Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

Ah so you don't know what the definition is then.
Dodge the question why don't you.
Closed mind? nope I have looked at all angles from many different fields to do with evolution but as you have just proved you are not here to learn and expand your mind you are here just to continue being wrong and ignorant of the actual truth.
But you could have just posted your definition like you said you would....

Oh and that post just read.

I don't like what you say so I'm gonna ignore you....how grown up of you.

"But it's true that for the last eighteen months or so, I've been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas."

"Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long."

"So either there is something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally I know there's nothing wrong with me. So for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is this: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true?"

"Well, I'm not interested in the controversy over teaching in high school, and if any militant creationists have come here looking for political ammunition, I hope they'll be disappointed."

"I shall take the text of my sermon from this book, Gillespie's Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation....He takes it for granted that a rationalist view of nature has replaced an irrational one, and of course, I myself took that view, up until about eighteen months ago. And then I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

"Well, we're back to the question I've been putting to people, 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' And the absence of an answer seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it."

"Now I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here."

"So that's my first theme. That evolution and creationism seem to be showing remarkable parallels. They are increasingly hard to tell apart. And the second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist; British Museaum of Natural History, London, Discussion at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981. Transcripts as well as a copy of the original tape can be obtained at: www.arn.org...

I'm rather confident the man that I quoted is much more credentialed than you may ever be. When you can tell me you understand what he said, then I'll take you off of ignore

Oh yes, I know those words were uttered in 1981. That's a long time ago for some. Were you even a gleam in your pappy's eye then? If not, I fully understand your position.

Did this turn into an evolution thread? If so, I'll bite my tongue..... Mostly because I have all my good bookmarks on my home PC.

originally posted by: dothedew
Did this turn into an evolution thread? If so, I'll bite my tongue..... Mostly because I have all my good bookmarks on my home PC.

No it's still about the weather. Isn't it always about the weather? Man we had a lot of it around here today too. Weather that is. It's all over the friggin' place.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

Try actually reading links in the post... more papers were published in that same time period on global warming than global cooling. It probably is meaningless to you but, that fact means something.

Oh where are all these articles and papers from the 70s? Do we have to take their word on it or are they available to read somewhere?

Well, since the internet wasn't around then I certainly can't pull a link out of a hat.

Why don't you go to the library and look for yourself if you don't believe me.

Here is a link to a picture of Time magazine in 1970 and a blog about what we were being taught in school. Since I can't mail you books from a library. scienceblogs.com...

If you still question it was very popular to talk about the coming ice age by climate scientists, then please take a trip to the local library and check it out for yourself.

originally posted by: Baddogma
My first impulse, as far as the thread title, would be:

"Because you lack the education and information about the climate in general to rate as an "expert" or even a particularly informed layperson.

And as far as your thoughts in the OP... then if the little clean up we've done so far is "good," then why in the heck do you think it wouldn't be better to clean things up a tad more?

I mean even IF the accumulated data is in error, and it is is not, what possible harm would less pollution from human activities do?

I agree that humans have an imperfect, incomplete view of ...well, most everything... and the world's ecosystem is likely more robust than we give it credit for (plus or minus a genus, species or dozen...including homo), and does fluctuate without humans all by itself.... but with the amount of sewage, garbage, gases and complex, toxic industrial waste pouring into our environment every moment, curtailing or slowing that flow would seem a good idea... and it will take a concerted effort by every nation state to accomplish any sort of clean up.

Sure, ice ages come and go... asteroids hit us... suns explode and kill everything... but why, in that environment, should we give hostile natural processes any help?

Did I ever say that cleaning up the planet was wrong? No!

You made the error in logic that most climate fanatics make:
you think that the two are inexorably linked,
they are not

One can be for cleaning up the air, the water, the planet,
and NOT believe in global warming.

They are NOT linked
and do not have to be linked

You can clean up the planet without being the thought police of climate:
and saying that if you believe one you MUST believe the other:
and/or if you don't believe one you CAN NOT believe the other:
that is irrational

I object the falsehood of linking the two thoughts
and calling for the incarceration or death of those who disbelieve climate change
www.washingtontimes.com...
www.youtube.com...

I object to the idea that people's thoughts and actions must be tightly controlled by the state in order to clean up the planet. That is climate change totalitarian fascism.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

Try actually reading links in the post... more papers were published in that same time period on global warming than global cooling. It probably is meaningless to you but, that fact means something.

