|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2007 : 14:26:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Scientists insisted that global cooling was a certainty? Source please. Some scientists may have thrown it out there, and the media loves that kind of story,
Same with GW. The media loves a good doomsday prophecy.
quote:
but I doubt you can produce anything close to the amount research, or any history of a scientific consensus from back then that comes anywhere near paralleling how scientists regard global warming now. You do love your stramen though…
Since when does compiling data equal truth by default?
quote:
So, a scientific consensus is a “fringe group” when you don't agree.
No. The fringe would be to insist that you are right and that the converse is not to be considered even after you have acknowledged that this insistence was based on the most current science of the moment, but that this could change at a later date.
quote:
As for political agendas, take a look at your favorite scientists site:
quote:
From the Natural Resources Stewardship Project <http://nrsp.com/background.html>
What defines Responsible Environmental Stewardship?
The wise care of our natural environment for all creatures, including, first & foremost, our fellow human beings.
1 The prudent use of all resources seeking to:
minimize unnecessary pollution;
transform waste into resources; and
improve the material conditions for all people.
2 The formulation of practical environmental policies based on:
logic; scientific objectivity; and understanding of risk.
3 Individual, not government, action as the preferred means to achieve common goals.
4 An understanding that private property encourages private responsibility.
5 A recognition that regulatory control of resources is best at the most local level possible.
6 An understanding that more economic freedom permits more
responsible individual action.
Bolding mine.
If the above isn't a political agenda, I don't know what is.
Yes, it does appear to have an agenda. And it looks to be capitalism. I'm all for that.
quote:
And since this group is a minuscule minority view, that would make the NRSP the “fringe group”.
Call it what you will but I find their agenda very interesting.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 14:34:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
The implication is clear: for Bill, the popular digest Newsweek is the arbiter of scientific consensus.
Nope. Just as today they were only the platform.
quote:
That's why the consensus is that we're only 90% sure that global warming is being caused by human activity.
You might want to begin then by informing some of your members of this.
quote:
Then why did you post a editorial from a fringe climatologist who is trying to drive a political agenda?
I found the article interesting and knew all of you would too.
quote:
Except this research has been 20 years in the making, the consensus of the scientists is hardly a knee-jerk reaction to anything.
Of course, it then falls into the true by longevity default category
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 14:35:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by perrodetokio
quote:
That is also why science can NEVER be a religion.
Anything can be a religion, Jack.
Who's Jack?
On a serious note: saying "Anything can be a religon" is just rethoric.
I say: "Anything can be an addiction" , so?
Science could never be a religion for once because of this: It is being corrected all the time. something which fundamentalists think undermines a religion (if alterations are being made to it).
Also: In science you do research and experimentation to have data that will allow you to reach a result. Can you do that in religion? How many people have come back from death to give you data regarding Heaven/Hell? (just one example).
Come on, José! Don´t talk nonsense. |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 14:56:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Scientists insisted that global cooling was a certainty? Source please. Some scientists may have thrown it out there, and the media loves that kind of story,
Same with GW. The media loves a good doomsday prophecy.
quote:
but I doubt you can produce anything close to the amount research, or any history of a scientific consensus from back then that comes anywhere near paralleling how scientists regard global warming now. You do love your stramen though…
Since when does compiling data equal truth by default?
quote:
So, a scientific consensus is a “fringe group” when you don't agree.
No. The fringe would be to insist that you are right and that the converse is not to be considered even after you have acknowledged that this insistence was based on the most current science of the moment, but that this could change at a later date.
quote:
As for political agendas, take a look at your favorite scientists site:
quote:
From the Natural Resources Stewardship Project <http://nrsp.com/background.html>
What defines Responsible Environmental Stewardship?
The wise care of our natural environment for all creatures, including, first & foremost, our fellow human beings.
1 The prudent use of all resources seeking to:
minimize unnecessary pollution;
transform waste into resources; and
improve the material conditions for all people.
2 The formulation of practical environmental policies based on:
logic; scientific objectivity; and understanding of risk.
3 Individual, not government, action as the preferred means to achieve common goals.
4 An understanding that private property encourages private responsibility.
5 A recognition that regulatory control of resources is best at the most local level possible.
6 An understanding that more economic freedom permits more
responsible individual action.
Bolding mine.
If the above isn't a political agenda, I don't know what is.
Yes, it does appear to have an agenda. And it looks to be capitalism. I'm all for that.
quote:
And since this group is a minuscule minority view, that would make the NRSP the “fringe group”.
Call it what you will but I find their agenda very interesting.
See, the problem is that Capitalism has many tints. Good points and bad points.
Like many people who endorse capitalism think socialism is: Everyone will share the fruits of everybody else regardless of if they made and effort or not. And it "ain't" quite like that.
It's more: everybody will have equal opportunities and wha |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 14:58:52 [Permalink]
|
Good thing criminal trials don't adhere to your unreasonable standards of evidence, Bill. Since it's always possible that some future evidence might exculpate a murderer, we should ignore the current evidence which indicates a murder was committed.
Absolute certainty is a ridiculous standard, Bill. It lets you ignore anything you wish. That isn't skepticism by a long shot.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 15:26:05 [Permalink]
|
On groups using the issue of global warming to drive a political agenda that Bill doesn't agree with, without actually telling us what groups and what that agenda is:
quote:
Bill Scott:
What I reject is the attempt by some fringe groups to use debatable eco issues to drive a political agenda.
On groups using the issue of global warming to drive a political agenda that Bill does agree with:
quote:
Bill Scott:
Yes, it does appear to have an agenda. And it looks to be capitalism. I'm all for that.
