Scientist, engineer and all around smart guy uncovers Global Warming Hoax

[brenthutch 444]

"I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn’t share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked."

http://www.cfact.org/a/2169/Globaloney-exposed-from-outer-space

[Marinus 0]

I wonder how many of the climate skeptics are also creationists. I suspect the (positive) correlation between the two is significant. They sound very similar for starters.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

I wonder how many of the climate skeptics are also creationists. For some reason I think the (positive) correlation between the two is significant. They sound similar.

Canard / Straw man. No point.

[davjohns 1]

I remember when I was young and all the science magazines were printing articles about the coming ice age. It's really hard to get too excited about this topic, for me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Canard / Straw man. No point.

Actually, if climate skeptics often turn out to be creationists like I expect them too be, it means that climate skeptics are generally people who aren't capable of understanding basic science. That would be an interesting thing to know, don't you think.

[davjohns 1]

That's a non-sequitur and just insulting. You are saying that if people don't think like you, they don't think.

Most scientists throughout history firmly believed in God and creationism. Research Sir Isaac Newton. The guy was so devoted to his church that he missed Sunday services once in his life, by order of the Queen. He clearly considered his research merely exploring God's laws and creation. According to you, Sir Isaac Newton was incapable of understanding basic science.

Gregor Mendel (Father of Modern Genetics) was a Friar. What do you think he believed? Do you think he was incapable of grasping basic science?

Want to take a quick peek into Thomas Jefferson's story? Was he also scientifically illiterate?

Like I said...non-sequitur. But it does show an interesting and illogical bias on your part.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

That's a non-sequitur and just insulting. You are saying that if people don't think like you, they don't think.

Most scientists throughout history firmly believed in God and creationism. Research Sir Isaac Newton. The guy was so devoted to his church that he missed Sunday services once in his life, by order of the Queen. He clearly considered his research merely exploring God's laws and creation. According to you, Sir Isaac Newton was incapable of understanding basic science.

Gregor Mendel (Father of Modern Genetics) was a Friar. What do you think he believed? Do you think he was incapable of grasping basic science?

Want to take a quick peek into Thomas Jefferson's story? Was he also scientifically illiterate?

Like I said...non-sequitur. But it does show an interesting and illogical bias on your part.

I see it as more purposeful

They are losing the argument so they demonize the skeptics and alter the premise of the debate (all the while using muted PA's)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

This has been a big problem. It's nothing new. The AngliaCRU hack led to investigations that revealed/confirmed that the climate science community is not forthright with data.

Marinus - take a look at the Oxburgh report. It calls climate science a secretive clique. Ruttan's comments? The climate science community has brought the suspicion on itself BECAUSE of the secrecy. I wonder how many people who think that Mitt Romney should reveal his tax returns and bank statements don't think climate scientists should have to turn over raw data to people who are just looking for something wrong. And like it or not, that raw data has more to do with government policy around the world that Romney's tax deductions.

I hope that climate science has heeded the advice given and become more open with their data and has become more multidisciplinary.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

That's a non-sequitur and just insulting. You are saying that if people don't think like you, they don't think.

Most scientists throughout history firmly believed in God and creationism. Research Sir Isaac Newton. The guy was so devoted to his church that he missed Sunday services once in his life, by order of the Queen. He clearly considered his research merely exploring God's laws and creation. According to you, Sir Isaac Newton was incapable of understanding basic science.

Gregor Mendel (Father of Modern Genetics) was a Friar. What do you think he believed? Do you think he was incapable of grasping basic science?

Want to take a quick peek into Thomas Jefferson's story? Was he also scientifically illiterate?

Like I said...non-sequitur. But it does show an interesting and illogical bias on your part.

Unfortunately this seems to be an attitude that is all to prevalent among the left. I really don't know what could ever be done to bring about peace. I have no problem at all if the people on the left want to live their own way -- I DO have a problem that they insist the people on the right live their way too...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Marinus 0]

It's funny how you use examples of scientists from times before the Theory of Evolution wasn't proven to be right beyond any reasonable doubt. I guess that's because contemporary scientists who deny evolution happened are much harder to find. But you've go a point there, not all creationists are idiots.

