Bill Clinton: "Greatest threat to civilizaton is climate change."

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

An example of this?

The earth not being the center of the universe, this type of crazy thinking was once punishable by death.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Myth my ass, as a none scientist and irrational mind that is so focused on driving your big ass SUV gas guzzler you merely refuse to see the facts and proofs of global warming. Even this administration of Bush Inc. has admited to the facts of global warming not being merely a phenomenon but fact.
You present opinion articles and Junkscience.com that are completely unbased in scientific facts and compeletly non-peer reviewed science.
If you insist there is no global warming then you should not be able to survive. Global warming is the atmosphere's ability to retain heat, there is no debate over that at all. What you should be arguing is that human intervention with global warming is a hoax.
However, there's a plethora of evidence for human intervention with global warming. However how much evidence suggest that there is no human intervention with global warming? precisely zero.

Go head and make a fool out of yourself if you continue to cite such rediculous sources or continute deny global warming all together.

You follow the group think if you want to, I'll stick with the facts and the facts say that humans can't cause climate change anymore than they can stop it.

 

[Engimo]

The earth not being the center of the universe, this type of crazy thinking was once punishable by death.

Not by scientists. Let me remind you that the scientific community that I am referring to did not exist at the time you were talking about. Indeed, it was the Catholic Church that punished Galileo for advocating the heliocentric model, not any scientists.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not by scientists. Let me remind you that the scientific community that I am referring to did not exist at the time you were talking about. Indeed, it was the Catholic Church that punished Galileo for advocating the heliocentric model, not any scientists.

Ya well the the upper echelons of academia are not much different than the Catholic Church when it comes to ideas that they dislike as is clearly demonstrated by the quotes you posted attacking the character of Dr. Patricks, go against the academia establishment and you may not be killed but you most certainly will be ex-communicated.

 

[Engimo]

Ya well the the upper echelons of academia are not much different than the Catholic Church when it comes to ideas that they dislike.

This is totally and entirely untrue. It goes against the foundation of empiricism and the scientific method. Like I said, show me an example where the scientific community does not accept irrefutable evidence that disproves a long-accepted paradigm.

The overthrow of Newtonian Mechanics has to be the best example of scientists' willingness to change their views on things. For nearly 300 years Newton's physical laws were taught as factual and representative of the universe, and when Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, it was accepted as soon as it was verified.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This Kuhn guys got it all figured out:

A rather different influence on social science was Kuhn's influence on the development of social studies of science itself, in particular the ‘Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’. A central claim of Kuhn's work is that scientists do not make their judgments as the result of consciously or unconsciously following rules. Their judgments are nonetheless tightly constrained during normal science by the example of the guiding paradigm. During a revolution they are released from these constraints (though not completely). Consequently there is a gap left for other factors to explain scientific judgments. Kuhn himself suggests in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that Sun worship may have made Kepler a Copernican and that in other cases, facts about an individual's life history, personality or even nationality and reputation may play a role (1962/70a, 152-3). Later Kuhn repeated the point, with the additional examples of German Romanticism, which disposed certain scientists to recognize and accept energy conservation, and British social thought which enabled acceptance of Darwinism (1977c, 325). Such suggestions were taken up as providing an opportunity for a new kind of study of science, showing how social and political factors external to science influence the outcome of scientific debates. In what has become known as social constructivism/constructionism (e.g. Pickering 1984) this influence is taken to be central, not marginal, and to extend to the very content of accepted theories. Kuhn's claim and its exploitation can be seen as analogous to or even an instance of the exploitation of the (alleged) underdetermination of theory by evidence (c.f. Kuhn 1992, 7). Feminists and social theorists (e.g. Nelson 1993) have argued that the fact that the evidence, or, in Kuhn's case, the shared values of science, do not fix a single choice of theory, allows external factors to determine the final outcome (see Martin 1991 and Schiebinger 1999 for feminist social constructivism). Furthermore, the fact that Kuhn identified values as what guide judgment opens up the possibility that scientists ought to employ different values, as has been argued by feminist and post-colonial writers (e.g. Longino 1994).

