PDA

View Full Version : Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?



FlaGator
11-20-2009, 01:04 PM
If true this is very interesting and may show the Global Warming advocates for what they are, manipulators of the truth and liars.



If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937))
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/) puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse (http://www.john-daly.com/) site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.


A few Excepts and teasers from the stolen information.



Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….


The whole store is here (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/)

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-20-2009, 03:45 PM
Eh, the hatred of science (for example, believing Young Earth Christian creationism over evolution, like a majority of conservatives do; or accepted cosmology) is a big area where I differ from the right--I love science.
And I do believe we're having an effect on our planet. It doesn't really matter in the end, I mean even science says the Earth won't be around in a billion or so years as the sun expands, so it really doesn't matter whether it's heating now or not--We should be investing in our space program because either way we're going to need a new home planet.

Sonnabend
11-20-2009, 04:51 PM
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

and this


From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***


And the media is...silent.

Sonnabend
11-20-2009, 04:55 PM
By the way, if anyone questions the provenance........

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html


HadleyCRU says leaked data is real

The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

"Have you alerted police"

"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

"Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn't do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago."

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say….

FlaGator
11-20-2009, 05:05 PM
Dupe... I will merge the threads

FlaGator
11-20-2009, 05:18 PM
Eh, the hatred of science (for example, believing Young Earth Christian creationism over evolution, like a majority of conservatives do; or accepted cosmology) is a big area where I differ from the right--I love science.
And I do believe we're having an effect on our planet. It doesn't really matter in the end, I mean even science says the Earth won't be around in a billion or so years as the sun expands, so it really doesn't matter whether it's heating now or not--We should be investing in our space program because either way we're going to need a new home planet.

If this proves to be true and it is starting to look that way then then scientists have been lying to the public for over 10 years all for grant money I suspect. If this ends up being verified then it will rock the current paradigm for scientific research to its core and a lot of things while be up for graps, not the least of which will be the theory of macro-evolution. I'm not sure where you get your opinion that most conservatives believe in the young earth theory but you are mistaken. Many of us who are Christians and conservative are interested in more research being done in the area of intelligent design but ID is not young earth theory

I to love science and I follow very closely information on physics as it relates to the universe and on the small scale of quantum mechanics. Being a Christian and a Conservative doesn't not exclude one for reconciling both science, philosophy and theology. Just different ways of looking at the world.

As to your feelings that man is a major contributor to global warming, well that remains to be seen. Evidence doesn't bare it out and if the information in the newly released emails ends up being true then it will be a serious blow to your view point.

Sonnabend
11-20-2009, 05:24 PM
Hokay :)

FlaGator
11-20-2009, 07:13 PM
Hokay :)

Can't merge. My threads in Weather and I don't have mod privileges there.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-20-2009, 08:04 PM
If this proves to be true and it is starting to look that way then then scientists have been lying to the public for over 10 years all for grant money I suspect. If this ends up being verified then it will rock the current paradigm for scientific research to its core and a lot of things while be up for graps, not the least of which will be the theory of macro-evolution. I'm not sure where you get your opinion that most conservatives believe in the young earth theory but you are mistaken. Many of us who are Christians and conservative are interested in more research being done in the area of intelligent design but ID is not young earth theory

I to love science and I follow very closely information on physics as it relates to the universe and on the small scale of quantum mechanics. Being a Christian and a Conservative doesn't not exclude one for reconciling both science, philosophy and theology. Just different ways of looking at the world.

As to your feelings that man is a major contributor to global warming, well that remains to be seen. Evidence doesn't bare it out and if the information in the newly released emails ends up being true then it will be a serious blow to your view point.

Well, the only difference is that..Macro-Evolution has been an accepted theory for over 100 years, there have been fossil evidence, genetic evidence, all sorts of physical and biological evidence to back it up. I believe in macro-evolution; I see it as the ultimate end of every ''micro-evolution''--Think of micro evolution as steps, with macro-evolution being a mile.

Unlike macro-evolution, Global Warming has been a political thing from it's outset--A political pawn used by both sides to push either sides' agenda. I don't think that humanity is THE cause of global warming, but is definitely a contributor, one of many. Evolution was a scientific break through and the only real debate I've seen was not a political debate but more a theological debate--the only political aspect of it being some are against it being taught in schools without intelligent design being also taught.

