Vaginas, Sea Level, and the Beginning of Reality

[youngterrier]

But if there wasn't a consensus among scientists, you'd think more scientists would be speaking up in order to get funding to what they actually believed be worth-while projects as opposed to that? Government funding is somewhat competitive. The different sciences want as much funding as they can for themselves, so they're going to call out a pipe-dream. That made be harder to do across different fields of science, but in the case of climate scientists the same rules apply. Each on the field have different ambitions, and if they felt that there was a pipe dream in AGW research and that money could be best spent elsewhere, they wouldn't be silent about it because it better serves their interest to get as much funding as possible, and that includes undermines funding for others. And yet there is still silence. It's one thing if there was a solidarity thing and all scientists just stood together to increase the science budget under any circumstances, but according to AZ, that's not how they are weaseling money out of system, in which case you would expect a little more controversy. And there isn't.

That's why I'm skeptical of this whole "it's a conspiracy among scientists" notion. It assumes that scientists are under one voice (which isn't the case) or all climate scientists are under one voice. They are on this issue, because if they weren't and funding was the motive, those who disagreed would be vocal enough to siphon of funding elsewhere, but apparently there isn't enough disagreement because we don't see it.

They should be spending the money on something the will create clean fuel, like Nuclear Energy and ways to re-use or safely displose of the waste. An electric automobile world needs power plants for electricity.

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that people who claim it's a conspiracy don't have much evidence grounded in reality when you take a closer look

[AZGrizFan]

But if there wasn't a consensus among scientists, you'd think more scientists would be speaking up in order to get funding to what they actually believed be worth-while projects as opposed to that? Government funding is somewhat competitive.

Cute. The government doesn't fund anti-AGW research...anybody with a brainstem knows that. The gravy train is only for those who fall in line in the AGW camp.

[youngterrier]

But if there wasn't a consensus among scientists, you'd think more scientists would be speaking up in order to get funding to what they actually believed be worth-while projects as opposed to that? Government funding is somewhat competitive.

Cute. The government doesn't fund anti-AGW research...anybody with a brainstem knows that. The gravy train is only for those who fall in line in the AGW camp.

Once again, selective reading. If I'm a climate scientist who doubts or denies AGW, and there are many like me and there is reasonable doubt about AGW, they are going to be loud and vocal about government grants issued to AGW research. Why? Because if I'm a climate scientist and if AGW is a fake, I want to use government money for climate research that isn't a dead end. There's plenty of political support for deniers, and I have nothing to lose since there are those who doubt with me.

No one does that, so I assume the consensus is strong. Those who speak out have nothing to lose, heck they have a lot more to gain in research money of their own. And yet there isn't any oppositional voice. Your viewpoint is great for a philosophical postulation but it isn't grounded in reality.

You're operating under the assumption that the government knows two shits about science or that the government has a rule that they won't support anti-AGW research (which is funny, because anti-AGW research would be the same as AGW research except it would bring back negative results or results against the theory, in which case we wouldn't know it as anti-AGW until after the study and after all of the money is spent), when in fact the same congress that controls the money has just as many doubters as it does believers, and to think one dumbass right wing congressman wouldn't support something that could potentially turn the "liberal conspiracy" of AGW upside down is naivety if I ever saw it.

You claim that most funding goes to AGW research and you don't back that up. I actually give you a counter arguments as to how that is wrong, and you totally ignore it and don't mention it again. I give you a reasoned argument about how scientists wouldn't idly sit by as money is wasted on a known dead and you counter by the same conspiracy theory without any evidence to back it up. You can choose your perspective, but you can't ignore the facts. And you do that over and over again.

You're backpedalling so fast right now, and that begs the question: Who's shouting over who here? Because I'm sticking with facts not broad and vague comments with no facts behind them

[AZGrizFan]

Once again, selective reading. If I'm a climate scientist who doubts or denies AGW, and there are many like me and there is reasonable doubt about AGW, they are going to be loud and vocal about government grants issued to AGW research. Why? Because if I'm a climate scientist and if AGW is a fake, I want to use government money for climate research that isn't a dead end. There's plenty of political support for deniers, and I have nothing to lose since there are those who doubt with me.

No one does that, so I assume the consensus is strong. Those who speak out have nothing to lose, heck they have a lot more to gain in research money of their own. And yet there isn't any oppositional voice. Your viewpoint is great for a philosophical postulation but it isn't grounded in reality.

