Global Cooling Coming Soon?.....

[Seafever]

The only mis-information being spewed is the stuff a lot of scientists invent.

Fact of the matter is...they don't actually know how old the planet is...because everything is guesswork and speculation.

Every time they say the earth is older than it was the last time they said it........now stretching into the billions of years.......it makes the evolution theory look worse and worse.

Does it take 5 million years for a creature to develop teeth meant for ripping instead of grinding, for example, because the food source has changed?

How did it survive in the transitory stage.?

They like to quote the Alligator and Great White Shark as being masters of evolution...and that they are so well developed they have had no reason to evolve further in 45 million years.

But both these creatures,on closer inspection , are nowhere at the top of their potential.

Since a Hippo can kill an alligator with ease and an Orca can take on a Great White and make it look like a piece of cake......I'd say there's something wrong with the evolutionary chain here.

The issue is not whether there is global warming or climate change.
The issue is whether it is caused by man or not.

When anybody wants to sway the public...they bring out a scientist (or a group of scientists).

They know that you will not argue with a scientist because:-

(a) You think he is smarter than you are
(b) They think they are smarter than you are
(c) They think they are smarter than everybody
(d) You trust people that come off more educated than yourself..
(e) If more than one scientist said it...it must be true. Even if they are all working for the same company.

The scientists that work for the companies that genetically modify crops and seeds will all be glad to tell you how good it is for you......I assume you will take whatever they say as Gospel.

If you believe everything NASA tells you...I've got a nice little lot in the Everglades to sell you.

As of 3 weeks ago, NASA isn't sure whether the Universe is expanding or not.......

 

[scott craven]

This may be a repeat of an old post but....
regardless of how important we may think we are on this planet,
our input is " a fart in a windstorm" in comparison with what nature can unleash.
not saying we shouldn't watch our footprint on dear mother earth, only that
the greater power is certainly not us.

 

[outback]

The only mis-information being spewed is the stuff a lot of scientists invent.

Fact of the matter is...they don't actually know how old the planet is...because everything is guesswork and speculation. fact of the matter is that as technology's are improving, they are just estimates. on the surface it would be hard to tell how old a tree was by just looking at. but after years of carefull research humans figured out how old trees were by counting rings... we are still learning.

Every time they say the earth is older than it was the last time they said it........now stretching into the billions of years.......it makes the evolution theory look worse and worse. the more time the planet has been around the more time life had to change between climate changes. it supports it.

Does it take 5 million years for a creature to develop teeth meant for ripping instead of grinding, for example, because the food source has changed? perfection is a complicated thing. see how long it takes you to create monalisa without a picture from basic coloring skills

How did it survive in the transitory stage.? the food source was developing as the predators were devolving. the best survive (stronger jaws vs stronger shells)

They like to quote the Alligator and Great White Shark as being masters of evolution...and that they are so well developed they have had no reason to evolve further in 45 million years.

But both these creatures,on closer inspection , are nowhere at the top of their potential. are humans at the top of their potential? if we to start a nuclear war(which is entirely possible) they will likley survive... Many species will not.

Since a Hippo can kill an alligator with ease and an Orca can take on a Great White and make it look like a piece of cake......I'd say there's something wrong with the evolutionary chain here. Apex predator and Evolutionary genius are two different things. Apex predators are first to die out if there environment has a serious change,Evolutionary masters survive.

The issue is not whether there is global warming or climate change.
The issue is whether it is caused by man or not.

When anybody wants to sway the public...they bring out a scientist (or a group of scientists).

They know that you will not argue with a scientist because:-

(a) You think he is smarter than you are
(b) They think they are smarter than you are
(c) They think they are smarter than everybody
(d) You trust people that come off more educated than yourself..
(e) If more than one scientist said it...it must be true. Even if they are all working for the same company.

though as incredibly ignorant as this - i will argue (and have ) with scientists. I look at there DATA and SPONSORS. you read how the study was completed, and draw your conclusions from there. i have seen some B.S studys before, were the sample group was too small and sponsors cheesy. you dont listen to scientist, you read there work. Thats how the conclusion was drawn.


The scientists that work for the companies that genetically modify crops and seeds will all be glad to tell you how good it is for you......I assume you will take whatever they say as Gospel.

If you believe everything NASA tells you...I've got a nice little lot in the Everglades to sell you.