As far as Young Earth creationism, if you look at Conservapedia (a site by and for conservatives, created by Andy Schafly (son of Phillis Schafly)), there is an article on what makes a liberal a liberal and what makes a conservative a conservative--Believing in evolution is considered a liberal belief; being in YEC is a ''conservative'' belief. The site has had well over a million hits, and has been mentioned in quite a few conservative places, and since the site's creator is the son of a major conservative leader, I figured it was legit.

expat-pattaya
11-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Eh, the hatred of science (for example, believing Young Earth Christian creationism over evolution, like a majority of conservatives do; or accepted cosmology) is a big area where I differ from the right--I love science.
And I do believe we're having an effect on our planet. It doesn't really matter in the end, I mean even science says the Earth won't be around in a billion or so years as the sun expands, so it really doesn't matter whether it's heating now or not--We should be investing in our space program because either way we're going to need a new home planet.

Even IF we can get united cooperation and begin serious space exploration we are a long way from having options. I vote let's try and not pollute the shit out of this one until we find another one at least. :D

BTW, the global warming mess is really screwing things up in a number of ways. First, the cap and trade bullshit will hurt economies. Second, it is taking our eyes off the real pollution problems that need to be addressed and making anyone that believes we need to change some of our ways look like a loon associated with the warming nuts.

.

PoliCon
11-20-2009, 11:05 PM
Eh, the hatred of science (for example, believing Young Earth Christian creationism over evolution, like a majority of conservatives do; or accepted cosmology) is a big area where I differ from the right--I love science.
And I do believe we're having an effect on our planet. It doesn't really matter in the end, I mean even science says the Earth won't be around in a billion or so years as the sun expands, so it really doesn't matter whether it's heating now or not--We should be investing in our space program because either way we're going to need a new home planet.

Bullshit. You need to stop listening to the liberal media. Most Conservatives are not young earth creationists. :rolleyes: you could make a case for a large percentage being creationists - but that does not mean they are young earthers. FURTHERMORE - being a creationists does not mean you deny science.


SECONDLY - Rejecting anthropomorphic global warming does not mean you hate science either.

FlaGator
11-20-2009, 11:19 PM
Well, the only difference is that..Macro-Evolution has been an accepted theory for over 100 years, there have been fossil evidence, genetic evidence, all sorts of physical and biological evidence to back it up. I believe in macro-evolution; I see it as the ultimate end of every ''micro-evolution''--Think of micro evolution as steps, with macro-evolution being a mile.

Unlike macro-evolution, Global Warming has been a political thing from it's outset--A political pawn used by both sides to push either sides' agenda. I don't think that humanity is THE cause of global warming, but is definitely a contributor, one of many. Evolution was a scientific break through and the only real debate I've seen was not a political debate but more a theological debate--the only political aspect of it being some are against it being taught in schools without intelligent design being also taught.

As far as Young Earth creationism, if you look at Conservapedia (a site by and for conservatives, created by Andy Schafly (son of Phillis Schafly)), there is an article on what makes a liberal a liberal and what makes a conservative a conservative--Believing in evolution is considered a liberal belief; being in YEC is a ''conservative'' belief. The site has had well over a million hits, and has been mentioned in quite a few conservative places, and since the site's creator is the son of a major conservative leader, I figured it was legit.

Macro evoluation has been accepted theory for 100 years? Where do you come up with that figure. I'd surely love to see it in print since it is not totally accepted now. Where are all the transitional fossils? There are few if any and that has been one of the major sticking points of macro evolution. There should be more transitional fossils than end species but that is not working out so well. Even Darwin considered it a short coming.

Evolution became a political issue when grant money became available for the study of evolution. Once money works its self in to the process then the truth flies out the window. Money trumps science and dictates the outcome. Conservapedia has about as much value as a source as Wikipedia which is zero. I am a Christian and I am a devotee of science and if you were to ask the people on this conservative board how many accept young earth as one of their beliefs, it might shock. We have a rather small source audience so perhaps you can try at FreeRepublic.

Nubs
11-20-2009, 11:43 PM
Middleman

If you are such an intrepid scientist, cannot you see evidence of God in science?

Fossil evidence is only evidence of micro evolution, at best.

