Global Cooling Coming Soon?.....

[Seafever]

It's not about being at the top of the field.........it's whether scientific evidence can be manipulated by governing bodies, corporations, politicians for a desired effect.

Right here in BC we have that going on with the fisheries...........scientist versus scientist. Our scientists say, your scientist says, regarding diseases.

Been going on for a long time now.........

 

[Seafever]

Quote:- E/man

"The IPCC is a sort of clearing house"

and......"All of the published information,from ALL these journals is then analysed, EVALUATED,...and.... CONCLUSIONS ARE DRAWN, which then go into the IPCC report".

 

[Seafever]

I'm not knocking educated people.....there are some very very educated people out there.....scientists among them.

But I'm mystified by the apparent 100% gullibility that people affect for the science community.

Being at the top of your particular game does not guarantee immunity from larger controlling outside forces.

The findings of scientists are used all the time to promote agendas.....

If I am a politician with an agenda...and I have a lot of power at my disposal....it doesn't matter if your IQ is 200 and mine is 130.....I have more political/corporate power than you do, so I can manipulate you.

As Mao said :- power comes from the barrel of a gun. A high IQ is no match for a bullet. It's also no match for elected representatives with bigger fish to fry (as in profit).

 

[Englishman]

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.....

That is just silly Seafever. You have simply plucked 100 years out of the air with absolutely no evidence to back that up. No serious mistakes could possibly last that long and none of the examples in that misleading link you posted did so.

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.

You still don’t get it Seafever. You have obviously never worked in science and have no science background. The whole purpose and direction of science is to question established dogma. That is why is runs into so much opposition from religion and fundamentalists.
It brings to bear a totally different (and at one time entirely new) approach to understanding the natural world. That is by observation, measurement and experimentation we could understand the laws and mechanisms by which the universe works. And it has been spectacularly successful!!
Scientists question scientific information all the time. Your “dare not question” statement is silly. And if ignorant lay people come up with statements that clearly contradict known science, and they do have not a shred of evidence to back it up, of course they are rebutted. If I insist the world is flat, of course folks are going to point out how wrong (and in this case idiotic) I was. To overturn existing knowledge or facts, or even to modify it, you must have valid measurements, data and analysis.
Evidence, evidence, science is all about evidence!!

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.

You do not understand the difference between mistakes and new information or data which comes from further, deeper or more extensive work.

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.....

You are a conspiracy theorist who keeps hinting darkly at “agendas” without any evidence….as usual.

 

[Englishman]

It's not about being at the top of the field.........it's whether scientific evidence can be manipulated by governing bodies, corporations, politicians for a desired effect.

Right here in BC we have that going on with the fisheries...........scientist versus scientist. Our scientists say, your scientist says, regarding diseases.

Been going on for a long time now.........

Yes an intense debate has been going on, largely because there is insufficent data to develop unequivocal conclusions. That is not the fault of science. That is the fault of funding agencies and policy makers.

 

[Englishman]

Quote:- E/man

"The IPCC is a sort of clearing house"

and......"All of the published information,from ALL these journals is then analysed, EVALUATED,...and.... CONCLUSIONS ARE DRAWN, which then go into the IPCC report".

And your point is......???

 

[Englishman]

I'm not knocking educated people.....there are some very very educated people out there.....scientists among them.

But I'm mystified by the apparent 100% gullibility that people affect for the science community.

You are mis-using the term gullible. Being gullible means accepting what someone says simply because someone says it with authority, when they have no data, or evidence to back it up.
People understand (except you apparently) that science is based on evidence and they understand and trust the scientific method and process, including peer reviews, that underpin science. And why shouldn’t they? Science has been spectacularly successful and a myriad things you take for granted came as a result of science, like this computer. What mystifies me is how people can so readily accept all that science has brought us, but reject the results every time those results conflict with their world view

Being at the top of your particular game does not guarantee immunity from larger controlling outside forces.

The findings of scientists are used all the time to promote agendas.....

Now you are talking about spin and mis-information. A different kettle of fish, but exactly the kind of thing politicians and nut bars try to do. That is why you can only trust information derived from reputable sources and backed up with proven facts, data and evidence.

If I am a politician with an agenda...and I have a lot of power at my disposal....it doesn't matter if your IQ is 200 and mine is 130.....I have more political/corporate power than you do, so I can manipulate you.

As Mao said :- power comes from the barrel of a gun. A high IQ is no match for a bullet. It's also no match for elected representatives with bigger fish to fry (as in profit).

Getting off topic into the area of politics, corporate interests and power. What I will say is, if many politicians had their way, the issue of climate change would go away – and is often ignored – like Harper does. But it cannot be silenced completely because the scientific evidence is so overwhelming that they are forced to pay attention. It is because Goverments across the world were forced to pay attention that the IPCC exists.

So in this case political/corporate power, which wants to develop and be damned, is in fact greatly diminished and held to account by the efforts of science.

So once again I disagree with your somewhat cynical view…..

