Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
your the one making the statement back it up
your "reams" that you posted before didnt show what you claimed it did
although i was tickled by your cartoon graphics with "very hot" as temperature scale
canndo
Well-Known Member
Your follow the money argument doesn't hold up. If we are to judge truth to be inversely proportional to the amount of money behind the evaluators then the nay sayers are the ones with the "purity" problems, considering that the status quo is worth trillions.
canndo
Well-Known Member
And the "universe" is going through a warming cycle how exactly?
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
God crafted an uber pair of hand warmers that envelops us all?
canndo
Well-Known Member
there is no global warming, if there is we didn't do it, if we did it there is nothing we can do to stop it, if there is something we can do to stop it, it is too expensive.
You seem to be caught in this little loop. The fact is that if we caused it then it proves that our actions have global effects. If our actions have global effects then there is something we can do about something that we contributed to in the first place.
Beyond that, you are misrepresenting the facts - there is a large faction of people who do not believe man has anything to do with global warming. There is a significant fraction of the U.S. that believes the earth is 6000 years old. There is a significant fraction of Americans who believe any number of non-scientific tripe, most of it having to do with the rising popularity of willful ignorance in this country.
Doer
Well-Known Member
That trillions in infrastructure, is exactly what the Agenda wants to control. And they want their theory of the future to supplant the status quo.
Many of us feel the status quo is working just fine, is getting cleaner, more efficient, etc. It is REAL. It exists and can be improved. We worry that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater, because the Agenda for "change" seems reckless.
Somehow the Agenda wants us to believe that throwing money into solar power research will create automatic gains. Like the folks with Cancer think some things are being withheld. Science doesn't work by just throwing money. Science doesn't work by voting on consensus.
ALERT: I will pay $1,000,000 virtual rollitup dollars, for anyone that can provide evidence of a Cloud Effect model with current Satellite data that will show an open loop greenhouse effect. Think of it like an X-prize. Or a DARPA challenge. That's how science works.
BTW, this reward will decrease by $100 every year, so get cracking.
Many of us feel the status quo is working just fine, is getting cleaner, more efficient, etc. It is REAL. It exists and can be improved. We worry that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater, because the Agenda for "change" seems reckless.
Somehow the Agenda wants us to believe that throwing money into solar power research will create automatic gains. Like the folks with Cancer think some things are being withheld. Science doesn't work by just throwing money. Science doesn't work by voting on consensus.
ALERT: I will pay $1,000,000 virtual rollitup dollars, for anyone that can provide evidence of a Cloud Effect model with current Satellite data that will show an open loop greenhouse effect. Think of it like an X-prize. Or a DARPA challenge. That's how science works.
BTW, this reward will decrease by $100 every year, so get cracking.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
lol invent a problem that doesnt exist and get people to prove it wrong ehh??That trillions in infrastructure, is exactly what the Agenda wants to control. And they want their theory of the future to supplant the status quo.
Many of us feel the status quo is working just fine, is getting cleaner, more efficient, etc. It is REAL. It exists and can be improved. We worry that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater, because the Agenda for "change" seems reckless.
Somehow the Agenda wants us to believe that throwing money into solar power research will create automatic gains. Like the folks with Cancer think some things are being withheld. Science doesn't work by just throwing money. Science doesn't work by voting on consensus.
ALERT: I will pay $1,000,000 virtual rollitup dollars, for anyone that can provide evidence of a Cloud Effect model with current Satellite data that will show an open loop greenhouse effect. Think of it like an X-prize. Or a DARPA challenge. That's how science works.
BTW, this reward will decrease by $100 every year, so get cracking.
nothing fallacious or dishonest about that behaviour is there doer?
canndo
Well-Known Member
That makes no sense at all. Revolutionary scientific discoveries are always worth money, nor does science come to conclusions based upon profit as eventualy those conclusions will be proven false - and then there goes that money. There have always been fakes and frauds in science but they don't last - because the person who uncovers the fraud gains notoriety and usually manages to profit from that.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Woops, Freud, your slip is showing.
