"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Today, I was going to create a post debunking the theory of Global warming, but Lone Ranger beat me to it, by posting a youtube video of actual objective scientists explaining why AlGore and that illustrious consensus of Global Warming so-called scientists are not telling us the truth.
Here is the video, for those who are unwilling to visit LR's blog:
The scientists in his video made two of the points I was going to bring up. One, the fact that the rise in temperature causes the rise in CO2 levels, not the opposite, as AlGore states.
The graph ALGore uses in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth" , to provide positive evidence of our impending demise via Global Warming, actually shows just the opposite. Using the same graph, the scientist in LR's video pointed out that CO2 levels followed, not preceded, the rise in Global temperature by as many as 800 years. If the CO2 levels don't rise before the temperature levels, it stands to reason that CO2 emissions are not the cause of Global warming.
Incidentally, a previous post by Lone Ranger explains that CO2 is an essential element to life on this planet. Humans breathe in oxygen, and expel carbon dioxide. Plants breathe in Carbon Dioxide and expel oxygen.
I suppose if the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere was significantly higher than the amount we need to maintain life on this planet, it might create a serious problem, but remember, there are many more trees, plants, flowers, weeds and blades of grass on this planet than there are humans.
As Lone Ranger eloquently puts it, "It's a perfect symbiosis, brought about by the totally random effects of the Big Bang."
Heh heh heh.
As I always say, the myth of Global Warming can be easily debunked by the use of simple common sense and logic.
The other point is the lie that water levels will rise by 20 feet if the polar ice caps melt. The scientists in the aforementioned video say the oceans water level would rise by no more than 23 inches.
The point I was going to make was this:
Fill a glass with water and ice and measure the water level before the ice melts and then again after it melts. The water level in the glass would remain virtually unchanged.
Then, calculate how much water levels would actually rise if the polar ice caps did indeed melt. Considering the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers make up 2/3 of the world, and the ocean is miles deep, the possibility that melting ice caps would raise the collective water level of the earth's waters significantly defies logic and common sense.
And yet, ALGore and friends insist the water levels would rise 20 feet or more. Where does AlGore say all this excess water will come from?
As it happens, it was a point I didn't need to make as the scientists in the video more than adequately make the point for me.
Here is a point I was going to make that wasn't made in the video:
AlGore's consensus of Scientists say that the average mean Global temperature year round, has risen 7/10 of 1 percent in the last century. That means if the average temperature was 65 degrees in 1907, it would be 65.7 degrees now in 2007. (I don't know exactly what it is, that's an example)
For all you Global warming believers out there, here is a little mathematical exercise for you:
Calculate for me, please, how long it will take for the average mean temperature on the planet to get so hot that it seriously endangers man's existence on this planet. Be sure to take into account that the average temperature on the polar ice caps is around 30-40 degrees below zero year round (the lowest recorded temperature of Antarctica is -126 degree F), and humans can withstand temperatures of over 90 degrees indefinitely, even without air conditioning. You may even include ALGore's position that the water level will rise 20 feet if the polar ice caps melt if that will help you skew your results better.
Then explain to me again how Climate Change is a more imminent threat to us than international terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
"Explain to me again how global warming...." Let the US military explain it:
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf (or if you don't care to read all 35 pages, it has to do with crops, water and socio-economic chaos. Gee, I'm glad the Lone Ranger ain't a general :)
BB, the print is much too small for my old eyes to read, but I'm not sure the military did the calculations I asked for.
I basically asked how long it will take for the average temperature to be a danger to humans, and then I asked the Gore-Bull warming believers to explain to me how global warming is a more imminent threat than terrorism. I can't be sure because the text is too small for me to read, but I don't think your link answers those questions.
Why don't you do the calculations yourself and fill in the blanks for them? Do you have to rely on someone else's info rather than just relying on your own logic and common sense? Do you not trust your own instincts? Are you so insecure as to believe you can't possibly be intelligent enough to weigh the evidence (or lack of evidence) and come to a logical conclusion on your own?
