22 Jul 07
1 edit
What is the world coming to when it is considered "treasonous" to question an unproved scientific theory?? God give me strength!
http://globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Exerpt:
"During his six minute speech, Kennedy referred to those who question the theory that humanity is causing the earth's changing climate as "liars," "crooks," "corporate toadies," "flat-earthers" and made this remarkable statement: "This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors."
The irony is that this is the same movement that wraps itself in pseudo-science, and yet declares that those who challenge their theory on scientific grounds "are on a par with Holocaust deniers" (as Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in February) and now, traitors. The Left has taken science, which is founded on a rigorous and dispassionate evaluation of fact and an equally vigorous and open debate of theory, and perverted it into a shrill, self-righteous and utterly intolerant intellectual tyranny. And like all authoritarian movements, it doesn't take long for a tyranny of the mind ( "global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers" ) to transform itself into a tyranny of brute force ( "This is treason and we need to start treating them as traitors." )
What does this say about the global warming movement? One would have thought that Al Gore, whose latest book is entitled The Assault on Reason and who sponsored the event at which Mr. Kennedy spoke, would immediately disassociate himself from these remarks. But six days later, Gore's silence has said volumes. And if this was mere rhetorical excess, why has Kennedy said nothing to clarify his extraordinary declaration?
When some of the most accomplished and reputable scientists on the planet in the fields of climatology, meteorology and solar physics all vigorously challenge the global warming doctrine, how can anyone who respects science and the scientific method declare the debate is over and that all dissenters are "traitors?"...
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovHang on, I've got a serious case of deja vu, oh wait... yeah...
What is the world coming to when it is considered "treasonous" to question an unproved scientific theory?? God give me strength!
http://globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Exerpt:
"During his six minute speech, Kennedy referred to those who question the theory that humanity is causing the earth's changing climate as "liars," "crooks," "corporate toadie ...[text shortened]... od declare the debate is over and that all dissenters are "traitors?"...
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=72252
remember, for two weeks now (almost to the hour) you've refused to provide any evidence for your claims. (Saw the new site by the way, pity it's just opinion pieces again)
The fact of the matter is, that if you make a claim, fail (after two weeks of direct questioning) to uphold it with any evidence whatsoever, despite those holding the opposing view having done so, what does that say about the grounds on which you base your theories?
Remember, in your last thread no one claimed that it was treasonous to make a counterclaim, but you need to provide evidence for those counterclaims and challenge the evidence against your own claims with solid evidence. Those are things you have failed to do in the last thread, those are things which from my reading of the subject no scientist opposed to the theory has successfully done (success being defined by me as it becoming a consensus position)
Got scared of direct questions for evidence so you ran off to start a new thread (thinly veiled as a slightly different topic) without finishing your old one? your arguments can't even hold that much water?
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovIf one side provides all the evidence, the other provides nothing but conjecture, than only the former has respected scientific method, and until such time as dissenters can come up with evidence or theories that carry enough weight to find their ways into peer-reviewed journals (that's how science is done) then the debate is over.
how can anyone who respects science and the scientific method declare the debate is over and that all dissenters are "traitors?"...
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovGreenyie-ism is the new religion Spasti.
What is the world coming to when it is considered "treasonous" to question an unproved scientific theory?? God give me strength!
http://globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Exerpt:
"During his six minute speech, Kennedy referred to those who question the theory that humanity is causing the earth's changing climate as "liars," "crooks," "corporate toadie ...[text shortened]... od declare the debate is over and that all dissenters are "traitors?"...
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by agrysonHa, I doubt it. The top 10 companies world wide comprise 8 oil and car manufacturers and 2 others (I'm doing this from memory so there's a chance of error) with combined profits in the 100's of billions. It is severely not in their interests that anything other than an acceleration of CO_2 emissions happen. Like the tobacco companies for the last 50 years they'll fund as much pseudo-science as possible and as much smear propaganda as possible to try to avoid any threat to their profits. Then the brain dead pick up on it an post it in these forums.
