Global Warming Deniers

[eits]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Genx87
How much Co2 is spewed from forest fires, volcano's, or other natural causes?

And how much Co2 do plants take out of the atmosphere?

when you take down plants and trees at an increasing rate, the ability for the plants to purify the air decreases, which contributes more to global warming, which allows for more instances of forest fires.

..Alaska, Canada,North America and South America are c02 sinks. Eco-theists fail to acknowledge or dismiss the sink facts because it undermines their political bias to establish <co2 emission credit rackets and punitive energy tax.

yeah, cool. i'm gonna consider what you say as something credible... especially when you say say shit like, "alaska, canada, north america, and south america are c(zero)2 sinks." :roll:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When has that stopped people before?

Didn't you know that the Jews are behind 9/11?

i just find it ironic, because they're typically the ones who are quick to call people conspiracy theorists if they disagree with the official story on something.

i was just wondering if the global warming deniers are liking their tin foil hats.

Yes, because looking at it rationally there are no other explanations for the temp. variation. Man made events cause 100% of the changes involved in the Co2 levels, temp differences, and global weather pattern changes.

If "deniers" are conspiracy theorists, or "stupid" for not believing that, then does that make you an ego-centric moronic lemming?

wow, you get a gold star for being terrible at making incorrect inferences and making comparisons.

go ahead and find me where i said man made global warming, corky.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When has that stopped people before?

Didn't you know that the Jews are behind 9/11?

i just find it ironic, because they're typically the ones who are quick to call people conspiracy theorists if they disagree with the official story on something.

i was just wondering if the global warming deniers are liking their tin foil hats.

Yes, because looking at it rationally there are no other explanations for the temp. variation. Man made events cause 100% of the changes involved in the Co2 levels, temp differences, and global weather pattern changes.

If "deniers" are conspiracy theorists, or "stupid" for not believing that, then does that make you an ego-centric moronic lemming?

Stick to economics and finance. Have you ever had a *single* science course? Its claims like yours that just scream "i know nothing about science" to me.

Yes, I had several. Instead of attacking me, then dispute it.

People sit around thinking that GW was caused by man or that we somehow have some massive affect. We cannot definitively say that we are having that much of an effect, we simply try to tie two things together. Sure, you can sit around claiming we know, but in truth, we don't.

There are so many variables in this universe, many of them have had documented effects.

I'm not saying that MMGW isn't the truth, I just want more facts. I take the same tact with most other things in life.

you want more fact on something you can't understand? why? you won't be able to understand any of it because you suck at science. do you think you're some kind of science detective, now, and that you need all the facts in order to formulate some kind of diagnosis? what good is that going to do you without the background to understand any of them? why not say, "you know what? i'm no expert, but there are WAAAAAY more scientists in the world who ARE experts on this stuff who are saying that global warming is real and that man is contributing to it versus those who say the opposite," so you don't look quite as silly.

 

[eits]

it's funny how all the deniers suddenly become existentialist philosophers: "we can't know for sure. what IS truth? does it even matter? /ponder"

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s odd when the media (did you watch CNN last night?) blame the California fires on Global Warming when:

1: They blame Global Warming for worse hurricanes, thus having proven it raises the sea temperature.

2: The fires are made worse by historic record shattering drought.

3: The drought is made through a WELL known weather pattern called La Nina, which is COOLER than average water temperatures.

So much for consistency eh?

yeah, you know what else is odd? how scientists blame the serious and near threat of mass extinction of tons of animals due to global warming. wow... all these idiots have it completely wrong and jackalass from atot has it right. such a brilliant man is he.

:roll:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s odd when the media (did you watch CNN last night?) blame the California fires on Global Warming when:

1: They blame Global Warming for worse hurricanes, thus having proven it raises the sea temperature.

2: The fires are made worse by historic record shattering drought.

3: The drought is made through a WELL known weather pattern called La Nina, which is COOLER than average water temperatures.

So much for consistency eh?

Maybe you should study what the scientists have said about this?

