Global Warming: Fake Science Again Serves Far-Left Political Agenda
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Global Warming: A new White House report, issued just last Friday, makes alarming projections about future global warming. Not only will it cost billions and billions in lost economic output, that report says, but thousands of lives as well. Time for mass panic? Nope. Just more fake science.
The new National Climate Assessment (NCA) report, the fourth since 2000, seems to suggest a coming climate disaster, to paraphrase the film comedy "Ghost Busters," of "epic, even biblical proportions." But its forecasts and models border on the absurd. At some point, the scientific malpractice in these global warming scare reports has to end.
Some of the projections sound like something kicked around in a Hollywood brainstorming session for a science fiction thriller, and not like the results of sober scientific reasoning and balanced statistical modeling techniques. We shouldn't be surprised, however. The three reports that preceded this one were equally bad.
By the way, that's not us speaking, but actual climate scientists. They say the latest government climate change report does a disservice to Americans by once again politicizing science and ignoring both real data and history.
The report's conclusions are so extreme as to be laughable. For one, it predicts that use of coal and other fossil fuels will destroy 10% of U.S. GDP by the end of the century. Those are nice projections, since none of those who made them will be alive to see them proven totally false.
The Virtue Of Fossil Fuels
The fact is, access to fossil fuels has been the key driver of global economic success since the industrial age began.Cheap, plentiful fossil fuels during the last 175 years led to the greatest economic surge in human history. Carbon-based fuels moved literally billions of people around the world out of lives of grinding poverty and hard physical labor and into unparalleled wealth and comfort.
Equally bad, the report suggests, is that due to the greenhouse gas effect, U.S. temperatures will be 3 to 12 degrees hotter, leading to more wildfires and hurricanes, among other climate-related disasters. Such extreme numbers have never been found before in a major peer-reviewed study.
Nor do they factor in the effects of the fracking revolution, which the reports authors pretend hasn't happened. Yet, by getting utilities and others to switch to natural gas and away from dirtier fossil fuels, the natural gas boom has led to a record decline in U.S. CO2 emissions.
"By presenting cherrypicked science ... the authors ... have given a big fat gift to anyone who wants to dismiss climate science and policy," tweeted University of Colorado Prof. Roger Pielke Jr., right after the White House released the report. "Embarrassing."
For the record, Pielke believes global warming is a problem. But he also believes that lying about the science behind it and exaggerating future impacts are even bigger problems.
'Climate Busters'
The entire global warming "reporting" process is so heavily politicized, it doesn't qualify as science. The group responsible for the report, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, is largely a creation of the Obama administration. Global warming true believers are its backbone. Indeed, parts of the report just released were written during the Obama years.
The point is, there are no real skeptics on board for this report and the three dating back to 2000 that preceded it. Just true believers. And the worst, least believable part of the White House report is based on research by organizations funded in part by global warming extremists and billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.
In the case of the just released report, it was "written largely by the same team that wrote the 2014 Assessment, which NOAA advertised, at its release, was 'a key deliverable of President Obama's Climate Action Plan.' "
That pretty much reveals the fact that this is a political document, not a scientific one. It is riddled with ridiculous assumptions, bad models and extreme errors that could only be intentional. But, hey, if you're intent is propaganda and not science, who really cares?
'No Hard Evidence'
"The Fourth National Climate Assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate change is no evidence about future climate change," wrote Dr. Ken Haapala, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. "It earns the distinction that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each page should be stamped: 'Based on speculation, not hard evidence.' "
As we said, at some point the scientific malpractice of these government exercises in global warming propaganda has to end. This isn't fake news. It's fake science, which is just as dangerous.
The last report, in 2014, served as the pretext for President Obama to create both the Clean Power Plan and to sign on to the Paris Accords on global warming. President Trump dumped the Clean Power Plan and removed the U.S. from the Paris deal.
But this report is one area where President Trump didn't move fast enough to get his own people in place. The media touted that the "White House " produced the report. Sure, the Obama White House. And now, instead of having reliable, honest science about global warming, we get a bogus propaganda document. The authors mean to frighten Americans, not inform them.
Global Warming: Democrats' Agenda
Don't worry. The incoming House Democrats have a whole new agendabuilt around global warming. It's nothing new. Back in 2016, the Democrats built into their platform a call to investigate — and presumably prosecute — businesses that didn't buy into their extremist global warming beliefs. This is scary, Stalinist stuff.
In the name of global warming, Americans may soon find their liberties to make a living and provide for their families curbed. It will come in the form of burdensome carbon taxes, tough restrictions on home building, and strict limits on car size and fuels.
In short, it's not the climate that the warmists wish to control. It's you.
So don't let these phony predictions of imminent climate doom made by government bureaucrats frighten you. Be angry instead.
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
“The entire global warming "reporting" process is so heavily politicized, it doesn't qualify as science. The group responsible for the report, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, is largely a creation of the Obama administration. Global warming true believers are its backbone. Indeed, parts of the report just released were written during the Obama years.
The point is, there are no real skeptics on board for this report and the three dating back to 2000 that preceded it. Just true believers. And the worst, least believable part of the White House report is based on research by organizations funded in part by global warming extremists and billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.
In the case of the just released report, it was "written largely by the same team that wrote the 2014 Assessment, which NOAA advertised, at its release, was 'a key deliverable of President Obama's Climate Action Plan.' "
That pretty much reveals the fact that this is a political document, not a scientific one. It is riddled with ridiculous assumptions, bad models and extreme errors that could only be intentional. But, hey, if you're intent is propaganda and not science, who really cares?
