The Great Global Warming Swindle

[noahbody]

No, I read them all, and by far the biggest skeptic was the president of the Western Fuels Association.

ScottSA, I don't think you have even read any scientific reports, besides the ones provided by Exxonmobil or Focus on the Family.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/faqs.html

Documentary summary: Increasing temperature increases CO2. Scientists point out he graphs Gore in his Inconvenient Truth show indicate an 800 year lag between temperature incease and the corresponding CO2 increase.

Dumbed down: If the egg came first, blaming the chicken is misdirected.

The lag is true, it is definitely an inconvenient truth for the climate change industry. But to find the truth, scientists need to defend their theory against this claim.

[jbg]

I like how you charge that I'm full of emotion, when you yourself can't seem to grasp the idea that maybe human beings might hurt the environment.

Buddy, do you read anything about climate change that comes from, you know, the majority opinion?

But specifics as to just how they are hurting the environment are crucial. One doesn't go flumming around shutting down this and shutting down that on a mere whim.

[ScottSA]

Consider that homosexuality was considered an aberration by such a "scientific body" at one time. Now it's considered quite normal by that same "scientific body". What changed? The nature of homosexuality? Or the consensus of the scientific body? Which consensus is valid?

There is no consensus in the actual science involved, and saying there is over and over doesn't make it so.

Education and evolving science was the driving force for much of the beliefs we have today concerning homosexuality.

Nonsense. It was a value judgement reflective of changing moral guideposts, or more likely the advent of relativism into mainstream thought. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "science". I take it by "education" you don't mean liberal education, but rather indoctrination? Anyway, the point I was making stands...scientific "bodies" are political entities, and certainly aren't some form of High Scientific Arbiter.

[newbie]

Consider that homosexuality was considered an aberration by such a "scientific body" at one time. Now it's considered quite normal by that same "scientific body". What changed? The nature of homosexuality? Or the consensus of the scientific body? Which consensus is valid?

There is no consensus in the actual science involved, and saying there is over and over doesn't make it so.

Education and evolving science was the driving force for much of the beliefs we have today concerning homosexuality.

Nonsense. It was a value judgement reflective of changing moral guideposts, or more likely the advent of relativism into mainstream thought. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "science". I take it by "education" you don't mean liberal education, but rather indoctrination? Anyway, the point I was making stands...scientific "bodies" are political entities, and certainly aren't some form of High Scientific Arbiter.

With those statements you wipe away years of scientific, physiological and biological study on this issue. Sad really.

[ScottSA]

With those statements you wipe away years of scientific, physiological and biological study on this issue. Sad really.

Please do enlighten me.

[newbie]

As this thread has to do with global warming I'm not going to go off on another tangent. My comment had to do with your excusing all the research that has been done. The info is there: do a search.

[ScottSA]

As this thread has to do with global warming I'm not going to go off on another tangent. My comment had to do with your excusing all the research that has been done. The info is there: do a search.

I thought you might say something like that...

[newbie]

Too lazy? I thought so.

[ScottSA]

Ever heard the saying: "the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant"? Perhaps not, eh?

[newbie]

Ever heard the saying: "the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant"? Perhaps not, eh?

I didn't say anything about proof. You did. I was talking about serious study and research that has taken place over the years. Three sites of many are presented. Try and open your mind a little. As I said earlier, this is not appropriate in a thread discussing global warming.

Overall, data appear to indicate that genetic factors play some part in the development of sexual orientation link

So, I suggest that male homosexuality results, in utero, from an increased ratio of estrone to DHEA. This combination results in the increased growth, and reduced growth of other structures, in the male homosexual brain link

link

[ScottSA]

Ever heard the saying: "the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant"? Perhaps not, eh?

I didn't say anything about proof. You did. I was talking about serious study and research that has taken place over the years. Three sites of many are presented. Try and open your mind a little. As I said earlier, this is not appropriate in a thread discussing global warming.

Overall, data appear to indicate that genetic factors play some part in the development of sexual orientation link

So, I suggest that male homosexuality results, in utero, from an increased ratio of estrone to DHEA. This combination results in the increased growth, and reduced growth of other structures, in the male homosexual brain link

link

So what? Cancer is genetic too. Psychosis can be too. What does that have to do with making normative judgements as to whether or not its an aberration? If I have a third leg growing out of my ear, it's probably genetic, but that doesn't make it "normal" or "abnormal". To claim it as either would require a subjective and entirely non-scientific judgement.