There is no documented evidence that evolution has occured cross species.

FeebMaster
11-20-2009, 11:45 PM
I think it's cute that people believe this will have any affect on the argument over climate change.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-21-2009, 09:34 AM
Middleman

If you are such an intrepid scientist, cannot you see evidence of God in science?

Fossil evidence is only evidence of micro evolution, at best.

There is no documented evidence that evolution has occured cross species.

Sure. I believe without any doubt that we were created by someone or something. I'm not an Atheist. I can reconcile God and evolution. This universe is way too complex to be an accident. But I don't think that the God or being that created us is exactly as depicted in the Bible. I would think it is much more complex than that, and probably wouldn't even be able to be understood by our small in comparison minds.

Evolution doesn't happen ''cross species.'' An animal's behaviour, appearence, etc, adapts over time to suit the environment or climate it's in. This can happen over thousands of years slowly. But it doesn't happen ''cross species'' as you say--You'd never see a dog turning into a cat or alligator, and macro-evolution doesn't say that. There are some fossils that show macro-evolution--for example Archaeopteryix (sp?)--one of the first birds. As birds slowly evolved from theropod dinosaurs, you can see some theropod characteristics--Claws, no beak but a snout, the way many important bones are shaped, etc and some characteristics that birds would eventually develop--It has feathers, wings, etc.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-21-2009, 09:39 AM
Macro evoluation has been accepted theory for 100 years? Where do you come up with that figure. I'd surely love to see it in print since it is not totally accepted now. Where are all the transitional fossils? There are few if any and that has been one of the major sticking points of macro evolution. There should be more transitional fossils than end species but that is not working out so well. Even Darwin considered it a short coming.

Evolution became a political issue when grant money became available for the study of evolution. Once money works its self in to the process then the truth flies out the window. Money trumps science and dictates the outcome. Conservapedia has about as much value as a source as Wikipedia which is zero. I am a Christian and I am a devotee of science and if you were to ask the people on this conservative board how many accept young earth as one of their beliefs, it might shock. We have a rather small source audience so perhaps you can try at FreeRepublic.

Well I mean evolution was being taught in public schools as far back as the 20s, hence the Scopes' trial. So even 80 years ago, at the least. The theory as presented by Darawin has been around since 1859, though similar theories had been presented by others earlier. It may not be 100% accepted now but those who are against it I would think are in the minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

The Horse has plenty of examples of transitional fossils especially, as do humans.

FlaGator
11-21-2009, 12:15 PM
Well I mean evolution was being taught in public schools as far back as the 20s, hence the Scopes' trial. So even 80 years ago, at the least. The theory as presented by Darawin has been around since 1859, though similar theories had been presented by others earlier. It may not be 100% accepted now but those who are against it I would think are in the minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

The Horse has plenty of examples of transitional fossils especially, as do humans.

A scientific theory is only as good as the current state of evidence that supports it. Ptolemy's Earth centered model of the solar system had majority acceptance and did a nice job of explaining the facts as they were understood at the time. Newer information, however, caused Ptolemy's view to be displaced by the Copernican model. Ptolemy's model held sway for nearly 1500 years so longevity of a school of thought doesn't prove its validity. Currently the standard model of the universe which has been around for 30 years is starting to show cracks. Its savior could be the Super Hadron Collider and the discovery of the Higgs boson, but if the Higgs boson is not found then physicists will have to go back to the drawing board in order to determine how particles acquire mass and that may very well invalidate the who standard model.

I was waiting for the horse transitional fossil example to raise its head neigh. How come when ever transitional fossils come up almost always only two examples are cited, the horse and the whale. It would seem to me that given the nature of macro evolution one would be able to show hundreds of examples of almost every creature living today, but that doesn't happen. Just these two. Have you ever asked yourself why?

