Heartland Institute billboard equates climate-change scientists with mass murderers

[CandiCame]

I weep for the species.

WTF, you're a mammal. All mammals do it. You're just jealous because we get them when they aren't lactating.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You just can't keep your foot out of your mouth, can you?

This is first line of the Wiki article you posted:

This article is about scientific opinion on climate change.

MMGW is scientific theory, not facts. The debate isn't over until it's been proven. Unless of course you want to also declare scientific method dead, too.

That's why I said "pretty much." Like, biological evolution is "just a theory," but "theory" (being more certain than "hypothesis") is as certain as anything ever gets in science, and the debate over whether evolution happened is pretty much over, to the extent any debate ever can be over in science. And it is the same now, or nearly so, with the anthropogenic nature of current climate change.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't have a dog in this fight . . .

You do if you live on this planet.

 

[miles]

That's why I said "pretty much." Like, biological evolution is "just a theory," but "theory" (being more certain than "hypothesis") is as certain as anything ever gets in science, and the debate over whether evolution happened is pretty much over, to the extent any debate ever can be over in science. And it is the same now, or nearly so, with the anthropogenic nature of current climate change.

And you're "pretty much" a pompous ass who is totally full of shit. Save that crap for you liberal friends.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And you're "pretty much" a pompous ass who is totally full of shit. Save that crap for you liberal friends.

I am not full of shit.

 

[miles]

I am not full of shit.

What about the pompous ass part?

 

[KingOrfeo]

What about the pompous ass part?

I aspire to ever higher levels of pomposity.

 

[JohnnySavage]

You do if you live on this planet.

Okkkk.... When I get my doctorate in Climatology I'll give you my opinion. Until then, you read your blogs and the other side will read theirs and y'uns can argue until you're blue in the face.

The bottom line is that we should all live so as to leave a cleaner planet to the next generation than was left to us.

Not only that, but moving from a carbon based economy provides lots of opportunity for making money. Scientific/political arguments are for douchebags that like nothing else but argument.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The bottom line is that we should all live so as to leave a cleaner planet to the next generation than was left to us.

Oh, no, that would be impossible. Minimal damage-control is the most we can hope for.

Not only that, but moving from a carbon based economy provides lots of opportunity for making money.

Not nearly as much nor as sure, however, as the old and auto companies make off the present system.

Scientific/political arguments are for douchebags that like nothing else but argument.

And what do you think the GB is for?! You could post butt pics in any Lit forum. This is the one where you come to argue. Like, you're doing now.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Oh, no, that would be impossible. Minimal damage-control is the most we can hope for.

Bullshit. Compare the environment now with the 1970s

Not nearly as much nor as sure, however, as the old and auto companies make off the present system.

Tell it to the buggy whip manufacturers

And what do you think the GB is for?!

To watch retards argue over things none of them are qualified to argue about, and enjoy the cut and paste battles

 

[IrezumiKiss]

To watch retards argue over things none of them are qualified to argue about, and enjoy the cut and paste battles

You forgot about hearing the lamentations of the women!!!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Tell it to the buggy whip manufacturers

Who would still be in business, if they had had the power to strangle the horseless carriage in its cradle. And guess what? Ford, GM, ExxonMobil, etc., do have that kind of power.

 

[Peregrinator]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but you may want to check your math. According to my calculations, if it's warming roughly .36 per decade, in 10 years it would have rose .36.

I was never good at the calculus though.

Bahahahaha!

 

[Ldy_Sea]

So what you mean is you don't understand how science works. Theory doesn't mean unproven. It means [nobody has proven it wrong yet.

So if not proven wrong, it is either proven right or UNPROVEN. Umm so it's you who doesn't understand unproven.

Gravity is a theory but sadly for the rest of us your ignorant ass doesn't float off into the sun.

Gavity is a law according to
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/gravity.htm'which states

Along with his Three Laws of Motion, Newton also outlined his law of gravity in the 1687 book Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), which is generally referred to as the Principia.

So who is the ignorant ass now?

