Forums | MacLife

ATTN: MODERATOR INTERFERENCE


Cut the personal attacks and keep to the discussion.

resedit wrote:

Of course the climate is changing, it's always changing.
However, it's not changing because of anything we are doing. It's changing because that's what it does, and what it has done for as long as our species has been here. Sometimes it changes slowly, sometimes it changes rapidly. Change is the only constant.

When it changes rapidly, mass extinction is one expected outcome.  One thats been dogging our shadows for some time...but, no, we're too small to affect nature.

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Of course the climate is changing, it's always changing.
However, it's not changing because of anything we are doing. It's changing because that's what it does, and what it has done for as long as our species has been here. Sometimes it changes slowly, sometimes it changes rapidly. Change is the only constant.

So you know better than people who actually know the topic. Nice.

What?
Plenty of very qualified scientists say the exact same thing - and many of the scientists you worship so much are the same scientists who were spouted global cooling (including using rhetoric like consensus etc.) back in the 70s.

Scientists make some of the biggest unfounded assumptions that anyone can make.
That makes it no longer science, but since are scientists they can get away with the lie and the typical layman doesn't know not to believe them.

Skepticism is suppose to be healthy in science.

Where does skepticism of global warming get you?
It gets you kicked out of the club. That should tell you something - it's propaganda, not science.

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Of course the climate is changing, it's always changing.
However, it's not changing because of anything we are doing. It's changing because that's what it does, and what it has done for as long as our species has been here. Sometimes it changes slowly, sometimes it changes rapidly. Change is the only constant.

So you know better than people who actually know the topic. Nice.

What?
Plenty of very qualified scientists say the exact same thing - and many of the scientists you worship so much are the same scientists who were spouted global cooling (including using rhetoric like consensus etc.) back in the 70s.

Scientists make some of the biggest unfounded assumptions that anyone can make.
That makes it no longer science, but since are scientists they can get away with the lie and the typical layman doesn't know not to believe them.

Skepticism is suppose to be healthy in science.

Where does skepticism of global warming get you?
It gets you kicked out of the club. That should tell you something - it's propaganda, not science.

lol

I don't know what's funnier: The complete bullsmurf that you're spouting, or the fact that you believe that crap.

I remember magazines having stories about the "looming Ice age" back in the '70s.
The story was great because it sold magazines.
But I have yet to see anything along the lines of serious scientific data or consensus that ever took the claim seriously.

The only one I see going on about it is Glenn Beck -and he sure isn't going to back up his claim that there was a "global cooloing scare" in the '70s.
The "scare" wasn't any more scientifically driven as the "killer bee invasion" scare of the '70s.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Of course here's wiki's take on the whole "global cooling scare"

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I should also mention that the majority of active climate scientists today were not active in the 1970s.

That was a totally media-manufactured panic, exaggerated by one of the most severe winters ever, which happened (if I recall) in 1977.

Bah! What do you know????

:: opens can of 7-up ::

I will only accept as valid, the response from a sous-chef.

I can sympathize somewhat. It's not easy to move from a mindset of absolutes to a more relative view. The
Bible is the absolute authority. Getting past that "fact" takes time. Moving into the real world where nothing is black or white takes time. So, I must concede that it is entirely possible that global warming isn't happening, or is not a product of human behavior.  But given the evidence we have at this moment, it is highly probable that warming is occuring and that humans are contributing to it if not causing it. This view may and likely will change or be refined as new data is collected and analyzed. Indeed early scientists were convinced their hypotheses were true only to be proven incorrect later on - not because they intended to deceive, but they lacked data.

But one can't simply declare any work to be final authority and any future work that conflicts is automatically wrong.

Last edited by robco (2009-07-06 7:53 pm)

Oh I know the Bible is definitely a work of man - though the fundies will counter that the men who assembled the Bible did so with G-d's divine guidance. There's no winning this one. When you're brought up to believe in the good book without question, it's not easy to shake that mindset. All the evidence that exists still won't convince most Americans. The story behind the Koran and the Book of Mormon are just as flawed and it's difficult to see how anyone believes such nonsense, but they do because they're brought up that way. All religions tend to indoctrinate at a very young age.

Here's some copy.

LONDON – The surviving pages of the world's oldest Christian Bible have been reunited — digitally. The early work known as the Codex Sinaiticus has been housed in four separate locations across the world for more than 150 years. But starting Monday, it became available for perusal on the Web at http://www.codexsinaiticus.org so scholars and other readers can get a closer look at what the British Library calls a "unique treasure."

"(The book) offers a window into the development of early Christianity and firsthand evidence of how the text of the Bible was transmitted from generation to generation," said Scot McKendrick, head of Western manuscripts at the British Library.

As it survives today, Codex Sinaiticus comprises just over 400 large leaves of prepared animal skin, each of which measures 15 inches by 13.5 inches (380 millimeters by 345 millimeters). It is the oldest book that contains a complete New Testament and is only missing parts of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha.

The 4th-century book, written in Greek, has been digitally reunited in a project involving groups from Britain, Germany, Russia and Egypt, which each possessed parts of the 1,600-year-old manuscript.

resedit wrote:

I do not claim a 6K year old earth by science.

I see no point in bringing it up, but it does demonstrate that you're willing to complete dismiss scientific consensus if it conflicts with some other viewpoint that you hold.  The issue of climate change is just another instance of your rejection of such a consensus because it doesn't fit your political views.

Last edited by bratboy (2009-07-07 8:28 am)