AGW Theory - Discussion

Again, just because someone is more educated on a topic than you doesn't mean that they're right. People throughout history have dedicated their lives to science topics only to be proven wrong centuries later. You don't have to accept them, you don't have to reject them. Is it so crazy to just say, "Eh, that's plausible," and leave it at that?

Whenever I make an opinion that is.

I have not made one about AGW. What I have said on the subject is questioning the methodology and the blind faith people have put onto it.

The holes in the fossil record alone should cast large doubts into the theory of Evolution on a purely scientific perspective.

However, you are so dogmatically married to it that you accuse anyone who does not share your acceptance of the theory to being a "fringe idiot" ?

People on the fringe are idiots? Wouldn't the evolutionists have been on the fringe 100 years ago? Were they all idiots then?

This is contradictory. fringe does not make people stupid or foolish. Also what is mainstream now, was considered idiotic at another time. It is not at all relevant to the argument.

The study of Evolution itself I think is profitable in many ways. However primary motivator for it is religious and philosophical.

The desire to study evolution is an outgrowth of rejection of God. That is its purpose. It did not grow independently from the culture around it. If it had, it would be the theory of How God made adaptable organisms, or how he designed them to change from one organism into another. The majority of Western culture thru all this scientific discovery has been Christian and Jewish.

That is the nest in which it was born. The rejection of God is prime motivator in the entire theory of evolution. That means the study has bias.

Are there biased Christians who err in trying to make science support their beliefs? Absolutely.
Are there biased Atheists who do the same?
Absolutely.
Both sides can rise above the biases and seek for truth.

Again, questioning is not denying.

I'm saying you're a very arrogant and naive person if you think your unqualified opinion is right and people who have spent their lives researching something are wrong.

You have a point, except it's also naive to assume that the experts are always right.

You can say that over and over, but you constantly accuse people who've come to a conclusion, even moreso if they have an actual understanding, of blindly following it. You always argue against AGW and anyone who accepts it as likely while trying to hide behind the veil of skepticism. It's the typical politician stance "I'm not a climatologist, but I'm going to argue with everything they say because..."


Always? Naw, but they have a much better track record than the general population, that's for damn sure.

But you want me to make an opinion I'm willing to stand on?

Fine: I find that climate science is very political due to the amount of research grants received for said "research"

Meaning: If I say that, with 100% certainty that global warming is real and man made, and make a bunch of jargon that says that in a roundabout way, and sell it to the government, I'll get research money to make another copy of the exact same thing but with different jargon.

I think that some scientists are frauds who's only out to get the money for "research" in the Bahamas every year.

Wait, are you saying you are an expert or have an actual understanding besides the populist viewpoint of the topic?

You try to do the exact same thing in regards of business practices and I, as an actual expert in business and accounting practices, have shown you to be incorrect so many times it's not funny. I highly doubt you are an expert at anything to be honest. But you do play one on TV so well.

@Xilk

I'm not saying people on the fringe are idiots, this guy is


I'm only saying it because he is.

No, atheists (as a whole) don't have "beliefs."

Aside from that your understanding of evolution is well, lacking.

Nevermind, I should have read the post in it's entirety before giving you a serious response, my bad.

Anytime you have a group that comes to one scientific conclusion that is openly antagonistic towards a minority group that comes to a different conclusion, that raised red flags for me. Statistical variation alone will occasionally cause experiments to run outside of the range you deem "acceptable" or "true". Trying to silence opposing conclusions is more anti-science than anything else. Pre-selecting only the information that suits your view is also anti-science. If you're unwilling to take every piece of information into account then you have failed.

So can we actually talk about AGW now, anyone?

97% of climatologist
90% of scientist overall
Every scientific institution in the US
The democratic party
Most of the world, including China and Russia
The pope

All bend to the will of the powerful climatology lobby.

When did I ever say I was an expert in anything? I've even said very clearly that I don't have a particularly strong science background. I've only ever pointed out the ridiculous logical fallacies in active and passive deniers' statements.