Hypocrite.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 16:15:18 [Permalink]
|
Why is it that people are so concerned about eliminating humans as the cause of GW? They point to the global warming and cooling historically (which in the case of Bill eliminates his Genesis account.) as proof that man could possibly not be responsible for GW, however they ignore the horrible consequences of that climate change! Hello, ice age, mass exstinctions! Of course, Bill may want a global disaster to usher in the apolcalypse. Global destruction is not so bad if you are deluded into believing that it leads to heaven. Kinda like how believing that virgins await a martyr makes blowing yourself up in a crowd of infidels sound like a good idea.
CO2 makes things hot. Debating that is like debating that acid makes things gone! It doesn't matter who pours HCL on your face, just get it off! Human contributions can't help the GW problem so why even bother debating causes before solutions while your face is melting off! |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 16:17:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Why is it that people are so concerned about eliminating humans as the cause of GW?
Because if it's not our fault, then we don't have to change our behavior. Keep on driving your SUVs, they aren't the problem.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 16:45:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
On groups using the issue of global warming to drive a political agenda that Bill doesn't agree with, without actually telling us what groups and what that agenda is:
quote:
Bill Scott:
What I reject is the attempt by some fringe groups to use debatable eco issues to drive a political agenda.
On groups using the issue of global warming to drive a political agenda that Bill does agree with:
quote:
Bill Scott:
Yes, it does appear to have an agenda. And it looks to be capitalism. I'm all for that.
Hypocrite.
Glad I wasn't the only one who caught that. What's the point of even debating someone who will pick and chose what evidence he considers valid or not.  |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 16:51:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Why is it that people are so concerned about eliminating humans as the cause of GW?
Because if it's not our fault, then we don't have to change our behavior. Keep on driving your SUVs, they aren't the problem.
Yes, but that so doesn't follow! CO2 from the wasteful consumption of energy, still adds to the problem even if it is not the problem completely. Some people are so stupid it hurts. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 16:53:24 [Permalink]
|
| The folks at uncommondescent are "debating" whether or not global warming is due to human causes, also being inspired by Tim Ball. Seems that most IDists think that, just like "Darwinism", global warming due to human causes is a big fat myth concocted by (no doubt) evil scientists. Although it's under their category "off-topic", I find it slightly ironic that people who are so keen to see evidence of intelligent design where-ever they look, lots of them they flat out refuse to even consider the possibility that it is at work here. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 17:30:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Furthermore, as can be seen from AR4, the consensus is also that the last decades of warming cannot be fully explained unless anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are added into the models.
You have never even entertained the remote possibility that the models, and all the thousands of calculations and assumptions that would go into them, could ever be wrong have you?
Yes, I have entertained that possibility. But that is a useless way of thinking. That what we know now may not be correct is something that is inherent in all human activities. We must go with the data we have now, not with the data we might have in the future. And with the data we have now, the consensus is that global warming is happening and has a strong human component. That is the data we have to work with. If you have other data, feel free to present it.
quote:
It is not even thinkable that our sophisticated models of today could error.
Are you really such an idiot that you think I would be so blind?
quote:
Yet 30 years from now, when they are in the midst of a global cooling cycle, they could look at our models of today as elementary, just as we viewed the 70's and their model.
Again, there was no consensus on global cooling in the '70s. Got that Billscott? There was no consensus on global cooling in the '70s. I'll repeat it once more, since you seem to have missed it both times I spelled it out in my first post here:
"There was no consensus on global cooling in the '70s".
And yes, the consensus that is present now may change in the future. But again, as it seems you do not take in arguments presented to you the first or second time you read them in a post, we cannot make decisions based on that. You make decisions with the data you have now, not with the data you may have in the future. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 18:44:51 [Permalink]
|
Check out The Word, on global warming.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/ |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 19:42:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
The implication is clear: for Bill, the popular digest Newsweek is the arbiter of scientific consensus.
Nope. Just as today they were only the platform.
Newsweek is the only "platform?" Platform for what?quote:
quote:
That's why the consensus is that we're only 90% sure that global warming is being caused by human activity.
You might want to begin then by informing some of your members of this.
It looks to me like everyone is aware of it except you.quote:
quote:
Then why did you post a editorial from a fringe climatologist who is trying to drive a political agenda?
I found the article interesting and knew all of you would too.
A whiny pleading for attention on the part of a lonely unsuccessful man? Not interesting, but sad enough to comment on. You trolling on the SFN forums? Repetitively boring. You making a fool of yourself again? Quite amusing.quote:
quote:
Except this research has been 20 years in the making, the consensus of the scientists is hardly a knee-jerk reaction to anything.
Of course, it then falls into the true by longevity default category
Let's see: I point out that the consensus is "90% sure," and then almost immediately you accuse me of claiming that it's in the "true by longevity default category." In other words, you're a liar, lying right to my face about what I've said, very soon after I've said it. It's gotta be difficult to make a lie any more obvious than that, Bill.
No, Bill, there is no truth to be had in the longevity of an idea, otherwise acupuncture would actually work for anything that ails you. Instead, you implied that the scientific consensus is a "knee-jerk reaction," and I pointed out how difficult it is to have a knee-jerk reaction over the course of 20 years. (More than 20 years, really.) But rather than admit that "knee-jerk reaction" was a poor descriptor of the situation, even if one is completely ignorant of the research (especially then), you went for a completely off-the-wall attack.
Nice. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 23:55:01 [Permalink]
|
| Bill is right - here is an example of the sort of Commie Extremist Fringe Group that thinks we need to reduce CO2 emmisions to reduce Global Warning. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