As of 3 weeks ago, NASA isn't sure whether the Universe is expanding or not....... Biology and theoretical physics are two different things... Physics is largely speculation. Biology is on evidence.

i was not gonna jump in, but come on now... no disrespect meant to the individual

 

[Dave H]

The only mis-information being spewed is the stuff a lot of scientists invent.

Fact of the matter is...they don't actually know how old the planet is...because everything is guesswork and speculation.

Every time they say the earth is older than it was the last time they said it........now stretching into the billions of years.......it makes the evolution theory look worse and worse.

Does it take 5 million years for a creature to develop teeth meant for ripping instead of grinding, for example, because the food source has changed?

How did it survive in the transitory stage.?

They like to quote the Alligator and Great White Shark as being masters of evolution...and that they are so well developed they have had no reason to evolve further in 45 million years.

But both these creatures,on closer inspection , are nowhere at the top of their potential.

Since a Hippo can kill an alligator with ease and an Orca can take on a Great White and make it look like a piece of cake......I'd say there's something wrong with the evolutionary chain here.

The issue is not whether there is global warming or climate change.
The issue is whether it is caused by man or not.

When anybody wants to sway the public...they bring out a scientist (or a group of scientists).

They know that you will not argue with a scientist because:-

(a) You think he is smarter than you are
(b) They think they are smarter than you are
(c) They think they are smarter than everybody
(d) You trust people that come off more educated than yourself..
(e) If more than one scientist said it...it must be true. Even if they are all working for the same company.

The scientists that work for the companies that genetically modify crops and seeds will all be glad to tell you how good it is for you......I assume you will take whatever they say as Gospel.

If you believe everything NASA tells you...I've got a nice little lot in the Everglades to sell you.

As of 3 weeks ago, NASA isn't sure whether the Universe is expanding or not.......

 

[Englishman]

Oh my goodness Seafever you are very confused and clearly do not understand science, or the scientific method, or the means by which science makes continual progress by constantly adding to our knowledge through adding more data. Unlike religion science has NO unquestionable dogma and constantly revises its understanding based on real evidence and data that is published and peer reviewed. Not the weird pronouncements of some priest, shaman or religious nut case.
But to tackle each of your wide rambling topics one by one, many of which have nothing to do with climate change but seem to be a random scattergun attack on science by someone who does not understand it……

Earthquakes could definitely affect ocean temperatures......since the deep oceans are the least explored places on the planet....(and scientists readily admit they know almost nothing about what goes on down there) by opening knew fissure vents where hot water escapes from....

Underwater volcanic activity which opens new vents and fissures is also on the "little is known' list.

I stand corrected on one point. In fact there is evidence that a particular earthquake in 1945 may have released a huge amount of methane into the atmosphere (this contributing to the greenhouse effect).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-releasing-greenhouse-gas-ocean-floor.html
I can find no reference to vents or fissure which would release enough hot water to have absolutely any effect on a mass of water as large as the deep ocean. I think this is yet another weird theory you have trotted out without giving the links to any reliable sources or information.

Then there are the recorded El Nino's (and La Nina's)......which mightily affect ocean temps......graphs I have seen show huge fluctuations in these going way back......

Yes once again you are quoting facts well known to climate scientists. But just because these ocean warming and cooling cycles affecting the ocean surface! temperatures happen does not in any way disprove or throw into doubt the fact of global warming and climate change.

According to the Bible (if you believe it), Noahs' megaflood didn't take "thousands of years"....happened rather quickly....

OMG, if you are going to quote the fairy story ramblings of some ignorant desert people which has not a shred of evidence to support it then I can’t help you.

hmmmm....so now the Earth is "billions" of years old.......every time a scientist speaks they tack on another 150 million years....

Yes it is and that fact has been known for some time. Here is a summary of how that date has been arrived at (and it is nothing to do with carbon dating – more on that later),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

They can't even accurately say when the Shroud Of Turin was made.......never mind the planet.

That is a complete falsehood Seafever. Here is the scientific paper on the Turin Shroud testing procedures, results and statistics which give confidence limits and error estimates.
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

The shroud is medieval in origin. Period. And only a religious fundamentalist would say otherwise because they believe in fairy tales with zero evidence!!

BTW there are a lot of holes in RadioCarbon dating technology.......although on the face of it they would have us believe otherwise....

There are no “holes” in radio carbon dating. Only limits to the age of something which can be accurately dated because of the half life of carbon 14. Plus the object obviously has to have carbon in its composition. Radiometry - NOT radio carbon dating, has been used to date the earth and its rocks. Again see here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Unfortunately I am not very good at posting links....if I was I'd be showing you a lot more information....