I don't know how old you are, Brian, but maybe you are too young to remember when another consensus of so-called scientists were predicting the end of the world because we were depleting the ozone layer with flourocarbons and yes, exhaust emissions. They said we had already made a hole in the ozone and were rapidly expanding it day by day. It was only a matter of a few years and we were all going to be crispy critters if we didn't stop using aerolsol
sprays.
And now you say the ozone layer is too thick? As I say, common sense and logic. Try using ot once in a while.
Your blasphemy will anger the Goracle™ and his minions!
Mark, "the print is too small" for me too :) Let me respond to "Why don't you do the calculations yourself and fill in the blanks for them? Do you have to rely on someone else's info rather than just relying on your own logic and common sense? Do you not trust your own instincts? Are you so insecure as to believe you can't possibly be intelligent enough to weigh the evidence (or lack of evidence) and come to a logical conclusion on your own?" No, No, No and No. With the caveat that I am only a retired explosives scientist, not a climate expert,
I pondered your challenge. In brief, consider any global temperature trend chart, like the one at http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2004.htm
and take a look. I copied it and expanded the gridlines. Draw a straight line from 1900 to 2020 to form a prediction trend. Since the rate of increase accelerates from 1960, draw another straight line from there. Extrapolate the lines into the grid addition to find that the predictions, while a fraction of a degree warmer, are
indeed 'livable' for the next couple of generations of sapiens.
Verify the graphical dataset with a simple slope equation calculator, such as at http://www.1728.com/distance.htm. (If, you, like me prefer Farenheit, the line equation becomes T = (0.0246 x year) + 8.744 So far, so good, we agree the numbers are not too alarming. Now, look at our chart again. Draw a curved line through the average of the fluctuating readings and note how our predictions trend to significantly higher future temperatures..56.9F in 1960, 58.19F/2010, 63.51/2040
etc. Again, we verify..this time
with a series of curve-fit equations (I used an old DOS basic program..you think your old!). Of some 25 exponential equations, we find that the Cauchy relation, eg
T= 1/A(year+B)exp 2+C, where
A=-01848E-06 B=1844E04 and C=
0.7344E01 is a best fit, at least for the referenced mean global temperature dataset. In other words there is an impetus, sort of like acceleration in interior ballistics, except it is time related rather than mass limiting. So much for my own logic. Common sense-wise, consider world population RE http://www.learner.org/interactives/dailymath/population.html and note how us humans have fared. It is thought, of course that such increase must be assymptotic once we reach equilibrium with our required resources. It would appear that if human infrastructure is a source of pollution, a very large growing
human infrastructure would, in direct proportion excacerbate pollution. Heavy metals, flourocarbons, CO2, zillions of
polyethylenepterephthalate water bottle (hey, I still drink tapwater!) sulfur & nitric acid
deriviatives etc have some affect on the atmosphere. And probably not good. Us expanding millions are also chopping down rainforest
and making artifical deserts..kind of hard on our oxygen supply.
Common sense-wise, we need consider global temperature in its relation to climate, spectacularly in storms, but more perfidious in long-term rainfall and lack thereof. For a tiny example, here
the rainfall was only 60% normal and already biological indicators
such as our large mourning dove
population are affected: they all left, first time I can remember.
Sure, it may be a temporaray aberration. Or then again, perhaps not. I'm quite sure your intent is not to 'convert' people
to your perception of global warming, but simply state your beliefs and how you come by them.
Same here, Mark. I have never read AlGore, nor seen his movie, nor do I consider him a source of
great science. My opinion, yup,
there is GW and yup, we are a factor. Like you, I'm not sure how alarming it is and the reason there is controversy at all is that the subject is so dang complex, atmospherics relates to
other geophysical phenomena, lifeforms play a part, oceanography bears on things,
ad infinitum. So, thanks for your patience in reading this far, maybe
you might agree the military is right to consider various possibilities in our future?
Mark asked:
Calculate for me, please, how long it will take for the average mean temperature on the planet to get so hot that it seriously endangers man's existence on this planet.
How's about this, Mark: Calculate for me how long you can stick your mouth on the end of the tailpipe of a running automobile before it seriously endangers your life? Would you to be scientific about it and conduct an experiment and see?
Would you last 15 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour?