You claim that most funding goes to AGW research and you don't back that up. I actually give you a counter arguments as to how that is wrong, and you totally ignore it and don't mention it again. I give you a reasoned argument about how scientists wouldn't idly sit by as money is wasted on a known dead and you counter by the same conspiracy theory without any evidence to back it up. You can choose your perspective, but you can't ignore the facts. And you do that over and over again.

You're backpedalling so fast right now, and that begs the question: Who's shouting over who here? Because I'm sticking with facts not broad and vague comments with no facts behind them

Who's backpeddaling?

If you don't think there's an "oppositional voice" it's only because you choose to ignore it, my friend. It's OUT there, trust me. And your "reasoned" insistence that government subsidies to big oil (a statement that could be made for just about any major industry in America) somehow equate to $$ spent on anti-AGW research is laughable and totally unrelated (nice "fact"), and honestly not even worthy of a response--that's why I ignored it. Scientists who have drunk the koolaid know where their bread is buttered---it's by continuing to drink that koolaid.

[youngterrier]

Once again, selective reading. If I'm a climate scientist who doubts or denies AGW, and there are many like me and there is reasonable doubt about AGW, they are going to be loud and vocal about government grants issued to AGW research. Why? Because if I'm a climate scientist and if AGW is a fake, I want to use government money for climate research that isn't a dead end. There's plenty of political support for deniers, and I have nothing to lose since there are those who doubt with me.

No one does that, so I assume the consensus is strong. Those who speak out have nothing to lose, heck they have a lot more to gain in research money of their own. And yet there isn't any oppositional voice. Your viewpoint is great for a philosophical postulation but it isn't grounded in reality.

You claim that most funding goes to AGW research and you don't back that up. I actually give you a counter arguments as to how that is wrong, and you totally ignore it and don't mention it again. I give you a reasoned argument about how scientists wouldn't idly sit by as money is wasted on a known dead and you counter by the same conspiracy theory without any evidence to back it up. You can choose your perspective, but you can't ignore the facts. And you do that over and over again.

You're backpedalling so fast right now, and that begs the question: Who's shouting over who here? Because I'm sticking with facts not broad and vague comments with no facts behind them

Who's backpeddaling?

If you don't think there's an "oppositional voice" it's only because you choose to ignore it, my friend. It's OUT there, trust me. And your "reasoned" insistence that government subsidies to big oil (a statement that could be made for just about any major industry in America) somehow equate to $$ spent on anti-AGW research is laughable and totally unrelated (nice "fact"), and honestly not even worthy of a response--that's why I ignored it. Scientists who have drunk the koolaid know where their bread is buttered---it's by continuing to drink that koolaid.

You're the one who mentioned the money trail in the first place, and I'm playing along and showing you how nonsensical it is. I don't think the oil industry plays a major part, just ignorance. I'll repeat the paragraph I edited in my last post at the last second:

You're operating under the assumption that the government knows two shits about science or that the government has a rule that they won't support anti-AGW research (which is funny, because anti-AGW research would be the same as AGW research except it would bring back negative results or results against the theory, in which case we wouldn't know it as anti-AGW until after the study and after all of the money is spent), when in fact the same congress that controls the money has just as many doubters as it does believers, and to think one dumbass right wing congressman (or a collective of them for that matter) wouldn't support something that could potentially turn the "liberal conspiracy" of AGW upside down is naivety if I ever saw it.

I mean seriously, what does AGW experimentation look like? what does anti-AGW experimentation look like? By definition, experimentation itself isn't pro or anti any conclusion, the data itself either supports or refutes the theory.

Please enlighten me. You're being vague, and not using facts but rather talking points that have no basis in facts. You're not refuting my points, in fact you're portraying my arguments differently than they actually are. I know there's opposition, but at the same time, that doesn't mean there isn't consensus. The opposition is the vast minority, and it's not so because of some sort of censorship.

Are you done backpedaling and shouting over people? because you ignored the fact that the science budget for environmental research is $4 billion a year and you insist that much much more of it goes to AGW research, but you fail to cite your source for that claim of where that money comes from. I called you out on it and you continuously ignore that among other facts that are inconvenient to your viewpoint.

[D1B]

Who's backpeddaling?