Kuhn himself, however, showed only limited sympathy for such developments. In his “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science” (1992) Kuhn derides those who (including the proponents of the Strong Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge) take the view that in the ‘negotiations’ that determine the accepted outcome of an experiment or its theoretical significance, all that counts are the interests and power relations among the participants. Even if this is not entirely fair to the Strong Programme, it reflects Kuhn's own view that the primary determinants of the outcome of a scientific episode are to be found within science. First, the five values Kuhn ascribes to all science are in his view constitutive of science. An enterprise could have different values but it would not be science (1977c, 331; 1993, 338). Secondly, when a scientist is influenced by individual or other factors in applying these values or in coming to a judgment when these values are not decisive, those influencing factors will typically themselves come from within science (especially in modern, professionalized science). Personality may play a role in the acceptance of a theory, because, for example, one scientist is more risk-averse than another (1977c, 325)—but that is still a relationship to the scientific evidence. Even when reputation plays a part, it is typically scientific reputation that encourages the community to back the opinion of an eminent scientist. Thirdly, in a large community such variable factors will tend to cancel out. Kuhn supposes that individual differences are normally distributed and that a judgment corresponding to the mean of the distribution will also correspond to the judgment that would, hypothetically, be demanded by the rules of scientific method, as traditionally conceived (1977c, 333). Moreover, the existence of differences of response within the leeway provided by shared values is crucial to science, since it permits “rational men to disagree” (1977c, 332) and thus to commit themselves to rival theories. Thus the looseness of values and the differences they permit “may . . . appear an indispensable means of spreading the risk which the introduction or support of novelty always entails“ (Ibid.).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

 

[jfuh]

You follow the group think if you want to, I'll stick with the facts and the facts say that humans can't cause climate change anymore than they can stop it.

Ahh, I see, you have facts to back you up. Very well then, provide me with a single peer reviewed fact that states as you've stated "humans can't cause climate change anymore than they can stop it"
If you can not, then you're full of crap about this or are simply lying through your teeth.

 

[jfuh]

This Kuhn guys got it all figured out:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

:rofl This hardly to even the least extent goes to proove nor backup any claim that you have made with regards to global warming.
Please try again.

 

[jfuh]

Paradigm shifts are rejected by the mainstream all of the time, only later to be proven correct.

That is if there is proof and sufficient evidence. Science itself is a contradiction by it's very nature. The entire purpose of science is to provide a rational logical explanation for observations. Any claim that challenges mainstream knowledge that is sufficiently backed up with evidence has and always will be accepted.

Because, like I said the current environmentalist platform has been hijacked by Communists and left wing nut cases due to the fact that they have been proven wrong in the political arena of ideas, they now are trying to push their socialist agenda through another means, however, their goal still remains the same; which is to bring about the downfall of U.S. industrial hegemony through the Kyoto accords.

I'd like to see a credible source for this. As I have seen historical evidence suggest, not a single communist country has ever been very keen on environmental protection. Now let me switch to the right side. Does it not state in the bible in the book of genesis to which god told adam to provide care to the garden of eden, to watch over it? Hardly sounds like some left wing nut case to me.

The Kyoto accords does not effect the Chinese economy due to their "developing nations," status even though they are the second largest oil consumers in the world and are well on their way to surpassing the U.S. due to their huge population. The Kyoto accords was designed and orchestrated for a very specific purpose which is to destroy the U.S. economy.

Ahh the Kyoto Protocol, I knew you couldn't resist this. Let's see who were the original Signitories of the Kyoto Protocol, surprise surprise, the US was an original signitory, wow. So the US wanted to kill itself over Kyoto by being a participant to create an article that would harm itself...
Please, give me a break.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That is if there is proof and sufficient evidence. Science itself is a contradiction by it's very nature. The entire purpose of science is to provide a rational logical explanation for observations. Any claim that challenges mainstream knowledge that is sufficiently backed up with evidence has and always will be accepted.


I'd like to see a credible source for this. As I have seen historical evidence suggest, not a single communist country has ever been very keen on environmental protection. Now let me switch to the right side. Does it not state in the bible in the book of genesis to which god told adam to provide care to the garden of eden, to watch over it? Hardly sounds like some left wing nut case to me.


Ahh the Kyoto Protocol, I knew you couldn't resist this. Let's see who were the original Signitories of the Kyoto Protocol, surprise surprise, the US was an original signitory, wow. So the US wanted to kill itself over Kyoto by being a participant to create an article that would harm itself...
Please, give me a break.

LMFAO and this is why you have no idea what you're talking about the U.S. refused to ratify Kyoto for just this reason.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

:rofl This hardly to even the least extent goes to proove nor backup any claim that you have made with regards to global warming.
Please try again.

Because I was talking about the problem with paradigm shifts.

 

[jfuh]

Because I was talking about the problem with paradigm shifts.

My bad for jumping too quickly

 

[jfuh]

LMFAO and this is why you have no idea what you're talking about the U.S. refused to ratify Kyoto for just this reason.

