The Science Thread!

[Ombudsman]

"For instance when Satan takes Jesus to the top of the mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the earth."

To quote you......"How can a grown man believe in something as silly as Satan?"

Does that mean you're finally going to tell me or is this how you deflect from the current conversation?

[homerfobe]

Oms and B: One don't know shit and the other's glad of it. Guess which one is which.

[mwearl]

I'm more interested in why we aren't discussing the global warming excursion that got trapped in new and abundant ice in the summer time in Antarctica.

[mwearl]

You give me too much credit

I just think its funny that the lack of ice points to GW and so does the increase of ice. Yes, glaciers will continue to shrink because we aren't in an Ice Age any longer. We all knew that before GW was all the rage.

Watch this winter be one of the coldest in decades. I think its God's way of entertaining herself -throwing monkey wrenches into the GW "science" and then watch the scramble to try and make it fit.

[Crock Hunter]

You give me too much credit

I just think its funny that the lack of ice points to GW and so does the increase of ice.

Too much credit indeed .. .. been there.. debunked that..

btw.. the shrinking glaciers of the last one hundred or so years has nothing to do with being in or out of an "ice age"..

Watch this winter be one of the coldest in decades.

It's global climate change... not "it snowed in _____ so GW isn't real.."

[mwearl]

...I just think its funny that the lack of ice points to GW and so does the increase of ice. Yes, glaciers will continue to shrink because we aren't in an Ice Age any longer. We all knew that before GW was all the rage...

Science can appear counter-intuitive unless one tries to understand underlying mechanisms. Do you really doubt the planet is warming? Most wingnuts gave up on that argument years ago and now just deny that people are causing it.

Did you read the National Geographic article and was the source for your factoid a climate scientist?

While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.

Do you mean the ice age in the 1960s/early 1970s? Oh wow man, don't know how I could have missed that.

The problem isn't that I ignore GW science. I don't trust the scientific community because its been corrupted by government agenda. And there is an agenda regardless of the facts.

[mwearl]

The entire scientific community as cutthroat as it is in trying to actually prove other scientists wrong (not counting the corporate scientists that are paid to pretend to prove others wrong)? Wow.

No, not the entire community. Remember the award winning head of the Weather Channel that came out against GW science that was immediately castigated and branded a loon? Remember the group of scientists that signed a document stating the science was flawed? Don't hear much about them anymore because they lost any funding they had and have been blacklisted by the scientific community.

[O Really]

Well, the fact that some have minority views that are inconsistent with the findings of the majority doesn't mean they should necessarily be branded a loon. On the other hand, just because they have a different theory doesn't make them right. What is it about the group of scientists that signed a document stating the science was flawed that makes them more believable to you than the others?

[mwearl]

What's this agenda you see - reducing pollution, improving our trade deficit, bettering American health, not supporting dictators, leaving out mountains intact, not burying pristine streams, reducing train/pipeline "accidents", more jobs at home, ending oil wars? Ooh, how devious.

Ever heard of carbon credits? And yes, new industries created.. Didn't say every part of the agenda is negative. Just like huge parts of our globe would benefit from significant warming (if significant warming was occurring).

They are replacing old industries with new ones. Profits and increased tax base. It's an agenda nonetheless.

[mwearl]

Well, the fact that some have minority views that are inconsistent with the findings of the majority doesn't mean they should necessarily be branded a loon. On the other hand, just because they have a different theory doesn't make them right. What is it about the group of scientists that signed a document stating the science was flawed that makes them more believable to you than the others?

Because over and over and over there have been coverups and skewing of the data that even the mainstream press can't overlook. By any other scientific standards, this theory would have been thrown out with the bath water a long time ago. But we are too heavily vested in the lie now. So the truth be damned. And in 20 more years, we will see no significant change, and the GW crowd will still be sounding the alarm.

A better question would be, why do you think scientists with previous high accolades must have suddenly lost their marbles when they look at the data and dispute it?

[mwearl]

Didn't cite the Weather Channel. Cited the guy that used to be the head of it. You can find reference to it on dozens of websites. Here's but one:
http://opendemocracy.net/forum/2007/12/ ... in_history

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Wiki has been hijacked by the opposition. Notice the marked for deletion? I guess the anti GW scientists don't have the right to be heard.