If you don't think there's an "oppositional voice" it's only because you choose to ignore it, my friend. It's OUT there, trust me. And your "reasoned" insistence that government subsidies to big oil (a statement that could be made for just about any major industry in America) somehow equate to $$ spent on anti-AGW research is laughable and totally unrelated (nice "fact"), and honestly not even worthy of a response--that's why I ignored it. Scientists who have drunk the koolaid know where their bread is buttered---it's by continuing to drink that koolaid.

You're the one who mentioned the money trail in the first place, and I'm playing along and showing you how nonsensical it is. I don't think the oil industry plays a major part, just ignorance. I'll repeat the paragraph I edited in my last post at the last second:

You're operating under the assumption that the government knows two shits about science or that the government has a rule that they won't support anti-AGW research (which is funny, because anti-AGW research would be the same as AGW research except it would bring back negative results or results against the theory, in which case we wouldn't know it as anti-AGW until after the study and after all of the money is spent), when in fact the same congress that controls the money has just as many doubters as it does believers, and to think one dumbass right wing congressman (or a collective of them for that matter) wouldn't support something that could potentially turn the "liberal conspiracy" of AGW upside down is naivety if I ever saw it.

I mean seriously, what does AGW experimentation look like? what does anti-AGW experimentation look like? By definition, experimentation itself isn't pro or anti any conclusion, the data itself either supports or refutes the theory.

Please enlighten me. You're being vague, and not using facts but rather talking points that have no basis in facts. You're not refuting my points, in fact you're portraying my arguments differently than they actually are. I know there's opposition, but at the same time, that doesn't mean there isn't consensus. The opposition is the vast minority, and it's not so because of some sort of censorship.

Are you done backpedaling and shouting over people?

Hey Z, maybe you should take a breather. You're embarrassing yourself.

[AZGrizFan]

Hey Z, maybe you should take a breather. You're embarrassing yourself.

You know, this afternoon I almost posted the "que Douche1Bag, coming into a thread and declaring YT the winner" line because you are as predictable as the sun rising in the East. Thanks for not letting me down.

[AZGrizFan]

You're operating under the assumption that the government knows two shits about science or that the government has a rule that they won't support anti-AGW research (which is funny, because anti-AGW research would be the same as AGW research except it would bring back negative results or results against the theory, in which case we wouldn't know it as anti-AGW until after the study and after all of the money is spent), when in fact the same congress that controls the money has just as many doubters as it does believers, and to think one dumbass right wing congressman (or a collective of them for that matter) wouldn't support something that could potentially turn the "liberal conspiracy" of AGW upside down is naivety if I ever saw it.

Try and stay with me here: "Proving" AGW >> more gov't regulation >> bigger government >> donk wet dream.

THAT is why the gov't doesn't fund ANTI-AGW research. It really isn't that complicated. Then again, maybe for a koolaid drinker it is.

[youngterrier]

You're operating under the assumption that the government knows two shits about science or that the government has a rule that they won't support anti-AGW research (which is funny, because anti-AGW research would be the same as AGW research except it would bring back negative results or results against the theory, in which case we wouldn't know it as anti-AGW until after the study and after all of the money is spent), when in fact the same congress that controls the money has just as many doubters as it does believers, and to think one dumbass right wing congressman (or a collective of them for that matter) wouldn't support something that could potentially turn the "liberal conspiracy" of AGW upside down is naivety if I ever saw it.

Try and stay with me here: "Proving" AGW >> more gov't regulation >> bigger government >> donk wet dream.

THAT is why the gov't doesn't fund ANTI-AGW research. It really isn't that complicated. Then again, maybe for a koolaid drinker it is.

Do you not understand how science works? "anti-AGW research" implies the results, meaning we already know the answer, and the same goes for "AGW research." So running that experiment would be redundant and a waste of time for everyone.Tell me, if I'm running an experiment to see the shape of the earth, is my experiment an "anti-round earth experiment" from the outset? No. it's simply an experiment to discover the shape of the earth. If it turns out that the data from the experiment supported the position that the world was round, does it automatically become an "anti-flat earth experiment?" No, it's just data supporting the theory that the world is round and spherical.

Experimentation and data analysis don't presuppose a result, that would be totally redundant and unscientific. The whole point of an experiment is collecting new data to make a better understanding of what's happening in reality. We draw conclusions from the data, not vice versa, so it's impossible to distinguish anti-AGW experimentation and AGW experimentation from the outset, so the government can't pick and choose experiments hoping for a specific result/

Your obsession with the idea that everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you is kind of sad and blinding your reasoning. Either that or you're trolling and I salute you.