 

[Seafever]

I notice in your "AngelFire" site response.........

although they appear to have some solid information regarding the dating of carcasses by radiocarbon.......you do not address this..

You simply dismiss the site as the ramblings of a religious nutcase.....

So in your view whatever information they presented...they are liars?

 

[Seafever]

religion and science have been integrated for centuries ..and still are..


Albert Einstien opined that "God does not play dice with the universe"

The Biblical disciple Luke's dayjob was "physician"......so a student of medical science.

"Before Christ" (b.c).............the vast percentage of advanced (and not so advanced) are on record as saying they recieved there "information" from the Gods.

Like the Mayans for one.....whose mathematic skills still hold scientists in awe at present......however they themselves said they learned all that from the "Gods"

Since the only people in pre-Christ times that were allowed to interface with the Gods were preists, shamans etc etc .or religious chiefs of tribes or civilisations (like the Egyptians),
then yes...all "scientific" information passed through the religious authorities of the tribe/culture first.......

At what point the scientists became free thinkers isn't clear.............probably as civilisation moved toward seperation of church and state.

 

[Seafever]

On IPCC's own website we read:-

"IPCC is under the auspices of the UN"

"It REVIEWS and ASSESSES the most recent scientific, technical and socio-econimic information"...although you swear up and down they don't do that.

"REVIEW is an ESSENTIAL part of of the IPCC process"....they also add that it's for "fairness".....but they do infact review material, not just run it through the "clearing house" you describe.

"It does not conduct any research"

Later they say they are "policy driven" but also "policy neutral" at the same time.......

 

[Seafever]

The term "scientist" was first coined by English philosopher William Whewell in 1883.

 

[Dave H]

Could you find out when the term OCD-Nutcase was first used??


Thanks.

 

[Seafever]

Peer review?

on this site scroll down to #7 "The Bogdanov Affair"....and #1 "Cold Fusion"


Both were reviewed by prestigious "peers" at first....


http://listosaur.com/science-a-technology/top-10-modern-scientific-hoaxes.html

 

[Seafever]

E/Man.......whether or not there is scientific validity to the idea that global/warming is caused by humans........

Nevertheless there is in fact a "boatload" of educated people who disagree or have come to to other conclusions:-

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

 

[Englishman]

E/Man.......whether or not there is scientific validity to the idea that global/warming is caused by humans........

Nevertheless there is in fact a "boatload" of educated people who disagree or have come to to other conclusions:-

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

This one is easily dealt with so I will do so first. It is a complete fraud, designed to fool the gullible and ill-informed. They even tried to make their paper look like it was from the National Academy of Science!
It dates from the late 90's and was completely exposed in these articles:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/02/14/700-club-anchor-touted-global-warming-skeptics/134878

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

http://climatesight.org/2009/06/17/ignore-the-petition-project/

If you seriously think this weak erroneous petition supports your position that global warming is not happening it proves my case. People will reject any amount of real evidence that challenges their world view and subscribe to efforts like this that masquerade as good science.

 

[Englishman]

On IPCC's own website we read:-

"IPCC is under the auspices of the UN"

"It REVIEWS and ASSESSES the most recent scientific, technical and socio-econimic information"...although you swear up and down they don't do that.

"REVIEW is an ESSENTIAL part of of the IPCC process"....they also add that it's for "fairness".....but they do infact review material, not just run it through the "clearing house" you describe.

"It does not conduct any research"

Later they say they are "policy driven" but also "policy neutral" at the same time.......

Your words here show that you have no understanding of science and do not understand what review means in this context. Of course IPCC reviews articles! That is their job to review ALL the evidence. But this review comes AFTER the evidence is published. They do not act as a peer review board deciding what is published and what is not, which is what you are claiming.

You are totally confusing the process of peer review, which take place before publishing (NOT by IPCC), and the post-publish review and consolidation which is undertaken by IPCC before they publish their report. The one has nothing to do with the other. It is a two step process. The IPCC report reflects an aggregate what is known at the time.

 

[tincan]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-change-sceptics-irrational?CMP=twt_fd

Climate change sceptics who claim the dangers of global warming are small and far-off are "unscientific" and "irrational", and should not dissuade governments from tackling rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions, the author of the world's landmark review of economics and climate change said.

Lord Nicolas Stern told the Guardian: "It is astonishing, irrational and unscientific to suggest the risks are small. How can they say they know the risks are small? The clear conclusion from 200 years of climate science and observations show a strong association between carbon dioxide rises and global surface temperature.

He added: "The science is unequivocal and shows there is serious danger. What is coming from [sceptics] is just noise, and should be treated as noise."

 

[Englishman]

religion and science have been integrated for centuries ..and still are..