'No Hard Evidence'
"The Fourth National Climate Assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate change is no evidence about future climate change," wrote Dr. Ken Haapala, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. "It earns the distinction that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each page should be stamped: 'Based on speculation, not hard evidence.' "
As we said, at some point the scientific malpractice of these government exercises in global warming propaganda has to end. This isn't fake news. It's fake science, which is just as dangerous.
The last report, in 2014, served as the pretext for President Obama to create both the Clean Power Plan and to sign on to the Paris Accords on global warming. President Trump dumped the Clean Power Plan and removed the U.S. from the Paris deal.
But this report is one area where President Trump didn't move fast enough to get his own people in place. The media touted that the "White House " produced the report. Sure, the Obama White House. And now, instead of having reliable, honest science about global warming, we get a bogus propaganda document. The authors mean to frighten Americans, not inform them.
Global Warming: Democrats' Agenda
Don't worry. The incoming House Democrats have a whole new agendabuilt around global warming. It's nothing new. Back in 2016, the Democrats built into their platform a call to investigate — and presumably prosecute — businesses that didn't buy into their extremist global warming beliefs. This is scary, Stalinist stuff.
In the name of global warming, Americans may soon find their liberties to make a living and provide for their families curbed. It will come in the form of burdensome carbon taxes, tough restrictions on home building, and strict limits on car size and fuels.
In short, it's not the climate that the warmists wish to control. It's you.”
The entire global warming hoax and climate change fraud is simply warmed over socialism pseudoscience designed to control people.
it's only a matter of time before Redding California looks like a torched moonscape because of global warming. after California collects the federal aid check during that imminent disaster, they should grant the tea party statehood of Jefferson, with the state boundary line running between Redding and Lake Shasta, and then stiff them on those federal aid funds and watch the private insurance companies all skip out on legal technicalities.
It already does, the Carr fires in August pretty much did that. Add that to the high crime and poverty rates and it's no wonder the cost of living is cheap.
The Carr fire was devastating and caused by mismanagement of forest lands. It was on the west side of the city and there are still very good tourist destinations around here unaffected by it. Trump wants to increase the height of Shasta Dam by 18’ to increase water storage. Most here support it, the state doesn’t but fortunately it’s part of the federal water project, not the state. We actively support the President. As to crime, the state releases cons from prison after time served or due to overcrowding here so they won’t terrorize their original neighborhoods anymore. As to poverty, when adjusted for cost of living, Shasta county does quite well compared to other counties. There are places around here where a husband and wife both earning the state minimum wage working full time could buy a house.
I always find it ammusing to read your coment s especially when they are a little off the wall. I did a little diging and I am assuming your prisoner reference is due to the release of some 30,000 prosoners across California due to prison reform and there happens to be a prison in Redding County so you somehoe are connecting the dots and using that as an excuse for te poor conditions of your town. The reality is very few prisoners were probably released early from the prison in redding county and they were not dropped off to get them away from other parts of Cali they just left that prison, they are free to travel wherver they want and i am sure the only ones that stayed in Redding, originally came from redding. Next issue, if you are working for minimum wage the odds of you getting 40hrs per week on a regular basis are slim to none, full time is 30hrs per week since the ACA and most employers keep their personnel at 28hrs to avoid having to buy insurance (For the non professional minimum wage jobs). You show me someone buying a home with making you minimum wage and I will show you the rats and roaches infesting its walls. Median income of Redding California $44,000.
sorry for my poor typing, was in a rush. That is Median Houshold Income, which includes dual income homes. Average home costs $268k in Redding. The home prices all over Cali boggle my mind.
So... Are you saying that prisoners shouldn't be released after their time has been served?
[Removed]
Marc Morano has absolutely no scientific credentials and has worked for Rush Limbaugh and Jim Inhofe. It's easy to tell which side his bread is oiled on.
Raising the height of the Shasta dam was not Trump's idea.
Is that a fact or are you just parroting what your messiah trump said? I am guessing it's the later...
The latest report ordered by congress states the exact opposite...LOLOL...Oh wait, they are actually scientists.
“The new National Climate Assessment (NCA) report, the fourth since 2000, seems to suggest a coming climate disaster, to paraphrase the film comedy "Ghost Busters," of "epic, even biblical proportions." But its forecasts and models border on the absurd. At some point, the scientific malpractice in these global warming scare reports has to end.
Some of the projections sound like something kicked around in a Hollywood brainstorming session for a science fiction thriller, and not like the results of sober scientific reasoning and balanced statistical modeling techniques. We shouldn't be surprised, however. The three reports that preceded this one were equally bad.
By the way, that's not us speaking, but actual climate scientists. They say the latest government climate change report does a disservice to Americans by once again politicizing science and ignoring both real data and history.
The report's conclusions are so extreme as to be laughable.”
The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future.
A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
Seems like you've fallen for the lies hook, line and sinker
The IBD editorial is the truth exposing the lies of those who would use fake science to control people.
Did you play your fiddle while Redding was burning ?
No, I was helping people evacuate while Struggling with bronchitis and taking evacuees into my home over night. Next question?
Right, trust a wacko conservative editorial opinion over the collective work of hundreds of scientists. Why am I not surprised.
Here's another one of their editorials:
"A n editorial in Investor's Business Daily claimed that physicist Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the [British] National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Hawking was British, lived in the United Kingdom nearly all of his life, and received his medical care from the NHS."
What complete and total dumb shits.
You do know that the majority of the report is only medium to high confidence in Climate Change being real. This is how they define high confidence in the report (bolding is mine):
That means that their so-called high confidence is at BEST 90%, which in REAL science is defined as JUNK science. Acceptable science is 95% or better, and 98% is the best confidence level you can get. This means that the data is 1) within a very small range (very little deviation), 2) easily repeatable, 3) multiple instruments that measure the same data point get nearly identical results, and 4) multiple scientists actually get those nearly identical results from their own instruments while running the exact same experiment. What the NCA is calling high confidence is that they get some consistency and very little repeatability. That is nowhere near being good science or even reliable science.