As for the horse there is this.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/flagator/sci_horse_evo_diagram.jpg

First of all, most of those things look like horses just getting bigger over time. And what's with all these branches that don't start with a fossil nor do they end with a fossil? They are just lines going from no where to nowhere? Between some fossil examples and others there are gaps where no fossil evidence is available. Someone apparently decided that there were a couple of transitional fossils that haven't been found so they put place holders for them. The scientist are assuming the existence of something that they have yet to find. That is not holding themselves to the same empirical evidence standards that the hold others to. Finally, have you ever seen some of these fossils? In the case of whale evolution they take a tooth and a small piece of jaw bone and extrapolate a wolf like creature from it? How can someone take a tiny bone fragment and then recreate an image of a creature that no one has every seen. Since no one has seen it then I can't even argue if the drawing is correct or not because it is simply an image from someones imagination.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-21-2009, 12:34 PM
A scientific theory is only as good as the current state of evidence that supports it. Ptolemy's Earth centered model of the solar system had majority acceptance and did a nice job of explaining the facts as they were understood at the time. Newer information, however, caused Ptolemy's view to be displaced by the Copernican model. Ptolemy's model held sway for nearly 1500 years so longevity of a school of thought doesn't prove its validity. Currently the standard model of the universe which has been around for 30 years is starting to show cracks. Its savior could be the Super Hadron Collider and the discovery of the Higgs boson, but if the Higgs boson is not found then physicists will have to go back to the drawing board in order to determine how particles acquire mass and that may very well invalidate the who standard model.

I was waiting for the horse transitional fossil example to raise its head neigh. How come when ever transitional fossils come up almost always only two examples are cited, the horse and the whale. It would seem to me that given the nature of macro evolution one would be able to show hundreds of examples of almost every creature living today, but that doesn't happen. Just these two. Have you ever asked yourself why?

As for the horse there is this.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/flagator/sci_horse_evo_diagram.jpg

First of all, most of those things look like horses just getting bigger over time. And what's with all these branches that don't start with a fossil nor do they end with a fossil? They are just lines going from no where to nowhere? Between some fossil examples and others there are gaps where no fossil evidence is available. Someone apparently decided that there were a couple of transitional fossils that haven't been found so they put place holders for them. The scientist are assuming the existence of something that they have yet to find. That is not holding themselves to the same empirical evidence standards that the hold others to. Finally, have you ever seen some of these fossils? In the case of whale evolution they take a tooth and a small piece of jaw bone and extrapolate a wolf like creature from it? How can someone take a tiny bone fragment and then recreate an image of a creature that no one has every seen. Since no one has seen it then I can't even argue if the drawing is correct or not because it is simply an image from someones imagination.

I'm not going to get into the model of the Universe, as I don't know as much and it's a totally different field altogether...
But as far as Horses, and why there's not more--They are finding new stuff all the time, though.
And as I said, there's others besides the Horse and Whale, there's birds (and they find new fossils all the time which make the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs seem even stronger), there's humans, there's canines (they know pretty much the exact creatures caninates evolved from), there's cats, there's elephants, donkeys, mules--While there's not an overabundent number of individual transitional fossils, there's enough for them to have a pretty good idea of where each species came from in terms of evolution.
Besides, the model makes sense..We see creatures adapting every day to suit their environments, from viruses to humans. I don't see why if a creature goes from one environment to another environment and staying there for any length of time they wouldn't adapt to suit that new environment physically. Some don't evolve fast enough or good enough to have the new environment suit them; they die out.

Yeah, there's some fossils where there's only a jaw or whatever but a great many more where they have the whole skeleton. They can compare it to modern animals or bone structures of related animals and build what it may have looked like from there--They don't say the animal in fact looked exactly like this but it's a good idea of what it may have, and these people are pretty informed. For example, they had a skullof one of the proto-human species, and were able to deduce from the shape of the skull I believe how the skull would've sat on the neck, and from there were able to figure out (more complex than that) that it was an upright creature.

Let me ask you--What would you replace evolution with?

FlaGator
11-21-2009, 01:07 PM
I'm not going to get into the model of the Universe, as I don't know as much and it's a totally different field altogether...
But as far as Horses, and why there's not more--They are finding new stuff all the time, though.
And as I said, there's others besides the Horse and Whale, there's birds (and they find new fossils all the time which make the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs seem even stronger), there's humans, there's canines (they know pretty much the exact creatures caninates evolved from), there's cats, there's elephants, donkeys, mules--While there's not an overabundent number of individual transitional fossils, there's enough for them to have a pretty good idea of where each species came from in terms of evolution.
Besides, the model makes sense..We see creatures adapting every day to suit their environments, from viruses to humans. I don't see why if a creature goes from one environment to another environment and staying there for any length of time they wouldn't adapt to suit that new environment physically. Some don't evolve fast enough or good enough to have the new environment suit them; they die out.

