The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 11    Average: 3.5/5]
49 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4117
Rating: 3.5
Category: Science
Date: 02/11/14 12:42 PM

49 Responses to NASA:

  1. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 12:48 pm
    Link: NASA: - Not true, not true, not true, global warming does not exist, says...
  2. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3910 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:14 pm
    There`s so much more evidence that AGW may be happening than nothing at all. Now all the deniers want to call it Climate change. At least we agree that something is happening.
  3. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
    I don`t get the title. Global warming is 100% true. The only thing that is in question is whether it is caused by man, to some degree or just a naturally occurring phenomenon.
  4. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    Guys, the issue is a thousand times more complex than is always stated. There are more than two sides, there`s like 20 different sides to this, at least.

    I can go through some of them if you`d like: There`s the Al Gore "the world will basically end" alarmist view. This view is increasingly expressing that every Cat 1 hurricane is caused by humans.

    There`s the very logical Bjorn Lomborg view in which the global is warming, but it`s not all so bad, and there`s not so much we can do about it anyways.

    There`s also the view that the globe has warmed since 1960, but the causes aren`t fully understood. That`s understandable, since most of the models have been proven wrong. Bill Nye should agree with that, based on what he said, "We don`t have all the answers, but finding out is fun".

    There`s also the views that it`s a complete fabrication, or that what`s happening isn`t so unusual for past climate cycles.

  5. Profile photo of 747Pilot
    747Pilot Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:51 pm
    if this isn`t obvious by now to anyone 25 years or older.. idk what to say.
  6. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 2:32 pm
    Well, sure, it`s obvious: there`s a vast conspiracy that has *somehow* enlisted 99.97% of all climate scientists IN THE WORLD (you know, folks who under normal circumstances love to float alternative ideas and theories about things if there`s even a slight possibility the prevailing idea is wrong; see: grand unifying theory, etc.) to go along with the idea of AGW. That`s *clearly* what`s happening! Got it.
  7. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 4:42 pm
    Smagboy, read my post. You`re the main type of person I`m referring to in the first type of person. Highly reactionary, highly unstable. You get the idea.
  8. Profile photo of mdg
    mdg Male 30-39
    44 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 7:26 pm
    Andrew is right on. Smagboy, the stat that you are referring to is from an informal poll that included 79 climate scientists (the 97% stat does not include the answers of the other 3000+ participants).
  9. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 9:45 pm
    @ Smagboy and Mdg: If you two are looking for the best data regarding scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (that is, global warming caused by human activity), the go-to source is a study known as The Consensus Project, the results of which were published in the journal Environmental Research Letters on May 15, 2013.

    The study rated 21 years` worth of peer-reviewed papers on the topic of "global warming" or "global climate change." Out of 12,465 papers, here are the numbers:

    No position on AGW: 66.4% (7,930)
    Endorse AGW: 32.6% (3,896)
    Reject AGW: 0.7% (78)
    Uncertain on AGW: 0.3% (40)

    From these numbers, the authors conclude that among papers that took a position on AGW (as you can see, most didn`t), 97.1% endorsed AGW (3,896/4,014).

    (Cont`d)
  10. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 10:33 pm
    (Cont`d)

    The study was carefully done and well-documented. A list of all 12,465 papers and their assigned ratings has been made available free to the public.

    I encourage both of you to read the paper since it seems to come up in practically every global warming debate on IAB and there`s an abundance of misinformation out there about it.

    Link to the consensus study is here.

    Link to the list of all 12,465 papers and their ratings is here.

    Hope this helps.
  11. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 10:55 pm
    The IRS is corrupt.
    The Justice Dept. is corrupt.
    The NSA is corrupt.
    The ATF is corrupt.
    ICE is corrupt.
    INS is corrupt.
    The TSA is corrupt.
    The State Dept. is corrupt.
    The Labor Dept. is corrupt.
    The EPA is corrupt.
    The Ag. Dept. is corrupt.
    The Fed is corrupt.

    But NASA? Why, they`re as pure as the freshly driven snow (which, according to their predictions, we weren`t supposed to be having of by now). You could trust them with your teenage daughter for a week in a rural Mississippi Motel 6.

    Gullible much?
  12. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 11:02 pm
    ~looks suspiciously at Ollie~

    And how about *you*, Mr. Cranky? Are you corrupt? Hmmm?

