The nub of the climate change thing problem

[SeattleGriz]

Not saying evolution isn't correct, but when an experiment doesn't fit the mold, the mainstream evolution group will find a way to cram it in.

Same thing as AGW. You don't like the data, find some way to say it supports your idea.

Both are trying very hard to shut down differing opinions.

By the way what empirical evidence are you quoting?

And Im not saying climate change isnt anthropogenic

Im going to make an educated guess that you dont follow evolution science much- the scientific community involved in evolution research exhibits anything BUT consensus. Their debates and peer review processes are as acrimonious as any you will see- but they arent debating evolution itself

they arent trying to make evolution fit any kind of mold- it doesnt need to be shoehorned- the process by which DNA replicates itself imperfectly and in response to external stressors is empirical evidence enough in what is a veritable ocean of empirical evidence.

it bears no similarity to the AGW debate

like i said- nice try

Fair assessment on me not following evolution science (dont have time), and to add to that, when I have a chance, I tend to frequent evolution science that bucks the trend, so I would bet I am highly discriminatory - see a slight where none exists.

I would do better to follow the actual scientists instead of the bomb throwers out there like Jerry Coyne, Nick Matzke, Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers.

As you were talking stressors, i assume you are talking the current issue of epigenetics. Epigenetics is causing problems with the evolution world because it is neither mutation nor natural selection, the central pillars of evolution. It doesn't fit into their mold...and yes, they are trying to shoe horn it into the theory. Once again, these are the guys trying to sell books who speak for the evolution industry, so I may be taking liberties.

Lastly, could you please send me the link where they have documented the changes to DNA and how it has proven the creation of a new species? That would help me greatly to get up to speed. Thanks!

Now let's talk about the blind watchmaker!

[travelinman67]

Switch thread ------->"Nub of this God thing problem"

[travelinman67]

Another highly qualified, heavily credentialed scientist is fired after discovering errors in IPCC climate change hypothesis...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/ ... d-science/

...when he submitted his observations to consensus colleagues, their response, "...we don't have time for this..." then terminate him.



Not

Science

[LeadBolt]

Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970. These statements, uttered 44 years ago, mostly by scientists, and others like them both before and since may help contribute to the skepticism of the science behind the predictions of man caused global climate change and impending doom.

***********************************************

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980's.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” • Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.” • Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” • Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

[Baldy]

Another highly qualified, heavily credentialed scientist is fired after discovering errors in IPCC climate change hypothesis...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/ ... d-science/

...when he submitted his observations to consensus colleagues, their response, "...we don't have time for this..." then terminate him.



Not

Science

"consensus" by coercion...force...exclusion...ridicule, etc.

[travelinman67]

Researchers conclude Antarctic glacial melting is due to geothermal/magma incursion, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE, and further, melting is effecting sea level.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/study ... l-warming/

And since climate change is about science, not politics, I'm sure ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, WAPO, and the rest of MSM, will promptly report on this important development.

[Ibanez]

Researchers conclude Antarctic glacial melting is due to geothermal/magma incursion, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE, and further, melting is effecting sea level.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/study ... l-warming/

And since climate change is about science, not politics, I'm sure ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, WAPO, and the rest of MSM, will promptly report on this important development.

Liquid hot magma???

[GannonFan]

Researchers conclude Antarctic glacial melting is due to geothermal/magma incursion, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE, and further, melting is effecting sea level.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/study ... l-warming/

And since climate change is about science, not politics, I'm sure ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, WAPO, and the rest of MSM, will promptly report on this important development.

Liquid hot magma???

Maybe to differentiate from "cold" magma?

[Ibanez]

Liquid hot magma???

Maybe to differentiate from "cold" magma?

Have you never seen Austin Powers?

[LeadBolt]

Interesting article from The Telegraph. Do you think it could be true that the 1930's were the hottest decade in the US and that the US Government is changing the temperature records to prove global warming?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ta.html?fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

Interesting article from The Telegraph. Do you think it could be true that the 1930's were the hottest decade in the US and that the US Government is changing the temperature records to prove global warming?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ta.html?fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

Interesting article from The Telegraph. Do you think it could be true that the 1930's were the hottest decade in the US and that the US Government is changing the temperature records to prove global warming?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ta.html?fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The lead on this, Steve Goddard at the website Real Science, is under a full on attack by the Alarmists. They've set up numerous spoof websites to divert traffic, hacked his site, published his obituary, are suing to force his ISP to cancel his access...

...typical "consensus" criminal conduct.

I've been screaming about NOAA and NASA's data cooking/censoring/redacting since 2007. Goddard has the smoking gun proving the AGW hoax.

If the media and government censor this revelation, it will further confirm this was never about science, rather it was always about wealth redistribution and the confiscation of liberties.

[travelinman67]

Goddard explaining why and how the books were literally and figuratively (fraudulently) cooked...

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... year-2000/

[DSUrocks07]

Maybe to differentiate from "cold" magma?

Have you never seen Austin Powers?

"Dr. Evil, do you really expect them to pay?"

[houndawg]

The lead on this, Steve Goddard at the website Real Science, is under a full on attack by the Alarmists. They've set up numerous spoof websites to divert traffic, hacked his site, published his obituary, are suing to force his ISP to cancel his access...

...typical "consensus" criminal conduct.

