Sea Level Rise, Thailand And Greenland

[zeusbheld]

Why do you think Bob is making an ass of himself? because you are from the "believers" camp and anyone who is from the other camp is an ass?

because he says simplistic dumbass **** like that.

except his is misleading in a more deliberate, measured, methodical, detailed way. now when encounter that sort of manipulative bullshit,, regardless of what they're preaching, i tend to get offended by the method, not the message. i tend to jump to the conclusion that they're being deliberately deceitful. However, before jumping to any moral conclusions i should remember that i can't read minds, only words.

has it occurred to you that there's actual science behind this stuff, not just your ideological left-right mumbo jumbo?

just because i think Bob's full of ****, and you're full an even more simplistic type of ****, doesn't mean i think al gore isn't full of ****.

Now...there is an "educated" though process...

i'm glad you're aware of it. next step would be to try using a thought process, ANY thought process, instead of clinging to ideology like a life raft. but that may be too challenging for you.

An all this time I was thinking you didn't believe in CNN...

i believe CNN exists.. rumor has it there are other action McNews networks as well.

and all this time i was thinking if i used simple words, native speakers of english might get the general idea. my bad. guess you can't see through all that ideology (ideology tends to be the exact color of ****).

let me break it down for you one more time:

skeptic is what it says on the tin. i don't think dictionary.com's definition is all that great but i can go with #2: "a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others."

one thing that should be obvious about skepticism to anyone who can actually be bothered to grasp its meaning... not much room for appending an ideology to it, not ANY. not liberal or conservative or fascist or whatever.

as for "debunker" the scare quotes are meaningful here.they aren't debunkers they're conspiracy theorists, full pejorative meaning intended. with the scare quotes applied its' another way of saying either they're cynical ideological hack or a mental slave to them.

I am most likely reaching here , but the next thing you will be saying is "Go Obama"...

Go obama. go where?

in case you didn't get the memo, there's a world out there beyond the bullshit left and right ideology you cling so desperately to. pretty much the ONLY thing H. sapiens has been successful with in getting to know that world, in any useful way, is a collection of processes called "science."

and anyone who can't or won't do the math yet insists it's this way or that way, is an ass. anyone who declares such "findings" publicly is making an ass of themselves.

politics won't decide if AGW is happening or not. sadly, politics, not science, will most likely decide how our species will respond (or not respond).

[zeusbheld]

Usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle on these kinds of issues. I certainly don't believe these highly educated scientists and xxx . . ologists would purposely distort their findings to come up with a false view.(Unless they are being funded by Exxon or GM.) .

it's possible that some of scientists cling to models that aren't quite working. as yet results are inconclusive so as a scientist you'd most likely believe your work is correct until its' dashed to bits by cold, hard ugly facts.

that said, the suggestion that all these scientists don't really believe in doing science but are faking it to further some political agenda is obscene.

a lot of scientists believe something is happening, though it'd be a distortion to say there's a consensus around al gore's alarmist scenario. science isn't a popularity contest, some of the scientists will end up being right, the rest, not.

time...and science... will tell. ideological bullshit will just pretend to tell.

[farang_subson]

Sathorn...science is done through something called peer review. I'm sure you know about that, because you've already informed us that you did research for a university.

Currently, there are 1,000's of peer-reviewed papers supporting evolution. There are 11 that take some slant on "intelligent design" or "creation" (and the bulk of them are in obscure Brazilian journals with names like "Rivista").

Don't imply that there are two reasonable sides to this issue. There aren't. It's religious fanatics who will do anything to support their presuppositions vs. folks who actually care about something called "evidence".

For those who aren't aware, American fundamentalists usually don't give a crap about issues like AGW because they think Armaggedon is right around the corner anyway. Thus the marriage of anti-evolution and anti-AGW rhetoric.

[zeusbheld]

As for "arrogance", what could be more arrogant than thinking that a handful of cutesy one sentence refutuations and rhetorical devices (e.g. these guys can't even predict the weather 5 days ahead) is going to undo the work of the vast majority of climatologists?

You see the same thing with the evolution/creation debate. Some creationist actually thinks his "why do we still have monkeys?" argument is going to stump 1,000's of scientists.