Yeah, there's some fossils where there's only a jaw or whatever but a great many more where they have the whole skeleton. They can compare it to modern animals or bone structures of related animals and build what it may have looked like from there--They don't say the animal in fact looked exactly like this but it's a good idea of what it may have, and these people are pretty informed. For example, they had a skullof one of the proto-human species, and were able to deduce from the shape of the skull I believe how the skull would've sat on the neck, and from there were able to figure out (more complex than that) that it was an upright creature.

Let me ask you--What would you replace evolution with?

As a Christian I like the concept of intelligent design. It makes since to me based on how I interpret the evidence. Micro-evolution within the context of intelligent design makes a lot of since to me. I'm not even opposed to macro evolution if more evidence can be brought to bare. Fortunately for me I don't have to decide which is right or wrong but I can approach all, even young Earth with an open mind. My life doesn't depend on being right or wrong about the nature of creation. With that said, I won't close the door on any avenue of discovery whether it be via science, philosophy or theology. All three are looking for the same answers, they only differ in their approach. To dismiss one or more out of hand is to close an avenue of investigation and the avenue I close might be the one that has the answers or it may be the one that will make sense of the answers if they are found on one or both of the other paths.

SarasotaRepub
11-21-2009, 01:23 PM
I think it's cute that people believe this will have any affect on the argument over climate change.

As am I. The Climate Kooks will spin this away. Our paper had this on the front page this morning and I was pleasantly surprised for a change.

The scientists in question were spinning away, apparently "tricks" aren't sneaky things
like fudging data...nooooo, they are "a good way to solve a problem." This was a quote from a Prof. Mann from Penn State. :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-21-2009, 02:39 PM
As a Christian I like the concept of intelligent design. It makes since to me based on how I interpret the evidence. Micro-evolution within the context of intelligent design makes a lot of since to me. I'm not even opposed to macro evolution if more evidence can be brought to bare. Fortunately for me I don't have to decide which is right or wrong but I can approach all, even young Earth with an open mind. My life doesn't depend on being right or wrong about the nature of creation. With that said, I won't close the door on any avenue of discovery whether it be via science, philosophy or theology. All three are looking for the same answers, they only differ in their approach. To dismiss one or more out of hand is to close an avenue of investigation and the avenue I close might be the one that has the answers or it may be the one that will make sense of the answers if they are found on one or both of the other paths.

Hm. I believe in intelligent design 100% just not any religion's concept of it. I don't see any incompatibility with intelligent design and evolution. I think more evidence for macro will emerge as time passes, I mean hell Darwin made the theory when there was barely anything to support it, and as time has passed, more and more evidence has emerged, it's not the large amount of evidence that you or others want, but there's a good enough amount to satisfy most of the scientific community.

stsinner
11-21-2009, 04:52 PM
If this proves to be true and it is starting to look that way then then scientists have been lying to the public for over 10 years all for grant money I suspect. If this ends up being verified then it will rock the current paradigm for scientific research to its core and a lot of things while be up for graps, not the least of which will be the theory of macro-evolution.

Just as the Obama voting idiots have closed their eyes and blindly trust him to steer the ship, not caring one wit about his indiscretions, I don't believe the granola crunchers and tree huggers and animals-over-humans set will every listen to any negative facts that contradict global warming.. They need to believe that in order to carry on their worthless little human-hating lives...

stsinner
11-21-2009, 04:57 PM
it's not the large amount of evidence that you or others want, but there's a good enough amount to satisfy most of the scientific community.

You can get the scientific community to say anything you want it to say or skew data any way you want them to skew data if there's enough grant money involved.. Global warming has been a farce from the very beginning, and intelligent people know it. Intelligent and honest people declare it. Intelligent people who stand to make millions proliferate the bunk.

Scientists claimed that it was freon and HCFC's that caused global warming, but after we got rid of those, we somehow still had it, but now we don't have the more efficient, colder air-producing freon for our air conditioners or aerosol cans for our hair spray..