This is cut and paste from Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Chapter 14. North America


Box 14.1. Accelerating wildfire and ecosystem disturbance dynamics
"Since 1980, an average of 22,000 km2/yr has burned in U.S. wildfires, almost twice the 1920 to 1980 average of 13,000 km2/yr (Schoennagel et al., 2004). The forested area burned in the western U.S. from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times the area burned from 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, burned area has exceeded 60,000 km2/yr three times since 1990, twice the long-term average (Stocks et al., 2002). Wildfire-burned area in the North American boreal region increased from 6,500 km2/yr in the 1960s to 29,700 km2/yr in the 1990s (Kasischke and Turetsky, 2006). Human vulnerability to wildfires has also increased, with a rising population in the wildland-urban interface.

A warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period that dries fuels, promoting easier ignition and faster spread (Running, 2006). Westerling et al. (2006) found that in the last three decades the wildfire season in the western U.S. has increased by 78 days, and burn durations of fires >1000 ha in area have increased from 7.5 to 37.1 days, in response to a springsummer warming of 0.87°C. Earlier spring snowmelt has led to longer growing seasons and drought, especially at higher elevations, where the increase in wildfire activity has been greatest (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, warmer May to August temperatures of 0.8°C since 1970 are highly correlated with area burned (Figure 14.1c) (Gillett et al., 2004). In the south-western U.S., fire activity is correlated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) positive phases (Kitzberger et al., 2001; McKenzie et al., 2004), and higher Palmer Drought Severity Indices."

ouch. that's a slice off the ol' dick pie.

jackalass? your response?

 

[JD50]

eits, I thought this thread was about GW deniers, not MMGW skeptics? I believe that you said that you have no problem with people that are still on the fence about how much impact we are having on GW, yet everyone you are attacking admits that GW/climate change is real, they are just not sure how much impact man has had on it....😕

 

[Noobtastic]

O noez were als gooin 2 dye!!!!!!

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Rainsford
something intelligent

something silly

THAT is the problem with your argument. What you're essentially saying is that the people who think global warming is 100% certain and accurate are wrong, therefore man-made global warming can safely be completely dismissed as a delusion of wide-eyed fanatics. Except there is a huge gulf between those two ideas. Don't get me wrong, I think absolute certainty is silly and unscientific. But you're suggesting that the only clear alternative is to reject the ideas completely. I think the more obvious alternative is to say that nothing is for sure, but the science looks pretty solid at the moment. We need to improve it, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay any attention to what it's saying now.

exactly!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: CyberDuck

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s odd when the media (did you watch CNN last night?) blame the California fires on Global Warming when:

1: They blame Global Warming for worse hurricanes, thus having proven it raises the sea temperature.

2: The fires are made worse by historic record shattering drought.

3: The drought is made through a WELL known weather pattern called La Nina, which is COOLER than average water temperatures.

So much for consistency eh?

Maybe you should study what the scientists have said about this?

This is cut and paste from Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Chapter 14. North America


Box 14.1. Accelerating wildfire and ecosystem disturbance dynamics
"Since 1980, an average of 22,000 km2/yr has burned in U.S. wildfires, almost twice the 1920 to 1980 average of 13,000 km2/yr (Schoennagel et al., 2004). The forested area burned in the western U.S. from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times the area burned from 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, burned area has exceeded 60,000 km2/yr three times since 1990, twice the long-term average (Stocks et al., 2002). Wildfire-burned area in the North American boreal region increased from 6,500 km2/yr in the 1960s to 29,700 km2/yr in the 1990s (Kasischke and Turetsky, 2006). Human vulnerability to wildfires has also increased, with a rising population in the wildland-urban interface.

A warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period that dries fuels, promoting easier ignition and faster spread (Running, 2006). Westerling et al. (2006) found that in the last three decades the wildfire season in the western U.S. has increased by 78 days, and burn durations of fires >1000 ha in area have increased from 7.5 to 37.1 days, in response to a springsummer warming of 0.87°C. Earlier spring snowmelt has led to longer growing seasons and drought, especially at higher elevations, where the increase in wildfire activity has been greatest (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, warmer May to August temperatures of 0.8°C since 1970 are highly correlated with area burned (Figure 14.1c) (Gillett et al., 2004). In the south-western U.S., fire activity is correlated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) positive phases (Kitzberger et al., 2001; McKenzie et al., 2004), and higher Palmer Drought Severity Indices."

ouch. that's a slice off the ol' dick pie.

jackalass? your response?

