of science, it is a component of it. jjf3 is not a religious fundamentalist so he shouldn't reject methodological naturalism. Yet he does. He twists facts to suit his own worldview and makes up facts of his own. It's ridiculous. This forum is not to be a joke to a casual passerby or someone who's thinking about joining. jjf3 MUST understand that there exists objectivity.

I just don't understand why you ppl try to make us non-believers believe in something we don't want to believe in. I never said I hate the environment, let's cause massive oil spills, throw garbage everywhere, and destroy all the trees. You really are twisting what I am trying to say too much. What is the worst possible thing that could happen if I don't believe in global warming? If it turns out to destroy the world I will be wrong? I just can't believe how many people don't see the fear-mongering as I've outlined perfectly clear in my previous post.

If you haven't figured it out now, I question pretty much everything that the mainstream media says and even some scientific norms/theories. My Global Warming denying which I admit is very strong, should be of no surprise. I wonder when questioning things turned into being called an idiot.

[jjf3]

BTW for those that will take my Eco-theology post way too seriously. Learn how to take a joke!!!! It's a comparison of religion and global warming in a funny/unique way. But if you bash it then you'll be no different than the tea party flat-earthers who believe that the world is 6000 years old (I don't think anybody believes that). "Oh How Dare I talk about global warming in such a way."

[wjfox]

I wonder when questioning things turned into being called an idiot.

When you outright deny things that are regarded as "settled facts" by the National Academy of Sciences (along with literally every other national science institution in the world), then don't be surprised if people become enraged by your ignorance.

Settled facts:-

Gravity
Evolution
The Earth isn't flat
Global warming
etc. ...

Scientists might question a few minor points, but the basic fundamentals are settled.

[Craven]

I just don't understand why you ppl try to make us non-believers believe in something we don't want to believe in.

You still mix beliefs and religion with evidence and science.
Global warming is about facts and evidence you just joyfully ignore.

[jjf3]

Why should I believe it sooo much? How will we achieve utopia by fighting climate change? How will we convert everyone into electric cars???

And why do YOU throw out all of my articles/facts about global warming. Yes that one last post wasn't factual but all of my others and ROH's was/is.

[Craven]

And again you use word believe. What is your malfunction?

[jjf3]

Can I still Choose to believe a scientific theory? Or is that not allowed anymore?

[Craven]

Am I using swahili here? You don't believe in science! That's the whole point. You can believe in unicorns, not in gravity.

[wjfox]

Why should I believe it sooo much?

Because:
(a) there is mountains of peer-reviewed scientific evidence,
(b) inaction and refusal to acknowledge the problem will lead to an environmental catastrophe.

How will we achieve utopia by fighting climate change?

Massive deployment of solar and other renewables, which will also create millions of new jobs, and cheaper energy. Carbon capture and sequestration, e.g. with artificial trees. New technologies to improve energy efficiency and sustainability, saving billions of dollars. New farming techniques to improve crop yields and make them more drought resistant, etc.

It's a win-win. Why on earth would you be against this? It's completely irrational. You don't even need to involve the government to achieve it. For example, solar will reach grid parity within a few years.

How will we convert everyone into electric cars???

The market will take care of it.

Can I still Choose to believe a scientific theory? Or is that not allowed anymore?

You can choose not to. I believe that's called a "self-delusion".

Also, you should know that scientific "theories" are also "facts". See for example - http://en.wikipedia....theory_and_fact

[jjf3]

All of the solutions are just ideas and/or impracticable at this point in time. Besides for solar, and I like solar. They are great intentions but how will they be implemented?

New Technologies, New Farming techniques, New artificial trees I still don't see how this will lead to peace on Earth and no wars drug abuse rapes murders greed etc.... Artificial trees? What's wrong with the trees we can easily plant? Oh that's right we can control C02 with those and make profit off them.

How do you not see the fear mongering and the profit making?

[Craven]

I still don't see how this will lead to peace on Earth and no wars drug abuse rapes murders greed etc....

On previous page you spewed bullshit about everyone dying in 20 years. wjfox asked you where did you read that. You didn't answer. Now you're spewing another bullshit. Will you stop?

How do you not see the fear mongering and the profit making?

How do you not see diffrence between facts and beliefs?

[jjf3]

Ok I was exaggerating on the other post wow nobody does that do they? Pro-Earthers are always spewing stuff about making the world a better place with less pollution, less cars less garbage. Which is all fine, but the Global Warming theory states that if we don't act now the world will be destroyed. When we change our ways everything will be perfect and beautiful.

[Craven]

No. Global warming indicates that if we don't act soon, changes will be irreversible (on scale of millenia) and possibly lethal to many humans and larger lifeforms. World recovered from planetary disasters many times.