Oh where are all these articles and papers from the 70s? Do we have to take their word on it or are they available to read somewhere?

Well, since the internet wasn't around then I certainly can't pull a link out of a hat.

Why don't you go to the library and look for yourself if you don't believe me.

Here is a link to a picture of Time magazine in 1970 and a blog about what we were being taught in school. Since I can't mail you books from a library. scienceblogs.com...

If you still question it was very popular to talk about the coming ice age by climate scientists, then please take a trip to the local library and check it out for yourself.

No I believe you. I was questioning the prior links claim that there were many more articles and papers on climate warming vs cooling. I was around for that Time article and others I was also taught in school there would be another ice age. Somewhere in time, they decided that wasn't profitable or advantageous in some way so they switched it up.

Personally think they all full of it and have no clue as to what our future holds. It's all guessing and a crapshoot. But ............ it's also about a lot of loot. Scientists are as biased as the next person. Oh and they spend money too. So ........ I just stick my finger in the air and look outside to see what the weather is. Old fashioned, I know

a reply to: CranialSponge

The thing is though, this information has been around for sometime now in the internet age. To continually use the "scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's" argument is silly when the information is now accessible.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: CranialSponge

The thing is though, this information has been around for sometime now in the internet age. To continually use the "scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's" argument is silly when the information is now accessible.

The information was accessible then, in libraries and still is, in libraries.

Just because the opposing viewpoint came along after the internet, doesn't make the accessible information correct.

I remember the day when one said "I read it on the internet." People of intelligence would laugh because the internet was and still is quite often an inaccurate source of information.

a reply to: Kali74

The thing is though, this information has been around for sometime now in the internet age. To continually use the "scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's" argument is silly when the information is now accessible.

It doesn't matter that access to archived science papers has been around for a while now on the internet.

The fact is that the media propaganda of the day was telling us that the planet was cooling, as claimed by some scientists (their words not ours)... whether that was 2 scientists, 20 scientists, or 200 scientists matters none. There were at least some scientists who made these claims, and that's what we got fed by the media.

If it was overhyped, how the hell were we supposed to know that ? We the people could not take any recourse to investigate whether it was true or not because we didn't have access to the published sciences claiming otherwise back in those days.

To state that this short-lived media frenzy didn't occur because we now have public access to archived science papers that claim otherwise is an exercise in attempting to link two things that have no relevence with each other.

When people state that scientists were making claims of a cooling world, that's the truth. Some scientists were... and the media jumped all over it because the global warming panic hadn't made its public debut yet.

10 years later (give or take), global warming became the new public outcry.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

I think a science class or seven may help you at least get the basics....

Instead of making a snide remark, how about answering my questions. I think, keeping about 60 live corals and about 20 different species of fish, I have a pretty good idea about science and biology - well enough to keep them alive and thriving. So with your vast scientific and biological background, please explain how this all works.

The species differentiated as a consequence of individual tastes and talents. Each organism is born with a slight difference from all others. If that difference gives the organism some advantage in reproduction or feeding or some other important survival action, then over hundreds to thousands or millions of generations, the organism's offspring could become a separate species.

For example, an advantage in reproduction could manifest itself as colors and shapes that seem to have no survival value, but are good for showing mates a lot of extra right stuff.

An advantage allowing a wider choice of foods would lead to a separate speciation faster, because the organism would no longer be in direct competition with its old foraging fellows.

An advantage in behavior could keep an organism out of a predator's mouth.

Every organism is evolving along every dimension of change all of the time. Any difference an organism has that its neighbor does not could be the most important thing at some time. Same for species, any difference that a species has that the others of its class don't could be important.

The proofs I remember for evolution are, the way an embryo develops is like the process of evolution, they way all animals are vertebrates with about the same body plan, and the way genes from one species can work in a different species-- that is, a lot of genes are in common for all organisms.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Many of us are old enough to remember the alarmist memes back in the day.

Even Spock himself warned us of a possible impending doom of another ice age around the corner:

RIP Mr. Nimoy. Spock did the narration for the technology tree in the game Civilization IV. Sounds like him anyway.

Global cooling was in the text books in the 70's. At the beginning of every semester in science class, the introduction had a picture of a penguin or a polar bear or a snowy frigid field with a caption about the threat of an ice age.