Oh my goodness we are in a conceptual mess aren’t we.?
First of all science (as we now know it) and religion have NEVER been integrated as you put it. They come at the world from completely different approaches!!
I made that clear with these links I put up before, but I expect you never read any of my links.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2248

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0173126AATr3QR

Albert Einstien opined that "God does not play dice with the universe"

This has nothing to do with the point you are erroneously making. Einstein said that at the time because he was having an erudite discussion with colleagues over what the physics of quantum mechanics meant. Did it mean the universe was deterministic or random? Einstein was in the deterministic camp.(But he did not believe in god).
What Einstein meant by this statement is properly explained here:-

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.1656.pdf

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080713121032AAOFY3H

And here is a Stephen Hawking lecture which makes a strong argument that Einstein was in fact wrong anyway!

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

he Biblical disciple Luke's dayjob was "physician"......so a student of medical science.

I almost have trouble believing you are being serious. An ignorant desert dweller 2000 years ago was a scientist? The scientific method, which I keep trying to explain to you, had not even been thought of back then. No one objectively observed, measured, tested and documented results from experiments in the natural world and then developed hypothese and laws about how the universe worked back then. Like you apparently, everyone believed all wisdom came from gods, shamans and priests and there was no other truth. And that is why for centuries, until the age of Enlightenment which itself owed a lot to the Renaissance, mankind laboured in the dark ages believing disease was “sent by god”, the earth was the centre of the Universe, and “god created man” and all the other nonsense.

"Before Christ" (b.c).............the vast percentage of advanced (and not so advanced) are on record as saying they recieved there "information" from the Gods.

Any information they thought they “received” came from the imaginings of people and inventions of people, despite what they thought.
They had no way of explaining the world, or understanding how it worked, and everything seemed capricious and random, so they just said “god did it”.

These delusions have absolutely nothing to do with science as we now know it.

Like the Mayans for one.....whose mathematic skills still hold scientists in awe at present......however they themselves said they learned all that from the "Gods"

Since no one has ever asked the Mayans in person that question I do not know how you know that is what they believed? No matter what they believed, or what those who understood the mathematics of the movements of the heavens may have told the general populace, their knowledge was developed by and came from, the people themselves.

Since the only people in pre-Christ times that were allowed to interface with the Gods were preists, shamans etc etc .or religious chiefs of tribes or civilisations (like the Egyptians),
then yes...all "scientific" information passed through the religious authorities of the tribe/culture first.......

At what point the scientists became free thinkers isn't clear.............probably as civilisation moved toward seperation of church and state.

Again I cannot believe you are serious. The myths, stories, “explanations”, and exhortations coming from the religious authorities to sacrifice sheep (or worse humans, as many societies have done in the past) in order to placate the gods and bring about a good harvest have NOTHING whatsoever to do with science. NO scientific information has ever come from religious authorities. (Although religious people have studied science and then sometimes struggled to reconcile what the facts were telling them with the dogma they were indoctrinated with as a child – Darwin being a classic example who delayed publishing his “Origin of Species” book for 20 years in good part because he was worried about what it would do to the religious power structure.)
Here are some links explaining when science as we know it now began to emerge from all the superstition and darkness that went before it.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_science_invented

The modern scientific method as we now know it (experiments, observations, data gathering, hypothesis formualation) began development in the Renaissance. Although the development of mathematics of course goes back to the ancient Greeks and even before that (often for surveying, building and record keeping purposes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_the_Renaissance

 

[Seafever]

Greenhouse gasses are composed also of "trace gasses" which account for about 50%.

Some of the trace gasses are naturally occuring as well as also being generated by man.

Of these, Methane is one of them. Although Methane produced by burning fossils only accounts for about 20% of that.

The academic finger points to agriculture as being a large contributor in the composite. Rice paddies are actually on the list.

Many of the "undeveloped " countries are half -starving to death with low food production,low income and none of the energy sucking devices that we use.

But it's the "undeveloped" countries that are primary targets to "clean up their act".

Others that go to that country to exploit the resources are largely "off the hook".....because it isn't their country.

So we have an overproduction of Methane, with emphasis on farming, landfills, agriculture....

Population control is on the list of those that would run the world. Less people means less Methane because you have less people to feed

If you deny population ideology control exists....Google is your friend.

Naturally the lesser countries will be first on the list (they already are , for Greenhouse gasses)....because they have no political or corporate clout really........

Funny that the UN is situated in the USA......one of the biggest greenhouse gas offenders.

 

[Englishman]

I notice in your "AngelFire" site response.........

although they appear to have some solid information regarding the dating of carcasses by radiocarbon.......you do not address this..

You simply dismiss the site as the ramblings of a religious nutcase.....

So in your view whatever information they presented...they are liars?

Yes it is a fraud. What they did and how they did is described here :-

http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones.pdf

And discussed here.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2005-09/msg00803.html

But the key indicator that this is a nutbar creationist site is they talk about C14 dating and dinosaur bones in the same sentence. C14 does not have a long enough half-life to accurately date fossil bones (plus there is no carbon left in a mineralised bones) so scientists do not use that technique for that purpose!!

They rely on the scientifically uneducated reader not knowing that. Like so much religion – it preys on the ignorant and uneducated.