No, the republican controlled congress refused to ratify Kyoto because of thier deep relation to large polluting industries, ie Exxon, Enron, and so on and so on.
Now, care to respond to the former two arguments I made in this same post?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ahh the Kyoto Protocol, I knew you couldn't resist this. Let's see who were the original Signitories of the Kyoto Protocol, surprise surprise, the US was an original signitory, wow. So the US wanted to kill itself over Kyoto by being a participant to create an article that would harm itself...
Please, give me a break.

Gore signed it, one of the biggest enemies this country has is Al Gore, unless you feel like listing the names of all the other Democrats. There's millions of 'em, ya know.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The missing question not asked that puts the whole global warming discussion in perspective:


Where's the evidence the mid-twentieth century was the peak optimum temperature?

The assumption always made by the global warming little chickens is that warmer is worser. That's never questioned.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No, the republican controlled congress refused to ratify Kyoto because of thier deep relation to large polluting industries, ie Exxon, Enron, and so on and so on.
Now, care to respond to the former two arguments I made in this same post?

No the U.S. refused to ratify it because it would have destroyed the U.S. economy while not effecting at all the economy of China the second largest oil consumer soon on its way to surpassing the U.S. due to their huge population.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ahh, I see, you have facts to back you up. Very well then, provide me with a single peer reviewed fact that states as you've stated "humans can't cause climate change anymore than they can stop it"
If you can not, then you're full of crap about this or are simply lying through your teeth.

This is the whole thing about the global warming issue it's big bussiness whenever a climatologist comes out against the major consensus he is ridiculed and discredited by his peers.

Read this article by a P.H.D. it spells out how the global warming has taken on a life of its own:

'GLOBAL WARMING': AN OFFICIAL PSEUDOSCIENCE ​

by Paulo N. Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D. & Alexandra N. Correa, HBA
ISBN 1-894840-35-6


ABSTRACT

On Nov. 1, 2005, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories announced that "if humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner for the next few centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar to 14.5 degrees warmer than current day..." You might think that this would be a preamble to demanding investment by industry and/or governments in alternative energy research. But you would be wrong - for it is, in fact, nothing more than scare propaganda to resign you to even more gouging by the oil companies at the gas pumps and the extortionist prices now being paid for natural gas; all in order to bring us to our knees begging for more nuclear power plants, and oil and gas exploration. LLN no longer hides its being one more power mechanism dedicated to this sort of indoctrination.

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/gw_index.html

There's links on the bottom right of the corner to more pages.

 

[Gill]

jfuh says:

However, there's a plethora of evidence for human intervention with global warming. However how much evidence suggest that there is no human intervention with global warming? precisely zero.

As you can clearly see in this graph, both temperature and carbon dioxide have varied drastically over the history of the earth. This graph is based on the Vostok ice cores and cover the last 400,000 years of the earths existence. Ice ages, naturally followed by warming periods, have occurred every hundred thousand years or so.

I have one question: Which of the five warming periods shown in this graph were caused by humans and how??

If these warming periods occurred in the past with no human interference, how are you so sure we are causing the VERY SLIGHT warming we see now?

 

[DeeJayH]

As you can clearly see in this graph, both temperature and carbon dioxide have varied drastically over the history of the earth. This graph is based on the Vostok ice cores and cover the last 400,000 years of the earths existence. Ice ages, naturally followed by warming periods, have occurred every hundred thousand years or so.

I have one question: Which of the five warming periods shown in this graph were caused by humans and how??

If these warming periods occurred in the past with no human interference, how are you so sure we are causing the VERY SLIGHT warming we see now?

nice :applaud
cant wait to see how this is addressed by the chicken littles

 

[jfuh]

This is the whole thing about the global warming issue it's big bussiness whenever a climatologist comes out against the major consensus he is ridiculed and discredited by his peers.

Read this article by a P.H.D. it spells out how the global warming has taken on a life of its own:



There's links on the bottom right of the corner to more pages.

Simply a book by a Ph.D means absolutely nothing. As we know many Ph.D's also beleive religoiusly in intelligent design however thier concepts are clearly flawed an based in religion.
I ask again, provide me with peer reviewed literature that dispells any "hoax" of global warming or the human contribution towards global warming.

 

[jfuh]

jfuh says:

As you can clearly see in this graph, both temperature and carbon dioxide have varied drastically over the history of the earth. This graph is based on the Vostok ice cores and cover the last 400,000 years of the earths existence. Ice ages, naturally followed by warming periods, have occurred every hundred thousand years or so.