    For my profound response to your outburst, click here.
  13. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 11:40 pm



    Let`s be friends, guys <3
  14. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 11:49 pm
    @ Andrew: It`s all in good fun, Andrew. Ollie`s more than strong enough to withstand a squirrel fart. :-)
  15. Profile photo of Sleepyhallow
    Sleepyhallow Male 50-59
    1983 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 1:33 am
    Ollie just being an idiot once again.

    Incompetent, maybe..... Bureaucratic, definitely..... Corrupt, doubtful.

    Corruption comes at the level of those *making* the laws..... and I noticed you left them off of your "Corruption List", pinhead.

    But, somehow, it is easier for you to believe that scientists, from widely different political, national, religious, educational, and even temporal backgrounds from ALL AROUND THE WORLD are colluding together to perpetrate a hoax and the only people "brave" enough to blow the whistle on this fraud are researchers on the payroll of Exxon/Mobile and BP.

    ::facepalm::

    Do you even own the requisite minimum number of brain cells necessary to generate enough heat to form an original thought, Ollie?
    Or do you just wait nightly for Rupert Murdock to pour *your* opinion into your head every night?

    Again, what an idiot.
  16. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 2:26 am
    Thank you, S4S. I was just trying to make a point. Plenty of folks will come on here and claim that publication is, in and of itself, self-selecting and highly political without actually reading the study.

    Instead of being an asshat and saying 99.97% like I did, I should have just said "an overwhelming and unassailable majority." But you`re right, me being an asshat out of frustration at having to make the same fact-based argument over and over again doesn`t help matters, and I humbly apologize.
  17. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 3:07 am
    Andrew, you may want to look up the word "reactionary". Further, regarding stability, you`er right. I *do* tend to see red a little when science, facts, actual logic is attacked. I don`t mind people having opinions. Hell, I highly endorse the freedom to think whatever the drat you want! I support freedom of religion just as much as freedom from religion, for example. But, where I draw the line is when opinion and mythology try to enforce law and rule and order over everyone and pretend to be something more than opinion and mythology. I was using facts (although, yes, I was being a smartass and exaggerating ever so slightly), actual, real, hard evidence when I said that an overwhelming majority of actual, real climate scientists believe AGW is occuring. And that number is increasing over time, not decreasing (and that doesn`t disagree with your examples, btw). That some people deny even *that* is, yes, frankly frustrating as hell because it`s so easily verifiable.
  18. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5449 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 4:51 am
    SmagBoy1, in other words: this is your religion, and you must try to convert everyone with the truth no matter if they want to hear it or not.

    Gotcha.
  19. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 5:58 am
    @ Sleepyhallow: Try to avoid ad-hominem attacks, Sleepyhallow. They tend to get in the way of a productive dialogue. If you find the urge to be rude overpowering, you can try funny put-downs (Gerry`s a master of those), icy civility (MeGrendel`s specialty), or my own technique: squirrel farts. :-)
  20. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 5:59 am
    elkingo:
    "SmagBoy1, in other words: this is your religion, and you must try to convert everyone with the truth no matter if they want to hear it or not.

    Gotcha. "
    ---------
    LOL! I love it when science is compared to religion. In science, we deal with hypotheses and their probabilities based on empirical data. With religion, there is a stack, ten miles high, showing it`s fake, yet you all turn a blind eye to it. It can be said, with 100% certainty, that there Christian religion is wrong, fake and probably made up as a way to control the people, many years ago.

    With the AGW, we can see the Earth is warming. We don`t know why, but we have a lot of evidence that says we are a large part of it. It`s not 100%, but based on evidence, there is a good chance.

    You can see the difference between brainwashed, magic worship and hypothesis based on empirical evidence...right?
  21. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 6:13 am
    @ SmagBoy: You`re welcome and no need to apologize. Your numbers were off a bit but not dramatically. I just felt it would be helpful to present the actual data for anyone who`s interested.

    I share your dismay at the attack on AGW science and climatologists. The way some on the right have tried to demonize the scientists turns my stomach, frankly.
  22. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 6:19 am
    @andrew: Conveniently left out the position of those who agree with AGW but don`t think the world will end, just that we`ll really screw it up if we don`t stop polluting, and that climate will get worse as a result. Just because you agree with AGW doesn`t make you an alarmist outright, that`s your biased option to contrast your obviously favoured position.
  23. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 8:00 am
    Oh silly pathgrabber, I provided numerous possible positions. The one you describe is a less hyperbolic version of the first one. I can tell that you are one of those people who looks at Cat 1 hurricanes like Sandy and says "HUMANS!".