Relativity is a theory but nuclear bombs and power work just fine.

Well maybe because the theory of relativity has to do with the speed of light being the maximum speed of particles in the universe and nothing to do woth nuclear physics, or electricity.

NASA think it's warming roughly .36 per decade. Notice the decimal point? That's a full degree every ten years.

No need to beat a dead horse here.

If you've got a better answer for why the temprature stats rising at the same time the industrial revolution got started please point to them.

Why did the temperature rise 2.9 billion years ago when man was not on the planet and the first of the five major Ice ages began to end. Or fir each of the other Ice Ages when man was either nonexsistent or still living in caves and using wood and stone for tools. No industrial revolution to conviently blame. Answer that for me.

I have you on iggy.

 

[richard_daily]

Why did the temperature rise 2.9 billion years ago when man was not on the planet and the first of the five major Ice ages began to end. Or fir each of the other Ice Ages when man was either nonexsistent or still living in caves and using wood and stone for tools. No industrial revolution to conviently blame. Answer that for me.

How long did it take for each ice age to come into being?

Do a little research, and then compare it to the rising temperatures since the industrial revolution.

Let me know when you're done.

 

[mercury14]

So if not proven wrong, it is either proven right or UNPROVEN. Umm so it's you who doesn't understand unproven.

You don't understand how science works. At all. "Proven" is not the goal - evidence is. It's commonly not even possible to prove something. That doesn't mean unproven theories with heaps of evidence supporting them(which cannot be completely proven) aren't right.

Again, evolution is "unproven". Using your thinking we don't need to take it seriously until it's somehow proven, even though it's impossible to prove.

Gavity is a law according to
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/gravity.htm'which states

Gravity is so poorly understood that scientists had to theorize the existence of invisible, undetectable, Dark Matter to fill in the gaps in their equations.

Why did the temperature rise 2.9 billion years ago when man was not on the planet and the first of the five major Ice ages began to end. Or fir each of the other Ice Ages when man was either nonexsistent or still living in caves and using wood and stone for tools. No industrial revolution to conviently blame. Answer that for me.

The temp did not rise anywhere near as quickly as it did during the industrial revolution-present. These are clearly two different phenomena.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So who is the ignorant ass now?

You are, if you do not understand that in science, "law" and "theory" mean roughly the same thing.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why did you fuckers take the bait in the second post? This was not about the yes or no of climate change. Let's get back to the topic of the hysteric desperation of a conservative think tank with Godwin tourettes.

Well, that is an interesting phenomenon. Back in the 1980s, I would have said that nobody but a working scientist gets bitterly emotional over a scientific question unless it disturbs something pretty essential in their world-view, as evolution disturbs any Bible literalist. Global warming is not, one should think, a subject of that kind. But it is disturbing on a different level, as it seems to demand actual real-world changes in how we live and do things. Changes, worse, which only governments can make effectively -- that's the part that boils blood and raises hackles.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

You don't understand how science works. At all. "Proven" is not the goal - evidence is.

Then why do scientists do experiments, get grants, when they can get togther in a room and just agree. Because they do try to prove their theories.

It's commonly not even possible to prove something. That doesn't mean unproven theories with heaps of evidence supporting them(which cannot be completely proven) aren't right.

I never commented on wrong or right. I stated that it is not proven.

Again, evolution is "unproven". Using your thinking we don't need to take it seriously until it's somehow proven, even though it's impossible to prove.

I never stated how seriously any theory should or should not be taken, or my opinion on global warming or evolution.

Gravity is so poorly understood that scientists had to theorize the existence of invisible, undetectable, Dark Matter to fill in the gaps in their equations.

I never commented on how well gravity is understood just that is is a law and proven not a theory.

The temp did not rise anywhere near as quickly as it did during the industrial revolution-present. These are clearly two different phenomena.

Show me data on worldwide pre industrial revolution temperatures. The little data that exsists is unreliable at best, so there is no way to know for certain if temperature changes have accelerated since the industrial revolution.

Everything I have stated is fact.

Besides
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
states
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.


