Global Warming farce?

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by noodle

How the hell can what I say be "scientific approach" when I didn't argue about anything scientific? I'm not gonna apply the scientific method for anything other than Science when I talk on here! The whole point of a forum is opinions, not scientific method!

Ok then, I got it. You were just being a critic.

My point was this; you believe that Evolution and Global warming could be labelled as scientific laws tomorrow and you wouldn't have anything against it.

I don't understand exactly what you're implying or saying here. Do you mean that I would support the government telling people what to study? If so, I wouldn't. That's ridiculous. People are free to ponder anything they want, and even sponsor any cockamamie study they want, but the fact remains that science is a well-defined process behind an established system. It's supposed to be about empirical evidence and peer review, not opinion, style, or anything else. It's the same system that developed the engineering which lets use use computers and fly airliners across oceans. And within that system is evolution, the greenhouse effect and climate models. And as far as the topic of challenging global warming, this is the system that I would think should be followed.

The reason you believe this is because you assume and blindly

No, hold it right there. It's not blindly. I can and/or have cited the reasoning, sources, and any other variable I can produce to backup my statements and assertions. It's not a blind belief. Like I said, it is following the same system which developed your computer and jet airplanes. If it is blind belief, then if you believe microchips run computers, I can challenge that notion by citing sources, which I can call scientific which state that magic spirits run computers. Then if you call that pseudoscience, I can label you a blind believer in your own pseudoscience.

The simple fact is though, anyone that talks about evolution as though it was fact, simply doesn't know the science behind it. And anyone talking about Global Warming with 100% certainty that it's man-made, simply doesn't even bother to listen to the facts and doesn't even question the history of this planet... so basically, these people are as close minded as those "religious nuts" that these people seem to argue with and make fun of all the time!

Like I said. I've read up on it personally. Real scientists tell us that global warming is real and that we are causing it. The greenhouse effect isn't the most complicated calculus on the planet. The numbers match up. If they don't, then as I stated above, I can challenge any so called scientific field with magic and reflects any reclamations of pseudoscience.

Look at the last example of the argument I presented. Somebody brought up the old quackery about the temperature dropping in the last 10 years. This is very thoroughly and clearly explained by the ocean event of el niño; however, the climate model isn't about an isolated decade, and the decades long temperatures paints a much different picture, as do many other climate related events. But that can be easily dismissed with flawed logic, just like anything can be. Real scientists tell us climate is being changed by carbon emissions. To dismiss that along with the well known motivation behind the opposing propaganda, debunked time after time, is not useful.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Real scientists tell us that global warming is real and that we are causing it.

You've pretty much misunderstood what I said! But this line here, is exactly what I'm talking about... For you, real (the problem here is the use of "real") scientists are the scientists you agree with! If you can't understand where your problem is with this reasoning, then let's leave it at this!

EDIT: I'll reply and clear up some of the misunderstandings a bit later... too long to do it right now!

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by noodle

You've pretty much misunderstood what I said! But this line here, is exactly what I'm talking about... For you, real scientists are the scientists you agree with! If you can't understand where your problem is with this reasoning, then let's leave it at this!

EDIT: I'll reply and clear up some of the misunderstandings a bit later... too long to do it right now!

So you just ignore everything before it and reply to one line? Not useful either. You ignore the whole premise behind the statement which sufficiently justifies it.

Again, I tell you. If "your scientists" are just as valid as "my scientists", then will you dismiss "my scientists" who say computers are run by magic? If so, you're hardly being consistent.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by noodle

You've pretty much misunderstood what I said! But this line here, is exactly what I'm talking about... For you, real (the problem here is the use of "real") scientists are the scientists you agree with! If you can't understand where your problem is with this reasoning, then let's leave it at this!

EDIT: I'll reply and clear up some of the misunderstandings a bit later... too long to do it right now!

I don't think you need to ... it was quite clear, understood and well said. Don't try to argue down those who just want to look politically correct or just to look good. Save your time.

He is using "real" scientists like the recent political argument "real" news when the white house attacked fox and talk radio. Well, you see where former White house communications director Anita Dunn went. So we can all hope the whistle blowers with their cracked data will finally get down to the real truth.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by clintjm

I don't think you need to ... it was quite clear, understood and well said. Don't try to argue down those who just want to look politically correct or just to look good. Save your time.

He is using "real" scientists like the recent political argument "real" news when the white house attacked fox and talk radio. Well, you see where former White house communications director Anita Dunn went. So we can all hope the whistle blowers with there cracked data will finally get down to the real truth.

LOL

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

It's important, but it's supposed to be a scientific discussion, not a political arguement.

You all sound like a bunch of Americans. I hope you're not.

I don't think you can leave politics out of this discussion at all as the government are the ones making all the regulation as a result of the climate change data. What country do you live in where you don't have any climate change regulations?

I'm very proud to be an American. Keep your biases to yourself.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by xyzone

LOL

I rest my case.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by clintjm

I rest my case.

You should. (Yet you won't, will you? Nope plenty more Foxlies apologism to come?)

[Ito]

in sweden they plan to redouce global warming. but they are doing things in wrong wayes. making more supermarkets so people go there to shopp. buildning more highwayes for more traffic.
while we gonna redouce our global warming while we are really increasing it.
o-O experiancing more traffic now becouse people are to lazy to walk or take bike to jobs or school. hearing traffic now =(.
hugs Ito

[xyzone]

But I think Sweden's main strategy is to develop clean energy.