Would it be wise of you to try to find out that way?
Oh, and Happy Birthday, young fella!!
http://www.iceagenow.com/
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Coming-Ice-Age-and-the-Ethanol-Trend-Mistake&id=792950
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/1998/ice_age.html
http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2005/05/new_ice_age_com.html
http://www.metatech.org/07/ice_age_global_warming.html
That there DAN fellah is a good example of the total lack of even a wisp of common sense on the part of these weather predictors--Anyone who lives in the real world knows that you can't touch a HOT tailpipe for more than a second or two...LOL
Henry, I already have. Isn't it fun?
Yes Trader Rick, I am aware of that. Apparently you are a good example of the total lack of even a wisp of a sense of irony on the part of many on the Right.
Allow me to explain: No, it would not be a good idea to try sucking exhaust fumes from a running tailpipe to find out how long one could do it.
Similarly, it is Biggie-Sized Stupid to bet the world that perhaps our toxins that we pour into the air, ground and water won't be enough to kill us or severely damage life on earth.
Understand now?
Dan says, "Similarly, it is Biggie-Sized Stupid to bet the world that perhaps our toxins that we pour into the air, ground and water won't be enough to kill us or severely damage life on earth."
Yes, Dan, you are right. We shouldn't bet the world that pollution won't seriously damage the world...eventually.
But when?
As I pointed out, (and even if I'm not 100% accurate about how long it takes for temperatures to warm 7/10 of a degree. Maybe it only takes 50 years for it to go that much higher) if you do the calculations, it would take centuries for the rising temperatures to get to the point where it endangers life on this planet, so the question remains:
How is Global Warming a more imminent threat to this planet than terrorism? One suitcase nuclear bomb smuggled across our porous southern border by terrorists will kill thousands more people in one mili-second (and can be detonated virtually any minute now) than will be killed by temperatures slowly getting warmer over a thousand years. After all, we still have hundreds of years to devise methods of protecting ourselves against such disasters.
So although you are intentionally obfuscating my point by distration, you still cannot present any hard evidence that Global Warming, if it even exists, is a more imminent threat to the planet than terrorism.
By the way, Global Warming, if it exists, would be inevitable because of climate factors beyond human control, whereas terrorism can be stopped or increased depending on whether we take aggressive action or tuck our tails between our legs and ruin.
So which is a more imminent threat again?
Oh, and Dan, You are continually complaining of man's inhumanity to man, why do you seem to think God is incapable of saving us from ourselves? You seem to think Government is capable of that, yet you seem to think God is incapable of keeping us safe.
Where's your faith, Dan?
God promises in Revelation 11 to "destroy those who destroy the earth."
God apparently thinks we're capable of destroying the Earth. Do you disagree with God?
It's not that I place any great faith in Gov't, but I do think that we - you and I - ought to live aright. Do you think the gov't has a right and duty to implement laws that keep us from killing one another, for instance? Is that "placing faith" in gov't to expect that we ought to have laws against murder?
Come on Mark, be reasonable. Of course we ought to support reasonable laws and policies by our gov't - remembering that in a Democratic Republic, WE are the gov't. You and I and everyone else.
The question is (for me): Ought we support reasonable policies?
I think we all agree we should do such.
A secondary question is: Is it reasonable and prudent (another word for "conservative") to plan on burning fossil fuels at the rate that we are burning them when we know:
1. That we'll go through the available fossil fuels sometime in the next 100 years (at this rate)
2. We don't know what we can replace those fossil fuels with - these fossil fuels on which our economy is based
3. We know beyond a shadow of doubt that there are negative repercussions from our pollution - streams unsafe to swim or fish in, air that is physically dangerous for people with asthma, the elderly and some young folk to breathe
4. There is evidence (note - we don't KNOW this, but there is evidence) that our rate of pollution is causing global climate change. There is further evidence (not know beyond a shadow of doubt, but real evidence gathered by real scientists) that even just a few degrees of global warming can have devastating and unpredictable results.
GIVEN ALL THAT, I ask you, is it wise and prudent to continue to support policies that maintain the status quo?
Will you determine how safe it is to suck a tailpipe by actually doing so?