[jjf3]

Well, I guess I was wrong about having an open debate here on the global warming section.

[wjfox]

Well, I guess I was wrong about having an open debate here on the global warming section.

What is there to debate?

Please use peer-reviewed facts and evidence, rather than childish exaggerations that you've invented yourself.

[jjf3]

You won't except any of my links, articles, or facts as real science so there really is no debate. lolz.

[Roh234]

Roh, we're never going to agree on this since my source and your source display different amounts. And I bet you there will be 1000 other sources that don't agree either. But trust me when I say that last year was the damned most wettest year for New York. ACTUALLY, I'm convinced that 2011, this year, will be the wettest. It rained almost every day the entire summer. It's still raining and it's almost October! Every freakin' day, it rains. It rained today. It rained last night. I can't even mow my damn lawn. The mosquitoes are SO BAD this year.

I have no idea if that website supports Climate change.......

From the NASA website -

http://climate.nasa.....cfm#globalTemp

2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, globally.





CO2 levels are growing exponentially -

http://climate.nasa....s/index.cfm#co2








We are clearly responsible for it -

http://www.skeptical...print.php?n=100





And there is mountains of evidence to show that the impacts will be devastating for life on Earth -

http://thinkprogress...arming-impacts/

There is a strong correlation between human industrial output and these multiple environmental impacts.
To deny evidence like this is just insanity, plain and simple - especially when there is such a strong consensus among researchers.

Why take the chance ??????

From the UK Met office.


http://wattsupwithth...nce/#more-47885

http://wattsupwithth...ury/#more-46794

I have more.

100% consensus among all major national and international science academies is good enough for me.

Local temperatures have very little relevance to overall climate change btw.

The 2007 IPCC Report represents the consensus
view of “2500 of the world’s top scientists”
• Were those 2500 asked if they support the conclusions?
• No.
• How many were involved writing the summary conclusions?
• About 30
• How many worked on Vol. 1 Chapter 9 (the key chapter)?
• Authors: 56
• Independent Reviewers: 17
• Government Reviewers: 8
• Canadian government review comments: 0
• Number of reviewers who specifically endorsed conclusions: 5
• % Rejected Comments, Ch 9, 2
nd
draft: 58.1%


The 2007 IPCC Report represents the consensus
view of “2500 of the world’s top scientists”
• Was the report re-written after the close of scientific review?
YES, 3 times. None of these re-writes went through scientific
review.
• Scientific review closed in June 2006
• Modified draft submitted to governments in October 2006
• New draft sent to governments in December 2006
• Summary for Policymakers written/published in February 2007
• Report draft re-written again between February and May 2007
• Published version: May 2007


The Royal Society/Meteorological
Society/Academy of Science etc. has
issued a statement supporting the idea
of anthropogenic global warming
• Was the statement put to a membership vote?
• No. None of them have been voted on.
• How many members would support the statement if
allowed to vote?
• There’s only one way to find out.


Only a handful of qualified scientists
disagree with the IPCC
• Has anyone actually done a survey?
• Yes: Bray and von Storch (2003) surveyed 530 climate
modelers around the world
• “To what extent is GW mostly caused by humans?”
• On scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree) mean
response = 3.62
• Results “question [the claim] that the majority of scientists agree
with the IPCC”
• http://dvsun3.gkss.d...KSS_2007_11.pdf

[truthiness]

There is no conspiracy amongst the world's scientists to hush up opposing views. Scientists can and are examining the role that the sun and water vapor and cosmic rays and volcanoes and Al Gore's jet have on our climate. They've found correlations between each of these. The sun can cause warming and cooling, so can water vapor and volcanoes, and even Al Gore's contrails. But so can carbon dioxide. That's what is important here. Just because the sun can cause cyclical warming and cooling or because Mt Pinatubo can cool the planet doesn't mean that carbon dioxide can't or doesn't. Carbon emissions (among other man-made emissions) are one of many contributing factors that have the ability to alter the planet's overall temperature and affect climate change.

The only real debate that might exist is by how much will an elevated level of carbon dioxide warm the planet, and how soon will the effect take place (scientists attempt to answer these through computer modeling and through data from ice cores and direct observations over the last 150 years), and the consensus that is emerging is that warming will continue at an accelerating pace as long as we keep pouring more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Low end estimates place warming in the range of 3 degrees C by the end of the century - that's globally, in places like the Arctic it will be much higher... high end estimates place warming around 7 degrees C. That is a wide gap, and is in many ways the difference between a livable world and a largely uninhabitable one.

To argue that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas is folly. It is. That much is settled. Now we're down to the details.