If a scientist comes up with a new computer part, a better battery, a rocket trajectory, or a new drug, people have no problem with that. But give them a phenomenon like evolution or AGW that occurs over long periods of time, and suddenly you have 1,000,000 armchair philosophers who think they know what they're talking about.

Firstly, I don't believe 'arrogance' is holding to a firm position, whether it be scientific, philosophical, sociological, psychological or theosophical, etc. But (as it appears, does jomama) intolerance, ridicule or contempt for another's point of view is to me the height of arrogance. Indeed, it would raise a question as to that person's security about their own position, and make one wonder about their social skills.

social skills and temperament have no bearing on facts.

as it happens we apparently have different "points of view." you seem to believe that being nice is all important and being rude is "arrogant" and immoral somehow.

i believe that being dishonest about matters of science, including being willfully ignorant, is deeply immoral and will bring about our extinction as a species. so you call it arrogance, i call it deep concern for the welfare of H. sapiens. potayto, potahto....

As far as the 'evolution/creation debate' goes, it is not reasonable (or intelligent) to class one group as scientists, and not the other. Both have scientific reasons for their opinions, and I know that when it comes to public debate, the creationists (such as John McKay) often leave their opponents floundering. I have been to such a debate.

these so-called 'debates' are hokey publicity stunts set up by the creationists. taking them seriously is a sign of gross ignorance. however, if you think you're up for it, start a thread. i bet you're not.

it actually is reasonable (and intelligent) to class people who actually do science as scientists and those who don't, as not scientists. it is stupid and yes, arrogant to suggest otherwise.

When Darwin was alive and promulgating his theory, it raised a rationalistic storm. Now, his name is still linked with the theory, but evolutionists are quiet about the scientific inaccuracy proven by more extensive and recent scientific observations and the advent of DNA testing.

i'm not blaming you personally for this but that is a gross distortion. quite possibly a deliberate lie. but hey, it's alright to lie if your'e doing God's work isn't it.

again, feel free to start a thread on evolution vs creationism if you *think* you know what you're talking about. it'll be fun. for me, anyway.

Now only a third of Americans say evidence has supported darwin's evolution theory...Why?

because they're deeply entrenched in the most simplistic form of bliblical literalism. they are willfully ignorant. science isn't a popularity contest.

added clarification, in green. not that anyone cares, but *i* will sleep better knowing husbands can tell wives they don't look fat in that dress with my full approval.

[Loburt]

As far as the 'evolution/creation debate' goes, it is not reasonable (or intelligent) to class one group as scientists, and not the other. Both have scientific reasons for their opinions, and I know that when it comes to public debate, the creationists (such as John McKay) often leave their opponents floundering. I have been to such a debate. When Darwin was alive and promulgating his theory, it raised a rationalistic storm. Now, his name is still linked with the theory, but evolutionists are quiet about the scientific inaccuracy proven by more extensive and recent scientific observations and the advent of DNA testing. Now only a third of Americans say evidence has supported darwin's evolution theory...Why?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

Sorry, but this is just a crock of BS. While there are aspects of evolution that are questionable and open to rational debate, there is absolutely nothing in science that lends any credence to creationism. There is no credible scientific evidence to support creationism - full stop. Even if evolution were completely wrong, that doesn't make creationism right.

DNA testing in no way disproves or detracts from the theory of natural selection. In fact, it supports it.

And I would have thought, having done "research for a university", that you would be sufficiently educated enough to understand that polling the general public as to whether they believe a scientific theory or principle is correct or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it is correct or not.

Scientific theories aren't proved or disproved by Gallup polls.

[PJack]

a friend sent this in email yesterday....

Subject: Buffalo Theory

In one episode of "Cheers", Cliff is seated at the bar describing the Buffalo Theory to his buddy, Norm.

"Well you see, Norm, it's like this . . . A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the lowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

[English_Bob]

Sorry, I've been away... I missed a couple of days...

A lot's happened huh?

Loburt... What? I LOVED the termite story!

Zeus... I wasn't being condescending... (at least not deliberately), just enjoying the debate. I can't bring myself to get angry on a forum posting, I'm always smiling while I write.

See?