    I`m sorry if I left some out, I didn`t want to list every single variation. Nothing convenient about my exclusions.
  24. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    579 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 8:30 am
    Gonna keep pushing this huh. OK. The problem is you can make data say anything you want. I mean, one scientific study says coffee is atrcious for you and then the very next one says it`s a super benefit. What I am saying is to stop huritng people, especially financially in the process of searching for the truth. Stop making ridiculous environmental policy while it is so clear that the jury is still way out on climate change. Just stop already!
  25. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 9:15 am
    Papajon0s1: Regarding the state of AGW science, it`s not so much like the current flip-flopping on the benefit or harm of coffee. It`s a lot more like where we were with cigarettes in 1964. That was the year when the U.S. Surgeon General felt there was sufficient evidence in the scientific community that smoking was bad for the lungs that an official government position could and should be taken on the matter as a first step to protecting Americans` health.

    Per the most recent IPCC report, climatologists are now stating with 95% certainty that man`s activities are the primary reason the planet is heating at an unprecedented rate.

    There are numerous ways to stop or slow global warming, such as increased use of nuclear energy, increased use of solar and other alternative energies, and the capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions. How mankind decides to act--or even IF to act--is Step 2.

    Step 1 is listening to what the scientists are telling us.
  26. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 10:31 am
    elkingo:
    "SmagBoy1, in other words: this is your religion, and you must try to convert everyone with the truth no matter if they want to hear it or not.

    Gotcha. "
    ---------
    LOL! I love it when science is compared to religion. In science, we deal with hypotheses and their probabilities based on empirical data. With religion, there is a stack, ten miles high, showing it`s fake, yet you all turn a blind eye to it. It can be said, with 100% certainty, that there Christian religion is wrong, fake and probably made up as a way to control the people, many years ago.

    With the AGW, we can see the Earth is warming. We don`t know why, but we have a lot of evidence that says we are a large part of it. It`s not 100%, but based on evidence, there is a good chance.

    You can see the difference between brainwashed, magic worship and hypothesis based on empirical evidence...right?
  27. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 11:18 am
    What gets me are those who claim NASA is lying about AGW. What do they have to gain? Their budget is cut enough as it is.

    Who has the most to gain by lying? Those who accept AGW or those why deny it?

    Those who deny AGW include a trillion dollar oil industry consisting of some people who are worth tens of billions of dollars each.

    Those who accept AGW are scientists and green energy companies - who collectively probably couldn`t buy a single oil company.

  28. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5449 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 12:07 pm
    @patchouly - "In science, we deal with hypotheses"

    Cool, what is your degree in "scientist"?

    Mine is in Clinical Psychology. I know exactly how us scientists build to the database. Also, I am a published author of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the subject of caffeine. So, yeah.. I know science. However, do you?

    "With religion, there is a stack, ten miles high, showing"

    Stop right there. Surely you are intelligent enough to know the difference between science and philosophy of religion. Hell, they aren`t even taught in the same departments in college.

    I also have a degree in religious studies. "Science" would not have the anecdotal evidence that religion and philosophy brings to the table. However, religion doesn`t care about the evidence that science brings either. Why make this a big deal?


  29. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5449 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    @patchouly - What I was pointing out before you went all batsh|t crazy about a rant about Christianity, was that the manner in which Smagboy was portraying it is *exactly* like the dogma of the over 100 religions I have studied over the course of 7 years in college.

    There is the blind faith (has problems dealing with criticism), belief in a higher power or authority (scientists), speaking negatively and inflammatory about conflicting beliefs (for some reason he assumed Christianity is an opposing belief), has a set of "special books" (journal articles) that shall not be questioned... you see the similarities, right?
  30. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5449 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 12:13 pm
    "It can be said, with 100% certainty, that there Christian religion is wrong, fake and probably made up as a way to control the people, many years ago."

