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

[davjohns 1]

Give it up, Jerry. Look at his last post. He clearly thinks that training in logical thought is not useful in a debate, even while using the term '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.

[brenthutch 444]

http://notrickszone.com/2012/09/10/german-academy-of-sciences-and-engineering-calls-off-climate-ctatstrophe-coping-will-not-be-a-problem/

More science!


"No climate conditions are going to occur here that already do not exist on the globe elsewhere and that we cannot cope with.”

"Worse for the climate alarmists, the report goes on to say that warming will even bring benefits along with it, such as longer growing seasons and reduced wintertime heating costs. Readers should note that typical Germans heat their homes about 8 months per year."

"Now we know that for some people bedwetting is a tough habit to break, and so we hope this latest news will help put some of the less chronic among us on the path to recovery."

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

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?

He had a theory but couldn't prove it which Hubble could, not the first time it has happened that someone else gets credit for something someone else invented first. Also Hubble was an American and Lemaître European. Also Friedmann came up with some of the theories Lemaître later came up with.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[skypuppy 1]

why do you keep talking about evolution? I thought we were talking about climate change and global warming?

And to tell the truth, I really thought the big deal about the climate change controversy was how major or minor it is on a universal scale, how to deal with it, and whether it is worth major or minor changes in our economy, not whether it was happening.

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]

Quote

He clearly thinks that training in logical thought is not useful in a debate

I'm not sure whether you're lying or whether you demonstrate your inability in "logical thought" Implying that being an attorney isn't very useful when discussing evolution, isn't the same as implying that training in logical thought isn't useful in a debate.

Quote

even while using the term 'reasonable doubt'.

Actually I used the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" meaning that there's like a 99,99999999% chance that evolution is true, and that while there is a small change it isn't true, that change can be ignored because it's practically 0 anyway. So?

[Marinus 0]

Quote

More science!

I suspect you don't really understand that concept.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

More science!

I suspect you don't really understand that concept.

"Now we know that for some people bedwetting is a tough habit to break, and so we hope this latest news will help put some of the less chronic among us on the path to recovery."

I suspect you need some Pampers.

[Marinus 0]

Well, at least I'm not the one that's trying to prove Global Warming is a hoax by quoting an article that claims that the effects of global warming won't be too severe in Germany.

[brenthutch 444]

I would refer you to the original post.
If the science was robust and could withstand REAL scrutiny climate scientists would be tripping over themselves to release the raw data.
My hunch is that the observed rise in global temperatures at the end of the last century was an observation in search of a theory; thus begot the new theory of AGW. Hair was set alight and many scientists, policy makers and financiers, started to line up at the potential trough. However when reality no longer comported with theory, reality had to be adjusted, corrected and have "value added". Releasing the raw data would expose the game and the whole field of climate science as well as the political and financial windfalls of carbon trading would fall flat on their collective faces.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Actually I used the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" meaning that there's like a 99,99999999% chance that evolution is true

I think the problem for most people is when those who espouse evolution want to become preachers all of a sudden and use the theory against the existence of God...

Richard Dawkins: We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 3,092]

Your one warning.

[ianmdrennan 2]

I don't think you can use the Theory of evolution against God. No one can make that claim. Of course you can't use it FOR God either.

The religious problem seems to arise when science refutes fundamental religious 'facts'. I'm certainly more inclined to believe science over religion.

The Dalai Lama has a great view on the seemingly conflicting worlds IMO. Granted, it's in reference to Buddhism but I believe the approach still stands:

Quote

Dalai Lama : If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

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.

Without a doubt humans do influence the planet's ecology, but I am a skeptic that humans are solely responsible for our ever changing climate and I thoroughly believe in evolution. In fact I believe in evolution so much that I have a strong belief that life on this planet will continue to evolve for billions and billions more years up until the point when that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles from us burns up. Only when that great big ball in the sky begins it's path to it's end will life on this planet cease to exist.

Yes I believe in evolution. But my question to you is, with your obvious "Climate Change" religious beliefs, why have you given up on evolution? Do you honestly believe live on this planet is about to end? Good grief ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I don't think you can use the Theory of evolution against God.

I know, that's why I said it's a problem when people attempt to do just that.

Quote

Of course you can't use it FOR God either.

Don't have to...we live by faith. To me, the idea of an intelligent being who possesses control of all things agrees with me to the point that I cannot possibly deny it

Quote

science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality.

Christianity is a search for the truth and understanding of God and spirituality...it has nothing to do with science and understanding the physical.

Explaining self replicating molecules to neolithic Jews in captivity would have been meaningless...just as it is meaningless today for those who seek God in their escape from carnal slavery.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jakee 1,582]

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.