[O Really]

I'm not climate scientist, and probably couldn't understand the data if I read it, but it seems to be pretty much undisputed and un-agendized that there are visible signs of a broad and relatively long-term warming trend not attributable to normal differences such as gulf streams, etc. There may be an argument over whether it is human-caused or human-assisted, and there may be even more of an argument over whether there is anything humans can do about it at this point. There may be an argument over whether similar events have happened in the past 6,000 years the world has been in existence. But as to the existence of a long-term warming and potential significant effects on plant and animal life, I don't know if I've read of any data hanky panky.

But with any data, experts do not always agree. Scientists have been wrong before, and probably some of the climate scientists are wrong about this. On the other hand, if I were looking for some publicity, I might find it easier to trash someone else's work than to produce my original work. Past the accusation of skewing, etc., what have the formerly highly accoladed scientists offered as an alternate theory?

[mwearl]

Most of the errors in the models that have been found are that they are not dire enough.

Because over and over and over there have been coverups and skewing of the data that even the mainstream press can't overlook. By any other scientific standards, this theory would have been thrown out with the bath water a long time ago. But we are too heavily vested in the lie now. So the truth be damned.

You mean these?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-sc ... sensus.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... arming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Hi ... iction.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-gr ... -exist.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-lev ... ctions.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-fa ... orests.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-mea ... tainty.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-N ... ecline.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... arming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-ov ... arming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen ... tivity.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped ... g-bias.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen- ... iction.htm
And so on. Fail again.

And in 20 more years, we will see no significant change, and the GW crowd will still be sounding the alarm.

Citation needed.

A better question would be, why do you think scientists with previous high accolades must have suddenly lost their marbles when they look at the data and dispute it?

Citation needed.

I'll ask again, what's the source for what you're posting here?

See my above post. You asked and I gave. I could waste time posting more links, but what's the point. I don't believe yours and you don't believe mine. Are you asserting that citations don't exist?

[Crock Hunter]

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

LMAO.that's quaint... I haven't heard anyone offer the completely debunked Petition Project as a rebuttal to the science of Global Warming in a very long time.. .. I signed the petition years ago as a Phrenologist.. i.e. they NEVER bothered to check ANYONE's credentials..

Even if all those signatures WERE from actual scientists..(the majority not) the entire list represents about .3% of scientists.. Even stranger is that you'd stand behind those .3% while rejecting the 97% of actual Climate Scientists that agree that AGW is the reality.. . .

Today given the entire data set supporting AGW science for one to still deny the reality comes down to willful ignorance..

[Boatrocker]

. . . Wiki has been hijacked by the opposition. Notice the marked for deletion? I guess the anti GW scientists don't have the right to be heard.

Uh-oh . . . the conspiracy nut alarm is going off.

[Crock Hunter]

I don't trust the scientific community because its been corrupted by government agenda. And there is an agenda regardless of the facts.

Well .. you're almost right.. Climate Science was "politicized" by Conservatives at the insistence of the Oil, Coal and Gas Industries.. The phenomena and the science bent on gathering of data continues despite those efforts..

[Wneglia]

Finally, some good news.

Does that mean alcohol-related dementia will be taken out of ICD 10?

[Ombudsman]

Anyone seen Chasing Ice? It's on Netflix. Be hard to deny global warming after seeing the time-lapsed images of glacier melt.

[homerfobe]

Anyone seen Chasing Ice? It's on Netflix. Be hard to deny global warming after seeing the time-lapsed images of glacier melt.

I can't figure out why anyone would deny global warming. It doesn't take a movie to see this happening. So much has been in the news with supporting evidence. But you got to remember that Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy.

[bannination]

Anyone seen Chasing Ice? It's on Netflix. Be hard to deny global warming after seeing the time-lapsed images of glacier melt.

I can't figure out why anyone would deny global warming. It doesn't take a movie to see this happening. So much has been in the news with supporting evidence. But you got to remember that Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy.

Wut? Where's the gay sects in that post?

Are you feeling ok?