    "brainwashed, magic worship"

    This is just some funny poo.. where did I once mention Christianity, and why did you feel the need to voice an opinion on it in a derogatory manner?
  31. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5449 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 12:17 pm
    mesovortex, "What gets me are those who claim NASA is lying about AGW. What do they have to gain?"

    Google search "Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM)" and how much that sh|t costs. Without AGW this technology is useless.
  32. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 12:23 pm
    elkingo, I`m not sure I understand what you`re saying about my "faith" in science. I have 100% faith in data. Observable, repeatable data. Do I have 100% faith in our interpretation of it? Heck no! Nor do I have 100% faith that the data we collect today won`t be questioned or found off (due to more accurate measurement) later.

    That said, when there`s enough data (again, observable, repeatable data) that we`re forced to acknowledge that *something* is happening (e.g. gravity, evolution, the efficacy of vaccines), it pisses me off to see pseudo science, mythology, and often outright lies undermine that observation.

    Am I saying AGW is 100% happening, that it`s 100% man-made, and that we`re all going to die? Not even close. But, global temperature *is* on the rise. Far more rapidly than it would without man, based on analyses of other fluctuations in history, and denying that, pretending it isn`t happening, does *none* of us any good.
  33. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 12:46 pm
    As I`ve said on here time and time again (even in this thread), I don`t care what others think, I care when they impose their thinking on the rest of us via rule of law. So, for example, teaching creationism in science class? I don`t support that. It`s provably *not* science, and clearly based on religion, faith, and non-scientific principles.

    What makes me angry about the AGW deniers isn`t that they believe scientists to be wrong, it`s that the reasoning behind their belief is so *un*scientific and so *un*logical. Yet it`s the very reasoning behind the actions of many conservatives in congress who not only won`t vote to curb certain gases, etc., but who actually go so far as to hope to *de*regulate emissions. *That`s* when I get pissed off. So it`s not me trying to convince anyone of my way of thinking. I couldn`t care less. What I care about is willful ignorance and how *that* legally affects us all.
  34. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 2:43 pm
    @SmagBoy1:
    I can`t do a huge debate today or tomorrow but reading your comment, you seem to be a empiricist and I respect that.
    I don`t believe in man made global warming, but I do think earth is warming. Lets talk first about data, these are the hottest observable temperatures in several hundred years, I won`t debate that. But that is normal coming out of the coolest part of the holocene. We can look at geology, skeletons of animals, flora patterns, ice cores, dust samples, astrophysics, ancient texts, and a host of other resources that show that the temperature during the Minoan and Roman warming periods was warmer than today, the ICCP reports didn`t even challenge this. If you wanted to start there we are still on a 3500 year cooling trend even though we`ve been warming from the last 135. This graph is for arctic temperature but it highlights my point.

  35. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 2:55 pm
    Infact if you look the whole holocene it has been hotter 15 times in the holocene and there been episodes of much quicker warming that lasted longer periods of time. A longer look at earth history (600 millions of years) reveals the average global temperature is 25 degrees celsius and we are only at 14.6 degrees.

    Right now America stands as the gold standard of temperature recording. We have hundreds of weather stations across the country. Yet 70.6% of temperature measuring stations are still considered in poor or worst condition for accumulating accurate temperature data. As an empiricist this must concern you.



  36. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm
    We also have weather satellites that are highly accurate, yet the data they generate is constantly run through new and different statistical formulas meant to increase current temperatures and decrease past temperatures. And not just science satellites have been around, but they are changing the temperatures going all the way back to the 1800`s when the little ice age ended. NOAA freely admits this, NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said "These kinds of improvements get us even closer to the true climate signal, and help our nation even more accurately understand its climate history." But as an empiricists I think you would agree that the physics of mercury rising in a glass tube haven`t changed. This is in an effort to tie the warming to CO2. Yet if we look at history we can see that CO2 has not correlated with temperature for million and millions of years.



  37. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 3:41 pm
    Now, Former Nasa scientists, even directors of the agency, are also coming forth claiming that the current NASA are biased and unproven. Here is what they said:

    LINK

    Other former NASA scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer found that more than 95 percent of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)...I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like `most warming since the 1950s is human caused` or `97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming"

  • Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 3:42 pm
    richanddead, I hear and respect what you`re saying. The data you`ve presented supports your position, and I am not nearly well-versed enough to question it. But certainly those who are better versed might be able to. My only observation would be to ask (and I ask this sincerely), why hasn`t this position gained more support? Why haven`t there been peer-reviewed studies produced and this conclusion (no human factor in the current temperature rise) stated, based on this data?

