Sleipnir Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Sleipnir, address his claim. You want me to address his claim that scientists are making up the data? Implying he's a conspiracy theorist is a juvenile and pointless counter. By definition he is a conspiracy theorist if he believe that scientists fabricate the data relating to climate change to further their own goals. Edited October 28, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 now there are studies linking GM crops and the decline in bee populations... There are many things that have a possible correlation with CCD. GMOs, despite being brought up many times due to fear mongering - and due to that fear mongering being studied frequently, is not one of them. This is almost on par with claims that vaccines cause autism. it appears bees are experiencing a rise in what appears to be colon cancer, Ridiculous. This story stems from an uneducated, conspiracy nut spewing nonsense on globalresearch and linking terminator seeds (which do not exist anywhere but in this nut cases head) with CCD (incidentally by using sources which state nothing along the lines of his claims). It is on par with the ravings of Glen Beck. is it a coincidence that humans are also seeing a rise in colon cancer? Well seeing as the rates of colorectal cancer incidence remained stable in Canada between 1983 and 2000, and since 2000 it has seen a statistically significant decline in incidence (This all comes from "Canadian Cancer Statistics 2012" by the Canadian Cancer Society, Statistics Canada, and the Public Health Agency of Canada), I would have to say that if there is any connection between GMOs and colon cancer then you should start eating GMOs. Similarly colorectal cancer rates are about the same in developed countries where GMO consumption is common compared to countries where it is rare. I would say that such claims are on par with the nuttiest claims made by climate change deniers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Keep in mind that the three issues mentioned in the article come with a whole basket of concerns, many of which the author failed to address.Yet when I raise my "basket of concerns"about the reliability of the climate models and the harm caused by artificially increasing energy prices I am labelled as 'anti-science'. If I point to scientists that take views that support mine I am told they are "industry stooges" that have been "debunked".Your response is a perfectly example of the hypocracisy that pisses me off. If you read my post you should notice that I did not say I believed there were no issues to be addressed with nuclear power, GMOs or fracking - just that environmentalists are shameless hypocrites that only use the "scientific consensus" to make an argument when it supports their ideological objectives. If you were really motivated be a desire to understand the truth then you would look seriously at the various arguments made by climate skeptics and you would realize that some of them have a sound scientific basis even though they go against the environmentalist political agenda. Maybe these arguments would not be enough to change your mind on the policy choices but you would have enough integrity to acknowledge the points that have merit. The above is why I sneer when I see you make statements like this: Tim, some people evaluate the facts before taking a position. As more information becomes available you can allow your position to change. That's how science works.Where have you demonstrated any willingness to understand skeptical arguments enough to allow you to make a decision their merit? Edited October 28, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 So where does creation theory fit? Obviously you don't believe it to be a theory. It doesn't fall in line with your criteria. Yet it does qualify as a theory, one that some people accept. Creation theory is "theory" in a different usage. A scientific theory is not the same thing as "well, it's a theory," often meaning, at best, a hypothesis...often less than that. Evolution is a theory; it's also a fact. Creationism is a "theory"; but it's not a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Evolution is a theory; it's also a fact. Creationism is a "theory"; but it's not a fact.A scientific theory cannot be based on a premise that "god did all of the complicated stuff we don't understand". Even if god actually did do that the premise is not helpful because it eliminates the need for more scientific investigation to explain the stuff that 'god did' and therefore does not help us learn about our world.That said, not all theories are equal. The theory of gravity is as close to a proven fact that you can get because the theory allows us to make predictions that unambiguously come true. GHG theory is not so clear. Experiments in the lab are unambiguous and we have a pretty good handle on how a GHGs work on a perfect black body earth with no oceans. But the real world is noisy and has clouds and plants and massive oceans and verifying predictions against reality takes a long time. We are a long way from saying that GHG theory is equal to theory of gravity. Edited October 28, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Evolution is a theory; it's also a fact. Creationism is a "theory"; but it's not a fact. Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is not considered to be science because it makes no testable hypotheses, is generally not falsifiable (and those parts that are falsifiable are rarely conceded by creationists) appeals to the supernatural. It is a pseudoscience at best, and religious dogma at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is not considered to be science because it makes no testable hypotheses, is generally not falsifiable (and those parts that are falsifiable are rarely conceded by creationists) appeals to the supernatural. It is a pseudoscience at best, and religious dogma at worst. I don't think BH meant that...creation theory in the layman's definition of theory and not scientific theory ....creationist (science being a complete mystery to them) believe theory has exactly the same meaning in all instances are completely unaware of the scientific definition of "theory"... ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Woops...I failed to notice the quotes around the instance of theory following creationism. Sorry my mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Coal is cheap. It's the cheapest source of energy available....Your claim that renewables are now cost competitive is flat out not true.[/Quote] Many existing coal installations operate cheaply because of grandfathered in regulations; which, are far less stringent than new installations. This article compares the cost of new wind to new coal in South Africa. http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/environment/wind-is-cheaper-than-new-coal-1.1412335#.UI7lnW_BF8H Wind: 89 cents/kwh Coal: 97 - 120 cents/kwh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Yet when I raise my "basket of concerns"about the reliability of the climate models and the harm caused by artificially increasing energy prices I am labelled as 'anti-science'. If I point to scientists that take views that support mine I am told they are "industry stooges" that have been "debunked". Your response is a perfectly example of the hypocracisy that pisses me off. If you read my post you should notice that I did not say I believed there were no issues to be addressed with nuclear power, GMOs or fracking - just that environmentalists are shameless hypocrites that only use the "scientific consensus" to make an argument when it supports their ideological objectives.