He already responded to that.....😕

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Sure I have. And what is see is virtually every post referring to "fanatics" as if they are the only voice out there.

In this thread or all threads? Can you really blame me in this thread which started with this line from the OP "wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant? "

The OP started a troll thread, you cant expect it to get much higher.

Fair enough, this thread didn't start with the best of content.

it wasn't a troll thread. you can keep trolling and calling it that if you want, because it calls out all of you guys who sucked balls at school in science, but the thread was started as a question of why in the hell do some people deny global warming's existence.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Sure I have. And what is see is virtually every post referring to "fanatics" as if they are the only voice out there.

In this thread or all threads? Can you really blame me in this thread which started with this line from the OP "wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant? "

The OP started a troll thread, you cant expect it to get much higher.

Fair enough, this thread didn't start with the best of content.

it wasn't a troll thread. you can keep trolling and calling it that if you want, because it calls out all of you guys who sucked balls at school in science, but the thread was started as a question of why in the hell do some people deny global warming's existence.

Just curious, but what exactly is your scientific background?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: CyberDuck

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s odd when the media (did you watch CNN last night?) blame the California fires on Global Warming when:

1: They blame Global Warming for worse hurricanes, thus having proven it raises the sea temperature.

2: The fires are made worse by historic record shattering drought.

3: The drought is made through a WELL known weather pattern called La Nina, which is COOLER than average water temperatures.

So much for consistency eh?

Maybe you should study what the scientists have said about this?

This is cut and paste from Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Chapter 14. North America

Is that supposed to refute the effects drought, La Nina, and cooler ocean temperatures in the eastern pacific? It does not.

you don't think enough ice melting in the arctic ocean and oceanic flow patterns could mess with la nina's patterns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...h_american_weather.png

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JD50
eits, I thought this thread was about GW deniers, not MMGW skeptics? I believe that you said that you have no problem with people that are still on the fence about how much impact we are having on GW, yet everyone you are attacking admits that GW/climate change is real, they are just not sure how much impact man has had on it....😕

*shrug* i dunno... maybe you're right. maybe i'm being a hypocrite in a way by going back on what i said. i guess it just aggravates me whenever people who obviously disagree with an issue just because liberals tend to agree with it do so by making up lame-ass excuses like "oh, i need to see more science" or "the sentiment is split on the issue" or some other whack-ass crap like that. what good would it do them to actually see the science?

it's like you people won't get it until you're ass deep in warm water in the middle of main street in your home town... and even then, you'll still probably deny that humans had anything to do with it.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Sure I have. And what is see is virtually every post referring to "fanatics" as if they are the only voice out there.

In this thread or all threads? Can you really blame me in this thread which started with this line from the OP "wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant? "

The OP started a troll thread, you cant expect it to get much higher.

Fair enough, this thread didn't start with the best of content.

it wasn't a troll thread. you can keep trolling and calling it that if you want, because it calls out all of you guys who sucked balls at school in science, but the thread was started as a question of why in the hell do some people deny global warming's existence.

Just curious, but what exactly is your scientific background?

my mom is a senior project manager of three nuclear power plants for the us nrc (united states nuclear regulatory commission). she's got a degree in english, teaching, math, and engineering (she's one of those "i love school" types). she's got her master's in bioenvironmental engineering. my dad is a civil structural engineer and is the senior project manager on contract for some big engineering firm in the d.c. area. he just got done with his contract with working for the army corps of engineers. i've always been accelerated in science scholastically. my act score for science was 35. some summers, my family would take vacation trips up to boston for my mom to teach seminars at mit. during the summers, i was often enrolled in a science camp at some local high school. my college roommate studied to be a meteorologist and i would often help him study for his tests (studying weather phenomena and various types of rock samples). i have a b.s. in biology. i'm getting my doctorate in chiropractic. i think it'd be safe to say that i've got a pretty good background in understanding scientific things.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Sure I have. And what is see is virtually every post referring to "fanatics" as if they are the only voice out there.