The 'dishonest' thing is subjective... we both have 'truths', but they're not the same. I believe in different things than you.

I don't think we're making asses of ourselves... just having fun.

Thanks Whiskers, Jomama and Sathorn... Actually I really think we SHOULD cut back on fossil fuel usage and start addressing pollution... just for different reasons than Loburt.

I believe no-one KNOWS what is causing temperatures to rise - it could be natural or man-made.

I believe that land use has caused temperatures to rise in cities.

I believe that before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, those models should accurately predict future temperatures for at least ten years.

I also believe that history has hundreds of examples of maverick scientists who flew in the face of accepted theories and later turned out to be right... and I think this is one of those times.

And as far as saving the planet for our children and our children's children? Well, I certainly don't look back with bitterness on our ancestors who laboured through the industrial revolution and started the CO2 dumping. Those guys created the world we live in - cars, trains, planes, automation. My life is a whole lot easier because of what they did.

Finally, (and it is finally, because no-one can win these debates) thanks to Zeus and Loburt for a most entertaining couple of days... no really guys... I do sit here grinning and thinking of what your responses will be.

Tune in to my next forum post... Alien Monkeys Killed Kennedy.

[farang_subson]

English Bob...I believe, I believe, I believe. You sound like you're Oprah Winfrey and the subject is "past lives".

Here's what I believe...science is best understood by reading scientific journals, not by paying attention to religiots, zealots, and folks with an obvious political agenda. If you'd do that, I doubt you'd find anyone predicting a 3 degree rise in global temp by 2008 (as you claimed). And you'd be hard-pressed to find any serious scientist claiming that HIV or killer bees would be the end of humanity.

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

Loburt, there's a huge amount of debate WITHIN the subject of evolution (e.g. cis vs. trans regulation, evo/devo vs. adaptionalism, etc.), but there's no serious debate outside it. If you disagree, then come up with a citation that proves me wrong. You don't have to connect every single dot before the picture becomes clear.

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

As for Sathorn, I'm a former biochemist, and I try to stay on top of the latest in evolution research. DNA sequencing confirms the geological, paleontogical, radio-dating, dendrological (ad nauseum). You really think biologists have some dirty little secret they're hiding?

[Loburt]

Loburt, there's a huge amount of debate WITHIN the subject of evolution (e.g. cis vs. trans regulation, evo/devo vs. adaptionalism, etc.), but there's no serious debate outside it. If you disagree, then come up with a citation that proves me wrong. You don't have to connect every single dot before the picture becomes clear.

I wrote there is debate about ASPECTS of evolution. That's pretty much the same thing as saying there is debate WITHIN the subject evolution.

[farang_subson]

Apologies, Loburt.

But to quote you from elsewhere...

"The theory or framework still needs to be proved.

While the vast majority of legitimate scientists accept Evolution, there are still a few who question it, or question aspects of it.."

I'd like to convince you that there aren't legitimate scientists (or biologists, to be precise) who question it, and that it's just as "proved" as the "theory of gravity".

[Loburt]

Apology accepted and I will withdraw my remark.

[zeusbheld]

Zeus... I wasn't being condescending... (at least not deliberately), just enjoying the debate. I can't bring myself to get angry on a forum posting, I'm always smiling while I write.

one can be rapturously happy and be condescending at the same time. if you've never tried it you'll have to trust me on this. if you find you enjoy it beware, it's a slippery slope to kicking puppies.

The 'dishonest' thing is subjective... we both have 'truths', but they're not the same. I believe in different things than you.

i didn't attribute the deliberate dishonesty to you personally. sorry if it came off that way, wasn't my intention. that's what i meant by "However, before jumping to any moral conclusions i should remember that i can't read minds, only words. " wasn't clear enough.

swindles like "the great global warming swindle" documentary ARE flagrantly, consciously dishonest, however. i believe that cynical lying partisan hacks like these and dodgy hired guns like Singer are poisoning the skeptic well rather than dinging their perceived enemies. conscious dishonesty might be sensible, even noble for the husband whose wife asks him if she looks fat in this dress---but introducing conscious dishonesty into matters of science is the lowest form of political sleaze in my book.

values are subjective. truths rooted in empirical evidence are partial, provisional and quite often un-knowable. but matters of science are still matters of science, not matters of opinion. AGW and it's possible consequences aren't entirely a matter of science, yet. but it probably will be.