[/Quote] Tim you are comparing the views of a scientist to the consensus of an entire field of scientists. It's not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Tim you are comparing the views of a scientist to the consensus of an entire field of scientists. It's not the same.Are you really so lacking in self awareness that you cannot see that you do the same thing that your accuse me of doing when it comes to GMOs, nuclear power or fracking? The "scientific consensus" in those fields is GMOs are safe, fracking is not a risk to the water table and the risks of nuclear power are being exaggerated. Sure there a few contrarians that dispute the consensus but according to you its wrong to listen to contrarians that dispute the consensus.To illustrate your jaw dropping hypocrisy I present two statements issued by the AAAS: http://www.collide-a...f-two-sciences/ One on Climate Change and one on GMOs. Why do you accuse me of doing something wrong when I dispute the first but you have no problems disputing the second? Edited October 29, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Followed by a rapid recovery. Climate alarmists are like astrologers. They scream whenever random data happens to support their preconceived notions but ignore data that casts doubt on them (or more likely dismiss it as 'noise'). People on both sides of the climate change debate are famous for that. "It was cold out today! Global warming is a hoax!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 People on both sides of the climate change debate are famous for that. "It was cold out today! Global warming is a hoax!". Yet there is a difference between 'weather' and 'climate'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Yet there is a difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.Too bad climate alarmists can't seem to understand that distinction. If they did they would not be constantly harping on how every bit of bad weather is the result of global warming. Edited October 29, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Too bad climate alarmists can't seem to understand that distinction. If they did they would not be constantly harping on how every bit of bad weather is the result of global warming. Neither can climate denialists that constantly put forth cold temperatures as proof that global warning is a hoax. You guys are perfect for each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Neither can climate denialists that constantly put forth cold temperatures as proof that global warning is a hoax.When have I ever done that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Too bad climate alarmists can't seem to understand that distinction. If they did they would not be constantly harping on how every bit of bad weather is the result of global warming. I'm going to repeat myself again, hopefully you'll grasp the concept. Weather refers to short time atmospheric phenomenon. Climate change, in this case, refers to long term atmospheric phenomenon. So when you used the term 'climate alarmists' in conjunction with 'harping on how every bit of bad weather...' - it just goes to show you just how knowledgeable you are in this topic, which is nil. Climate change is a conglomeration of physics, geology, chemistry, biology, and mathematics - if you dismissed the topic as nothing more than a made-up fantasy by scientists, well...you don't have much of an educated view. Edited October 30, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 ...Climate change is a conglomeration of physics, geology, chemistry, biology, and mathematics - if you dismissed the topic as nothing more than a made-up fantasy by scientists, well...you don't have much of an educated view. Don't forget astronomy and orbital mechanics, including Milankovitch cycles. See how easy it is to define what climate change really encompasses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Neither can climate denialists that constantly put forth cold temperatures as proof that global warning is a hoax. You guys are perfect for each other. there is a difference...any one weather episode on it's own is meaningless, it's a one-off event...when a number of one-off events are charted and they're shown to increase in number, severity, timing or duration then it becomes a trend...and that trend right now is indicating global warming not cooling...and the east coast storm we are seeing now fits in the CC trend... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) when a number of one-off events are charted and they're shown to increase in number, severity, timing or duration then it becomes a trend.Except there is NO trend. Here is a graph of global hurricane frequency:http://wattsupwithth...e_frequency.png Other types of extreme weather show the similar results. Tornados: http://www.ncdc.noaa...es.html#history Droughts: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/24/update-on-global-drought-patterns-ipcc-take-note/ The idea that extreme events are increasing is a outright myth spread by climate alarmists. Edited October 30, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 ...The idea that extreme events are increasing is a outright myth spread by climate alarmists. Yes, as the very term "climate change" was adopted to explain the inconsistent message of "global warming". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Don't forget astronomy and orbital mechanics, including Milankovitch cycles. I figured they fall under physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) I figured they fall under physics. Except there is NO trend. Here is a graph of global hurricane frequency: http://wattsupwithth...e_frequency.png Other types of extreme weather show the similar results. Tornados: http://www.ncdc.noaa...es.html#history Droughts: http://www.worldclim...ipcc-take-note/ The idea that extreme events are increasing is a outright myth spread by climate alarmists. Occurrence of Tornadoes are not absolute indicators of climate change, it refers to a whole load of interacting effect. The second 'source' is an opinionated blog, not a good source of reliable info. Try again Timmy Edited October 30, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I figured they fall under physics. OK, but the other scientific and mathematics disciplines are far more rigorous than many of the clowns pretending to be jack-of-all-trades "climate scientists". Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Occurrence of Tornadoes are not absolute indicators of climate change, it refers to a whole load of interacting effect. The second 'source' is an opinionated blog, not a good source of reliable info.Thanks for admitting you cannot refute the data provided. The place were the data was posted online is quite irrelevant. I am not going play your stupid "authority" games. If you wish to refute the points I make you need to actually address the points. Waving your hands and saying you refuse to look at the data because you don't like the site simply shows that you are an ideological fool that knows nothing of science. Edited October 30, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.