I rest my case….!

I'm surprised Polar Bears even exist......given that there were thousands of years where they weren't there due to climate before.....

Oh wait......there's no such thing as a real Polar Bear...they are a cross hybrid mutation that "adapted"....

I do not understand where you are coming from on this one. Of course there are such things as Polar bears and of course they evolved from land based brown bears and the selective pressure of the conditions they adapted to.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/essentials/evolution
http://news.ucsc.edu/2013/03/polar-bear-genomics.html
They are a classic example of adaption and evolution and I believe you are confused when you talk about “hybrid mutation”. It is however a fact that brown bears and polar bears can and do interbreed and apparently have done so in the past.

If they were growing grapes in England on a continual basis....it couldn't have been that long ago (thousands,nay, millions of yeras ago) because man wasn't around back then (depending on who you believe)

You keep quoting that English grape wine thing. It is a typical objection of an ill-informed global warming denier and it is thoroughly debunked by scientists who know what they are talking about here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/

But every time a scientist opens his mouth.......man has been here longer than the last time they opined.

Few years back it was 10,000 years...then went to 20,000 years.....then 40,000 years....now its over 200,000 years and rising......

Seafever you imply by this statement that science keeps updating the human time period every week or every day. Science has known mankind has been around 2 or 3 million years since at least the 60’s and the discovery of early hominid fossils in Olduvai Gorge by Dr. Leakey et al. Before that there was not the evidence to support that and so mankind might have been assigned later dates by scientists in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. And before that the ridiculous dates still quoted by religious fundamentalists today were bandied around by ignorant people who believed ancient “writings” from desert nomads! That is science’s strength. Once the evidence was in for early mankind that was proof that all the earlier biblical stories were fairy tales.

Of course the IPCC will continue to say that man is to blame to for global warming.....that is their agenda....

What agenda is that Seafever? Are you a conspiracy theorist? Do you really think all these scientists from all over the world who sit on the IPCC are colluding and making this up?
Again if you believe in giant conspiracy theories I cannot help you and I feel very sorry for you, since you clearly believe anything you are told WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE!

NOAA and NASA both recently "corrected" their numbers.......saying that the hot years of the thirties were mis-calculated at the time....

Again where is your source? What is the nature of the correction? If true, what evidence did they use to make the correction?

If you really want to do something about carbon emissions...then join forces to have all air travel grounded.
A passenger or military jet makes more carbon emission in a single takeoff than my car does in three months.....but the onus will be on me to buy an electric vehicle instead.

Of course with the money I save by going electric, I'll be able to afford more vacations where I can hop on a carbonpuking jet to get to my pristine vacation resort which features organic food and bicycles
for transportation.

I'm sure the researchers studying the polar caps aren't going to give up their air travel (by jet) to get there any time soon.....

Yes there are many things we can do as individuals, communities and nations to combat global warming. Obviously the larger scale efforts require policies, research and funding to achieve. You seem to be mocking these ideas and efforts and that is very sad…….

 

[Englishman]

Regarding carbon dating and scientists assumptions about the age of things:-

If you are not religious, on the following site disregard that aspect and simply look at the facts.....I'm not overly religious myself...

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

OMG. You are seriously quoting a religious nut case site purporting to show carbon dating is wrong because it cannot date dinosaur bones!? Radiocarbon dating is NOT used to date rocks and fossils!
The author is totally ignorant of how radiometric dating and the science of geology actually works.
It is a fundamentalist religious nut case site that among other things believes the earth is only 6000 years old, that dinosaurs walked the planet with mankind (but I guess Noah forgot to put them in his Ark…LOL) and evolution did not take place. I cannot have a rational discussion with such people because they ignore, refuse to accept, or misquote evidence.

...and this one...where it proves that radiocarbon dating and the age of the earth do not belong in the same sentence since radiocarbon dating is inaccurate beyond 50,000 years.....

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/radiocarbon-dating.php

I do not understand your point. To quote from the conclusion of the article:-

“In short, while like any other method of scientific investigation, radiocarbon dating is subject to anomalies and misuse, when used correctly in accordance with well-established procedures and calibration schemes, the method is very reliable indeed. In any event, it must be emphasized once again that radiocarbon dating has no relevance one way or the other for the overall question of whether the earth is many millions of years old, since the scheme can only be used to reliably date specimens less than approximately 50,000 years old”.

