Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[brenthutch 444]

wolfriverjoe

***

You're confusing science with engineering and physics.

Really? Confusing "science" with "physics".

Engineering is applying science, but physics is science.

AGW theory is NOT science because it is not falsifiable. California drought? AGW. End of California drought? AGW. No snow? AGW. Lots of snow? AGW. Warmth? AGW. Cold? AGW. On and on, ad nauseam.
It's not science, it's dogma.

[kallend 2,027]

brenthutch

******

You're confusing science with engineering and physics.

Really? Confusing "science" with "physics".

Engineering is applying science, but physics is science.

AGW theory is NOT science because it is not falsifiable. California drought? AGW. End of California drought? AGW. No snow? AGW. Lots of snow? AGW. Warmth? AGW. Cold? AGW. On and on, ad nauseam.
It's not science, it's dogma.

So what kind of professional scientist are you anyway, since you're giving science lessons now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

This is getting too easy.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

*********

You're confusing science with engineering and physics.

Really? Confusing "science" with "physics".

Engineering is applying science, but physics is science.

AGW theory is NOT science because it is not falsifiable. California drought? AGW. End of California drought? AGW. No snow? AGW. Lots of snow? AGW. Warmth? AGW. Cold? AGW. On and on, ad nauseam.
It's not science, it's dogma.

So what kind of professional scientist are you anyway, since you're giving science lessons now.

"You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

[gowlerk 2,191]

Quote

"You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Not only have you mis-quoted America's greatest songwriter, but you also clearly can't tell the wind direction. Obviously YOU need a weatherman.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 23]

gowlerk

***You operate under the mistaken belief that science is never wrong.

But it's wrong far less often than American right wing politicians. The American right has being wrong and convincing themselves that they are correct down to a science. Maybe they really are scientists!

And right-wing politicians are right more often than left-wing politicians who tend to be global warming alarmists. So your point is?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

gowlerk

Quote

"You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Not only have you mis-quoted America's greatest songwriter, but you also clearly can't tell the wind direction. Obviously YOU need a weatherman.

Not a misquote my friend. I was riffing (to borrow and elaborate) on America's top troubadour. No weatherman needed.

[gowlerk 2,191]

Quote

Not a misquote my friend. I was riffing (to borrow and elaborate) on America's top troubadour.

Well, considering how much he has done the same, I guess that's alright.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

All scientist need to do is say, "hey, we have some pretty new kick ass technology - look at this this cool shit!" (no pun intended)

It would solve the problem. No reason to get in fights over politics/morality.

Well, scientists learn why and how - engineers turn that into cool gadgets.

But overall I agree. Scientists tell us that the planet is warming, and it is due mostly to our emissions of greenhouse gases. No moralizing. Engineers give us catalytic converters, and hybrids, and carbon sequestration equipment, and solar power systems. Again, no moralizing. The moralizing comes in when people try to justify their use of fossil fuels, or talk about the need to close all the nuclear power plants or use no fossil fuels ever again.

[billvon 2,991]

>And right-wing politicians are right more often than left-wing politicians who tend
>to be global warming alarmists.

The odd thing is that I think you really believe your own BS.

I can see you ten years from now after another series of record-warm years and rising seas saying "See? I was RIGHT!"

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

Quote

All scientist need to do is say, "hey, we have some pretty new kick ass technology - look at this this cool shit!" (no pun intended)

It would solve the problem. No reason to get in fights over politics/morality.

Well, scientists learn why and how - engineers turn that into cool gadgets.

But overall I agree. Scientists tell us that the planet is warming, and it is due mostly to our emissions of greenhouse gases. No moralizing. Engineers give us catalytic converters, and hybrids, and carbon sequestration equipment, and solar power systems. Again, no moralizing. The moralizing comes in when people try to justify their use of fossil fuels

I really hope you are joking and or drinking because.....

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/us-senator-global-warming-isthe-moral-challenge-our-generation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-the-moral-issue-of-climate-change/2014/11/18/e660e61c-6f74-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html?utm_term=.077fda3b0d59

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/03/is-global-warming-a-moral-issue/

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

Quote

All scientist need to do is say, "hey, we have some pretty new kick ass technology - look at this this cool shit!" (no pun intended)

It would solve the problem. No reason to get in fights over politics/morality.

Well, scientists learn why and how - engineers turn that into cool gadgets.

But overall I agree. Scientists tell us that the planet is warming, and it is due mostly to our emissions of greenhouse gases.

And other scientists say that it is not.

http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2012/11/15/the-moral-issue-of-man-made-global-warming/

"There seems to be wide agreement that global warming is taking place; what has been up to the debate is whether it is caused by human activity or not. We live in an age where science and reason is considered among societies highest values. Yet, within this issue there is no room for debate or discussion.

Criticism of the theory of man made global warming is not tolerated, even if it is based on research of the highest scientific standards. The critics have become scientific dissidents and are considered dangerous and even morally irresponsible. How is it possible that this may take place in an age where we often consider rationality to be at its historical peak?