Because a mere 90% chance of environmental collapse is acceptable?
Yeah, I don't think so,
In other words, the only time to believe them is when they're talking about investments.
Because a 90% confidence in the data leads to HUGE amounts of error. That would be similar to a political poll with a margin of error of + or - 10. It is useless to determine anything from. The fact that you do not have that basic understanding of science should be troubling to you.
No such thing exists.
Actually, it does. The real term for fake science is junk science. It is so unreliable as to be fake, because it does not have the 95% or better confidence range.
It’s called evolution.
Almost 2019 and we have MBFC categorically deeming evolution to be fake science. The foundation of modern biology is deemed to be fake science.
This is the key problem I have with religion - enabling (actually encouraging) ignoring overwhelming evidence ( and facts! ) and suppressing critical thinking to proudly declare nonsense.
Oh my god Tom, not this crap again! It seems confidence is much higher now than when you posted this same nonsense years ago. The data is repeatable. You seem to be too hung up on computer models and know nothing about them or why they are made. The models have always been worrisome, but the reality of the empirical evidence presenting itself for all to see is worse than the worst projections of just a few years ago. Screw the models! They're SUPPOSED to all be different! Check out the data and the empirical evidence.
Science doesn't care if you believe it or not, unlike religion. That is what empirical facts mean. It is still true where you stick your fingers an in your ears and scream.
I am focused on the REAL data. You are focused on just observations. Frankly, if you were really focused on the REAL data as you claim, you would not ignore the Paleontological and Geological evidence that shows us that the climate throughout the world was much, much warmer than it is now before the first of the interglacials of the current Era (Cenozoic).
You are ignoring what the rate of change was during the Cenozoic. Human activity is most definitely impacting the environment and we cannot ignore the damage and how we are changing the climate with fossil fuels and other processes.
What is it about addressing anthropocentric global warming that bothers you so much? Do you think that something will be taken away from you or that you will be forced to change how you live?
We are IN the Cenozoic. The first 2 periods of the Cenozoic were a basic negative temperature trend leading to the glacials and interglacials of the Ice Ages. Right now we are not even halfway through the current interglacial and you and others are panicking over something that this world used to be. As such, I must ask why? Why should we panic over becoming an entirely tropical world like we used to be? Are you afraid that dinosaurs from the Mesozoic will suddenly reappear?
That isn't science...that is my point. Science isn't faked or junk.
Evolution isn't fake. You just choose not to accept it.
And at this point in history, with all that we know, it is sad that people still listen to people like Ken Ham and actually buy his nonsense.
It seems to be getting worse. It's a clear indication that the dumbing down is nearly complete.
We actually have as much evidence of climate change as we do of evolution. I don't think there's anyone who would deny that the climate hasn't been changing since the formation of the earth. The debate is on whether or not mankind has any effect on it and if so, how much. Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that man has had (and is having) an effect on our climate and a majority of those believe our effect to be significant while others claim it's virtually imperceptible. But none that I know of are claiming it doesn't happen at all and that the climate has remained the same since the earth was created. I guess that would be a position a young earth creationist might take, but they're already so far out to left field adding another ridiculous notion to their beliefs wouldn't be surprising.
You are ignoring the current rate of change that proves that this climatic heat cycle is anthropogenic.
It could be cool to have a pet Stegosaurus.
It would suck about Miami, though.
Miami, NYC, Boston, and the Chesapeake Bay are all threatened. The rising water level would even threaten the major Great lake cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo, unless they find a way to limit the rising water level on the Great lakes with new locks at the St Lawrence Seaway.
Who is he? Never heard of him.
This religious shyster,
The rate of change from the Mesozoic until the last 150 years is really more of a guesstimate since there have been no real temperature measures throughout the world. We estimate a range of temperatures based on what we think flora and fauna from today could handle back then. It's called proxy data, and the vast majority of proxy data that have been in use are mainly Carbon Dioxide levels. And, interestingly enough, Carbon Dioxide is not the main gas for Climate Change. That gas is Water Vapor. The higher the level of Water Vapor the more heat that the atmosphere can sustain and absorb and in greater amounts than with just Carbon Dioxide. I haven't seen a study to determine the amount of Water Vapor from ice cores...have you?
I'm glad to see that you realize that computer models are not science. They are just theoretical tools used to simulate situations based on data put in by humans and can show whatever the programmer wants to show. If Climate Computer models were so good, why do we need 15 Computer models to plot the POSSIBLE path of a hurricane, with almost all of them wrong and not always the same models being the wrong ones? Climate is a complex cycle and system that cannot be accurately predicted, because we do not have enough good data points or understanding to do so. Get a model that predicts an entire weather pattern, CORRECTLY, for a week and maybe we can start taking the Climate models seriously. As of right now, the Climate models are about as useful as a wet blanket at the North Pole in a windstorm without any shelter.
He is the most effective Young Earth Creationist I know of. He leads the Answers In Genesis organization which aggressively and passionately promotes young Earth beliefs such as a planet < 10,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, etc.
Dumbing down the next generation for passion and profit.
I didn't even come close to saying that computer models and projections were science. The rest of your comment is irrelevant and stupid since that's not what I was talking about. Computer models and projections are created from scientific studies.
I take it you don't fully understand how projections work.
Here is how I connect the beliefs of creationism to evolution: Does time pass the same for God as for us? If God is on another plane of existence (Heaven), then time probably passes much differently there than here. So, therefore, 6 billion years here on Earth is the equivalent to 10,000 years according to God's reference.