Which is all true but that is NOT how the earth has been dated to 4.3 billion years. And what is more no scientists has ever said it was via carbon dating. Only the fundamentalists do that to lie and confuse. These people certainly seem to have confused you!!
Rocks and fossils are dated by radiometric methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

 

[Englishman]

The only mis-information being spewed is the stuff a lot of scientists invent.

Fact of the matter is...they don't actually know how old the planet is...because everything is guesswork and speculation. .

Seafever you really don’t understand science and the scientific method at all do you? Science and scientists do not “invent” things. Science is a constant search for new, better, or additional evidence and data. All data and evidence now supports the earth being 4.3 billion years old. That is a fact. That figure may get refined and altered over time but it is never going suddenly be 10 billion, nor is it going to be 10,000!!

Every time they say the earth is older than it was the last time they said it........now stretching into the billions of years.......it makes the evolution theory look worse and worse.

You keep implying the date changes every week! Science does not work that fast. In fact the opposite of your assertion is true. A 4.3 billion year old planet has had plenty of time for life to begin, evolve and adapt to the current level of complexity.

Does it take 5 million years for a creature to develop teeth meant for ripping instead of grinding, for example, because the food source has changed?

How did it survive in the transitory stage.?

I don’t understand you. What creature are you referring to? Where does your 5 million years come from? All evolutionary adaptations develop and are selected for by the environment over time. Natural selection means the ones most adapted to the environment in question – temperature, food source, competitors – tend to survive and pass on their genes. Some predators and prey (grinders) may have evolved from a common ancestor, but one (a grinder) did not evolve into the other (meat eater).

They like to quote the Alligator and Great White Shark as being masters of evolution...and that they are so well developed they have had no reason to evolve further in 45 million years.

But both these creatures,on closer inspection , are nowhere at the top of their potential.

What do you mean “top of their potential”? Those creatures have essentially survived in their current from for millions of years. This just means sharks and alligators have not been subjected to an evolutionary pressure that made it essential for them to radically change their form, appearance or habits. They are well developed yes, but only in as much as they can still survive under present conditions, There is nothing absolute about it.

Since a Hippo can kill an alligator with ease and an Orca can take on a Great White and make it look like a piece of cake......I'd say there's something wrong with the evolutionary chain here.

Boy are you confused here. Evolutionary change and adaptation has absolutely nothing to do with food chains and being a “top predator”. Orcas are mammals and sharks are primitive fish in case you haven’t noticed. They evolved along completely different evolutionary tracks and that has nothing to do with who is bigger than whom or who eats who!

The issue is not whether there is global warming or climate change.
The issue is whether it is caused by man or not.

Exactly!

When anybody wants to sway the public...they bring out a scientist (or a group of scientists).

They know that you will not argue with a scientist because:-

(a) You think he is smarter than you are
(b) They think they are smarter than you are
(c) They think they are smarter than everybody
(d) You trust people that come off more educated than yourself..
(e) If more than one scientist said it...it must be true. Even if they are all working for the same company.

This is just silly. Science brings subject matter experts to bear on the problems and issues of the day and science collectively examines all of the data and evidence pertaining and then reaches conclusions. Those conclusions are then published after going through the peer review process. If new data or evidence is discovered, that may alter the conclusions. But that is it's STRENGTH. It is a self correcting system and that is how we humans have got to this point in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century and can now communicate electronically right here. How would you rather approach the natural world. Look it up in some ancient book and say “It says here this is so and so it must be so”!? Or have someone wander off into the desert and report back the answer through a “vision”?!

The scientists that work for the companies that genetically modify crops and seeds will all be glad to tell you how good it is for you......I assume you will take whatever they say as Gospel.

Seafever, there has been a huge amount of research into GMO foods. Yes there are commercial interests. But there are also many regulatory check and balances both here in North America and Europe. The evidence thus far is there are no human health risks although there are still concerns about the impact of GMO’s in the environment itself (since we are messing with the evolutionary building blocks – DNA). If you have any evidence or can point to published papers that demonstrate a health risk, then please do so!

If you believe everything NASA tells you...I've got a nice little lot in the Everglades to sell you.

As of 3 weeks ago, NASA isn't sure whether the Universe is expanding or not.......

So, who would you rather believe? Priests, shamans and fundamentalists?
The cosmological origins of the Universe are huge, complex and have been taking place over millions of years. The scientific effort to generate more data and analysis continues and the understanding of the universe develops and grows. If you want pat, facile, unchanging “answers” that are never questioned, stick to religion!!