"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Hmm 15 million years ago, same CO2 levels, and no humans or industrial revolution to blame.

 

[Peregrinator]

So who is the ignorant ass now?



Well maybe because the theory of relativity has to do with the speed of light being the maximum speed of particles in the universe and nothing to do woth nuclear physics, or electricity.

Incredible. Call someone an ignorant ass and then post that. Holy shit.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

You are, if you do not understand that in science, "law" and "theory" mean roughly the same thing.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

Yeah they are the same.

 

[Peregrinator]

You should have spent your time googling "relativity."

 

[mercury14]

Then why do scientists do experiments, get grants, when they can get togther in a room and just agree. Because they do try to prove their theories.

And they know they will not "prove" them. No matter how overwhelming the evidence backing the Theory of Evolution is, no matter how many experiments or grants happen, it will always remain a theory.

I never commented on wrong or right. I stated that it is not proven.

Which was a meaningless comment that nobody would refute.

I never stated how seriously any theory should or should not be taken, or my opinion on global warming or evolution.

Yes you did.

I never commented on how well gravity is understood just that is is a law and proven not a theory.

Newton's Law of Gravity only applies to very simple things. It's a concept that doesn't hold up in the real world on a large scale. That's why it was superseded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity... And furthermore by Dark Matter Theory.

Everything I have stated is fact.

It also shows that you don't understand science.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Mercury 14
#1 That may be your opinion. But no one can know what someone else thinks. Can evolution be proven? I don't know. I do know that anything is possible. At one time no one believed the sound barrier could be broken, everyone believed the Earth was flat & that it revolved around the Sun. Not to mention all those who believed that flying was only for the birds.
#2 See post #2 That poster did.
#3 Quote where I stated how seriously anyone should take anything. Never did.
#4 Again I only stated that gravity is a law not a theory as another poster claimed. Never did I state that it was understood, where it applied, or anything else about it. Only that it is a law.
#5 show me what I am not understanding.

Peregrinator

I have looked at numerous sites about the theory of relativity and only Wikipedia references Nuclear twice. The rest all talk about speed and time relative to each other. So what am I missing? Does the theory of relativity have applications in energy fields and nuclear physics? IDK, ask people who work in those fields. I know that the theory of relativity which came out in 1905 according to at least 2 sites I saw predates Einsteins work on the Manhattan project.

 

[Peregrinator]

Relativity gave rise to nuclear physics.

Here's one book on it:

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/7099.html


MODERN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS
(Revised Edition)
by Fujia Yang (Fudan University, China & Nottingham University, UK) & Joseph H Hamilton (Vanderbilt University, USA)

Table of Contents (400k)
Preface (392k)
Introduction (1,644k)
Chapter 1: Theory of Relativity (4,534k)
Chapter 2: The Configuration of the Atom: Rutherford's Model (7,565k)
Chapter 12.4: Fission and Fusion: Atomic Energy Utilization (8,275k)

The book is the culmination of the authors' many years of teaching and research in atomic physics, nuclear and particle physics, and modern physics. It is also a crystallization of their intense passion and strong interest in the history of physics and the philosophy of science.

The book gives students a broad perspective of the current understandings of the basic structures of matter from atoms, nucleus to leptons, quarks, and gluons along with the essential introductory quantum mechanics and special relativity. Fundamentals aside, the book retrospects the historical development and examines the challenging future directions of nuclear and particle physics. Interwoven within the content are up-to-date examples of very recent developments and future plans that show in detail how the techniques and ideas of atomic, nuclear, and particle physics have been used and are being used to solve important problems in basic and applied areas of physics, chemistry, and biology that are closely linked to the prevailing major societal problems in medicine, energy resources, new custom-made materials and environmental pollution, as well as areas that encroach the broad cultural and historical interest. The uncertain path of success and failure, opportunities seized and missed, and the axiom of probability and scientists' intuition in the unfolding human drama of scientific discovery are vividly presented. Throughout the highly perceptive book, readers, especially the students are encouraged to reflect on problems and ask questions.