I know exactly how projections work, otherwise you wouldn't see 15 shows all about how to predict which player will be the best to start for your fantasy football team. Frankly, projections are at best EDUCATED GUESSES that can be completely wrong. The same is true with Computer Models that are meant to predict the future. Climate Science is supposed to be the study of how Climate changes and how to predict the outcomes of those changes. The problem is that predicting the future is nearly impossible. That is why, until we get a week's worth of accurate weather predictions from computer weather models, we should pretty much ignore the Climate Computer Models as they have to include far more variables than what a weather model has to include to predict something as complex as the Climate. The fact you are ignoring that part of the argument is just more evidence that you buy into the Climate Change propaganda instead of really looking at the SCIENCE.
By the way, in 2015 the Daily Mail cited a study by Duke about computer climate models being WRONG:
This is like making rules up for Genie wishes. "Everyone knows in Genie lore that they can't grant more wishes!" is right up there with "Everyone knows time moves different in heaven!".
If 6 billion years is as 10,000 then 6 trillion years could be as but a day. When you enter the realm of fantasy, which is where you have to go to discuss details and rules about heaven or genies, anything is possible, which is also why entertaining such fantasies are about as "useful as a wet blanket at the North Pole in a windstorm without any shelter."
Ken Ham uses an entirely different approach. One I suspect you will not appreciate.
He rejects as false all forms of scientific dating that puts something older than 10,000 years. His tactic is to split science into two parts: observational science and historical science. Observational science (per Ham) is science where contemporary scientists can observe phenomena with their senses. Historical science (per Ham) is science based strictly on after-the-fact evidence (e.g. archaeological artifacts, preserved DNA, radiation decay, red-shifting of light from cosmological objects, etc.)
Ham deems historical science to be nonsense and his cliche byline is 'we cannot know because we were not there'.
So there you go. AiG is dumbing down the next generation for passion and profit.
And there were no modern humans who need different conditions to survive.
Answers in Genesis and the Creation Research Institute are real genuine science practiced by real scientists. Evolution is pure pseudoscience quackery.
Do you ever hurt yourself laughing when you type this?
That assertion is as sensible (and supportable) as the claim of a flat Earth.
Did I say everyone? I stated how I bridge the gap between creationism and scientific theory that the earth is 6 billion years old. If you actually took the time to think about it, you might realize it is quite logical.
Boy, you really must hate the fact that humans are one of the most adaptable species in existence. We can live anywhere with enough food, water, and oxygen, including a year+ in an environment that is naturally devoid of all of those things. Or, do you believe that the ISS is a figment of our imagination?
The fossil record and DNA refute creationism, so how do you explain that conundrum?
I see you didn't read my comment about my beliefs regarding the two. And, if you look at what my beliefs are you would realize fossils and the "DNA record" don't refute anything in the case of my beliefs.
EDIT: Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6424407/Every-person-spawned-single-pair-adults-living-200-000-years-ago-scientists-claim.html?fbclid=IwAR3kLsI4x90KWrYkaB_BOaEcm4VMw2SQtMIV_4cqlr_U4hciczPsjNMXCJI
How can evolution and creationism not be mutually exclusive? Either the flora and fauna were created as it exists now or it evolved from lower life forms that began as single-celled organisms. You logically cannot play on both sides of the street on this issue.
DNA would be different if we were created via deistic creationism,
Prove that they are mutually exclusive. Show me the evidence that the Bible and Evolution cannot coexist. And, DNA does not have to be different if we were created via deistic creationism. All things were created out of nothing and the Bible only states how Man and Woman were created. It says nothing about how animals were created.
Why contain GOD to logic.
What if GOD is the creator And the creation.
If your read Genesis as literal fact than you would not see evidence of evolution. If you believe that evolution happened then biblical creationism is impossible and is not supported by either biology or geology. The only possible idea is a deistic belief that a god set the wheels of life in motion and walked away, but even that idea would not have the same DNA as we do currently unless that god only created single-cell organisms.
Creationism is impossible with the fossil record and DNA. My daughter and I have had this conversation many times because both her church and the Christian college that she went to brainwashed her with this idea as a way to both look like you embrace biological science and yet can still claim religious belief that supports literal Genesis as fact.
Religious belief isn't logical. That is why it is called belief and faith.
God cannot be both the creation and the creator. You cannot will yourself into existence.
Maybe we can't but what's to say GOD didn't ?
To me GOD is whatever arranged the atoms to be all that is. That would include damn near any combination of anything that got it done. insanity has no bounds why does GOD have to ?
IMO: it doesn't
Religious belief isn't logical. That is why it is called belief and faith.
I agree.
Your beliefs appear to be close to deism.
This link needs to be added to my previous reply.
If you want to just make everything fit because you're determined to believe, that's up to you. And if that's the case, getting the age of the earth right isn't really that important. If scientists said it was 45 billion years old you'd just recalculate the God/heaven time equation. "Oh, well that means it's four hundred and thirty years to the day for God...".
And no, no one can disprove your "heaven time" theory just like they can't prove you're not allowed to wish for more wishes from a genie. I can't even "prove" that in the earths history it has never experienced a global flood as described in the bible. However, all the geological evidence we have doesn't support such an event having happened within the last 175 thousand years. Now if I really wanted to believe, that fact wouldn't stop me, I'd figure out some loophole in logic to claim it could have happened but somehow didn't leave any evidence. If I really wanted to believe, the fact that humans have multiple vestigial body parts, but the bible says God made man as we are and then made woman from mans rib, wouldn't bother me, I'd just ignore it or come up with some other excuse. My point is, nothing can stop you from believing whatever the fuck you want, no evidence can force you to accept reality. It's up to you as to whether you want to continue making everything fit your fantasy or accept the evidence and faithfully follow that to an unbiased conclusion no matter where it may lead.