    Again, I`m not questioning you, and please know I`m not being a smart ass! It`s just that, I can find articles forwarding all manner of ideas behind dinosaur extinction, for example. Or stabs at a grand unified theory in physics. I`m not saying that there isn`t often a "majority" view, but that there`s often and frequently room for other ideas. In this case, there`ve been no published, peer-reviewed studies (that I`m aware of) that claim it`s not man-made. That`s my concern.
  • Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 3:43 pm
    But please know that I sincerely appreciate and respect your posts and your patience in laying out your argument. Thank you for a sane conversation. I hope I`ve reciprocated. :-)
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm
    Now, Former Nasa scientists, even directors of the agency, are also coming forth claiming that the current NASA are biased and unproven. Here is what they said:



    link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm
    Other former NASA scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer found that more than 95 percent of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)...I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like `most warming since the 1950s is human caused` or `97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming"

    link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 3:56 pm
    "My only observation would be to ask (and I ask this sincerely), why hasn`t this position gained more support? Why haven`t there been peer-reviewed studies produced and this conclusion (no human factor in the current temperature rise) stated, based on this data?"

    I take no offence for any questioning, its how we learn, me included. I can show more support if you want but if you want peer reviewed article then here:

    LINK (this one generated the numbers for the 600 million year graph and is still employed in numerous other studies and has not been disproven)

    Link

    Hold on, dinner ready I`ll continue after.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm
    Here are some more:

    LINK

    Link

    link

    LINK

    link

    LINK

  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm
    LINK

    link

    LINK

    LINK
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 5:08 pm
    "why hasn`t this position gained more support?"

    My personal guess is that it`s related to politics, you can just look at one of these message boards and see the hostility people have about these issues because they expand into everything else, energy policy, economic policy, business regulations, tons of different people credibilities.

    For instance I`m not sure you`d accept a study from a oil company, just as I would not be satisfied with a government subsidised organisation. They tend to show what they want to show by manipulating the data. Both do it, skeptics and alarmists.

    People can easily change how a temperature construct looks by adding or subtracting data sets. Take for instance, the Polar Urals and the Yamals.

    Yamal and Polar Urals are both nearby treeline sites in northwest Siberia. The Yamal has a huge hockey stick, the largest stick in the IPCC AR4 Box. Here is the data with Polar Urals in black and the Yamal in red.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    A scientist named Esper discovered this one.



    The Yamals are an outlier and when substituted for the Polar Urals the graphs begin to resemble the data in the Greenland ice cores.

    This is the Biffa data with the Polar urals in red and the Yamal in black, in this we can see how extremely different the data can appear by switching one data set.



    This is if we apply the data set to Jones 98`

  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 5:20 pm
    Unfortunately, these are common tricks in scientific fields and not just in climate science, but geology, volcanology, astronomy, marine biology, etc. There is so much prestige at risk, so many policies, and the almighty funding grants. Unfortunately, it means these trick are employed constantly.
    ...ok job just called I`m heading in early because of the snow storm, so this is where I have to end it. It was good discussing this with you, I`m sure we`ll do it again.

    "I hope I`ve reciprocated."

    You definitely have, kudos. Peace man have a good one.
  • Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5449 posts
    February 12, 2014 at 8:16 pm
    Smagboy1 - I was suggesting that your anger over an attack of what you are calling logic (which is my understanding of science, theory, facts, research, data, etc) is akin to how some Christians react when their beliefs are attacked. It was supposed to be a comical whip about your passionate belief.
  • Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 3:53 am
    Anti global warming crowd is happy to just sit on their asses doing nothing. The idea behind them is clear: god has made earth, earth is perfect thus man can have any effect on it what so ever (simplifying a lot). Then there`s the horrible bunch: lets` put the planet on such a stress that God has to come out of hiding and commence rapture. Both make sure they profit from current situation and makes damn sure nothing will be done while we argue with them.

    Sounds.. a lot like filibustering. This whole anti-global warming movement is USA conservative invention and it`s horrible, cruel and you will someday be hanged for that. If we still can live on this planet.

    They don`t care, they GO TO HEAVEN SO SCREW THe EARTH!
  • Leave a Reply