I think most reasonable people increasingly think the answer is a resounding NO! If you don't want to go along with the majority, that's fine. Just don't ask us to support or subsidize your continued pollution if you want to live otherwise. In fact, don't be surprised if we support policies that would curtail that sort of pollution.
Or, to directly answer your question Mark: Yes, I think God is entirely capable of doing whatever God wants, including stopping the destruction of the earth.
God could also stop a bullet from hitting you. Shall I try shooting one your way and see if God does, in fact, stop it?
Again, be reasonable.
"First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today...
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming... And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity."
George W Bush, 2001
"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability...
The report also says that despite some lingering scientific uncertainties, "There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years."
From a report from George W Bush's EPA, in 2002
I could go on, but I'm wondering, do you think Bush is involved in this conspiracy to suggest that Global Warming is NOT a myth and that, indeed, it appears that humans are having an impact on the climate?
Yes, Dan. I do believe Bush is involved in spreading the myth of Global Warming. He is a good honest man, but as a human, he can be duped, too, just as you are.
30 years ago, most of these same consensus of scientists claimed the Earth was heading for another ice age. Were they wrong then or now?
Mark, you do stick by your opinion.
Don't tell Britt Hume, but FoxNews recently reversed their perception:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175036,00.html
So, Bush, me and thousands of scientists have been duped into believing that Global warming is happening. Who's behind this conspiracy, do you think? Do you have any evidence?
Assuming you have no evidence as to this conspiracy (having offered none thus far), why should we believe you (and the oil companies - oh, wait! The Oil companies think there's global warming, too! Someone's got them!!) over what we think reputable scientists are telling us?
And you haven't answered my question, Mark. You cast an aspersion on my faith, suggesting I'm trusting gov't over God. I asked you, using that same logic, that if God CAN deliver us from destroying ourselves or you from a bullet, will you try shooting one at yourself and seeing if God delivers you?
Or were you just joking and you don't really think it a sign of a lack of faith to have gov't policies against negative actions?
Mark repeated a myth, saying:
30 years ago, most of these same consensus of scientists claimed the Earth was heading for another ice age. Were they wrong then or now?
This is an example of an actual myth. Scientists in the 70s weren't predicting an eminent ice age. It's a myth perpetrated by anti-global climate change folk in an effort to obfuscate (perhaps unknowingly repeating bad information).
See here for the detailed explanation.
In short, the SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS were not publishing reports predicting an ice age, although a few News type magazines reported an occasional story hinting at it, it's not a theory that was or is embraced by the scientific community at the time.
It is a myth. And now that I've informed you of that, you can help educate people so they don't repeat the myth mistakenly, as you have done here.
Thanks for your help on that!
I always love the claims of "most scientists" or "scientific consensus" as used to "prove" that global warming is anthropogenic.
Get this:
CONSENSUS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Here's a funny little story about "scientific consensus"...
Henry said:
CONSENSUS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Unless I'm mistaken, the only one who has referred to "most scientists" here would be Mark, when he made the claim that "most of these same consensus of scientists claimed the Earth was heading for another ice age..."
No one here has said that consensus = scientific method, Henry. So, what's your point?
Now, when we poor lay citizens are trying to decide upon policy, and we hear different messages from different scientists, we ought not look for consensus necessarily.
On the other hand, if many scientists are telling us that human behavior may be impacting negatively upon the earth, including in climatic change, and the main scientific opposition comes from scientists funded by oil companies or rightwing "think tanks," well then, intelligent citizens would weigh all of that for what it's worth and vote for policies based upon the science as we best understand it.
That is, if 1000 climatologists are saying humans may have an impact upon climate change and 100 scientists working for or receiving money from the oil companies, what would you have us base our decisions upon?
If you need a little more evidence in favor of Global Climate Change, how about The Environmental Skeptic? Bjorn Blomborg has made a name for himself, saying he's an environmentalist but rejecting many claims of environmentalist and scientists, including global warming.
But even Blomborg has come around, saying, "The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions."
source
At first, the critics pooh-poohed global warming. Then, they admitted that the science was sound and that global warming is a reality (THE CRITICS say this, not the GW scientists) BUT, they said, humans couldn't possibly affect the climate.