Today, all of the 1st year chemistry books have a chapter on global warming and green house gasses, while coincidentally, having nothing about radio frequency energy and chemical reaction.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Except that now, the media (I know some will think this is joke but it's not)... the media underplays climate change or offers illegitimate dissent. Also, current science is readily available now. It's easy to compare to what the media says and science says humans are causing the climate to change via warming the planet by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through combustion.

How can people in this day and age not realize that for all the destruction that mankind has done to this planet that it is a major cause for Global climate change.


You put enough chemicals in the air....over time it will effect the climate.

Look at the weather changes..more extreme weather , drastic changes in temps..etc.

For instance..it went from minus 30 to 0 over-nite where I live...used to take days or weeks for that kind of temp change but over-nite.

The planet I feel is living organism..like everything..it gets sick and then it sends out antibodies to destroy that which is causing it's illness...that would be us.

I feel the planet is in the process of repairing itself...at the expense of us.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

Great quotes the latest being from 1997..
Still waiting on that definition btw.

It is called a theory because science cannot prove anything, it can only disprove. We can assume that something that has never been disproved and has always been observed to act in the same, predictable manner will continue to do so. Being able to predict the outcome of a process is the success of science.

However, science doesn't know what gravity is or how it functions, so gravity is a theory.

Same for evolution. Evolution is the result of natural sorting of anything that is created. Like steering wheels on cars evolved from lever handles and might evolve into joysticks.

AGW is not a scientific theory qua scientific theory. It has not successfully predicted or explained anything, and it has no reproducibility.

Saying AGW is a scientific theory is like saying a car is the color of its paint. AGW can be called scientific in the media because some of its proponents use scientific data and are scientists by social convention, and can be called a theory in the larger English language sense of a plausible explanation.

Have you read The Report from Iron Mountain

It was offered as a joke, but it says that when WW3 is no longer likely and everyone knows it, the government will need something scary to keep its authority, like UFO invasion or pollution disaster or climate apocalypse. Otherwise the government will have no moral reason to kill, and therefore can't enforce the laws. War is the only moral reason that the government is allowed to kill people.

AGW is exactly what the new OWG needs to keep power over everything. At least to get started.

Concerning my post...the weather where I live has drastic changes daily..not a one time thing.

When I was younger I remember the weather taking it's time when it came to temp change..minus 30 one day...over a week or two maybe it made it to minus 15 in a week or two and so on ...changing gradually not fluctuating so drastically.

Or you can deny global warming by picking up a snowball in winter and tell us it's cold outside which means no global warming..lol

The idiot way with no understanding of science.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Kali74

Try actually reading links in the post... more papers were published in that same time period on global warming than global cooling. It probably is meaningless to you but, that fact means something.

I don't know about you, but the rest of us didn't have access to read science papers published back in the 70's.

Al Gore's internet didn't exist yet, libraries did not have public access to any and all science papers, most peer review journals were membership subscription only, and you couldn't let your fingers do the walking in the yellow pages.

The only thing we had in front of us is what the media was spewing to the general public.

And the media was spewing "cooling temperatures" and claiming this info was coming from various scientists.

So there you have it.



It's friggin laughable how you all are posting links to science papers archived in today's internet sites that were non-existent back in the day, and acting like the information has always been so readily available.

Speaking of libraries, back in the 80's you could go to most college libraries and read anything right off the shelf. Like collections of old science journals in bound covers. Couldn't take it out without a $25 library card.

Now everything juicy is behind the counter and must be specifically requested.

(not to much of) a reply to: Onslaught2996


I think climate change is caused by naturally occurring methane release.

The unburned kind.

Very destructive to the environment.







[__o ...---... o__]

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Just because someone doesn't believe in global warming
doesn't automatically make them anti-enviornmentalists
or anti-clean water or anti-clean air.
Much has been done to make the world healthier.
There is still much work yet to be done to make the world healthier for humans and animals.

This right here is what we need to focus on.
I mean, who cares anyway if the climate is going up or down? We will need to adapt either way.
Who cares if climate change is man made or not? We just need pollute less.

Black and white, Republican and Democrat, With us or Against us?
Stop this nonsense.

a reply to: Kali74

I don't doubt for a minute that the climate will continue to get warmer before it gets colder.

Hopefully we don't live to see that temp-climb-to-temp-plummet in our lifetimes... I don't favour the idea of watching a 2 mile thick sheet of ice heading my way.