Talk about non-sequitur!

Of what relevance is it to anything else that some smart people did not believe in evolution before there was a theory of evolution?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,582]

Quote

I see it as more purposeful

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

What, you mean like how skeptics demonise the global warming movement as simply an immense conspiracy to defraud the public coffers?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Christianity is a search for the truth and understanding of God and spirituality...it has nothing to do with science and understanding the physical.

God, if it exists, is fundamentally tied to the physical. After all they supposedly created it.

Quote

just as it is meaningless today for those who seek God in their escape from carnal slavery.

You're assuming, incorrectly, that everyone seeks to find the same as you in religion. It may be irrelevant to you since you chose to keep a narrow view but those of us who seek greater spiritual understanding cannot ignore the physical world and knowledge/understanding thereof.

Blindly following faith/feelings even when presented with facts contradicting those beliefs, is foolhardy IMO,

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

He had a theory but couldn't prove it which Hubble could

Hubble didn't prove it. The smoking gun was cosmic microwave radiation, which was demonstrated by Penzias and Wilson in, I think, 1964. That's fact. And Fred Hoyle went to his grave 40 years later denying it because he was a steady state

Copernicus also had a theory that he couldn't prove. Not until there was an instrument created called the telescope could it be proven. Copernicus thought it up. Galileo proved it.

Copernicus - Galileo is like LeMaitre - Penzius and Wilson. Forget Hubble - he proved expansion of the universe. Not that there was a beginning singularity.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,582]

Quote

"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

Problem with movie quotes is that although they often sound good, they are more concerned with sounding good than being accurate. For instance, the circumference of the earth was known to within a few percent hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.

In fact, the thing that your quote actually demonstrates is the gulf in ignorance between people who just assume (the creationists) and the people who bother to figure stuff out (the scientists).

Quote

There were no eye witnesses to creationism or evolution. There are no videos, pictures, written accounts by persons in attendance, etc.

You think that would be better evidence for evolution than the scientific, reproducible evidence that we do have? That is a scary thought

Quote

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.

This is just demonstrating that you haven't studied the subject.

Quote

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.

And human history does need to be interpreted, largely because eyewitnesses suck and written accounts are unreliable. So why you would demand them in place of good scientific data I have absolutely no idea.

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.

Scientists do question things. That's how shit gets figured out.

It's people who deny that you can actually use a scientific method to gain knowledge that are baffling. You might as well start trying to walk through walls on the offchance they're not really there.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,582]

Quote

Yes I believe in evolution. But my question to you is, with your obvious "Climate Change" religious beliefs, why have you given up on evolution? Do you honestly believe live on this planet is about to end?

So when did he say that?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[livendive 8]

That's a pretty entertaining web page. Theoretically pro-environment, but don't anti-rain forest, climate change skeptic, in favor of killing endangered speciens, opposed to cap & trade. Basically it's an anti-environment webpage that tries to dress itself up in pro-environment words. lol

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Coreece 190]

Quote

You're assuming, incorrectly, that everyone seeks to find the same as you in religion.

Wrong...you're incorrectly assuming, as well as with the rest of your post.

Quote

It may be irrelevant to you since you chose to keep a narrow view but those of us who seek greater spiritual understanding cannot ignore the physical world and knowledge/understanding thereof.

I do not ignore science nor do I find it irrelevant when trying to understand the physical.

You people really can't help yourselves can you...you always have to make it personal.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[rushmc 23]

Back at ya

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

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

Quote

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.

Without a doubt humans do influence the planet's ecology, but I am a skeptic that humans are solely responsible for our ever changing climate and I thoroughly believe in evolution. In fact I believe in evolution so much that I have a strong belief that life on this planet will continue to evolve for billions and billions more years up until the point when that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles from us burns up. Only when that great big ball in the sky begins it's path to it's end will life on this planet cease to exist.

Yes I believe in evolution. But my question to you is, with your obvious "Climate Change" religious beliefs, why have you given up on evolution? Do you honestly believe live on this planet is about to end? Good grief ...

I don't think anyone reasonable is arguing that humans can drive this planet to a point where it can no longer sustain life at all. The worst we could do is get it to a point where it can no longer sustain human life, but after that point, life will eventually prevail and the planet will flourish again. Sucks for us humans but I doubt will be witnessing that in our lifetime.

So basically it comes down to whether you want to party hard now and fuck it all up for the future generations or maybe you'd like to leave them some of this stuff too.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[devildog 0]

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. 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.

Funny thing is tho, when Darwin came out with it, most of the Christian scientists saw it as how God works in the Universe. It was the atheists / agnostics that slammed Darwin time and again because it bucked the status quo.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.