Global Warming Theory cannot be considered to be a science any longer

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
What's obvious to me is, you have zero idea of what is and isn't science.

Does science know what science is ??

My amazement will never cease that anyone can actually believe that science somehow is incorruptible, that entire ways of thinking and everything that goes into an area of science cannot be doctored.

It really IS the same as listening to any religious group, they just HAVE to believe that "SCIENCE" is a system that could never be faulted, distorted, or just downright wrong,

And only because some other section of science has given them clear answers, somehow ALL of it is clean.

You articulated exactly what I have been trying to say. People act liek these scientist are above reproach and that science is never wrong or can EVER lie. I have news for them. ALL HUMANS CAN LIE AND BE SELFISH PRICKS.

originally posted by: yuppa
You articulated exactly what I have been trying to say. People act liek these scientist are above reproach and that science is never wrong or can EVER lie. I have news for them. ALL HUMANS CAN LIE AND BE SELFISH PRICKS.

Yup. And if you want to libel scientists collectively, the people doing so without any evidence can also be lying selfish pricks.

This is more of the same "both sides are the same dirty bastards" strategy of sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt.

"All the alarmist cardiologists made up a huge smoking HOAX because they're in it to steal your money, impose one world government and steal your precious bodily fluids!"

"No, there's extensive scientific evidence-----(insert thousands of papers)---and it sure seems like the smoking denialists tie back to de-regulatory ideologues and profitable tobacco businsess."

"Argh, both sides are the same: greedy bastards!"

No, they aren't the same. And its in the interest of only ONE side to make average people think there's no difference and to ignore them: the ones who profit from a lack of action.

we're on a board filled with paranoid fools. of course if they can't grasp the science they will deny it. not wasting my time trying to convince them what should have been obvious from the get-go... they don't got what it takes, leave the poor fools be.

a reply to: ringdingdong

I can't help myself sometimes.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: yuppa
You articulated exactly what I have been trying to say. People act liek these scientist are above reproach and that science is never wrong or can EVER lie. I have news for them. ALL HUMANS CAN LIE AND BE SELFISH PRICKS.

Yup. And if you want to libel scientists collectively, the people doing so without any evidence can also be lying selfish pricks.

This is more of the same "both sides are the same dirty bastards" strategy of sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt.

"All the alarmist cardiologists made up a huge smoking HOAX because they're in it to steal your money, impose one world government and steal your precious bodily fluids!"

"No, there's extensive scientific evidence-----(insert thousands of papers)---and it sure seems like the smoking denialists tie back to de-regulatory ideologues and profitable tobacco businsess."

"Argh, both sides are the same: greedy bastards!"

No, they aren't the same. And its in the interest of only ONE side to make average people think there's no difference and to ignore them: the ones who profit from a lack of action.

You are kidding right?

You clearly have an understanding of physical sciences, but maybe some blinders on. Are you talking exclusively about the activist scientists not being the same or are you including those who established the international environmental movement?

You had a thread with George Soros already being shown to act irresponsibly for personal gain and was convicted of insider trading which ruined thousands of lives.

Maurice strong is a founding father of the movement and has always been in the oil and gas industry from the very beginning.
Maurice Strong

Business

In 1948, when he was nineteen, Strong was hired as a trainee by a leading brokerage firm, James Richardson & Sons, Limited of Winnipeg where he took an interest in the oil business winning a transfer as an oil specialist to Richardson's office in Calgary, Alberta. There he made the acquaintance of one of the most successful leaders of the oil industry, Jack Gallagher who hired him as his assistant. At Gallagher's Dome Petroleum, Strong occupied several key roles including vice president of finance, leaving the firm in 1956 and setting up his own firm, M.F. Strong Management, assisting investors in locating opportunities in the Alberta oil patch.[12]

...

2005 Oil-for-Food scandal

In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to "Mr. M. Strong," issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Strong was never accused of any wrongdoing.[17] During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would "sideline himself until the cloud was removed."