I don't think we're making asses of ourselves... just having fun.

as if making asses of ourselves isn't fun? seems to me it's the whole point of internet forums.

Thanks Whiskers, Jomama and Sathorn... Actually I really think we SHOULD cut back on fossil fuel usage and start addressing pollution... just for different reasons than Loburt.

funny thing is, most people agree we should do that. it's 'why' that no one agrees on.

even if we're nowhere near peak oil, we're not likely to produce oil any faster, and demand is very likely to rise (china, india). so, very very likely, oil prices will go up. and we already know that not only are biofuels not any cleaner growing fuel instead of food drives food prices up.

I believe no-one KNOWS what is causing temperatures to rise - it could be natural or man-made.

on that i agree 100 percent. even with the caveat that scientific knowledge is inherently partial and provisional, it's not all the way there yet. i do think there's a good chance we'll eventually know one way or the other.

I believe that land use has caused temperatures to rise in cities.

it seems like rising temperatures is a strong probably, but not certain. i don't have a strong opinion as to what causes it. since i am not crucial to any policymaking decisions, i can afford to wait for the science to be settled to have an opinion.

I believe that before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, those models should accurately predict future temperatures for at least ten years.

then there's the matter of IF the model's right THEN does the policy do what it's supposed to.

I also believe that history has hundreds of examples of maverick scientists who flew in the face of accepted theories and later turned out to be right... and I think this is one of those times.

as i said a few times, science ain't a popularity contest.

And as far as saving the planet for our children and our children's children? Well, I certainly don't look back with bitterness on our ancestors who laboured through the industrial revolution and started the CO2 dumping. Those guys created the world we live in - cars, trains, planes, automation. My life is a whole lot easier because of what they did.

i doubt looking back with bitterness will save the planet for anyone's children.

Finally, (and it is finally, because no-one can win these debates) thanks to Zeus and Loburt for a most entertaining couple of days... no really guys... I do sit here grinning and thinking of what your responses will be.

so you're one of those sick, twisted types who finds this sort of thing FUN?????

WELCOME ABOARD!!!!

conflict = drama and drama = entertainment.

the internet is no place to be if you fear making an ass of yourself.

[zeusbheld]

Apologies, Loburt.

But to quote you from elsewhere...

"The theory or framework still needs to be proved.

While the vast majority of legitimate scientists accept Evolution, there are still a few who question it, or question aspects of it.."

I'd like to convince you that there aren't legitimate scientists (or biologists, to be precise) who question it, and that it's just as "proved" as the "theory of gravity".

YES.

the theory or framework is the proven part. what still needs to be understood is the mechanism in all it's glorious detail. there are no scientists that i've ever heard of working int the field, who question Evolution. not out of dogma, but because almost every aspect of modern biology would lose its explanatory and predictive power without it. in other words, there's no other theory that works.

[farang_subson]

To play the devil's (angel's?) advocate, you could cite Michael Behe. He's a tenured biochemist at Lehigh.

But he has really gotten beaten up badly in recent years. He tells the judge at the Dover trial that there are no books on the subject of evolution of immunology. Whereupon the opposition's lawyer dumps a huge pile of books on the subject on the witness stand. Great drama.

You can also watch Kenneth Miller (a Christian!) totally eviscerate Behe's arguments about the "irreducible complexity" of flagellum on youtube:

Sorry about veering away from AGW...

[zeusbheld]

To play the devil's (angel's?) advocate, you could cite Michael Behe. He's a tenured biochemist at Lehigh.

But he has really gotten beaten up badly in recent years. He tells the judge at the Dover trial that there are no books on the subject of evolution of immunology. Whereupon the opposition's lawyer dumps a huge pile of books on the subject on the witness stand. Great drama.

You can also watch Kenneth Miller (a Christian!) totally eviscerate Behe's arguments about the "irreducible complexity" of flagellum on youtube:

Sorry about veering away from AGW...

yeah i avoided mentioning Behe coz his reputation is in the crapper. He tipped his hand, apparently, pandering to his base with his second book.