[D1B]

You're operating under the assumption that the government knows two shits about science or that the government has a rule that they won't support anti-AGW research (which is funny, because anti-AGW research would be the same as AGW research except it would bring back negative results or results against the theory, in which case we wouldn't know it as anti-AGW until after the study and after all of the money is spent), when in fact the same congress that controls the money has just as many doubters as it does believers, and to think one dumbass right wing congressman (or a collective of them for that matter) wouldn't support something that could potentially turn the "liberal conspiracy" of AGW upside down is naivety if I ever saw it.

Try and stay with me here: "Proving" AGW >> more gov't regulation >> bigger government >> donk wet dream.

THAT is why the gov't doesn't fund ANTI-AGW research. It really isn't that complicated. Then again, maybe for a koolaid drinker it is.

Classic Rush Limbaugh logic. You're a moron.

[Baldy]

We've been over this before.....so were you not convinced that the world was spherical or Einstein's general relativity was correct until the 1960s when we sent something in space to observe the planet? Or was the cumulative data and separate data, albeit not one giant experiment sufficient to prove that?

It didn't take highly massaged data or faux computer models to prove the world was round. Being the epitome of experimentation, all it took was explorers circumnavigating the globe on ships to prove it as shown on this atlas from 1664.

We've seen the effects of the greenhouse effect on other planets such as Venus. We know we are pumping more CO2 in the planet and depleting photosynthesizing agents. We know that there is 41% more CO2 ppm in the atmosphere than there was during/before the industrial revolution. We know that the temperatures are getting higher in the lower atmosphere, but not in the higher atmosphere, so it's not solar activity. These are the facts, only on the top of my head. Put 2+2 together.

41% more CO2? According to some studies, others put that number between 400 and 450ppm BEFORE the industrial revolution, but those numbers don't fit the ideology so the alarmists dismiss those figures. *sigh*...as proven before, comparing temperature readings are bunk, the margin of error far outpaces any alleged temperature increase.

...and in fact you've proposed a question as to why scientists don't know the number of greenhouse gases to pump into the atmosphere to offset the effects, which such question by itself showcases you have absolutely no idea as to how this process works.

yeah, that's exactly what I asked.

What I asked was since (in your opinion) climate science is so precise, accurate and undeniable and AGW is settled science, what is the exact amount of greenhouse gasses the human population can safely pump into the atmosphere, or since you can't seem to comprehend metaphors, emit through our everyday activities in order to bring our fragile climate back into balance? That should be an easy one to answer.

[D1B]

We've been over this before.....so were you not convinced that the world was spherical or Einstein's general relativity was correct until the 1960s when we sent something in space to observe the planet? Or was the cumulative data and separate data, albeit not one giant experiment sufficient to prove that?

It didn't take highly massaged data or faux computer models to prove the world was round. Being the epitome of experimentation, all it took was explorers circumnavigating the globe on ships to prove it as shown on this atlas from 1664.

We've seen the effects of the greenhouse effect on other planets such as Venus. We know we are pumping more CO2 in the planet and depleting photosynthesizing agents. We know that there is 41% more CO2 ppm in the atmosphere than there was during/before the industrial revolution. We know that the temperatures are getting higher in the lower atmosphere, but not in the higher atmosphere, so it's not solar activity. These are the facts, only on the top of my head. Put 2+2 together.

41% more CO2? According to some studies, others put that number between 400 and 450ppm BEFORE the industrial revolution, but those numbers don't fit the ideology so the alarmists dismiss those figures. *sigh*...as proven before, comparing temperature readings are bunk, the margin of error far outpaces any alleged temperature increase.

...and in fact you've proposed a question as to why scientists don't know the number of greenhouse gases to pump into the atmosphere to offset the effects, which such question by itself showcases you have absolutely no idea as to how this process works.

yeah, that's exactly what I asked.

What I asked was since (in your opinion) climate science is so precise, accurate and undeniable and AGW is settled science, what is the exact amount of greenhouse gasses the human population can safely pump into the atmosphere, or since you can't seem to comprehend metaphors, emit through our everyday activities in order to bring our fragile climate back into balance? That should be an easy one to answer.

You don't know shit.

Snippets from Exxon's annual report to shareholders aint really reliable.