And this goes on and on in crazy religious fashion as seen here:

Maurice Strong Ark of Hope

To say that there is only a scientific reasoning on one side and the other side is money hungry deniers is completely delusional and makes it seem as if you don't know anything about the figures financing the movements.

-FBB

Let's keep in mind that Gravity and Evolution are only theories as well. Man made global warming should fall firmly in place with those wacky theories, yes?

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Do you mean the science that says there was nothing and then, although nothing existed it exploded without cause or effect, because you need certain things to be in place first and the result began to rotate around something hot (explain the sun) that also came out of the explosion of nothing which by the way, didn't orbit anything and was real hot... and 'poof' magically a microbe appeared and over time it kept changing and now we have you? That science? Ha ha ha. Do you even realize that the big bang breaks 5 laws of science?
• The proven law of cause and effect
• The proven law of conservation of energy/mass
• The proven law of increasing entropy
• The proven laws of universal information
• The proven law of biogenises

No? Exactly!

Yes, laugh at religion, because it does seem odd that a being outside our known time and space could cause what is impossible in science (yet is a good theory).

Laugh while you examine your own laughable belief.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You are accusing me of confirmation bias, How?
You dont know my position in relation to climate change, I dont know the OPs either

You are the one who has made a decision and wont consider any other option.

As I have said, I can find replys to the links you posted, you wouldnt.

I prescribe reading up on the related effects of confirmation bias.

Do you know what a pan test is?

Not exactly. This is why I pointed specifically at related effects, rather than confirmation bias itself. I suggest reading up on them. Consider what you have done in this thread and the information in the OP.

I don't really care about your position on climate change. It is irrelevant to the OP. I don't know why you keep focusing on yourself. However, you embrace the notion in the OP.

What decision have I made and what options are there?

Sure, find all the replies to those links you want - but here's the thing... those links are from the OP (by way of delving through sources of sources, anyway). Not me, the OP.

Remember, the OP claimed that Obama was encouraging the public to silence scientists; yet, the OP's source ultimately leads to a political page focused on political targets.

The OP is wrong. It is misinformation. You are embracing it. Oh, and slippery slope you described as a counterargument is a fallacy in this case. There is no silence of free speech here, only the use of free speech to rebuke politicians in hopes to change opinion.

In fact, you utterly ignored my additional information - that the Bush administration actively pressured scientists away from certain terms.

It's not yet winter. I've scrapped ice off my windshield, twice, (as in the past years).. in this, "hot" and "man made" hell, of "warmth"...idiots.

originally posted by: murphy22
It's not yet winter. I've scrapped ice off my windshield, twice, (as in the past years).. in this, "hot" and "man made" hell, of "warmth"...idiots.

Meanwhile, we still had leaves on trees at Thanksgiving, which is rather unusual for Oklahoma, and similar to 1998's El Niño event.

It finally got cold enough for trees to start losing their leaves a couple of days after... unfortunately, this was during a freezing rain event which became an ice storm that did considerable tree damage.

a reply to: Greven

"Ice storm"? Oh no! It's "global warming"! Back in the 70's "science" was teaching/preaching a "new ice age ". Now it's "global warming ". Geuss hard enough and they'll be right in a couple thousand years.

originally posted by: murphy22
"Ice storm"? Oh no! It's "global warming"! Back in the 70's "science" was teaching/preaching a "new ice age ". Now it's "global warming ". Geuss hard enough and they'll be right in a couple thousand years.

The reason it was so bad was because of how many leaves were still on trees.
The reason leaves were still on trees was because it was warmer than usual this time of year.
This is not difficult logic.

Also, see this thread - the minority of opinions that there would be some sort of global cooling were predated by fears of man-made climate change. President LBJ addressed Congress in 1965 about us changing the atmospheric CO2 content, which spun into an advisory group that accurately predicted CO2 levels in 1999.

a reply to: Greven

But you still had an ice storm, correct? Ice and warmth aren't exactly buddies. This isn't "difficult logic". That said. Our calender doesn't necessarily coincide with our "seasons". A lot at play hear, but nothing to fear. In a couple thousand years, we'll get snow in June.

originally posted by: murphy22
But you still had an ice storm, correct? Ice and warmth aren't exactly buddies. This isn't "difficult logic". That said. Our calender doesn't necessarily coincide with our "seasons". A lot at play hear, but nothing to fear. In a couple thousand years, we'll get snow in June.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what an ice storm is.