And NOW the skeptics say, "Okay, Global climate change is a reality and it's likely that humans have impacted it, but so what? Either there's nothing we can do about it or it might even be a good thing, or at least nothing to worry about..."
Mark, no one - not the oil companies, not the president, not the auto companies, not other skeptics - no one is calling "global warming" a myth. Very few opponents are even doubting that humans are impacting the climate.
If you want to make the argument that we ought not worry about global warming, do so. But it's just a bit silly to say things like calling GW a myth. No one thinks that because the science does not support that view.
Dan, you say "no one is calling "global warming" a myth."
Wrong. I am saying it. Read my lips. Global Warming is a myth.
And guess what? I'm not the only one. Not by a long shot.
Okay. Allow me to correct that. No real scientists (perceived "left" or "right" or otherwise) is denying the facts that the earth has gotten warmer this last century.
None.
Very few real scientists ("left" or "right") doubt the evidence that human activity is contributing to climate change.
Can you name any? Cite any scientifically valid journals with evidence saying that global temperature is decreasing?
Who are these talking heads on the videos? Who is paying their salaries?
Not that I doubt that there might be a few people who work as scientists to say that, but answer the question:
You are absolutely correct to suggest that just because a majority of scientists (vast majority) believe the evidence shows clearly that the earth is warming - and many of those think that there is evidence suggesting that human activity is contributing to it - that just because that's true doesn't make it reality. BUT, why should we take the opposite stance and assume that the few scientists who DON'T believe the evidence is clear that the earth is warming? WHY believe them?
If the majority of scientists tell you that you need to quit smoking or you'll have lung and health problems, but ONE scientist (who works for the cigarette company) tells you, "Nawww, go ahead and smoke. The evidence is not clear that you'll have any negative effects from smoking," who would you believe: The one or the majority?
And since you didn't respond, I just wanted to clarify:
You ARE going to help do your part to dispel the myth that "the global warming scientists" were predicting an ice age in the '70s? You're an honorable man, Mark. You wouldn't want to perpetuate a falsehoold, would you?
Now that I've shown you evidence to the contrary, you WILL be renouncing that position, won't you?
This is an interesting conversation, to say the least. On the one hand, you have Dan, and bb-idaho, explaining how science works, with bb-idaho giving an excellent example of actual science (to which Mark has yet to respond), and you have Mark, repeating "Global Warming Is A Myth" without a beat, without any consideration at all of what has been said here.
I do love your "God won't let people destroy the planet" argument. When you are driving, do you take your hands off the steering wheel and say, "God won't allow me to plow in to the van filled with kids that's approaching me?" In essence, the argument you are making is the same.
We human beings have been given care of creation, we are the stewards, whose responsibility it is to make sure the planet, and those creatures that live on it, thrive. Hoping for some deus ex machina to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire isn't faith, but wishful thinking. Declaring global warming a "myth" with no understanding of what you are talking about isn't an argument, but an assertion.
It's Christians like you that almost make me want to become Buddhist.
And the basic questions remain unanswered.
Mark, I don't think you're a bad guy. Just mistaken and unwilling to yield an inch.
But if you can't answer some basic questions in support of your position, don't you think that ought to at least give you pause?
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford says, "It's Christians like you that almost make me want to become Buddhist."
Well, Mr. Kruse-Safford, (What is it with the hyphenated name anyway? Are being pretentious or do you have two daddies or two mommies and can't decide which of their last names to use?)judging from your new age humanist brand of Christianity, which bears little resemblance to true Biblical Christianity in the first place, I'd say your theology more closely resembles that of Buddhism than Christianity anyway.
Geoffrey, (What's with the European spelling of your name, Jeff? Are you trying to appear to be a politically correct Globalist?)you are a phony pretentious elitist snob and your comments are only permitted here to show clear thinking people how ludicrous you silly Libs are.
Dan says, "And the basic questions remain unanswered."
How astute of you to finally notice!
The basic question: Calculate the number of years it will take for the earth to get so hot it seriously endangers man's existence.