I still don't know if he's actually serious or just trying to say the most outrageous shit possible.
I vote for number 2.
More the latter than the former.
So I 've been told.
My religious beliefs were derived from reading the old testament , the new testament,, the Book of Moron and parts of the Koran, then meditation on WTF I believe, I came up with , Whatever arranged the atoms to be all that is ,,, is MY GOD, I know nothing else and dont need to. I also do not believe any living human knows for sure either. So I act accordingly. To each their own, just dont tread on me. and I'll do the same.
LOL...
Caught my freudian slip there eh ?
LOL .. Good catch, I missed it.
But still laughed when ya pointed it out, Thanks
............
Still chuckling, I may do it again just for kicks next time I say it. LOL
Lol, no slip at all there Steve, you got it right the first time!
LOL.. Could be, that book wasn't much different from the others.
The Book of Mormon actually reflects current events, particularly the goings on in government and what happens when people prosper but do not hold to proper morals. Everyone should read from the Book of Alma on, and you would see what is going on today. And, if you believe that the Book of Mormon was a false book created by Joseph Smith as a bill of goods, why does it reflect today's society so well despite being "written" in the 1830s? Think about the Gadianton Robbers and the men of Kishkumen, they are the scammers and power brokers from behind the scenes and many of today's powerful people are the same.
I suggest you real The Pearl of Great Price to get a different view of creation.
Actually, geological evidence shows that at least two great floods occurred. One occurred on what is now the Black Sea and the other occurred in the western part of modern Montana to the West Coast of the USA. Both occurred when Ice Dams broke and flooded the regions. Also, in the English Channel, they found villages underwater from around the time of both of the floods I point to.
I prefer empirical facts instead of religious mythology.
Genesis is fact.
Genesis is re-written fairy tales,
That's nice, prove it! Let's see some evidence to support your so-called "fact."
Would you prefer String Theory, which has just as much evidence as Genesis? And, we know the speed of light really is not constant, it's average is just over 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum but that speed changes depending on what material it passes through. So, galaxies, stars, nebulae, etc. could all be much closer than we think from our observations of the night sky even with Hubble's and Kepler's observations and pictures.
String theory is based on known physics and is mathematically sound. So there are mountains of evidence serving as its foundation. What is not evidenced are the consequences of string theory - strings and higher dimensions. That is why string theory is simply an hypothesis.
Genesis, however, has no evidence whatsoever. It is merely a claim by ancient men with pens. Further, Genesis reveals a naive understanding- something that could be easily surmised by ancient men looking up at the sky and wondering. For many reasons like this, Genesis actually serves as evidence against its own veracity.
Good grief Tom. The speed of light refers to the top speed of massless particles in a vacuum. It is called the 'speed of light' but it is not strictly talking about photons. Further, light does indeed slow down based upon the material through which it passes. That does not mean that 'c' changes. It means that the speed of a beam of light will vary. Best we know 'c' is indeed constant. We may find out that 'c' varies. Some hypothesize that, but as it stands right now 'c' appears to indeed be constant.
Not based on what we currently know. Anything is possible, but your above comment is pure speculation and contradicts all current findings of astronomy.
I also watched Soilent Green and fully exspect that to someday be much like reality. Look at the modern world compared to star trek even. While we cant Beem scotty up yet,many of the "Inventions" of the show, today are reality. Just because some one thinks or writes something doesn't IMO mean it came for anywhere but their own mind.
Sorry I read all the major religious books, My main take away was these are books written by men to mainly manipulate other men.
After I read all the major religious books I went to mediate on what my true beliefs are, I came up with "Whatever arranged all the atoms to be all that is , is my GOD", I know no more and don't believe a single living human does for sure either.
So, I have no problem with others believing whatever they want, I just dont buy into it. I have my beliefs and that's all that really matters to me.
To each their own !
Dropping entirely naive platitudes like this accomplishes nothing good. Making silly claims sans supporting evidence and/or logic telegraphs to all readers that you are simply repeating what others have stated without any understanding of why it is claimed to be true.
Emphasizing your point.
We're not talking about Energy, Tig, we are talking about light being used to measure the distance of objects and using the "constant" of the speed of light as the basis for that measurement. How do you know that in the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy actually is 2,537,497 light years? With the theory of Dark Matter out there, how do we know that Dark Matter doesn't slow or speed up the speed of light as that light passes through it? We cannot detect Dark Matter, but many scientists think it exists or some aspects of the Universe makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes, I know.
We do not know for certain (100%). Science gives us the best estimates it can. The question then to you is on what basis do you conclude that the speed of light has slowed down in the vacuum of space to make a material difference in light-year calculations? Note that anything is possible if we are only speculating. So speculation is kind of a waste of time. What evidence can you provide to support the hypothesis that our estimate of large distances such as that to Andromeda are significantly wrong?
You need something more than 'light can be slowed down'.
See above. We can also speculate that dark energy speeds light up. Speculation takes us nowhere.
Agreed on the evidence that dark matter (and dark energy) exists and also that while we can detect its effects, science has no clue what this dark 'stuff' really is.
Genesis is a plagiarized myth. Most of the Bible is the Readers Digest of religion because many of the ideas are borrowed and edited from previous religions or civilizations, despite your beliefs. You can believe that 2+2=22 but that doesn't change the fact that the answer is 4. Belief is subjective but facts are objective and that idea doesn't change because you may disagree.
Not only that, it's one of many creation myths from various religions around the world. I wonder what makes the Genesis account the "real" version? Because a believer says so?
It’s evolution that can never get to 4 when adding 2+2.
Such meaningless drivel. Especially since you have yet to answer my challenge.