Maybe if they keep taking things away and restricting our freedoms someone will be able to claim victory over this illusion.. It's fun to watch.

wilbur
11-21-2009, 07:33 PM
Scientists claimed that it was freon and HCFC's that caused global warming, but after we got rid of those, we somehow still had it, but now we don't have the more efficient, colder air-producing freon for our air conditioners or aerosol cans for our hair spray..


<facepalm>

You mean CFCs, not HFCs... and no, scientists havent been claiming that they caused global warming. They claimed that:

1. Single CFC molecules could last upwards of 30 years in the upper atemososphere.
2. Each molecule of CFC can split apart every O3 (Ozone) molecule it encounters, while it was there
3. This phenomena was causing serious ozone depletion (and it was).

All this is only tangentially related to global warming, and a problem in its own right. The banning of CFCs was strictly about protecting the ozone layer.

Serioulsy, what compels you to post about stuff like this when you clearly havent a single clue about any of it?

Rockntractor
11-21-2009, 07:37 PM
<facepalm>

You mean CFCs, not HFCs... and no, scientists havent been claiming that they caused global warming. They claimed that:

1. Single CFC molecules could last upwards of 30 years in the upper atemososphere.
2. Each molecule of CFC can split apart every O3 (Ozone) molecule it encounters, while it was there
3. This phenomena was causing serious ozone depletion (and it was).

All this is only tangentially related to global warming, and a problem in its own right. The banning of CFCs was strictly about protecting the ozone layer.

Serioulsy, what compels you to post about stuff like this when you clearly havent a single clue about any of it?
Golly Wilbur what would the earth do without you!

stsinner
11-21-2009, 09:13 PM
<facepalm>

You mean CFCs, not HFCs... and no, scientists havent been claiming that they caused global warming. They claimed that:

1. Single CFC molecules could last upwards of 30 years in the upper atemososphere.
2. Each molecule of CFC can split apart every O3 (Ozone) molecule it encounters, while it was there
3. This phenomena was causing serious ozone depletion (and it was).

All this is only tangentially related to global warming, and a problem in its own right. The banning of CFCs was strictly about protecting the ozone layer.

Serioulsy, what compels you to post about stuff like this when you clearly havent a single clue about any of it?

Look, fag, not only do I not feel the need to give a shit about the scientific details, I don't like being lied to by the government so that they can degrade my standard of living in the pursuit of saving the planet. The television said that freon and aerosols in hairspray were causing the hole in the Ozone layer and that we're all gonna die, so they eliminated both, and here we are-no change.. So go fuck yourself with the scientific details and insults. Saying that we've recovered 1/25th of t he ozone layer and that it should fully recover by 2050 when many of the people old enough to remember freon will be dead.. It's easy to say that something's working when the people you're saying it to won't be alive to verify it or realize the benefits. For some reason, I just don't trust government.

I think this is junk science, and as long as the developing nations continue to belch massive pollution into the atmosphere, our contributions to any real "change," whatever that may mean, are minuscule.

Rockntractor
11-21-2009, 09:15 PM
Look, fag, not only do I not feel the need to give a shit about the scientific details, I don't like being lied to by the government so that they can degrade my standard of living in the pursuit of saving the planet. The television said that freon and aerosols in hairspray were causing the hole in the Ozone layer and that we're all gonna die, so they eliminated both, and here we are-no change.. So go fuck yourself with the scientific details and insults.

I think Wilbur is actually Barney Frank!

FlaGator
11-21-2009, 09:21 PM
Inhofe to Barbara Boxer "We won, you lost, get a life"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93Fp_kmrz4

stsinner
11-21-2009, 09:24 PM
FlaGator, when I say that video, I couldn't help but laugh!

FlaGator
11-21-2009, 09:36 PM
FlaGator, when I say that video, I couldn't help but laugh!

It is pretty amusing. Seem like Boxer was a bit stunned.

JB
11-22-2009, 01:52 PM
Eh, the hatred of science...is a big area where I differ from the right--I love science.You just went up ten points on my rtard meter.

Anyway, SNL had the Gore-acle on last night pimping his oh-noes-end-of-the-world crap and his new book. Had him on a couple different segments. Suffice it to say, I was not shocked when no one brought this up as he spewed away. I don't know why I watch that show.

Nubs
11-23-2009, 09:49 AM
I think these scientists have to be procecuted under RICO. The amount of money that has been scammed dwarfs anthing Madoff did.