I've been screaming about NOAA and NASA's data cooking/censoring/redacting since 2007. Goddard has the smoking gun proving the AGW hoax.

If the media and government censor this revelation, it will further confirm this was never about science, rather it was always about wealth redistribution and the confiscation of liberties.

You sound like 'spandos.

[kalm]

May set a record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

May set a record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pease do your homework before posting.

NOAA's climate research has no credibility...they have acknowledged they don't use station data, but rather model projections. Read above...I've already posted the link.

Once again, if you had done your homework you would have found there has been no "global warming" for yhe past 17 years...even confirmed last year by the UN IPCC climate chief...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... trol-mode/

Another day, more libtardedness.

[travelinman67]

Walk down memory lane...

..."peer reviewed" UK model projecting extreme warming over past decade laid to waste...

...climate COOLED, not warmed, during past decade.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... tures-Drop

And Barry sez...

"The flat-earthers will tell you climate change is a hoax, not science. Who needs science when we have right on our side.(psst, ask Val if she has all the checks...she does? Tell 'em to warm up the plane...I've got a tee time at two...)"

[kalm]

Hmmm...who to believe...an op-ed piece from a Heartland Institute fellow and Breitbart, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

[CID1990]

Hmmm...who to believe...an op-ed piece from a Heartland Institute fellow and Breitbart, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

I know one thing-

there is a heck of a lot more evidence that there has been some numbers fudging to fit preconceived notions than there is hard evidence that the climate change trends are in fact anthropogenic

[travelinman67]

Hmmm...who to believe...an op-ed piece from a Heartland Institute fellow and Breitbart, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

Hmmm...probably the former, since they post data and facts rather than ignoring science and basing their argument on name calling, shoutdowns and character assassination by insinuations.

Post specifics or STFU.

[kalm]

Hmmm...who to believe...an op-ed piece from a Heartland Institute fellow and Breitbart, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

Hmmm...probably the former, since they post data and facts rather than ignoring science and basing their argument on name calling, shoutdowns and character assassination by insinuations.

Post specifics or STFU.

May was the hottest on record.

[travelinman67]

Hmmm...probably the former, since they post data and facts rather than ignoring science and basing their argument on name calling, shoutdowns and character assassination by insinuations.

Post specifics or STFU.

May was the hottest on record.

False. NOAA propoganda.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpres ... cientific/

And China had not submitted their monthly data when NOAA released their conclusion.

Next lie, Timewaster.

[∞∞∞]

It's scary that Americans don't trust each other anymore. Fundamentally, society is built on the basic premise that we trust that others in our society are competent at their jobs.

In general, I trust scientists know what the fuck they're doing because...ya know...they actually study the facts and concepts extensively and know how to interpret experimental results. I haven't.

And this isn't just with scientists...we're beginning to see it at all levels. While questioning is good (hell, even encouraged), there's a point where it becomes a bit ridiculous.

This pain in my back calls for surgery? Please doctor, I'm going to try these herbs instead.
The roofer says I need to replace my 20 year-old roof? Please, I'll just patch it up.
The red light on that traffic light is way too long. I can design better signalling than the engineer.

Buy hey, apparently everyone's an expert about everything. Thanks internetz!

[travelinman67]

It's scary that Americans don't trust each other anymore. Fundamentally, society is built on the basic premise that we trust that others in our society are competent at their jobs.

In general, I trust scientists know what the fuck they're doing because...ya know...they actually study the facts and concepts extensively and know how to interpret experimental results. I haven't.

And this isn't just with scientists...we're beginning to see it at all levels. While questioning is good (hell, even encouraged), there's a point where it becomes a but ridiculous.

This pain in my back calls for surgery? Please doctor, I'm going to try these herbs instead.
The roofer says I need to replace my 20 year-old roof? Please, I'll just patch it up.
The red light on that traffic light is way too long. I can design better signalling than the engineer.

Buy hey, apparently everyone's an expert about everything. Thanks internetz!

So, if you knew that I had a triad bachelors in Gen. Science, Mathematics and Engineering, would you blindly accept my statements?

I have authored two publications, one on cost accounting method, and the second on accounting software design and use...both included in the Library of Congress. Will you now blindly accept my statements?

I have been confirmed in court trials as an "expert" witness, twelve times, submitting scientific testimony which required my demonstration of high level physics and general calculus solutions. Will you now blindly accept my statements?

Trip, to a large degree I agree with your assertion. I think we've all witnessed the porcine, uneducated, trash, professing their expertise about global policy, medical care, transportation, etc...when they should remain silent. But to blindly accept "scientists" due to their credentials, isn't sound practice.

I've used as an example, the 80's "research" which found miraculous health gains from those who ate oat bran. Over a few years, virtually every producer incorporated oat bran in soups, gum, soda, you name it...

...then, the other shoe dropped.

The author of the original study admitted falsifying data...and upon correction, found NO positive results...

...and within a couple of months, the second major study which had correlated the original study's findings was revealed as a sham "duplicate" of the original.

In the wake of this scandal, manufacturers and growers estimated they had spent tens of billions in crop replacement, product redesign, factory addition/retool and marketing. In effect, a direct loss to national
GDP.

There have been scores of similar frauds in the past few decades. As a rule, most had a financial motive, though when politicians participate, power is obviously involved.

As a result of this "climate" hoax, it will become exceedingly difficult for professionals to reestablish public trust for MANY generations, if ever.