In this thread or all threads? Can you really blame me in this thread which started with this line from the OP "wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant? "

The OP started a troll thread, you cant expect it to get much higher.

Fair enough, this thread didn't start with the best of content.

it wasn't a troll thread. you can keep trolling and calling it that if you want, because it calls out all of you guys who sucked balls at school in science, but the thread was started as a question of why in the hell do some people deny global warming's existence.

Just curious, but what exactly is your scientific background?

my mom is a senior project manager of three nuclear power plants for the us nrc (united states nuclear regulatory commission). she's got a degree in english, teaching, math, and engineering (she's one of those "i love school" types). she's got her master's in bioenvironmental engineering. my dad is a civil structural engineer and is the senior project manager on contract for some big engineering firm in the d.c. area. he just got done with his contract with working for the army corps of engineers. i've always been accelerated in science scholastically. my act score for science was 35. some summers, my family would take vacation trips up to boston for my mom to teach seminars at mit. during the summers, i was often enrolled in a science camp at some local high school. my college roommate studied to be a meteorologist and i would often help him study for his tests (studying weather phenomena and various types of rock samples). i have a b.s. in biology. i'm getting my doctorate in chiropractic. i think it'd be safe to say that i've got a pretty good background in understanding scientific things.

Wow, going for your Phd, thats awesome. I don't think that I'd ever want to take school that far, but good for you and good luck. But anyways, your scientific background doesn't really have anything to do with studying global warming. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd think that you'd need to be in that field to really have a grasp on whats going on with the earths climate. I've always been one to be skeptical of what other people say, so I'll remain skeptical when it comes to MMGW. There's nothing I can do about it anyways. I have a pretty long commute, but it allows me to have a good job so that my wife can stay home with our two children, I'm not changing that because we *might* be making the earth a tiny bit warmer. The earth has been warming since the last ice age anyways....

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Sure I have. And what is see is virtually every post referring to "fanatics" as if they are the only voice out there.

In this thread or all threads? Can you really blame me in this thread which started with this line from the OP "wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant? "

The OP started a troll thread, you cant expect it to get much higher.

Fair enough, this thread didn't start with the best of content.

it wasn't a troll thread. you can keep trolling and calling it that if you want, because it calls out all of you guys who sucked balls at school in science, but the thread was started as a question of why in the hell do some people deny global warming's existence.

Just curious, but what exactly is your scientific background?

my mom is a senior project manager of three nuclear power plants for the us nrc (united states nuclear regulatory commission). she's got a degree in english, teaching, math, and engineering (she's one of those "i love school" types). she's got her master's in bioenvironmental engineering. my dad is a civil structural engineer and is the senior project manager on contract for some big engineering firm in the d.c. area. he just got done with his contract with working for the army corps of engineers. i've always been accelerated in science scholastically. my act score for science was 35. some summers, my family would take vacation trips up to boston for my mom to teach seminars at mit. during the summers, i was often enrolled in a science camp at some local high school. my college roommate studied to be a meteorologist and i would often help him study for his tests (studying weather phenomena and various types of rock samples). i have a b.s. in biology. i'm getting my doctorate in chiropractic. i think it'd be safe to say that i've got a pretty good background in understanding scientific things.