You haven't answered it yet, nor will you ever because you are more intersted in arguing than in truth, which I've already pointed out, can be ascertained through basic common sense and logic.
Ok, so you can say you won the argument I will join in the hysterics with you:
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Excuse me, was I addressing you, Dan? What you are mistaken about is the idea that I was commenting to you; I was commenting on the topic in general. However, I will note your predictable "progressive" narcissism.
the main scientific opposition comes from scientists funded by oil companies or rightwing "think tanks"
The "big oil" conspiracy? LMAO!!
Can you even name any of the "main scientific opposition"? You're going to have to show me some credible evidence of some kind of grand conspiracy amongst thousands of scientists and all of them receiving money from "big oil". Oh, and DKos, DU and HuffPo don't count.
Typical "progressive" moonbat accusations of some kind of secret cabal of "big oil" fat cats plotting to destroy Mother Gaea while they sit around lighting cigars with $100 bills; hiring scientists as henchmen to do their world-destruction bidding.
Who are these scientists that are paid-for lap dogs of "big oil"?
I suppose Yuri Izrael is a shill for big oil; please enlighten us as to which oil company is writing his checks.
How about Daniel Botkin; he's on the take too? Again, you will have to show us, specifically, which "rightwing 'think tank'" is cutting his checks. Then there's Patrick Moore and Jay Lehr; are they on the "big oil" payroll? Don't forget Paul Reiter; which "rightwing 'think tank'" is it that's funding him?
Go ahead and show us all exactly which "big oil" companies and "rightwing 'think tanks'" bought off over 17,000 scientists who disagree with the hysterical rants of Al Gore and James Hansen.
Until you start producing credible evidence of some kind of over-arcing connivance with scientists and "big oil", I suggest you tap a keg of frosty, cold STFU.
I'm sure there were idiots like you repeating the "Scientific Consensus" meme back in J. Harlan Bretz's day too, i.e. "More scientists agree with my brand of common sense, therefore I'm right."
While I'm at it, I'll point out your typical "progressive" hypocrisy. You project your claims of "spreading myths" onto Mark, yet here you are regurgitating the holy mantra of a "big oil" conspiracy to fund the holocaust deniers, sorry, I mean AGW skeptics. Talk about myths....
Wanna know something Dan? I'll put my degrees in Environmental Science and Marine Technologies up against 99% of "intelligent" citizens like you any time.
Here's my point, Dildo Dan:
You define the term "Liberal douche bag".
You know what, Henry? I think you must be sorta sweet on me to have all that opinion about me. Didn't mean to get you all stirred up, little buddy.
Here's what I'm asking for fellas:
A scientific article in a recognized journal supporting your position. Something I can read. One link. Something to support your position besides some corporate shill.
But no. You have not offered the first one. Nor have you answered why we ought to trust your few voices over the ones we've read and what makes logical sense to us.
You are free to believe as you wish. But you have already lost the debate with the American people. You've offered nothing but the politics of name-calling and childishness.
If you would like to hold a rational adult conversation then you would have to give us something, some evidence. Something besides attacks and nonsense.
But it is fairly clear that you all seem to be fairly impotent fellas who don't like that you haven't been able to convince the nation or the world that you're right and so you just want to whine and moan.
Have at it, pals. I'm tired of your 5th grade antics.
Peace.
Ahhh, the fag jokes. The last bastion of the intellectually devoid "progressive".
There's that "the debate is over" nonsense again.
Here's your link to a peer reviewed study. You'll have to kick down the $25 for the full article. Not that you'll actually read and/or understand it; I'm sure you'll tell us all how it's not a "real" scientific journal, or the researchers are all on the take.
Your "progressive" hypocrisy is showing again: Yeah you're right, you're so much more mature than our 5th grade antics, as the fag insults are certainly junior high level.
Oh yeah, and now that you've accused me of being gay, I'm sure you'll be scrambling to get on your knees. Save it for Al Gore; I'm sure he'll reward you with a Toyota Prius.
Wow.