An ice storm is when freezing rain accumulates on surfaces (trees, etc). Rain is driven by warmer temperatures - else it would be snow and sleet. This warmer body of air sits on top of a colder body of air. The colder air supercools the rain such that when it strikes a surface, it freezes.

a reply to: Greven

Thanks for the re-education about cold stuff.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

Aye

The same "religiion" that says the world is not 6,000 years old, orbits the Sun and that your god didnt create all the animals in one day.

The same "religion" that gave you penicillin, beer, trains and the ability to communicate over the internet. And provides you with clean water and light and food.

Wrong, because science is not saying any of those things... Flawed GCMs/flawed computer models are the ones claiming AGW is real and is a threat, meanwhile the observations say the contrary to what the GCMs say...and so do hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers.

Oh and btw, The Big Bang theory is a theory that revolves around "creatio ex nihilo", or "creation out of nothing".

According to Hannes Alfvén, who was there when the theory was first thought of, he said that the Big Bang was made to reconcile science and theology.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You are accusing me of confirmation bias, How?
You dont know my position in relation to climate change, I dont know the OPs either

You are the one who has made a decision and wont consider any other option.

As I have said, I can find replys to the links you posted, you wouldnt.

I prescribe reading up on the related effects of confirmation bias.

Do you know what a pan test is?

Not exactly. This is why I pointed specifically at related effects, rather than confirmation bias itself. I suggest reading up on them. Consider what you have done in this thread and the information in the OP.

I don't really care about your position on climate change. It is irrelevant to the OP. I don't know why you keep focusing on yourself. However, you embrace the notion in the OP.

What decision have I made and what options are there?

Sure, find all the replies to those links you want - but here's the thing... those links are from the OP (by way of delving through sources of sources, anyway). Not me, the OP.

Remember, the OP claimed that Obama was encouraging the public to silence scientists; yet, the OP's source ultimately leads to a political page focused on political targets.

The OP is wrong. It is misinformation. You are embracing it. Oh, and slippery slope you described as a counterargument is a fallacy in this case. There is no silence of free speech here, only the use of free speech to rebuke politicians in hopes to change opinion.

In fact, you utterly ignored my additional information - that the Bush administration actively pressured scientists away from certain terms.

Did the Bush administration. they were very naughty weren't they, I am sorry about that, just as bad.

Clearly there are climate Change issues, forcing politicians to accept the CC agenda by public opinion is wrong, it will dry funding up to scientists who don't accept CC doctrine yet. 1+1=
That's not a fallacy, consider it.

Scientists need money and that's supplied by the government in most cases, yeah.

It's misinformation to you, it's not to me.
Follow the trail.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Greven

But you still had an ice storm, correct? Ice and warmth aren't exactly buddies. This isn't "difficult logic". That said. Our calender doesn't necessarily coincide with our "seasons". A lot at play hear, but nothing to fear. In a couple thousand years, we'll get snow in June.

well you know what they say about monkeys and typrwriters.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

ok here is the link for Organizing for Action

www.barackobama.com...#/

This absolutely real. And there is a long list of politicians pictured and listed as deniers

Good for Barack(and his webpage designers)! The politicians who reject science need to.be called out.

I've shared this link on FB and twitter to help get the message out.

Thanks for the link buddy!

a reply to: jrod

Actually, I have searching the net and I must agree that harassment is occuring on both sides.

The whole issue is now between those who believe and those who don't.

I was right - this isn't science anymore. This is a political issue.

The facts no longer matter. The fact that there has been no warming for almost 20 years means nothing.

Tired of Control Freaks