Wow, going for your Phd, thats awesome. I don't think that I'd ever want to take school that far, but good for you and good luck. But anyways, your scientific background doesn't really have anything to do with studying global warming. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd think that you'd need to be in that field to really have a grasp on whats going on with the earths climate. I've always been one to be skeptical of what other people say, so I'll remain skeptical when it comes to MMGW. There's nothing I can do about it anyways. I have a pretty long commute, but it allows me to have a good job so that my wife can stay home with our two children, I'm not changing that because we *might* be making the earth a tiny bit warmer. The earth has been warming since the last ice age anyways....

it's actually a dc (doctorate of chiropractic), not a phd. it's like getting your md, except different. believe me, i probably hate school more than anyone you know... i'm just going through what i need to in order to help people the way i feel i was meant to.

i never claimed to have studied global warming... i claimed to understand it and how it works. my scientific background may not be focused on the atmosphere, but the principles of understanding things is there.

what makes it ok to cherry pick data? you accept that the earth has been warming since the last ice age based on what? you're not skeptical about that? you don't care about why? you're only skeptical when it threatens to bring about laws which *might* pose an inconvenience to the way you want things?

there have never been car-driving, factory-pumping, smoke-stack-having, forest annihilating, top-of-the-food-chain-being, selfish humans on the planet ever before the last ice ace, so what makes you think that all things are equal and that we're in the clear?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052
Often the distinction isn't made between people who deny global warming is happening and those who question the event being heavily tied to human activity.

It looks like from the available evidence that the earth is indeed warming somewhat. If this is a natural cycle, a man made one, or some combination thereof isn't nearly as clear. We still have relatively little understanding of the Earth's climate processes and even less data to back up our theories. Due to media attention and a good sales pitch a cult (for lack of a better term) has sprung up around the totally man made warming camp despite the deficiencies in our knowledge of our planet's climatology and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it gets branded a denier.

Why are some of the best replies never quoted in here? This post sums it up. There is a lack evidence on both sides to produce a concrete conclusion. Hence, all the controversy.

Negative.

Then prove it. I took a meteorology course in college 4 years ago where this subject was brought up and this is what my professor of over 20 years told the class. Sorry, but I am inclined to believe the guy who has dedicated his life to studying this subject rather than any AT scientists. There is evidence out there that supports many theories, but no proof.

You choose to "believe" what one Professor told you 4 years ago, I choose to accept the conclusions of an army of scientists dedicated to the issue. I'll stick to the Consensus.

If it were a matter of accepting unquestionable proof of some conclusion, then this thread topic along with the worldwide debate would not exist. Right now, the whole thing is a complicated puzzle with a lot of holes that need to be filled. There is no complete conclusion yet. That is all I am trying to state here and that is all my professor was trying to state 4 years ago. If you or anyone else is able to present iron clad proof of what exactly is causing the increases in temperature in its entirety then that person will be a very famous and rich man who will be presented with awards. More power to that person.

Personally, I believe that the truth is a combination of both natural and man made causes. However, I can't say which is primarily responsible. No one can.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052
Often the distinction isn't made between people who deny global warming is happening and those who question the event being heavily tied to human activity.

It looks like from the available evidence that the earth is indeed warming somewhat. If this is a natural cycle, a man made one, or some combination thereof isn't nearly as clear. We still have relatively little understanding of the Earth's climate processes and even less data to back up our theories. Due to media attention and a good sales pitch a cult (for lack of a better term) has sprung up around the totally man made warming camp despite the deficiencies in our knowledge of our planet's climatology and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it gets branded a denier.

Why are some of the best replies never quoted in here? This post sums it up. There is a lack evidence on both sides to produce a concrete conclusion. Hence, all the controversy.

Negative.

Then prove it. I took a meteorology course in college 4 years ago where this subject was brought up and this is what my professor of over 20 years told the class. Sorry, but I am inclined to believe the guy who has dedicated his life to studying this subject rather than any AT scientists. There is evidence out there that supports many theories, but no proof.

You choose to "believe" what one Professor told you 4 years ago, I choose to accept the conclusions of an army of scientists dedicated to the issue. I'll stick to the Consensus.

If it were a matter of accepting unquestionable proof of some conclusion, then this thread topic along with the worldwide debate would not exist. Right now, the whole thing is a complicated puzzle with a lot of holes that need to be filled. There is no complete conclusion yet. That is all I am trying to state here and that is all my professor was trying to state 4 years ago. If you or anyone else is able to present iron clad proof of what exactly is causing the increases in temperature in its entirety then that person will be a very famous and rich man who will be presented with awards. More power to that person.