 

[Gunsmith]

I am getting the popcorn out on this one!
No matter how it is looked at global warming might just be the least of the problems we are creating. What we are doing is not irreversible but apathy rears it's ugly head and we find that most of us are lemmings and we are in a mad dash to the cliff.
:-(

 

[Seafever]

Englishman:----

I had a clear,concise response all typed up to your concerns.....

It took me the better part of 45 minutes to create it.

When I pressed ""post reply" a message came up saying "You do not have permission to post this" and it would not log. There was no name calling or swear-words in it....

Even though I was still logged in.

Maybe there's a 'time out" on length of post creation time.....but it peeved me off that 45 minutes worth of work went out the window.

I run into this on the "editing" feature as well a lot of times.


I'll try again in a different mode..........

 

[Englishman]

Englishman:----

I had a clear,concise response all typed up to your concerns.....

It took me the better part of 45 minutes to create it.

When I pressed ""post reply" a message came up saying "You do not have permission to post this" and it would not log. There was no name calling or swear-words in it....

Even though I was still logged in.

Maybe there's a 'time out" on length of post creation time.....but it peeved me off that 45 minutes worth of work went out the window.

I run into this on the "editing" feature as well a lot of times.


I'll try again in a different mode..........

Ah yes I have run into that problem and I sympathise.

Now I prepare all my detailed posts off-line in MS-Word and save! Then I just do a copy and paste to put the post up. If the forum acts up I have not lost all my work....

Good luck....!

 

[Seafever]

That's right ...you can't date rocks and fossils with radiocarbon.....but you can attempt to date organic matter (some of which is buried in the frozen north and other places in amongst the rocks and fossils)

As evidenced by a couple of the sites I mentioned.......they are showing how the radiocarbon dating on organic matter can be out by a country mile.

Science and religion often like to pretend they are polar opposites......but actually the ideology is the same.

The mantra from religion is:-

"We don't have all the answers....and we ask you take leaping bounds of faith in us when we can't explain something.........we need you to believe what we say is true......even though large parts of it cannot be empirically proven........but we ourselves are sticking to our guns because we believe that what we say is true........even if we have to update it once in awhile because we were wrong before....
Therefor anything you say against us is the work of the Devil'

Basically the same thing as science says...except science doesn't ask you to believe.......they arrogantly state that they are right until further notice.

All those who challenge the party line are wrong..or....."mis-informed" even though science as we know it is misinformed half the time but covers by saying "It's an ongoing study and there could be new answers"

Over the centuries both scientists/academics and a lot of religious zealots/religious governing bodies have been shown to be completely erroneous and giving mis-inforamtion on many many an occasion.

For instance...the Catholic Church, who operated legal whorehouses back then to help make the church coffers grow. But that's another story....


I should say that there are, of course, good and bad scientists and it's not fair to blithely paint them all with the same brush.

 

[Englishman]

That's right ...you can't date rocks and fossils with radiocarbon.....but you can attempt to date organic matter (some of which is buried in the frozen north and other places in amongst the rocks and fossils)

As evidenced by a couple of the sites I mentioned.......they are showing how the radiocarbon dating on organic matter can be out by a country mile.

Well the one site you linked to was posted by a scientific incompetent who was pushing his weird religious based views. It is simply not true there is anything inherently erroneous about carbon dating as a methodology. It is based on radioactive decay and the laws of physics!! Now IF, and that is a big IF, someone were to allow their sample to be contaminated (with younger carbon for example) and results were submitted for publication it would first have to pass muster at the peer review stage. If their results did not agree with other scientific results (e.g. from those performed at the same archeological site) you bet it would receive some scrutiny! If everything seemed OK someone else would then try and repeat the earlier results. If they were not corroborated the mistaken contamination would show up. That is the key thing about science – experiments and results must be repeatable and reproducible. The whole system is self correcting and self checking because it is based on evidence! And any scientist is at liberty to test, verify and corroborate results and publish new evidence if any.

Science and religion often like to pretend they are polar opposites......but actually the ideology is the same.

I fundamentally disagree with you on this point. Science and religion could not be more polar opposites because they come at an understanding of the natural world and mankind’s place in it from totally different premises.

Here is a good explanation of the difference:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120110173126AATr3QR

And here is another:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2248
For you to say science and religion are the same is totally preposterous.