Finally some one providing "evidence". Good job, you have clearly pointed out the warming trends of with nearly direct relation to the concentration of the green house gas carbon dioxide. Thus completely dispelling tot's opinion of global warming nearly being a "hoax" that the left wing nut heads have fabricated to crush the United States.
Thank you.
Also what I really like about the graph you have provided is that it provides dust concentration in the atmosphere. Why is that relavent? because of another global phenomena known only in the last 2 decades as global dimming. The I point out to the correlations in the Vostok ice core graph you provided between the low dip points in temperature to the rising red points of particulate concentrations. Global dimming is the very reason why global temerature has remained relatively stable within the last 2 centuries because as green house gases do trap more energy, global dimming from soot produced from power plants, ironically, prevents that energy from reaching the surface in the first place.

I have one question: Which of the five warming periods shown in this graph were caused by humans and how??

Answer: Not a single one.

Notice the time line you have, the industrial revolution did not begin until the very begining of your graph. Thus human contribution is not even on your graph.

If these warming periods occurred in the past with no human interference, how are you so sure we are causing the VERY SLIGHT warming we see now?

Perhaps the most important aspect that you have clearly pointed out in your graph is the fact that global warming and cooling trends occur over thousands of years if not tens of thousands of years. Localized temperature variations are within + 1 degree within a few thousand year period. Thus the variation that "should" happen within the existance of modern humans is nearly negligible. Thus looking at a period of 10-hundred years is much more rational in order to really contrast the influence, if any, of human contributions.
Here is where I point you to this graph that was published by the IPCC of Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change.

Millennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction (blue – tree rings, corals, ice cores, historical records) and instrumental data (red) from AD 1000 to 1999. A smoother version (black), and two standard error limits (grey) are shown. Source: IPCC Third Assessment Report

Notice that within only the time frame of 1 century, a fully industrialized century, that the mean temperature variance is quickly approaching 1degree which is according to the Vostok ice core reconstruction graph only happens within millenial time frames.

Also I provide you this source on global climate change from the IPCC as well, Tot please take note to the appendix section starting on page 417, notice the incredibly long list of authors and review editors? This is what I'm looking for with regards to any source you post that is contrary otherwise it is completely un-credible.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Simply a book by a Ph.D means absolutely nothing. As we know many Ph.D's also beleive religoiusly in intelligent design however thier concepts are clearly flawed an based in religion.
I ask again, provide me with peer reviewed literature that dispells any "hoax" of global warming or the human contribution towards global warming.

See this was the whole point of posting this article, it was a social scientists approach to the issue which showed that the science promoting global warming is agenda based not science based and as for the peer reviewed literature look at this from the article:

When Lindzen submitted, in the spring of 1989, a critique of the myth to Science, the paper was rejected without even being peer-reviewed. Eventually, it was accepted by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, but Science took it upon itself to criticize the blackballed article before it was even published - one in a long line of clear-cut instances of Science's unethical behavior, and proof positive of the existence of an unspoken policy of general circulation of leaked submissions.

 

[jfuh]

See this was the whole point of posting this article, it was a social scientists approach to the issue which showed that the science promoting global warming is agenda based not science based and as for the peer reviewed literature look at this from the article:

Ever submit a paper for publication? It's not that any submission will be reviewed or published to the publication. Just ask anyone that has ever tried to submit to the Journal Nature. This has nothing to do with whether or not it is good science.
Now as for the submission you have refered to with Science actually going to and showing that the submitter's article was flawed, that must mean the article really was flawed and does not constitute good science, or simply the author had provided some reference to Science's rejection.
In any case I'm still waiting for your response to a credible reviewed article.

Finally, when did this thread become anything with regards to challenging the norm? You clearly stated that global warming was nothing more than left wing nut head hoax that was made up in order to destroy the US. Changed your opinion about that?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ever submit a paper for publication? It's not that any submission will be reviewed or published to the publication. Just ask anyone that has ever tried to submit to the Journal Nature. This has nothing to do with whether or not it is good science.
Now as for the submission you have refered to with Science actually going to and showing that the submitter's article was flawed, that must mean the article really was flawed and does not constitute good science, or simply the author had provided some reference to Science's rejection.
In any case I'm still waiting for your response to a credible reviewed article.

Finally, when did this thread become anything with regards to challenging the norm? You clearly stated that global warming was nothing more than left wing nut head hoax that was made up in order to destroy the US. Changed your opinion about that?

The article was peer reviewed trying keeping up it was eventually excepted and published by the bulleting of the American Meteoroligical Society.

 

[jfuh]

The article was peer reviewed trying keeping up it was eventually excepted and published by the bulleting of the American Meteoroligical Society.

YEs about this article, where is it? How does it state as you have clearly pointed out that global warming is a myth?