Personally, I believe that the truth is a combination of both natural and man made causes. However, I can't say which is primarily responsible. No one can.

One of the big mistakes a lot of people make is assuming there is actually an "army of scientists dedicated to the issue" because there isn't really. The IPCC reports are really an amalgamation of independent work done by scientists that gets cobbled together by a few scientists and politicians for a result. There is no pure scientific effort that addresses the actual cases and mechanisms of warming that is independent of significant political influence.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: JD50
eits, I thought this thread was about GW deniers, not MMGW skeptics? I believe that you said that you have no problem with people that are still on the fence about how much impact we are having on GW, yet everyone you are attacking admits that GW/climate change is real, they are just not sure how much impact man has had on it....😕

*shrug* i dunno... maybe you're right. maybe i'm being a hypocrite in a way by going back on what i said. i guess it just aggravates me whenever people who obviously disagree with an issue just because liberals tend to agree with it do so by making up lame-ass excuses like "oh, i need to see more science" or "the sentiment is split on the issue" or some other whack-ass crap like that. what good would it do them to actually see the science?

it's like you people won't get it until you're ass deep in warm water in the middle of main street in your home town... and even then, you'll still probably deny that humans had anything to do with it.

Humans likely have something to do with GW. The question is - How much are we to blame? Are natural processes the primary driver in GW and the made-made contribution a lesser percentage? If we cut back on carbon output and returned the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels would natural process cause us to be waist deep in water anyway?

One big question. If we find that the primary driver is a natural process do we then attempt to interfere with that natural process to stave off GW?

iow, is GW really an environmental issue or is it more about man's reluctance to have to adapt to the changes that a warmer climate will bring to our world?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Vic
This is easy. Armageddon, end of the world, humanity to be punished for its sins, blah blah blah. Insisting that end of the world is coming soon is an American religious tradition, dating back at least until the Bible Belt Revival of the 1820's (and probably earlier). MMGW is just its latest incarnation. During my childhood, it was nuclear war.
Now, before you go off you rocker and invoke the holy deity of science 10 or 12 more times, you should keep in mind that while global warming is a scientific theory, the public debate surrounding it has absolutely nothing to do with science. And it's the public debate that we (and you) are talking about in this thread, not the theory. That's where the unscientific (and decidedly religious) word "denier" comes in. And the fact that you keep using that word "denier" proves that you too know jack sh!t about science.

On the scientific subject though, there's nothing to deny about global warming. It's a fact. Too freaking bad for you then that nothing about that science shows that that it's gonna be the end of the world, even catastrophic, or even unusual in history of the earth. So who's denying science, I ask you?

Nice dodge. Many in here have claimed that the scientific community is claiming all this doom and gloom (im sure you have too). Show me *ONE* peer reviewed paper that makes a "this is 100% inevitable" claim in faith-based manner. Just one. For the thousandth time, science is not religion. MMGW as a scientific theory is not religion. If you want to stick up for genx87 you have your work cut out for you. Shit, if you want to claim that support for MMGW is a religion you have your work cut out for you. Good luck, now try again.

I know "jack shit" about science? My list of over a dozen peer reviewed publications, my phd in neuroscience at Berkeley, my years as a postdoc at U Texas and Penn, and my current position as a computational scientist at Harvard (with an affiliate at MIT) would disagree with you. "Deniers" such as yourself deny scientific findings and other hypotheses generated by them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Vic
This is easy. Armageddon, end of the world, humanity to be punished for its sins, blah blah blah. Insisting that end of the world is coming soon is an American religious tradition, dating back at least until the Bible Belt Revival of the 1820's (and probably earlier). MMGW is just its latest incarnation. During my childhood, it was nuclear war.
Now, before you go off you rocker and invoke the holy deity of science 10 or 12 more times, you should keep in mind that while global warming is a scientific theory, the public debate surrounding it has absolutely nothing to do with science. And it's the public debate that we (and you) are talking about in this thread, not the theory. That's where the unscientific (and decidedly religious) word "denier" comes in. And the fact that you keep using that word "denier" proves that you too know jack sh!t about science.