And, here is the problem with talking about religion and beliefs compared to science. Religion and beliefs are personal choices, science is the interpretation of evidence into a conclusion that needs to always be challenged since we can never be certain that our technology will ever get it right. I keep arguing against Climate Change/Global Warming/AGW Theory; because the science and technology is not accurate and therefore proves nothing. I stated my personal belief about God and Time, because those who spent and wasted time attacking it failed to see how religious they are being in supporting AGW Theory. If you notice, when I argue against AGW Theory it is always based on the evidence that we have available and how accurate, precise, and error-free that evidence is. Those favoring AGW Theory, treat my arguments like the Catholic Church treated people during the Inquisition: "You disagree with me, therefore, you are a heretic and an unbeliever."
Agreed on both counts.
You should not be arguing against climate change because the evidence that it occurs is overwhelming. At best you argue against AGW, but then again you should be following the evidence to where it leads. That is, one should not have a position that one seeks to prevail but rather be open to the evidence even if the evidence is not what you would like it to be.
Well that is not an approach I would advise for anyone. Religion is based on what other human beings claim to be true. There is nothing supporting it other than human imagination. Science, in contrast, is founded on empirical observation - solid evidence and logic. In science one is persuaded by the evidence. One who simply adopts a position and cannot point to the supporting evidence would be taking a religious stance. But those who can support their position on evidence are arguing their interpretation.
The accuracy of the evidence is a wedge that people often use incorrectly. In empirical science we often do not have perfect evidence. So someone can always make the general claim that the evidence is imperfect and thus reject it on those grounds. That is overplaying the imperfection card. People like Ken Ham do this all the time. Ham, for example, claims that since nobody was 'there' to witness an Earth that is older than 10,000 years that all this radiometric dating, etc. methods are to be dismissed as nonsense. He is an extreme case, of course, but the principle of rejecting solid evidence on the grounds that it is imperfect is a common tactic that should be challenged.
Well that is unfortunate because AGW is still debate-worthy. But unfortunately AGW is politicized so it is rare that people engage in a serious objective science-based discussion. Partisan politics seems to trump everything (including religion by the way).
Neither of those floods are global as recounted by Noah and the ark.
TiG, the entire purpose of the 95% confidence or better measurement is to reduce error, which can see any predictions based on the evidence be wildly off the mark. For example, computer models cannot even predict the path of even 1 storm consistently and accurately, so how can computer models based off the same data predict what can happen 10, 20, 30, or more years down the line? Plus, most people ignore that the climate actually is a cycle and has been since the end of the Mesozoic Era. We go through glacial and interglacial periods and just like a pendulum the highest acceleration is always closest to the midpoint of the swing. We are close to the midpoint of the current interglacial; so the temperature rise should be among the highest rates right now. But, most scientists even ignore that little factoid.
The AGW debate should not be about the precision of predicting the specific consequences but rather on the degree to which we (human beings) are increasing the greenhouse effect and what practical steps we can do to mitigate the damage.
But that is not what is taking place. The R partisans argue that AGW is a hoax and want to do nothing. The D partisans are the opposite and tend to want to react without a solid plan (take effective action ... not just action).
Of course it is cyclic and the portion that is cyclic is beyond our control. The AGW debate is about the anthropogenic factor. There is little doubt (based on history) that planet Earth will undergo natural changes that could wipe out human life. Nature is hostile to life. But natural cycles is a terrible excuse for dismissing AGW.
Bottom line: partisans tend to be extreme. AGW is reduced to a dichotomy of either near term doom or total hoax. In reality, it is a serious problem that we cannot ignore. Exactly when we cross the point of no return is not clear but the estimates are certainly close enough for responsible people to take notice. But ignoring the problem is about as irresponsible as we can get.
( Evidence of AGW )
The problem is that we cannot tell the difference between warming due to man and the natural cycle. The variables in the system are just too many to isolate a single cause or excess cause to that cycle with our current technology. Just look back at 2015, when all of the climate computer models were wrong about what would be happening both with the rate of temperature rise and the polar ice caps. They weren't just wrong, they were astronomically wrong. Plus, you have the single greatest contributor of Global Warming being completely ignored: Water Vapor. It is stronger at absorbing and radiating heat than Carbon Dioxide and is far more abundant at the same time. But, we don't have a water tax system, we have a carbon tax system.
AGW is nothing but pseudoscience. A hoax and a fraud.
Let's at least establish that the planet is currently warming.
The problem is not a single cause single solution. And yes this is very complicated. Complexity, however, does not justify the typical partisan extreme conclusion of: 'AGW is a hoax'. I have no problem with skepticism - it is healthy. I do have a problem with extreme conclusions. The debate on AGW (the political debate, the colloquial debate) is all about extremes and posturing. The debate should be on what practical actions we should take now and what we should take in the future.
You have noted that this is complex and that scientists are pushing the envelope to try to understand this complex area. So you are arguing (it seems) that AGW is to be ignored because scientists have made mistakes in this process? The better approach is to recognize that this is a messy process and to see it through. We have very solid evidence that AGW is real and that the greenhouse effect is worsening. Do we shut down all research because we do not have all the answers in this complex area or do we take seriously the clear negative effects (with serious potential consequences) and continue to a) deeper our understanding and b) take practical measures to reduce AGW factors? You know my answer.
Water vapor fluctuates naturally and that natural aspect is out of our hands - it is by definition not anthropogenic. But there is an anthropogenic factor in water vapor. Other factors that contribute to the greenhouse effect increase the surface temperature of the planet which in turn increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Ultimately if the planet itself is causing the warming and the anthropogenic factors have little or no effect then we will likely be wiped out by natural forces beyond our control. This has happened several times in the past and will no doubt happen in the future because nature is ultimately hostile to life. But the data shows anthropogenic factors are exacerbating the problem and thus responsible adults should support practical measures to increase our understanding and also to mitigate (in a practical, not emotional manner) the harm over which we have control.