The mantra from religion is:-

"We don't have all the answers....and we ask you take leaping bounds of faith in us when we can't explain something.........we need you to believe what we say is true......even though large parts of it cannot be empirically proven........but we ourselves are sticking to our guns because we believe that what we say is true........even if we have to update it once in awhile because we were wrong before....
Therefor anything you say against us is the work of the Devil'

Agreed, but religion is worse than that. Much, much worse. For centuries people killed others of a different religion or if they disagreed , usually as “heretics and unbelievers”. The toll of religion in Europe is truly awful when one delves into history. Galileo was indeed fortunate he was not burnt at the stake and only suffered a form of house arrest!
And as we know to humanity’s cost, ignorance and religious superstition still kills thousands in many parts of the world.

Basically the same thing as science says...except science doesn't ask you to believe.......they arrogantly state that they are right until further notice.

All those who challenge the party line are wrong..or....."mis-informed" even though science as we know it is misinformed half the time but covers by saying "It's an ongoing study and there could be new answers"

Wrong! Completely wrong! First no one has been killed by scientists because they held a different opinion or got experimental results that challenged current theories. Second science is never arrogant. Anyone can question results and ignore the evidence. And sadly many do! And any other scientist is at liberty to conduct experiments or investigations to gather data which may or may not corroborate those that have gone before. Science always says here are the experimental methods, measurements, results and conclusions. This is what we know to date. The only time someone is accused of being mis-informed is when they clearly do not understand the area of study and make pronouncements that are clearly wrong……e.g. “carbon dating is used to date the age of the earth and so the answers must be wrong”!!
There is a huge difference between misinformation and informed criticism.

Over the centuries both scientists/academics and a lot of religious zealots/religious governing bodies have been shown to be completely erroneous and giving mis-inforamtion on many many an occasion.

True of religion. Not true of science. The latter always gave the best information within the limits of what was known at the time. What on earth do you mean by “completely erroneous” in the scientific sense anyway? Yes, there is some uncertainty with respect to global warming. That uncertainty only extends to whether it is going to be 2C or 6C warmer by the end of the century. The climate is a vast complex system. Data is being gathered all the time and large numbers of scientists from all over the world are struggling to analyse it all and derive conclusions. But it is certain that global warming is happening!

For instance...the Catholic Church, who operated legal whorehouses back then to help make the church coffers grow. But that's another story....

Just one example of the sorry litany of religion……

I should say that there are, of course, good and bad scientists and it's not fair to blithely paint them all with the same brush.

There are ethical scientists and unethical ones, which is true of all humanity. There are competent scientists and less competent scientists. But the key thing is the entire scientific system is self improving and self correcting. Mistakes, false assumptions, and incomplete information always get fixed over time. That is how science (and humanity) have progressed to this point and how it is you and I are communicating electronically right now. The science of semi-conductors is not wrong!!

 

[Seafever]

"No-one has ever been killed by scientists" you say.

Maybe not directly but there's a litany of horrors with scientists directly behind them.

The ****'s and their V2 rockets and Superweapon (the plans of which were transported to the United States, where further development by Oppenheimer (a scientist) was allowed to carry on.)
The Atomic Bomb...used on Hiroshima but earlier intended for Germany......with the complete blessing and participation of Albert Einstein (a scientist)

The LSD tests conducted for controlling soldiers minds......the hippies can thank the military for LSD because this is where it was concieved and developed (by scientists). Arguably it's hard to tell if anybody died from this.....but a lot of brains were permanently damaged.

Agent Orange in Vietnam......developed by scientists for burning people alive.

Mustard gas.....a scientific product designed to kill people.

The Electric Chair.....championed by Thomas Edison...who wanted a d.c. version instead of alternating current.....but lost that battle.

to name a few.......

Actually the Military in all large countries have a lot of scientists in the back room developing weapons all the time.

Your statement "There are ethical scientists and unethical ones. There are competent and less competent scientists......but the key thing is the ENTIRE scientific community is self improving and self-correcting" is contradictory in and of itself.

In your view ANY scientist is a good one.............but whenever someone holds up a scientist that challenges your status quo, they are dismissed as quacks unless they agree with what you think.

There a boatload of scientists that have challenged the prevailing "rock solid information" on climate change....with some very good points and arguments about it.

But in your view they are nutballs or flakes.......

You don't have to go very far to find scientific mistakes or fraud..

Try these:-

http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders

 

[Seafever]

I think the real issue regarding Global warming and Climate change isn't whether there is evidence that some is occurring..

The actual issue is:- " Can scientific evidence be manipulated in such a way by certain bodies to produce a desired result that is congruent with a specific agenda?"

In other words "can the books be cooked to produce a specific result based on existing evidence?"

