AGW Theory - Discussion

Atheism is not a system of beliefs lol. It's by its own etymology a lack of theism.

Eh? I'm a conspiracy theorist because I said politicians lie?

you can't address the ideas so you tag a label on me (name calling) and then ignore the very valid logic and reason completely.

False. it is a committed belief there is not God. How many choices and beliefs grow from that one central one?

What does it mean for the state of morality? The value of Human Life?

It is a system.

I say you're a conspiracy theorist because you think an entire branch of scientist is scamming the US government, and the entire world, out of grant money.

Not because you think politicians lie.

Quite frankly, I think the idea has been humored long enough. It doesn't deserve to be addressed.

Your post is quite revealing, by the way. Scientific knowledge comes from scientist, not from politicians.

It could happen but, I recall the logic being that when there is a P&R section, P&R stays there and the rest of the site is P&R free.

I'm with you guys on this one, for once. I wonder who's been going around, marking people's posts. Some people need to grow thicker skin, or simply leave the thread if things are getting too hot.

When they can't address your point they'll attack you instead. Character assassination 101.

Although sometimes P&R do creep into other threads (RT and Ni), I try to move it away from there when I see it (at least for RT, Ni can do whatever the *** they want).

I think that comes right after claiming everyone who disagrees with you is just bias.

Relatively easily. In a historical context and compared to other organisms, humans adapt fantastically. We have tools, sentience, etc..

There are many many thing beyond our control... its not really cogent to the argument and you are ignoring the much more important point:

The predicted climate change is not nearly as big a deal as the politics are making it out to be. It also well within the bound of what the earth has done naturally in the past.

Don't look now, Joaquin is a Cat4. How long before people blame global warming?

I wouldn't say the entire science community, just a few from a selective politically charged group are.

You would be crazy to think that there aren't people, scientists included, who would not try to defraud the government.

Irony...

Cleaner air in the high north could reduce Arctic sea ice by an area of about one million square kilometres this century.

Air pollution has a net cooling effect on the climate, and has partially offset the decline of Arctic sea ice since the mid-1970s

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/526008d.html#close

Again, 90% of scientist who get no climate grant money, and 97% of climatologist.

Not that I can convince you of such.


As far as the religious debate with Xilk goes, I suggest you google 'sunk cost' and find out why you're trying so hard to make a belief in magical powers so much more than it really is.

Of course my post is revealing. How can people communicate without revealing themselves?

Plus, I'm long-winded. I'm not trying to hide anything. Should I be? are you just playing a game? "Who can appear in control of the conversation" ?

Your's is just as revealing. You flit away from any and all meat in a conversation and rely on implication, name-calling, and misdirection. its disappointing.

A religion is the belief in a god or superhuman power. An atheist is someone who believes the opposite. I truly get where you are coming from, but labeling Atheism as a religion is really redundant because you are canonically wrong.

Did I accuse a botanist of defrauding the government? *checks* Nope.

Last I checked, I stated that only a few (meaning less than 100% of the total population of a specific group, but greater than 0%) of climate scientists (meaning, not paleontologists, not psychiatrists, not drug scientists, not anyone outside the group of "climate scientists") are possibly engaged in fraud because it's so *** easy to get grant money for being a "scientist."

All they have to do is sell a canned paper and claim R&D expenses.

Again, you are taking me out of context and misunderstanding/misrepresenting me.

Your forgetting the most important part:

Tell the money givers what they want to hear.

I said there were biases on both sides because the motivation for the research is religious in nature.

I did not claim everyone who disagreed with me was biased. I said there is established bias on both sides which murkies the water and makes it not reliable for decision making. Is this not simple to understand?

97%

Not a few.

You're really not going to escape that number, no matter how much you try.



And you sir, aren't going to escape the fact that you believe in magic powers.

No, it isn't. Molecular evidence for evolution is more compelling. It's a poor source of data because fossils only form under relatively rare conditions. The lack of some fossil evidence (holes or whatever you wish to call them) is not evidence in itself. I didn't dismiss ***. There's still value in digging up old rocks to create an easily visualized lineage, but it's not an integral part of the story.

Dissenters here like to talk so much about biases and assumptions a lot. Well, it's a *** lazy argument. Argue evidence. Can the consensus of professional scientists be wrong about AWG (or evolution or quantum mechanics or whatever)? They could be, duh. But the virtual mountain of evidence in support of those theories makes that rather unlikely.

Maybe some heretofore unknown natural phenomenon can account for the excess heat being trapped in our atmosphere. Sure, why not. Likely? No.

Maybe some undetectable force outside of evolution by natural selection is responsible for the incredible diversity of life on the planet. Possible, sure, but not very likely.

There's a giant *** adrift in out solar system right now and no one knows it because it's always occluded by the sun. Prove me wrong, ***.

That post was directed to Nausi, though it was nice to know that you also fall back to the both sides-same thing gimmick. It's comforting knowing everyone believes some kind of crazy, so there's no reason for me to feel bad.

There will always be people looking to score a buck from the misfortune or manipulation of issues that affect the well being of humans on a large scale. One only needs to look at the recent Pharmaceutical company jacking the price of their medication a terrific amount for proof.

What we shouldn't do, however, is let the handful of cases where such a thing happens govern our decisions that as a species could have catastrophically far reaching consequences. The bottom line is that in the event that AGW Theory is true and that scientists are correct, will it be too late to redress the damage we're doing?

I certainly hope not. It's a shame that so many people are so happy to gamble the future of our planet on this. If those who believe AGW are wrong, we all go on living our lives happily. But if those who don't believe it are wrong, the leash you've been keeping on combating this will be lifted way too late and by that point our species will be screwed.

But it's okay, we'll all be long dead most likely, it's not our problem, right?

Wow. You are canonically wrong.
Saying atheism is a religion, is redundant. sure.. Saying any religion is a religion is redundant... but it is legally, philosophically, historically, a religion.

Its an absurd argument because its like arguing water is wet. If someone doesn't understand, they just need to experience water...

I don't know what else to say, except read some history.

Except I'm not. Not going to give this any more attention.

This right here is a major clue that you know *** all about science.

Actually, you are taking people out of context. Unless you really mean that 97% of climate scientists are out to defraud the government. Because, you just basically said that. Read what you quoted me and your 97% comment.

Old and busted: I want to study South American butterflies.

New hotness: I want to study the effects of global warming on butterflies in South America.

Having trouble getting money for your study? Tie it to global warming Tow the party line.