First, my parents, Daniel and Virginia Safford, will celebrate their 54th wedding anniversary this coming March 31st. My wife, the Rev. Lisa Kruse-Safford and I, when we married, decided to legally adopt each others names and hyphenate, to symbolize the new reality that was created when two individuals, Geoffrey Stephen Safford (yeah, I got the fancy spelling of the middle name two, from my liberal, socialist-pacifist [it's true, they are] parents who are both really educated and really smart; like me) and Lisa Anne Kruse, became something new and different. I never wanted any woman I married to take my name, because it is a sad relic of a past when women were property. Lisa argued and I accepted that hyphenating would be a nice way of saying something about who we had become.
As for not resembling "Biblical Christianity", I would hope it doesn't, because I'm not a first or second century resident of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. I don't speak Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, or Persian. If that's what you mean by "Biblical Christianity". If, on the other hand, you mean whatever it is you believe, well, no, I'm not that either. The difference between us, Mark, is that I would never deny you are a Christian.
Mark! That was viscious even for you.
Geoffrey is a friend of mine. I became acquainted with him a year ago, when my mama was sick. He prayed for me, the church his wife pastors prayed for me, and stucketh closer to me than an online brother, which is more than I can say for just about any other person in blogdom. He is as close a friend now as any of the two or three I have in the real world.
Your attack on him, on his name! for God's sake! shows more than you know just how utterly ignorant you are, and how mean and low you've become.
You're small, man. Real small.
Dan you must love that verse. If you quote the bible use the whole sentence not just the last clause.
Example:
Genisis 19:5
. . . Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.
Using your method we can assume all of us should leave our houses and have sex.
The correct way is
"They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Makes a difference, doesn't it
ER, you and Geoff and friends drew first blood. Everytime I comment on your blog, even when I agree with you, I am called stupid or ignorant, etc.
Example? I said God is in control and I was summarily dismissed as a kook for believing my God--not man--has the power to destroy or save the earth from Global Warming, if such a thing exists.
You don't have to agree with me, but at least you could respect my right to have an opinion that differs from yours without resorting to ad hominen attacks.
So, apparently you value other's opinions as long as they agree with you.
Oh, and by the way, Tim apologized for specific things he said that he shouldn't have. You simply said, "I apologize". You did not name specifics which leads me to suspect your apology was not sincere.
And while I'm on that subject, Mr "Jesusian". You are so fond of declaring yourself a follower of Jesus. Where do you find Jesus refusing to forgve someone unless they apologize first? Did I miss that particular part of scripture or did you once again create your own interpretation of the Bible to justify being an ass?
Now the gloves are off. If you and your friends can insult me, I can insult you. Turnabout's fair play.
You don't like what I say? You are free to vacate my blogspace, and don't let the door hit you in your brain on your way out.
I've already vacated yours.
Got ya the last word, didn't ya? Yer such a pipsqueak! LOLOL. But I love ya man. That's why I think you need help. If I didn't care, I wouldn't care.
ER, Thanks for disproving my belief that Libs don't have a sense of humor. I think you at last may "get it".
I love you, too ER, as a brother, and I knew you cared, or you wouldn't get so angry with me.
I still think Jeff is a snob, though. No doubt he is a wonderful friend to those who think like he does, but woe to anyone who dares to think differently.
Oh, your apology, such as it was, is accepted.
First of all, I have not attacked you here. I have disagreed with you. I have asked you a serious question in regards to your reasoning. I have not questioned your relationship with God, or whether your position on God preventing global disaster is credible. I have offered reasons why I do not hold that position, but I do not think you are "wrong" in either a relative or absolute sense. I assumed that, ind conducting an argument, you would understand that involved disagreement. Rather than address the issue, you decided to go all ad hominem on me, and I still have no idea why.
Have I called you ignorant in the past? Perhaps because you have displayed ignorance. Am I a snob for calling a spade a spade? Perhaps, perhaps not. I do enjoy being called a snob, and someone who is only nice to those with whom I agree. In fact, I happen to be nice to pretty much everyone. I will disagree with you until the cows come home, however, if you say something with which I disagree.