[Baldy]

It didn't take highly massaged data or faux computer models to prove the world was round. Being the epitome of experimentation, all it took was explorers circumnavigating the globe on ships to prove it as shown on this atlas from 1664.




41% more CO2? According to some studies, others put that number between 400 and 450ppm BEFORE the industrial revolution, but those numbers don't fit the ideology so the alarmists dismiss those figures. *sigh*...as proven before, comparing temperature readings are bunk, the margin of error far outpaces any alleged temperature increase.


yeah, that's exactly what I asked.

What I asked was since (in your opinion) climate science is so precise, accurate and undeniable and AGW is settled science, what is the exact amount of greenhouse gasses the human population can safely pump into the atmosphere, or since you can't seem to comprehend metaphors, emit through our everyday activities in order to bring our fragile climate back into balance? That should be an easy one to answer.

You don't know shit.

Snippets from Exxon's annual report to shareholders aint really reliable.

D...

You might want to stick to topics in areas of your expertise...eating boogers, Pokemon, and beating off to pictures of the Pope.

[Pwns]

You misunderstood what I was getting at with the genetics and stuff. saturated fats and heart disease stuff has way too many factors playing into it, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, etc all of which are different for different people, so outside of general claims about how people generally live their life in contrast in the two countries, you're not going to get a precise answer, let alone a scientific one unless you're evaluating on a case by case basis.

And you misunderstood what I was saying...I agree that the French versus US heart disease incidence obviously there is some diet or lifestyle factor that is confounding it. And that's my point. Inferences are made based on numbers because it's too hard to figure out how physiological factors (obviously genetics can't be too big a factor because the French and white Americans are of the same ethnic group) affect heart disease risk.

Also, they have a great idea as to how global cooling took place at the mesozoic period. Volcanic activity covers the sky, blocks out the sun, and cools off the earth, as could an asteroid impact. it literally took me less than a minute to google it and find an answer, so I'm willing to bet there are plenty more in-depth answers, but here's the first link I found: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/g ... ozoic.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So really, I reject your premise that they "don't know"

So let me see if I understand this correctly...volcanoes caused the climate change at the end of the mesozoic period, but it's ALSO responsible for the WARMING that occurred in the middle ages? Sounds to me like there is no real consensus on how increased or decreased volcanic activity affects climate.

And what about the ice ages? Straight from wikipedia with citation...

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age.

And for the last comment, you completely brushed over what I said. All aerobic respiration life is weaved in under the "natural process" category. That microscopic life afterall is more abundant than other life, as it is the oldest. The fact is, unless there is a global "genocide" if you will of animals, specifically targeting animals, Darwinism naturally assists them and we won't expect too much of a decrease, especially with insects which are nearly impossible to wipe out. This means that the number of carbon emissions by insects is going to be steady and hard to decrease. Therefore it's not going to be relevant and here's why:

Really? You think populations of insects, plankton, and microbes are going to be steady and thus not a lot of fluctuation in CO2 that they produce?

[AZGrizFan]

Experimentation and data analysis don't presuppose a result, that would be totally redundant and unscientific. The whole point of an experiment is collecting new data to make a better understanding of what's happening in reality. We draw conclusions from the data, not vice versa, so it's impossible to distinguish anti-AGW experimentation and AGW experimentation from the outset, so the government can't pick and choose experiments hoping for a specific result/

Your obsession with the idea that everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you is kind of sad and blinding your reasoning. Either that or you're trolling and I salute you.

Now you're starting to get it. TRUE experimentation and data analysis don't presuppose a result. TRUE experimentation draws conclusions from the data, not vice versa. BOUGHT AND PAID FOR "experimentation", on the other hand, might make pretty damned sure their "result" fits the agenda of those paying the bills, no? Otherwise, the gravy train might stop. There are countless examples of data being eliminated or ignored that didn't fit "the model", data being manipulated to make the answer fit the agenda, etc., etc. Again, if you don't think it's out there, or if you don't think there's an opposition voice you are CHOOSING not to see it.

And I have no idea what you're talking about in that last sentence. Purely nonsensical.

[AZGrizFan]

You misunderstood what I was getting at with the genetics and stuff. saturated fats and heart disease stuff has way too many factors playing into it, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, etc all of which are different for different people, so outside of general claims about how people generally live their life in contrast in the two countries, you're not going to get a precise answer, let alone a scientific one unless you're evaluating on a case by case basis.