But modern creationists in the developed world are ignorant fools that are on par with flat earthers. Not because they don't think like me, but because they deny something, that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, happened.

Creationism is not a scientific alternative for evolution, it's religious bogus.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

They are losing the argument so they demonize the skeptics and alter the premise of the debate

Demonize? That must be your persecution complex. To demonize, is to to make someone, or a group of people appear to be evil.

stupid =/= evil.

And judging from the tone your topics on this subject usually have, it's a bit hypocritical to complain when the pleasantries are returned. You're more or less asking for it.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

I have no problem at all if the people on the left want to live their own way -- I DO have a problem that they insist the people on the right live their way too...

So by calling creationists stupid, I force them to accept the Theory of Evolution? Are you Christian? I'm asking because persecution complex is a common sign of Christianity.

[wmw999 2,576]

Quote

I have no problem at all if the people on the left want to live their own way -- I DO have a problem that they insist the people on the right live their way too...

One problem with this way of stating things is that "living their way" sometimes means "tolerating their decisions," such as acceptance of homosexuality.

No one is forcing social conservatives to include gays in their churches and social circles. No one is forcing them to become gay. However, if the society at large wants it to be acceptable behavior, then social conservatives are going to have to look at evidence that this behavior exists sometimes.

Just as social liberals have to look at Amish, Baptists, and Mormons .

If social conservatives want their own country, the US might not be the right one. What's "conservative" has changed over the years, of course. Used to be that "conservative" meant that women didn't work or vote, that children were employees, and that safety was the employees' problem, not the owner's. That's just the way life was. It's changed since then, and will continue to change. Some people will fight against some changes, and hopefully not all changes will continue.

Me, I'm getting kind of sick of looking at pants that are belted below the ass .

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[davjohns 1]

Don't get me started on 'reasonable doubt'. I'm an attorney.

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Agent K

At the beginning of the 20th century, many scientists believed that just about all knowledge of the physical world had been obtained...oops.

There were no eye witnesses to creationism or evolution. There are no videos, pictures, written accounts by persons in attendance, etc. There will always be reasonable doubt. Neither can be reproduced or demonstrated before me. I see no reason to say anything has been proven beyond any kind of doubt. I doubt we have any clue how we got here. Give it another few hundred years and see what happens. I've studied enough history to know that even things that should be objective fact are interpreted by historians, viewed through personal prisms and argued hotly. How much more so when the subject is an unprovable theory on events that came to pass before time began as we know it?

People who question things do not worry me nearly as much as people who 'know' things beyond all reasonable doubt. Religious zealots 'know' things beyond all reasonable doubt.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

I agree with the original assertion to an extent and with a modification. There are people of all socio-political persuassions that insist on pushing their beliefs on others. It is hardly omni-present or restricted to one end of the spectrum. I can't stand the practice even if the person's views were identical to mine. I would likely argue with the person for fun.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Marinus 0]

I've actually more reservations with the whole controversy than it looks like. I'm in a more or less agnostic position, going with the consensus of people who's say is significant in the matter, like climatologists. Right now most agree the climate is changing, and most of those agree it's (partly) because humans change the atmosphere.

Is it fair to toss climate skeptics on the same heap as creationists? I'll admit it's not completely fair, because evolution is much better understood. But ignoring the scientific consensus, or worse claiming it's all a conspiracy, is not very wise.

[oldwomanc6 60]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many of the climate skeptics are also creationists. For some reason I think the (positive) correlation between the two is significant. They sound similar.

Canard / Straw man. No point.

Canard Was that on purpose, or just a funny accidental choice of words?