In your view no scientist would do this.....but ....let's take The World Health Organization for a start.

Every outbreak that occurs the numbers are crunched on a computer for future projections......resulting in an 'imminent pandemic" unless you get your vaccine (the contents of which are suspect in many cases....like "the flu shot" for one)

None of their "sky is falling" predictions have held water.....

 

[Seafever]

As you can see here:-

http://www.irc.nl/page/6321

The WHO is an umbrella organization of the UN

The IPCC was formed initially by the UN also

The UN is a blanket body that is part of the NWO order...as admitted by the last two presidents and openly vocally used by George Bush 1 in his campagne. (NWO...New World Order)

Whether you believe that NWO is a dark mysterious evil entity...or....that's it's for the good of mankind is subject for debate....but the movement DOES exist.

So we have an organization who's purpose is to be the backing body for NWO.

A one world government means total control of the populace at some point....by a select group of people.

WHO is part of this.........and it can clearly be seen that evidence IS manipulated in their case.

 

[Englishman]

"No-one has ever been killed by scientists" you say.

Oh come on now Seafever, you have been very sneaky and misquoted me by only using the first half of my sentence. What I said was:-
“First no one has been killed by scientists because they held a different opinion or got experimental results that challenged current theories.”

You have deliberately altered the context of my sentence by omitting the last part. This sentence is clearly true; unlike religion where people have been killed merely for holding a different view!

Maybe not directly but there's a litany of horrors with scientists directly behind them.

The ****'s and their V2 rockets and Superweapon (the plans of which were transported to the United States, where further development by Oppenheimer (a scientist) was allowed to carry on.)
The Atomic Bomb...used on Hiroshima but earlier intended for Germany......with the complete blessing and participation of Albert Einstein (a scientist)

The LSD tests conducted for controlling soldiers minds......the hippies can thank the military for LSD because this is where it was concieved and developed (by scientists). Arguably it's hard to tell if anybody died from this.....but a lot of brains were permanently damaged.

Agent Orange in Vietnam......developed by scientists for burning people alive.

Mustard gas.....a scientific product designed to kill people.

The Electric Chair.....championed by Thomas Edison...who wanted a d.c. version instead of alternating current.....but lost that battle.

to name a few.......

Actually the Military in all large countries have a lot of scientists in the back room developing weapons all the time.

Now you getting into the area of ethics, which is a completely different thing altogether. But I did say some scientists were unethical, just like the rest of humanity.

However, I leave you with a two part question.

1. Is it OK to fight (and kill) for your country in war, especially if attacked?
2. If the answer is yes, then is it OK to develop weapons?

If your answer to both is NO, then you are very ethical and perhaps the rest of humanity will one day catch up with you.

It is interesting you bring up Oppenheimer. He is classic example of a scientist who struggled with the ethics of what he was doing and was investigated for various security and political affiliation reasons. He may have leaked, or known about leaks, of information to the Russians and if true, this was his way of balancing out the geopolitical situation and preventing indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_security_hearing

Your statement "There are ethical scientists and unethical ones. There are competent and less competent scientists......but the key thing is the ENTIRE scientific community is self improving and self-correcting" is contradictory in and of itself.

You are deliberately muddling two things again. I did not say science was self-improving and self correcting with respect to ethics! I said “The entire scientific system is self improving and self correcting. Mistakes, false assumptions, and incomplete information always get fixed over time.”

I was clearly referring to improving and correcting data, information and understanding of the natural world, not to self improvement of scientists as people for goodness sake!

In your view ANY scientist is a good one.............but whenever someone holds up a scientist that challenges your status quo, they are dismissed as quacks unless they agree with what you think.

Not true. There are indeed quacks, like that creationist site you linked to. But you are clearly still not getting it. Any competent scientist is at liberty to conduct experiments or measurements and present results and conclusions that challenge the status quo. That is what I keep saying happens and why there is no absolute fixed “status quo” in science and continuous progress is made.

You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you keep saying (rather dramatically) that science keeps changing its mind and makes new announcements and then on the other hand that new data and information is always rejected. Clearly that is nonsense otherwise no progress would be made. But the key thing is the new conclusions must be backed up by data and evidence gathered by scientific methods and published in peer reviewed journals accordingly. Not the ramblings of some unqualified and ignorant quack.

There a boatload of scientists that have challenged the prevailing "rock solid information" on climate change....with some very good points and arguments about it.

But in your view they are nutballs or flakes.......