So, let me get this straight: There's too many factors in THIS example to get a precise answer, let alone a scientific one...but somehow, the AGW science is pure gold. Apparently there are no "factors" involved...simple science, really.

Gotcha.

[Ibanez]

God damnit. It is proven science and a fact that cow farts contribute 6.93 more gas to the environment and is 21% more damaging than CO2. Why is this so hard to understand. COW farts.

[youngterrier]

We've been over this before.....so were you not convinced that the world was spherical or Einstein's general relativity was correct until the 1960s when we sent something in space to observe the planet? Or was the cumulative data and separate data, albeit not one giant experiment sufficient to prove that?

It didn't take highly massaged data or faux computer models to prove the world was round. Being the epitome of experimentation, all it took was explorers circumnavigating the globe on ships to prove it as shown on this atlas from 1664.

We've seen the effects of the greenhouse effect on other planets such as Venus. We know we are pumping more CO2 in the planet and depleting photosynthesizing agents. We know that there is 41% more CO2 ppm in the atmosphere than there was during/before the industrial revolution. We know that the temperatures are getting higher in the lower atmosphere, but not in the higher atmosphere, so it's not solar activity. These are the facts, only on the top of my head. Put 2+2 together.

41% more CO2? According to some studies, others put that number between 400 and 450ppm BEFORE the industrial revolution, but those numbers don't fit the ideology so the alarmists dismiss those figures. *sigh*...as proven before, comparing temperature readings are bunk, the margin of error far outpaces any alleged temperature increase.

...and in fact you've proposed a question as to why scientists don't know the number of greenhouse gases to pump into the atmosphere to offset the effects, which such question by itself showcases you have absolutely no idea as to how this process works.

yeah, that's exactly what I asked.

What I asked was since (in your opinion) climate science is so precise, accurate and undeniable and AGW is settled science, what is the exact amount of greenhouse gasses the human population can safely pump into the atmosphere, or since you can't seem to comprehend metaphors, emit through our everyday activities in order to bring our fragile climate back into balance? That should be an easy one to answer.

Actually it's been a scientific fact that the world was round since the BC times, using shadows and geometry in Egypt, not to mention the numerous amount of experimentation that happened between then before we circumnavigated the globe showed that the world was spherical. My point was that scientifically speaking, sciences knows or has a good idea about shit before we make such a grand experiment such as launching things into space or circumnavigating the globe.

You're going to have to cite that 400 to 500 ppm, you haven't proven temperature increases are bunk, you've only stated. Certainly temperature reading are taken differently, but I highly doubt that they haven't used similar methods as that of the 19th century. The first satellite temperatures weren't taken until the early 90s for instance, long after we already had an idea that global warming was taking place.

And you continue to misunderstand the science and its kind of shocking because I corrected you before and you still don't correct your mistakes. Pumping more greenhouses gases in the atmosphere will not bring us back into balance. Pumping less in the atmosphere than what we are already doing will decrease the acceleration. It's about accelerating emissions and thus warming. The fact that I have to explain that over and over again, while you fail to comprende, is quite telling on your part.

[youngterrier]

You misunderstood what I was getting at with the genetics and stuff. saturated fats and heart disease stuff has way too many factors playing into it, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, etc all of which are different for different people, so outside of general claims about how people generally live their life in contrast in the two countries, you're not going to get a precise answer, let alone a scientific one unless you're evaluating on a case by case basis.

And you misunderstood what I was saying...I agree that the French versus US heart disease incidence obviously there is some diet or lifestyle factor that is confounding it. And that's my point. Inferences are made based on numbers because it's too hard to figure out how physiological factors (obviously genetics can't be too big a factor because the French and white Americans are of the same ethnic group) affect heart disease risk.

Also, they have a great idea as to how global cooling took place at the mesozoic period. Volcanic activity covers the sky, blocks out the sun, and cools off the earth, as could an asteroid impact. it literally took me less than a minute to google it and find an answer, so I'm willing to bet there are plenty more in-depth answers, but here's the first link I found: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/g ... ozoic.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So really, I reject your premise that they "don't know"

So let me see if I understand this correctly...volcanoes caused the climate change at the end of the mesozoic period, but it's ALSO responsible for the WARMING that occurred in the middle ages? Sounds to me like there is no real consensus on how increased or decreased volcanic activity affects climate.