A problem that does not exist....Very funny. Good one. Will you attempt to claim the challenge?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
first show that it exists then it can be answeredWoops, Freud, your slip is showing.
canndo
Well-Known Member
[youtube]4v4Q9Wv10Ho[/youtube]
One of my favorite episodes.
I lost a lot of respect or them when I found out that they often use conservative based "think tanks" for some of their information and opinions. This argument that science has been wrong and so they are wrong when we don't like their findings is a sad one.
We can say that "science" thought radium was just fine for use in clock dials and in order to enhance men's sexual performance, but then they found out that it caused cancer or simply killed people outright. Does that mean that science was wrong twice? If you are basing your reality around science proving itself wrong I'll try to get you a gram or two of radium that you can paint your crotch with, after all, they were wrong about radium, so this stuff is perfectly harmless, right?
The opening portion of Penn and Teller's discussion violates logic and also insults the idea of science. This sort of argument uses the short perspective of science in an effort to disprove the long view. The POINT of science is that its explanations of natural phenomenon are subject to change in order to be more accurate and as new information becomes available. This does not mean that science is fallible, it means that science works as intended. If you want a source of understanding and explanation that is ALWAYS right ALL the time from the first gitgo then I recommend you turn to religion. After all, the bible is always right, has never contradicted itself and will always remain accurate and true. (oh, I forgot, Penn is an atheist isn't he)
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
People generally cannot refute things. "Proving a negative" is such a timeworn logic trap that it can be used as a reliable noob filter.
I remember the cloud effect discussions and do not recall reams, or even one ream, of research posted.
However, at a less stringent level than refutation, we have the ice core data. In the time since the ice sheets receded, we've had some essentially stepwise adjustments in global temp. This argues against a homeostatic or leveling effect by clouds. In the presence of the cloud counterweight you postulate, all steps should have been smoothed into slopes by the implied negative cooperativity. Jmo. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
~cannot resist~ blue balls! cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
here is another "classic" argument. If we can't see it then we don't know anything about it. If we weren't "there" then we don't know. Tough sell in a courtroom where they are trying to prove a man killed another man but the only witness is dead or on trial - but we manage anyway. This argument indicates that we can know nothing beyond what we can see, sort of like a child who thinks that if the bunny doll is hidden around the corner, it no longer exists. The art and science of forensics is an example as to why this sort of reasoning is so faulty. We as humans do have the ability to deduce the occurrences of certain things even though we weren't there. That is essentially what science is all about. We weren't around when the universe was born but we know a hell of a lot about it. We weren't here when the earth was born but we know a lot about that as well - we are a pretty smart bunch and don't always need direct witnesses to know what happened.
And. there are millions of years of records in mud and ice cores - we can even determine the composition of the air way back when, though there was no one around to test it and write down his findings.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Eh? I don't think you read it correctly. He has been asking me to prove the negative. He is asking that I prove that Cloud Effect has no mitigation. I say that is what is being studied. And now you are being literal? Reams means a lot. OK? There is "a lot" from the Cloud Effect Conference 2011, I posted. Days worth of research finding presented. All peer reviewed. Nothing shows the greenhouse effect.
So, I am hardly asking what you say. I am asking for a positive. An example of a Sat data Cloud Effect model, that's shows Greenhouse.
You picked my post apart, referred to me as noob, and totally twisted what I was saying based on ignoring my ALERT.
Doesn't seem like you.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
"The Sat data does not support the Agenda conjectures. No model as yet, can be shown to produce a runaway greenhouse effect, that can run the real Sat data.
Run the real Sat data, in any current Cloud Effect model, you get closed loop, not open loop, no Greenhouse effect.
In other words, the clouds mitigate the atmospheric temp. long term."
you seem to be struggling here so i'm gonna spell it out for you
the quoted text above is a positive statement from yourself.
now again can you provide evidence to back up the statement you made?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Oh dear no. I didn't call you a noob ... just folks who try to prove a negative.
But posting from one conference is more of a data point, not a ream, if you'll allow me semantic latitude. Also my memory of conferences is posters posters posters, which are a little light on detail and the usual strictures of review. Posters are the "what if" end of scientific writing, not as stringent as publications about allowing speculation. Jmo. cn