That platitude pretty much announces to everyone that you do not have a clue about this subject matter. Is that really the message you want to telegraph?:
'I do not know anything about AGW but my sources tell me it is a hoax and a fraud and that is all I need to know.'
Note that Tom is making an intellectual argument while you merely drop a platitude and run away.
Still all talk and no substance.
Some people only know how to paroot something they're told and then run off, without actually understandin the issue nor address any argument or challenge. It's both intellectual laziness and cowardice.
We don't use the speed of light as the basis for estimating distance. We use luminosity from 'standard candles', like a Type Ia supernova.
Because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. That's the whole point of the name. It looks like there's stuff out there that does have mass, but does not interact with light. That's why it's called dark matter.
Haven't you ever seen a CO2 chart of ice core data going back hundreds of thousands of years? Didn't you notice that dramatic spike going way up over the rest of the data, beginning around the same time as the industrial revolution? Also, as far as CO2 is concerned, we actually can tell the isotopic difference between the stuff that comes from fossil fuels and the stuff that doesn't.
Astronomically wrong, eh? Got a link to refresh my memory?
Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, but it's not the culprit. The single greatest contributor to recent warming is the reintroduction of carbon that has been out of the loop for millions of years. Digging or pumping it up and burning it off into the air means that we are ADDING new carbon to the surface cycle that simply wasn't there before (at least not for said millions of years). That's the main factor that has changed. That's the one that is different now.
Incidentally, CO2 is something of a master control knob. Turn it up and the other knobs (water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, etc) get turned up as well (and vice versa). For example, air warmed a little by the introduction of some new CO2 can in turn hold a little more water vapor and retain even more heat.
Also, CO2 has staying power. It can affect temps for up to a century. Water vapor can condense out almost immediately in comparison, depending on the circumstances, of course.
.........”Speakers, who flew in to swap doomsday stories and partake of the meat-heavy menu, advocated for radical changes to avoid this imminent environmental apocalypse. These days, “the point of no return” is almost always in view, yet always just out of reach.
Sorry, but by now, this rhetoric is familiar. You can go back to 1970, when Harvard biologist George Wald, riding a wave of popular environmental panic during the decade, estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Or you can go back to 1977, when President Barack Obama’s future science “tsar” John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul R. Ehrlich predicting that global warming could lead to the deaths of 1 billion starving people by 2020. (The authors theorized that “population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution.”)
Or you can go back to 2006, when Al Gore warned in his Oscar-winning documentary that sea levels would rise by 20 feet “in the near future.” The producers even offered chilling depictionsof cities underwater. Gore was only off by around 20 feet, or so. Anyway, South Beach is still with us.
The problem for alarmists is that warming is now here—allegedly, the cause of an untold number of disasters, small and large—yet somehow humanity slogs onward, living longer, safer, richer lives. People internalize this reality, no matter what they tell pollsters.
At a big 2005 conference of concerned climate scientists and politicians in London, attendees warned that the world had as little as 10 years before it reached “the point of no return on global warming.” They warned that humans would soon be grappling with “widespread agricultural failure,” “major droughts,” “increased disease,” “the death of forests,” and the “switching-off of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream,” among many other terrible calamities.
Who knows, maybe one day humanity will be ravaged by new diseases due to a rise in temperature. Right now, though, we are on the cusp of eradicated diseases like “polio, Guinea worm, yaws, Carrion’s disease, hookworm, lymphatic filariasis, measles, ovine rinderpest, pork tape worm, river blindness, rubella, syphilis.”
There is new hope that all mosquito-borne diseases might be one day be eradicated, that a cure for AIDS might be within reach, and, perhaps, a vaccinemight cut Alzheimer’s disease cases in half. Cancer survival rates have soared.
So perhaps in some far-flung era, humans will be toiling in a dystopian world of “widespread agricultural failure,” as alarmists have been warning for many decades, but trends do not look promising for the Chicken Littles. Since 2005, humans have seen a spike in the use of genetically modified crops, as well as advances in heat-resistant crops, which has led to booming yields in agriculture. According to the UN, there are 200 million fewer hungry people in 2015 than there were in 1990.
Although not as big as the massive spike in climate-change hysterics since 2005, there also been a spike in fossil fuel consumption among nations that are slowly embracing the most effective poverty-killing program ever invented by man. And capitalism, even its worst iterations, runs best on cheap energy. This reality has produced a giant reduction of poverty, the extreme variety being cut in half around the world, according to the World Bank.....” http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/05/climate-change-alarmism-worlds-leading-cause-hot-gas/
All your rhetoric only affirms what I already said!
.... Obama-era holdover climate alarmists released the final version of the U.S. Global Change Research Program report. This fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), citing no new data since the draft report was released in 2017, actually makes even more hysterical claims on the dangers of purported human-caused climate change than either NCA4’s draft did or than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent reports. The report states human activities are bringing about catastrophic global warming, and predicts a grim and costly future unless the world essentially stops using fossil fuels immediately.
Astronomer and science popularizer, the late Carl Sagan, said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” However, the mainstream media ignored this sage advice in their breathless rush to publish the apocalyptic projections made in NCA4. As is typical, the mainstream media uncritically parroted the most alarming claims made in the assessment’s summary and overview. For instance, CNN’s November 26 headline covering the report stated, “Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns.” Incredibly, the media ignored the fact statements on catastrophe from hurricanes, drought, and fires made in the summary that are contradicted by data in the core document. As noted in The Heartland Institute’s analysis of NCA4’s draft, “Critique of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report,” the report ignored hard data, used questionable methodologies, and built its scenarios on often absurd assumptions, which resulted in demonstrably flawed descriptions of the current state of the Earth’s climate and scary predictions about the future. In the final NCA4 report, these apocalyptic predictions were pumped up on steroids.... https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/scientists-respond-to-the-hype-alarm-in-the-recent-national-climate-assessment
I gave you analysis by NASA along with the underlying data and you ignore it and instead rebut the predictable hype.