In the public debate the theory is often presented as a scientific truth, even when researchers claim that there are considerable doubts. Many scientists, especially within the natural science community, claim that there is no direct evidence that links human activities and global warming. Some of the claims are that the earths´ climate has always been changing and that the temperatures are not mainly driven by carbon dioxide, whether it is man made or not.

Further, they claim that there is nothing unusual about the temperatures today, and it has for example been pointed out that lions existed in northern Germany during the Middle Ages. Some of the sceptics include MIT professors, University of Virginia professors, in addition to experts that are in the forefront when it comes to science of climatology. Even if these people deserve the highest ranking credits and credibility their views are not only silenced or denigrated as irrelevant by politicians, media and other scientists, but they are also subjected to shameful labelling and name calling."

[melch 1]

Quote

Many scientists, especially within the natural science community, claim that there is no direct evidence that links human activities and global warming. Some of the claims are that the earths´ climate has always been changing and that the temperatures are not mainly driven by carbon dioxide, whether it is man made or not.

How long did us to admit there was a direct causation between smoking tobacco products and lung cancer despite many within the medical community claiming otherwise? This of course, is a straw man argument, the difference being one argument used overwhelming empirical evidence to change the narrative to what we now know as fact whereas the other attempts to use half truths to move us away from a narrative that the empirical evidence supports.

[kallend 2,027]

brenthutch

************

You're confusing science with engineering and physics.

Really? Confusing "science" with "physics".

Engineering is applying science, but physics is science.

AGW theory is NOT science because it is not falsifiable. California drought? AGW. End of California drought? AGW. No snow? AGW. Lots of snow? AGW. Warmth? AGW. Cold? AGW. On and on, ad nauseam.
It's not science, it's dogma.

So what kind of professional scientist are you anyway, since you're giving science lessons now.

"You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

So you are not, in fact, a scientist at all, but you like to pontificate on science. Got it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 2,191]

Quote

lions existed in northern Germany during the Middle Ages.

And tigers and bears too. But the woodsman killed them, so it's alright now. So silly.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

I'm not sure if you knew this or not but....if 45% think global warming is very important, math says that 55% think it's not. And 55>45.

Right, they may say it is extremely important. Or of utmost importance. Or incredibly important. Or maybe they think it is important.

[billvon 2,991]

>How long did us to admit there was a direct causation between smoking tobacco
>products and lung cancer despite many within the medical community claiming
>otherwise?

"More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”
"Take your doctor's advice - smoke a fresh cigarette."
Doctor on phone says "tell him to switch to Kools - he'll be all right."
"Eminent throat and nose specialists suggest - Change to Philip Morris."

And they're _doctors._ Maybe. The ad says they are!

[billvon 2,991]

>I really hope you are joking and or drinking because.....

. . . you've embarrassed yourself?

The day you agree with me on something like this is the day I will have to re-examine my approach to the subject.

[brenthutch 444]

There you go again, confusing cigarette smoke with CO2. I know it can be challenging to get your brain around, but CO2, even though it is a component of cigarette smoke, does not cause cancer or even catastrophic global warming for that matter.

[billvon 2,991]

>There you go again, confusing cigarette smoke with CO2.

Still unable to process analogies, I see. No wonder you have trouble with science.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>There you go again, confusing cigarette smoke with CO2.

Still unable to process analogies, I see. No wonder you have trouble with science.

It is a very weak analogy but obviously the only one you have. You cannot deal with the facts that I lay out, so you redirect and create a straw man.

Oh BTW, how is your AGW induced state of permanent drought going?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>And right-wing politicians are right more often than left-wing politicians who tend
>to be global warming alarmists.

The odd thing is that I think you really believe your own BS.

I can see you ten years from now after another series of record-warm years and rising seas saying "See? I was RIGHT!"

LOFL

I sure as hell dont believe your odd leftwing bs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royreader8812 0]

Quote

How long did us to admit there was a direct causation between smoking tobacco products and lung cancer despite many within the medical community claiming otherwise? This of course, is a straw man argument, the difference being one argument used overwhelming empirical evidence to change the narrative to what we now know as fact whereas the other attempts to use half truths to move us away from a narrative that the empirical evidence supports.

And at some point everyone agreed that the world was flat...

Hypotheses are not facts. Whichever way you look at them.

Even with another decade of warming, some unknown may be a contributing attribute.

Blaming carbon is silly. Carbon is essential for life. It is a quantifiable substance to tax, which is convenient...

Why do the plastics in the ocean get a free ride, the demise of our ocean fauna is a massive contributor... what else is? Hydro electric dams (methane), who knows?

Focusing on carbon is just a way to get bureaucrats rich.

Scientists like funding... science can take a back seat if there is a new house involved...lol

[billvon 2,991]

>And at some point everyone agreed that the world was flat...

And then we learned it wasn't.

Likewise, we once thought that nothing we could do could significantly affect the atmosphere of the Earth. It's huge! Just look at it! Now we know that's not true either.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>And at some point everyone agreed that the world was flat...

And then we learned it wasn't.

Likewise, we once thought that nothing we could do could significantly affect the atmosphere of the Earth. It's huge! Just look at it! Now we know that's not true either.

And just as we learned CO2, although a greenhouse gas, is only a minor player in the global climate and is overwhelmed by other influences.