If one side provides all the evidence, the other provides nothing but conjecture, than only the former has respected scientific method, and until such time as dissenters can come up with evidence or theories that carry enough weight to find their ways into peer-reviewed journals (that's how science is done) then the debate [b]is over.[/b]
Incidentally, in another of these threads it was claimed that CO_2 is a trace element in the atmosphere and therefore can't do any damage. This isn't true, but an analogy occurred to me. The average human weighs about 75Kg, so 200ug by mass is 2.66 parts per million (note this is by mass, not by particle count - I can do the calculation more thoroughly if anyone really wants me to, it'll only push the ppm count downwards as most of the human body is water) - so surely taking any poison in these quantities will not harm you. Well let's see if one of the oil company supporters wants to take 200ug of the nerve agent VX, which is normally lethal in these trace amounts.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOh right I see. By your specious analogy, you think CO2 is a classic poison then do you? You think it is poisonous to plants even in small concentrations and that by increasing its current concentration in the atmosphere by a small amount is enough to suffocate and poison the entire biosphere? Yes plants just hate the stuff as it clearly doesn't belong in the atmosphere at all because it's completely foreign to that environment.
Ha, I doubt it. The top 10 companies world wide comprise 8 oil and car manufacturers and 2 others (I'm doing this from memory so there's a chance of error) with combined profits in the 100's of billions. It is severely not in their interests that anything other than an acceleration of CO_2 emissions happen. Like the tobacco companies for the last 50 y ...[text shortened]... ts to take 200ug of the nerve agent VX, which is normally lethal in these trace amounts.
Excellent! Good effort.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovppm = parts per million.
Oh right I see. By your specious analogy, you think CO2 is a classic poison then do you? You think it is poisonous to plants even in small concentrations and that by increasing its current concentration in the atmosphere by a small amount is enough to suffocate and poison the entire biosphere? Yes plants just hate the stuff as it clearly doesn't belong in ...[text shortened]... osphere at all because it's completely foreign to that environment.
Excellent! Good effort.
1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of people.
2,000 ppm the majority of occupants will feel a significant degree of discomfort.
People who breathe 50,000 for more than half an hour show signs of acute hypercapnia.
Breathing 70,000 – 100,000 can produce unconsciousness in only a few minutes.
Sounds like a poison to humans to me, it's just not very potent...
23 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonDon't be a ninny. I have repeatedly posted evidence, ie., numbers, facts and arguments, even peer-reviewed! from qualified scientists who totally refute the current alarmists' claims, but because you and others of your ilk can't seem to handle opposing views in any way shape or form, you simply discount it as not valid. You will discount any argument that doesn't agree with your position as the work of a deranged mind in the pay of 'Big Oil'. It is a classic cop out and unworthy of anyone's time.
If one side provides all the evidence, the other provides nothing but conjecture, than only the former has respected scientific method, and until such time as dissenters can come up with evidence or theories that carry enough weight to find their ways into peer-reviewed journals (that's how science is done) then the debate [b]is over.[/b]
The reason I have not responded directly to a few of your questions is that it can be pointless to do so as I've already discovered for the simple reason we would then spend endless posts banging away at each other's tedious detail picking holes in minutiae. So the issue for me is this:
1). The science community is by no means in agreement on this theory, despite the popular misconception that they are. This means there is doubtless a strong counter agument that is worth listening to and that, by its very nature, must also carry some weight.
2). Since I and, no doubt most contributors to this forum (including your good self perhaps), are not SPECIFICALLY qualified in say climatology, chemistry, meterology or whatever, all we can do is take the arguments of those who are so qualified in these particular fields and mix them with whatever scientific training and broad education we do have (of which I have plenty as do, no doubt, many others on these forums - perhaps even your good self).
This is how everyone interprets everything and still manages to draw sensible well thought out conclusions on a very wide variety of subjects without needing to be SPECIFICALLY qualified in these fields. It doesn't invalidate anyone's argument and in fact often adds strength to it.
So it seems to me that since the scientific community is quite divided on the issue of man-induced climate change & global warming, and considering that many similar alarmist theories have appeared before, only to be proven wrong later, AND considering that the alarmist side is tainted with strong emotive and religious elements (ie., it is "treasonous" and heretical to argue against etc.), it bodes one well to be very skeptical, even cynical, until there IS unanimous agreement and/or the theory is proven without recourse to emotive and threatening tactics and/or all counter arguments have been thoroughly disproved by pure unbiassed science, test and measurement etc. etc. etc.
So far this has not happened because the anthropogenic global warming/climate change theory has been contaminated and completely corrupted by non-scientific elements like politics, dogma, emotion, religion, ideology, fashion, sensationalism and hype.