The fact that there are people crying wolf is not an argument that AGW is a non-issue. Grownups understand that in society there will always be extremists. That is why critical thinking adults do not simply accept what people tell them - they consider the evidence and make a rational assessment.
Those who ignore AGW as a non-issue are as extreme as those like Gore who hype doomsday scenarios.
IBD, a bastion of scientific publishing.
Aren't they owned by Marvel Comics?
No, that would be MBFC and any media that relies on their judgement for anything.
If so, their science reporting is sub-par to the comics.
Are you referring to this?
I do not recognize the sub human debris that runs that particular bigoted hate site. I have nothing but the utmost sheer contempt for them and everything they stand for.
I really doubt that they give a shit what you think.
They probably care about what I think about as little as I care about what you think. And I don’t care if they care or not about what I say. BF said that they are going to audit/rate this site. It will be interesting to see how far left they rate it.
Considering they allow a prolific right wing cut & paste'r as yourself to flood this site with garbage right wing bull shit every day, I doubt it'll be considered "left leaning". They don't count the up votes on comments to make that determination. If they did, it would of course confirm the majority of members here either lean left, have more than half their brains functioning and decent reading comprehension, or most likely, both.
That's fine. I just wondered what your MBFC stands for and didn't really find much. I'm sure it is some acronym I should be aware of, but I'm not.
[Deleted]
Then why bother posting seeds on here, if you don't care what we think? Or, for that matter why answer any posts on your seeds?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
I don't know....
My Backside Farts Constantly?
Only when liberals enter the room....
I guess that means they are generally correct. Thanks for the recommendation.
Who is we? My reply was to a single person.
So... I guess anybody who doesn't believe that "Evolution is pure pseudoscience quackery. " really sucks then am I correct?
Actually, I was just reading on MBFC. I like it. I'm going to subscribe. Thanks for the tip MBFC really sucks.
Feel free. Some people on this earth have a need for such juvenile hate filled bias and bigotry that is MBFC and those who run it to support their own biases and use it as an excuse to enforce their own bigotry. Just look at their site and see where they brag about all the intellectually lazy lemmings who slavishly lap up their every word as if it were somehow divinely inspired. To each their own.
Figure it out.
Sounds about right. And that’s putting it mildly as far as I’m concerned.
Global Warming. Climate Change.
Isn't it simpler to just trust in the Trump's 'gut and brain?'
Anything is better than following these global warming hoaxes and fraudulent climate change models. The seeded article sourced to scientists to make its very well made points.
Again you rely on nothing more than fake news and false science. You have nothing you can prove or actually show
[deleted]
Corsi? He is the savior. No fake there, right?
Indeed it is.
No the article sourced heartland institute shills who have lost all credibility in the scientific community.
OK let's just say you're right. WHAT'S WRONG WITH JUST HAVING CLEAN AIR TO BREATHE?
evolution is false science and it’s adherents are like the followers of Jim Jones drinking the kool aid.
Did you click on a link in the seeded article that took you to the great awesome and highly esteemed Heartland Institute?
I find it a bit ironic (and funny) to observe someone complaining about censorship (sporting an avatar of 'censored') on a site in which he is allowed to routinely makes silly platitude declarations such as:
Jefferson-does-Palin has a lifetime job mining irony.
Heartland is a conservative mouthpiece of very questionable integrity,
There's nothing questionable about it: it has none! No surprise it's conservative either.
I wonder if they're ok with pregnant women being exposed to second-hand smoke and risking their "preborn children".
They are fine with it, as long as you don't ask for any assistance when that child is born with medical problems such as asthma or learning disabilities.
My mom smoked while pregnant with me and my siblings. She has smoked all of her life. The only health problem she has had in all this time is a cough. I went through cancer, but my cancer, according to my doctors and everything I read up on it, is one of the few that is completely random. Oh, by the way, mine sat in one place for months before being diagnosed unlike the girl from Top Chef whom has less than a year to live and is the same age I was when I was diagnosed with the same cancer, Ewing's Sarcoma.
Your mother is an example of anecdotal evidence.
I am sorry about your fight with cancer.
Don't you know: second hand smoke health risks is just a liberal hoax meant to discourage jobs and free economy by driving tobacco industries out of business as well as infringe on personal freedoms by taking away peoples right to smoke. It's diabolical I tells you >sarc<
Some of the projections sound like something kicked around in a Hollywood brainstorming session for a science fiction thriller,
I dont doubt it.
When I think of global warming I think of when I've used black plastic in my backyard to raise the temperature of things. It seems to me that if you put stuff into the air and make the atmosphere darker it's also is going to heat us up.
I've seen what putting stuff under black plastic in sunlight does to stuff,,, and rather quickly.... I don't doubt the predictions look like something out of a nightmare.
If one has to keep "Changing the Name" of something, to try and make something relevant, I find that to be …….. Questionable on all the "Scary" put forth by ……………. "Scientists".
I always wondered what that 5th "Scientist" thought.
Ya know the one...……….4 out of 5 agree !
Why didn't the 5th one "Agree".
You do realize that anthropogenic global warming causes climate change don't you? Scientists didn't change the name.
The 1 out of 100 scientists who disagrees cashes heartland institute checks soaked in oil.
Gosh....and what made it "Change" before the "anthropogenic" stuff we are "Fed".