As for your expertise, lol. You pretend to misunderstand things and quote regulations ad nausium to overpower everyone without ever actually addressing the topic. I am very knowledgeable about many topics that I don't need to stoop to techno-babble or displays of knowledge to express my position, as are most of the mature posters around. Ex: you don't see Rav spamming threads with statistics jargon to try and prove how smart he is, he just corrects or questions things as they pop up.

Now you are being factitious.

Tell me where. All those statements are factual, and if you doubt any of them, just tell me where and I'll provide links.

Edit: Small correction. I mean every -major- scientific institution, not every just every institution.

"Holes in the fossil record". Oh ***, now I'm interested!

You don't know what factitious means. It's ok, it means artificial by the way.

I'm picturing you both crossing your arms and covering your ears with your hands at the same time.

It's quite an image, though unfortunately, accurate.

Man-made climate change is incredibly suspect because of the politics.

When I was in elementary school in the 80s I specifically remember lessons that we were entering an Ice age.
Before middle school was over, we were into Global Warming. I generally accepted it at the time, but didn' think much about it.

In college the argument about global warming was in full swing.
The models do not match, and the terminology has now been rebranded as 'Climate change'.

This is where I am thinking critically of both sides. Several studies HAVE been proven to have been falsified.

I am not a great scientist. However, I do excel in logic and history and critical thinking (I work in IT solving problems).

Logic is more fundamental than science is and politics. Its too bad that Philosophy and History have become so under-valued in our education. These are exactly the pieces of knowledge that don't contribute alot to a job, but contribute more profoundly in all other aspects of LIFE. You know, making smart, wise decisions.

The problem withe AGW is that the details keep changing, but the POLICY remains the same. The policy is always, "LET THE LIBERALS MAKE THE CHOICES".

It doesn't take a scientist to understand that snake oil is being sold.

Lets use a little more simple logic about climate science. Lets start with a list of general facts, which I believe we can all accept readily.
In Earth's history, the climate has been alot warmer than it is now. It has also been alot colder.

This happened far before people COULD have influenced climate at all. (We didn't have the population or ecological impact or technology to do so).

Given these 2 points, How can we tell what parts of climate change are natural vs man-made?

I understand there are alot of people, and alot of money being put into studying this. and according to some "The 95% majority of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening"

However I also know how the politics of science works. Grant money funds research. The researchers who get more grant money are the one's whose research is most 'interesting' to whomever is giving out the grant money.

Do I make my decisions based off the research of one group over another when both have given me reason to doubt? Or do I choose where I stand based on my own understanding?

I like science. I am interested in it. but I am not a professional scientist and I cannot afford to be. I make my decisions based of the logic and understanding of human history.

tldr:
Whether people are affecting climate change or not, the political policies surrounding it are a sham.

So do a lot of people (myself included) it doesn't mean anything.

Argue facts and studies, not people.

The next post I see that even looks like it's addressing another directly in a disparaging manner, and said disparager gets a topic ban and a suspension of to-be-determined length.

I'm sick of getting reports because people can't play nice. Play nice, or don't play at all. If y'all can't behave yourselves in P+R, we aren't going to have a P+R section.

@Xilk

How do you explain the 90% of scientist who are for AGW who don't get climatology grants?

Atheism has been defined in legal proceedings up to the Supreme Court as a religion: Secular Humanism

Atheism has one central belief that defines it.
The belief that God does not exist.

Of course this is a belief. There is no way to prove it as proving non-existence is a logical fallacy.
Theism can be proven, but the likely-hood is rather in question from a purely logical viewpoint.

God can prove he exists anytime simply by showing up, but will He?

I already mentioned religious bias. This will account for far more than Grant-money.

This is farely well discussed.

The Fossil record is far too empty.

The "missing link" should be more isolated than it is. It should be a missing link in a chain, not a missing chain when there are a few links.

This should be readily apparent for many, many species. It doesn't have to be humans.

It's not a religion (I really don't care what legal proceedings said, I mean the SCOTUS determined that corporations are people, so there's that).

It's a belief like off is a tv channel. It's a lack of a belief, fyi.