That is reason enough to be cynical and skeptical of yet another alarmist-type theory that has become something of a fashion and which has many opposing voices in the scientific community.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfThat is so silly it's hardly worth responding to. But to humour you: Again, your comparison is totally specious because the atmosphere is a HELL of a long way from that happening isn't it! We are talking hundredths of a percent concentration of a naturally occuring gas that plants thrive on for goodness sake!!
ppm = parts per million.
1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of people.
2,000 ppm the majority of occupants will feel a significant degree of discomfort.
People who breathe 50,000 for more than half an hour show signs of acute hypercapnia.
Breathing 70,000 – 100,000 can produce unconsciousness in only a few minutes.
Sounds like a poison to humans to me, it's just not very potent...
IF we are talking about those concentrations you just quoted being also the concetraton of CO2 in the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE, then you might have a point. But we clearly are not, so you have just wasted my time with that stupid post.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfInteresting. I'll remember this next time I enter a similar debate; thanks for posting that.
ppm = parts per million.
1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of people.
2,000 ppm the majority of occupants will feel a significant degree of discomfort.
People who breathe 50,000 for more than half an hour show signs of acute hypercapnia.
Breathing 70,000 – 100,000 can produce unconsciousness in only a few minutes.
Sounds like a poison to humans to me, it's just not very potent...
23 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaYou and badwolf seem to think CO2 in even the tiniest concentrations is a bad thing as though Nature somehow got it wrong when it decided to include CO2 as one of the constituent gasses of the atmosphere.
Interesting. I'll remember this next time I enter a similar debate; thanks for posting that.
Yes let's get rid of it altogether, like the greenies wanted to 'ban' chlorine in the eighties. According to you guys, CO2 has no place in the atmosphere in ANY amounts!!
Good thinking. So why not get rid of oxygen and nitrogen as well because they are also poisons in large enough quantities!
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovAgain, you consistently fail to provide any credible evidence to this whatsoever. I have done my own extensive searches to find credible and conclusive scientific arguments against the global warming theory and have yet to have found one. All you post and all I can find is extremely biased opinion pieces.
When some of the most accomplished and reputable scientists on the planet in the fields of climatology, meteorology and solar physics all vigorously challenge the global warming doctrine, how can anyone who respects science and the scientific method declare the debate is over and that all dissenters are "traitors?"...
And I know what your response will be, it will be either “I posted this in such and such thread” and muddy the trail, or it will be a list of 5 websites of biased, non-scientific, or pro-business websites which muddies the facts, or it you will simply deflect the question and muddy your answer so you don’t have to answer it.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by EsotericWell you must an idiot because you clearly haven't even tried to look! Would you like some interesting sites with arguments from QUALIFIED scientists?
Again, you consistently fail to provide any credible evidence to this whatsoever. I have done my own extensive searches to find credible and conclusive scientific arguments against the global warming theory and have yet to have found one. All you post and all I can find is extremely biased opinion pieces.
And I know what your response will be, it will b ...[text shortened]... you will simply deflect the question and muddy your answer so you don’t have to answer it.
I know what your answer would be: "They are all in the pay of BIG OIL!"
Yeah right. Dream on.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovDon't be a ninny. I have repeatedly posted evidence, ie., numbers, facts and arguments, even peer-reviewed! from qualified scientists who totally refute the current alarmists' claims, but because you and others of your ilk can't seem to handle opposing views in any way shape or form, you simply discount it as not valid. You will discount any argument that doesn't agree with your position as the work of a deranged mind in the pay of 'Big Oil'.
No, Spasti, the main reason we have disregarded your ridiculous links was blantant inaccuracy, not merely because of obvious bias. Surely you read those posts? Oh wait...
The reason I have not responded directly to a few of your questions is that it can be pointless to do so as I've already discovered for the simple reason we would then spend endless posts banging away at each other's tedious detail...
Lol, now that's an excuse...
If you will not answer our questions by actually supporting your claims, then what do you expect from us by constantly posting unsupported claims like a broken record?
The science community is by no means in agreement on this theory, despite the popular misconception that they are.
Jesus, Spasti, you don't quit, do you? Two words. Prove it!
...all we can do is take the arguments of those who are so qualified in these particular fields...
Lol. That's everything you have failed to do.