There are a few scientists who question some of the data, assumptions results and conclusions.

But for you to use the term “boatload” is complete nonsense. That is another climate change denier myth that is thoroughly debunked here:-

http://www.newscientist.com/article...sts-question-climate-change.html#.UkB0Uz8vxzM

And elaborated here:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-scientists-arent-even-sure/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-consensus/

"You don't have to go very far to find scientific mistakes or fraud..

Try these:-

http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders

The title of this article is very misleading. It contains a mixture of frauds, engineering mistakes, like the Challenger disaster, and the decision by Colorado to teach creationist dogma alongside evolution. The latter is clearly a blunder but it is not a scientific one since it was perpetrated by ignorant non-scientists!!

The key point is the frauds were discovered. If scientists fake data (because they are unethical individuals) they are eventually going to be found out because no one is able to repeat their results. This is what happened and so your link completely support what I have been saying all along. The scientific system is self correcting!!

And engineering mistakes like Challenger and the Mars lander are completely different kinds of mistakes and nothing to do with erroneous or incorrect science which is what we have been talking about.

Sefever you are very good at throwing out red herrings and going off topic!!

 

[Seafever]

Work submitted by independant scientists (they don't get paid by the IPCC) is "peer reviewed" by the IPCC before publication.

In other words:- if you submit a paper that says the world is round and the "peer review " panel all think that the world is flat, your work will never see the light of day and you'll be chastised.

Oh wait.....that's already happened a few centuries back.....by another peer review organization.

 

[seadna]

On thing that continues to amaze me is how many people can be so critical of science without actually having invested any real time in studying any particular field. The number of inaccuracies and inconsistent arguments in Seafeaver's posts are too large to address without wasting a lot of time on it. So rather than address each one of them, I would simply point out that if one wants good advice in any given field, you go to the experts in that field. This is just as true for marine mechanics as it is for atmospheric scientists. I don't get my Honda marine engines serviced by a carpenter and I don't take my advice on global warming from those who are not at the top of their field in atmospheric science. For any given issue, one can ALWAYS find some handful of people with differing opinions.

The key is to identify the ones who are likely to know the answers or who are most likely to have the full set of data/information and the best interpretation thereof. For climate science, I trust the National Academy of Science reports as they are prepared by scientists with a high level of training in the field, scientists with a large number of publications in the field and scientists with otherwise stellar backgrounds. For my Honda marine engine, I go to a mechanic with training on Honda's, with broad experience as a marine mechanic and with a great reputation amongst other boaters and mechanics. It's really not that different between the two examples. I have sensible criteria for selecting who to trust and I put my faith in the best people. Otherwise, I would have to invest years of time and effort in learning what my marine mechanic (or climate scientist) knows before I could have a sensible basis for my own ideas/approach. My suspicion is that Seafeaver has a different approach.

 

[Seafever]

hmmm...you admit that scientific mistakes ARE made.....and that OVER TIME if a mistake is made it will eventually be corrected.

OVER TIME could be a hundred years or more.....

but while the mistakes are being discovered and/or corrected.....no matter what the scientific community says at the time , we dare not actually question it.

As in the Climate Change situation..........whatever is said to day is Gospel.........but should something be found out down the road that doesn't quite jibe with today's findings (which is entirely possible) based on the track record of "scientific discovery".......then it's an "update" or "correction" and all is forgiven for the good ol' scientific community, who are a swell bunch of people that are only human and make mistakes just like everybody else., bless 'em.

I totally get it........but unlike you I'm looking at the bigger picture that includes all political governing factions and the purpose and agendas thereof........

Whereas as you are too busy handing out halo's.....

 

[Englishman]

Work submitted by independant scientists (they don't get paid by the IPCC) is "peer reviewed" by the IPCC before publication.

In other words:- if you submit a paper that says the world is round and the "peer review " panel all think that the world is flat, your work will never see the light of day and you'll be chastised.

Oh wait.....that's already happened a few centuries back.....by another peer review organization.

Wrong again!! IPCC is not some kind of peer review panel to see what gets published and accepted. Papers on climate and climate change of every kind get published in many different journals all over the world all the time. All of these reputable scientific journals have peer review processes and the reviewers are independent of IPCC.

All of the published information, from all of these journals is then analysed, evaluated and conclusions are drawn which are then go into the IPCC report. The IPCC is a sort of "clearing house" for all of the known climate data and information that exists. They do not get to decide what is published in the scientific journals. They just consolidate it all and publish an overall evaluation report at periodic intervals.