On the scientific subject though, there's nothing to deny about global warming. It's a fact. Too freaking bad for you then that nothing about that science shows that that it's gonna be the end of the world, even catastrophic, or even unusual in history of the earth. So who's denying science, I ask you?

Nice dodge. Many in here have claimed that the scientific community is claiming all this doom and gloom (im sure you have too). Show me *ONE* peer reviewed paper that makes a "this is 100% inevitable" claim in faith-based manner. Just one. For the thousandth time, science is not religion. MMGW as a scientific theory is not religion. If you want to stick up for genx87 you have your work cut out for you. Shit, if you want to claim that support for MMGW is a religion you have your work cut out for you. Good luck, now try again.

I know "jack shit" about science? My list of over a dozen peer reviewed publications, my phd in neuroscience at Berkeley, my years as a postdoc at U Texas and Penn, and my current position as a computational scientist at Harvard (with an affiliate at MIT) would disagree with you. "Deniers" such as yourself deny scientific findings and other hypotheses generated by them.

I didn't dodge. I addressed your request directly.

Oh BTW, where in my post did I "deny" global warming or any scientific findings and other hypotheses generated by them? Oops, I didn't. So why did you call me a "denier" then?
Ah yes, because that word is part of the public debate NOT the scientific debate. Now what part of that does your overeducated self have so much trouble understanding?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic

This is easy. Armageddon, end of the world, humanity to be punished for its sins, blah blah blah. Insisting that end of the world is coming soon is an American religious tradition, dating back at least until the Bible Belt Revival of the 1820's (and probably earlier

Yup, the "end of the world" thingy goes back to just after Christ's death.

There is a theoligical term for that "movement", I just can't think of it ATM and am too lazy to google it.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Why does "GW Deniers" remind me of the tobacco company heads reciting before a Congressional investigation "I do not believe cigarette smoking causes lung cancer"? AW! Lying bastards does come to mind.

Why? Is global warming going to kill us all as certain as cigarette smoking? Is that what you're saying? Do you have any scientific evidence for that?


And quite frankly, whenever I heard the word "denier," in ANY context, I think of the etymology of the word heretic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic

This is easy. Armageddon, end of the world, humanity to be punished for its sins, blah blah blah. Insisting that end of the world is coming soon is an American religious tradition, dating back at least until the Bible Belt Revival of the 1820's (and probably earlier

Yup, the "end of the world" thingy goes back to just after Christ's death.

There is a theoligical term for that "movement", I just can't think of it ATM and am too lazy to google it.

Fern

Eschatology. It's far older than Christianity though, and is shared by virtually all the major religions and cultures. Even Buddhism has its variation, although it is typically non-violent, teaching only that the Buddha's teachings will disappear from the world and the world will fall into the darkness of the 10 amoral concepts.
My personal opinion is that the widespread belief in the End of Times stems from the individual's own mortality. Those who are philosophically unable to accept their mortality tend to lash out with some belief that they are in effect being murdered by the actions of evildoers, and therefore they must act preemptively against these evildoers.
Which, as a footnote, is one of the ironic things about Christianity. Being (theoretically) based in the ethic of reciprocity as opposed to that of consequentialism, Christianity (particularly in the modern US) has been forced to rationalize the end of the world as a good thing, because the world is already evil and getting worse, therefore the end of the world and the return of Christ is to save us, in what is known as Millenarianism.

BTW, in contrast to these beliefs, I personally am a rather adamant Humanist. That means I believe that things are better than they have been and likely to continue improving. As this applies to global warming, I feel that it is an unfortunate side effect of otherwise tremendously beneficial technological advances. And likewise, we will overcome it as we have everything else. I don't require the stick of fear for motivation, I use the carrot of hope. Unfortunately, because fear is the primary tool of power and social conformity, the religious of all ages have rarely been able to abide with such liberal thinking.