And what about the ice ages? Straight from wikipedia with citation...

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age.

And for the last comment, you completely brushed over what I said. All aerobic respiration life is weaved in under the "natural process" category. That microscopic life afterall is more abundant than other life, as it is the oldest. The fact is, unless there is a global "genocide" if you will of animals, specifically targeting animals, Darwinism naturally assists them and we won't expect too much of a decrease, especially with insects which are nearly impossible to wipe out. This means that the number of carbon emissions by insects is going to be steady and hard to decrease. Therefore it's not going to be relevant and here's why:

Really? You think populations of insects, plankton, and microbes are going to be steady and thus not a lot of fluctuation in CO2 that they produce?

A couple things on that

A)I'm brushing over the French vs American thing because it's growing irrelevant (and Americans are more ethnically diverse)

B) I didn't say anything about the heating of the middle ages. I haven't researched it. There is consensus about volcanic activity, it's mainly due to cooling because the smoke blocks out the sun. the carbon emissions aren't as effective or consistent. If you want me to research the warming of the middle ages, I might do it but I don't really care to take the time to at this time. You're citing wikipedia. Come on now.

and C) well unless there is some sort of major global disaster, yes, according to Darwinism they will remain steady. It would take extremely massive increases/decreases in populations to make a footprint. since we're talking about CO2 emissions coming out that would have to be a global disaster, otherwise it's just animals reducing the populations of other animals via predation which leads to an increase in the predatory organisms. You trade prey for predators essentially. Thus it stays relatively steady.

Edit: I found an answer to your question about the midieval period: The midieval period was a period of higher solar radiation and less volcanic activity (hence less cooling). Like seriously, this was another one-minute google search:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieva ... period.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youngterrier]

Experimentation and data analysis don't presuppose a result, that would be totally redundant and unscientific. The whole point of an experiment is collecting new data to make a better understanding of what's happening in reality. We draw conclusions from the data, not vice versa, so it's impossible to distinguish anti-AGW experimentation and AGW experimentation from the outset, so the government can't pick and choose experiments hoping for a specific result/

Your obsession with the idea that everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you is kind of sad and blinding your reasoning. Either that or you're trolling and I salute you.

Now you're starting to get it. TRUE experimentation and data analysis don't presuppose a result. TRUE experimentation draws conclusions from the data, not vice versa. BOUGHT AND PAID FOR "experimentation", on the other hand, might make pretty damned sure their "result" fits the agenda of those paying the bills, no? Otherwise, the gravy train might stop. There are countless examples of data being eliminated or ignored that didn't fit "the model", data being manipulated to make the answer fit the agenda, etc., etc. Again, if you don't think it's out there, or if you don't think there's an opposition voice you are CHOOSING not to see it.

And I have no idea what you're talking about in that last sentence. Purely nonsensical.

You're ranting about a donk wet dream. come on now.

I still can't believe you buy this notion that there's a conspiracy. There's absolutely no reason to support funding for a dead end. There's no evidence of discarded data (unless you are willing to cite it, but I highly doubt that), and as I said, if the government is paying for a study, they are going to want the answers. There is no such thing as paying for pro or anti AGW data because the data itself self-evidently supports either position, but not from the outset, and the fact that you think the government doesn't have any denialists to block said funding or syphon it off to "anti" experimentation, you're pretty naive, given the fact that there are plenty of denialists in congress and in the U.S in general. Politicians control the budget, not scientists

[youngterrier]

You misunderstood what I was getting at with the genetics and stuff. saturated fats and heart disease stuff has way too many factors playing into it, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, etc all of which are different for different people, so outside of general claims about how people generally live their life in contrast in the two countries, you're not going to get a precise answer, let alone a scientific one unless you're evaluating on a case by case basis.

So, let me get this straight: There's too many factors in THIS example to get a precise answer, let alone a scientific one...but somehow, the AGW science is pure gold. Apparently there are no "factors" involved...simple science, really.

Gotcha.

<facepalm> climate science is physics and chemistry, things we know quite a lot about, especially in comparison to biology and health. Then again, we know a lot about health. If you list your lifestyle, diet, and genetics, we can make adequate predictions about your health. It's somewhat imprecise as their are minor details, but we can test little things within you and make a more precise reading. but only on an individual level. (By you guy's understanding of a burden of evidence, we don't even know for sure that every human's body operates the same way because it's impossible to put them under the same scrutiny)

The individual perspective is easy, but making readings on a million people or millions of people? that's hard and the factors considerably change with everyone's lifestyle, genetics, and diet being different. We make general statements though.