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[brenthutch 444]

"I wonder how many people who think that Mitt Romney should reveal his tax returns and bank statements don't think climate scientists should have to turn over raw data to people who are just looking for something wrong. And like it or not, that raw data has more to do with government policy around the world that Romney's tax deductions."


This gem of thought bears repeating. +1

[DanG 1]

Quote

I remember when I was young and all the science magazines were printing articles about the coming ice age.

I think you misremember. There was one study that suggested an ice age was coming. It was picked up by some of the mainstream media in the 70s. The idea really took off, though, when climate change skeptics started repeating it ad nauseum in more recent times.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

We are talking about Burt Rutan after all!

[billvon 3,098]

Coal and nuclear power plants are in on the hoax too!

==============================
Climate change challenges power plant operations

BOULDER CITY, NEV. — Drought and rising temperatures are forcing water managers across the country to scramble for ways to produce the same amount of power from the hydroelectric grid with less water, including from behemoths such as the Hoover Dam.

Hydropower is not the only part of the nation’s energy system that appears increasingly vulnerable to the impact of climate change, as low water levels affect coal-fired and nuclear power plants’ operations and impede the passage of coal barges along the Mississippi River.

“We’re trying to manage a changing climate, its impact on water supplies and our ability to generate power, all at once,” said Michael L. Connor, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Interior Department’s water-management agency. Producing electricity accounts for at least 40 percent of water use in the United States.

Warmer and drier summers mean less water is available to cool nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants. The Millstone nuclear plant in Waterford, Conn., had to shut down one of its reactors in mid-August because the water it drew from the Long Island Sound was too warm to cool critical equipment outside the core. A twin-unit nuclear plant in Braidwood, Ill., needed to get special permission to continue operating this summer because the temperature in its cooling-water pond rose to 102 degrees, four degrees above its normal limit; another Midwestern plant stopped operating temporarily because its water-intake pipes ended up on dry ground from the prolonged drought.
================================

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Don't get me started on 'reasonable doubt'. I'm an attorney.

And being an attorney is very usefull in discussions about evolution because....?

Quote

There were no eye witnesses to creationism or evolution. There are no videos, pictures, written accounts by persons in attendance, etc. There will always be reasonable doubt. Neither can be reproduced or demonstrated before me. I see no reason to say anything has been proven beyond any kind of doubt. I doubt we have any clue how we got here.

Meanwhile, in 2012 proof in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Not only from fosil record, geographic distribution of life, genetics etc. etc. we have seen it happening around us. Bacteria became resistant to antibiotics, for example, during the last decades. Not only does evolution happen, due to the way our kind of life reproduces, it's bound to happen.

Quote

People who question things do not worry me nearly as much as people who 'know' things beyond all reasonable doubt. Religious zealots 'know' things beyond all reasonable doubt.

There are two trees standing in front of my house. Those could be real or a very persistent hallucination I happen to share with everyone I know. Am I akin to a religious zealot for believing those trees are real beyond any reasonable doubt? To me evolution is similar. Is there a chance that evolution is nonsense, that it's the result of a world wide conspiracy or something? Yes, there is, however that's extremely unlikely. Neglect-able unless someone comes with very convincing evidence that tells otherwise

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It's funny how you use examples of scientists from times before the Theory of Evolution wasn't proven to be right beyond any reasonable doubt

Okay. Then let's talk about George LeMaitre. You know who he is? He was an ordained priest who was the first to posit the idea of a primeval atom and an expanding universe. Other physicists were outraged by it - because it was a priest who was theorizing about a moment of creation.

Meanwhile, the thought was that the universe was static. Some priest talking about a moment of creation? Some "Big Bang," as Fred Hoyle called it?

I have little doubt that had LeMaitre not been an abbe, he would have been taken more seriously. And - no doubt - he would be FAR better known.

How's that?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Climate change challenges power plant operations

BOULDER CITY, NEV. — Drought and rising temperatures

It may be a boon, as well. After all, climate change also causes floods and colder temperature.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

And what does that have to do with climate scientists not disclosing their raw data?