See, Mark, that's the difference, as I see it, between some folks on the right, and most of the rest of us. There is nothing personal going on here. I have not attacked you, your name, your family heritage, what have you. I have tried, as best as I can, to present an argument - a series of related propositions leading to a conclusion. You, on the other hand, made fun of . . . my name, which hasn't happened to me since 1971 or so.
I do not think you are an evil horrible person. I do not think you are damned to hell for all eternity because of the way you express your faith in God. I believe you to be wrong about some aspects of your faith. I know you are wrong when you state categorically that global warming is a myth. That doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. In trying to have a discussion about these issues, however, you have decided to get all upset, for some reason I still cannot fathom, and call me names ("European"?). That's OK, because all it shows is the problem does not lie with me.
I asked a question of another global warming denier earlier, and have yet to get a response, so I want to ask you. Why would scientists all over the world not only concoct the theory of human-induced global warming, but convince millions of non-scientists, including policy experts, that it is a correct theory? Is this a conspiracy theory here? I'm honestly curious.
ER, thank you for the very kind words. I did for you what I would do for anybody.
OK, It is clear that I am going to have to create rules, or more appropriately, a rule, for commenting here.
I will no longer allow comments that do not adress the subject of the post.
I deleted some of ERE's. not because of his attitude or opinion, which he is free to have, but because he didn't address the subject.
Geoff, I have allowed your comment because you did get around to addressing the subject on the tail end of your rant.
Before I answer your question, however, I do want to address your statement that you have not attacked me, and am generally nice to everyone.
Do the words, "a guy that can barely string two sentences together" and some people are just beyond dumb" have any significance to you? That is an attack. And it isn't very nice, is it?
That wasn't even the first time you have attacked my intelligence. there have been many many others. As I said, you and your friends drew first blood. Play nice, or don't play at all, and I will do the same.
Now, as to your question:
"Why would scientists all over the world not only concoct the theory of human-induced global warming, but convince millions of non-scientists, including policy experts, that it is a correct theory?"
Asked and answered in previous comments. Money and politics. But I'll break it down for you.
For money:
Scientists live on income from Government grants and of course, whatever corporations and/or foundations by whom they are employed. They are paid to reach whatever conclusions their employers desire. Why would those entities be interested in paying scientists to concoct hairbrained theories?
Politics:
Many scientists support certain political candidates or policy makers who would benefit greatly from a scientific theory that would help them institute desired government policy changes. Global warming, for instance, is tailor made for those wishing to tax us to death. Scientists, of course, get a kickback for their trouble.
Convince everyone the planet is rapidly being destroyed by mankind, and certain policy changes that will cost billions of tax dollars to implement will prevent it, and you have plenty of motivation to concoct the theory of man-induced Global Warming.
I should think a man of your intellect would have easily grasped that very simple concept.
How's that for dumber than dumb 'ol me stringing sentences together?
That's quite a conspiracy theory, Mark. It doesn't answer as to why non-American scientists accept the theory, or how it has become a good working model for all sorts of other scientific research.
I understand what you are saying. I just don't think it credible. As it doesn't fit the facts - which any good theory should - I really can't accept it. Would you be willing to change your mind if enough evidence were put together to show that it is wrong?
"It doesn't answer as to why non-American scientists accept the theory"
Well, yes, it does. Politics and money hold sway all over the world, not just America.
And just what facts is it supposed to fit? The preponderance of evidence shows ALGore and those like him stand to get very very rich and powerful if they can just manipulate public opinion enough to make policy changes.
But what of the evidence in opposition? AlGore's 950 scientists or so don't really outweigh the conclusions of the 19,000 scientists who disagree with them, do they?
In order to convince me one first has to present me with truth, not lies, like the myth that warming is caused by CO2 emissions. The facts show just the opposite--CO2 causes warming. Watch the video. It's all in there.
By the way, I like this Geoffrey bettwer than the other one. :)
Oh. Forgot to respond to the other question as to why GW is a good working model for other scientific research.
Because that's how science works. Start with a theory, objectively research and test the theory, and then make a non-biased scientific conclusion, based on the facts.
The problem with GW, and it always has been the problem, little OBJECTIVE research has been done except for those scientists who believe not enough evidence has been accumulated to warrant such a conclusion.
Post a Comment