Contrast that with physics and our understanding of chemistry, and physics/chemistry are a lot easier to decipher because we can run those experiments in the lab and they prove to be true in nature. the laws of physics are the same here as they are on venus, jupiter, or any where else in the universe....(but we can't test that, it's just a health conclusion based on data and observation ), so it's easier for us to understand our environment and how it works based on test results about emissions, the chemical composition of the atmosphere, etc. Our understanding of these things are a lot more in depth than people give credit, and our understandings any predictions become more precise as time goes on.

[JohnStOnge]

But banning the words? Evidently you're not a fan of science...or vaginas. Got it!

Just getting back to this after several days of doing stuff like fishing. I am a fan of both science and vaginas.

When it comes to "science" understand this: According to the textbook used for two graduate level Experimental Statistics courses I took, climate science isn't even really "science." It's observational study. According to that textbook, to have "science" you have to have controlled experiments. And, as I noted in an earlier post, the Physical Science Basis report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concedes that "unequivocal" attribution of causes of climate change would require experiments that can't be conducted.

I wouldn't go so far as to say, as my Experimental Statistics text author did, that observational study doesn't quality as "science." I think there is such a thing as "descriptive" science. But observational study does have limitations. It really is true that you are not supposed to, if you're really going to follow "science," make cause and effect statement without qualification when you're dealing with observational data.

As for banning the word "vagina?" No, I'm not for that. I couldn't care less if somebody says "vagina" during public debate.

BTW, even though I personally would allow that observational study can be "science," take a look at the four basic steps of the scientific method from http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu:8080/ ... ndixE.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

It's kind of hard to complete that process without controlled experiments. Let me know when Climate Scientists produce a controlled experiment involving the effect on earth-type planets of anthropogenic activity.

[youngterrier]

It's kind of hard to complete that process without controlled experiments. Let me know when Climate Scientists produce a controlled experiment involving the effect on earth-type planets of anthropogenic activity.

Well if we know the effects of all the gases in earth's atmosphere, having tested each's interaction within lab experimentation, along with observing the effects of greenhouse gases on other planets such as Venus, would that not be sufficient? Because all of the science short of running a global experiment testing it indicates AGW. If our entire understanding of how chemistry and physics worked pointed to AGW, would you not think that it was a real thing? Or would you dogmatically sit on your hands because they haven't run an experiment that they can't possibly run to fortify it?

[JohnStOnge]

**** off old man, your definition of science is statistics and an overwhelming disrespect to those who know more about a subject than you do. Case in point:

-you continuously say texting/cell phone use doesn't contribute to accidents, despite the demonstrable evidence and tests that say otherwise
-you continuously say homosexuality is a mental illness despite the overwhelming professional disagreement by those who are actually certified in the area, as well as contradicting evidence with homosexuality being present in other species

I will stop just at responding to that particular post to the quoted part but I could go on. It is not just statistics. Take a look at the four basic steps of the scientific method in my previous post. Experiments are essential.

I did not say that cell phone use doesn't contribute to accidents. Believe it or not, there have actually been experiments using simulators to validate that. And even if there were not, I would allow that there is an association between cell phone use and acccident risk even though it is extremely difficult to really demonstrate that kind of association. What I said was that cell phone use does not impact the risk picture to a high degree and that we make countless decisions every day that similarly impact to the risk picture.

I did not say homosexuality is a mental illness either. I said it is a disorder. And the fact that a condition is present in other species does not mean it is not a disorder.

However, you are correct in that I do disrespect the "science" assocated with the homosexuality thing. That is because when I look at their research I can see numerous flaws. And I see what I consider to be evidence of philosophical bias.

Now, you may not like that. But I will not shrink from saying it. And if you want I can do something like take one of the seminal publications that lies at the origin of the "homosexuality is normal" movement, take you through it, and point out the methological flaws. Just let me know and I'll do that.

[Ibanez]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48QuBPL8dPg[/youtube]

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities

http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Japanese study concluded

...a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days (New Scientist magazine, 18 July 2007, page 15 ).

http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause ... ethane-CO2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think we know what the answer is- a more whole grain, plant based diet.

So, what's the problem?