Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

"Let me ask you a couple of questions. What does my reference to the small cabal who evidently believe the hypothesis of agw as priests have to do with my education.

I use the term because the tactics being used are very much akin to the tactics used by the power hungry high priests of old. They had some insight into the natural world that the average joe didn't. They used those insights to convince the average joe that they had power, or access to power that the average joe couldn't even imagine and that if average joe didn't get in line and sacrifice, bad things were going to happen."

It has everything to do with your education or lack thereof. I don't believe that you are a biochemist, not one who has done any meaningful peer-reviewed work in your alleged field, at any rate. Someone who refers to scientists who support AGW as a "small cabal of "priests" and also claims to be a scientist is, in my view, is not only acting in an unprofessional manner, but whose behavior borders on professional misconduct. I wonder if your supervisors know of your views on these matters, particularly how you refer to your colleagues on the internet? You're an angry man, Palerider. How sad for you.

"For anyone who has taken a good long look at paleohistory, the present warming cycle is not surprising in the least."

Right. That would be because it comes as no surprise to a lot of Earth scientists that the present warming is out of whack with that paleohistory because of the huge volumes of greenhouse gas emissions we are emitting every year, and have emitted in a geologically short peior of time, emissions about which you've yet to address my earlier question. I suspect that you know very little about paleohistory, and wouln't know the first thing about how to go about reconstructing it, much less about collecting data on it. Have you ever conducted any field work in paleoclimatology? Have you ever conducted any work in geology at all? Have you ever even collected a fossil, constructed a stratigraphic column, or even know how to identify rocks and minerals in the field? Of course you haven't. So what you are is just another one of those average joes who who claims he is something he is not, and are simply towing the party line. Congratulations.

If you are actually what you say you are, then you are a disgrace to the profession. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.

 

[palerider]

It has everything to do with your education or lack thereof.

And more and more and more logical fallacy. Do you ever actually think anything through?

I don't believe that you are a biochemist,

Since I am not asking you to believe anything on my say so, what you believe is meaningless. More logical fallacy.

Someone who refers to scientists who support AGW as a "small cabal of "priests" and also claims to be a scientist is, in my view, is not only acting in an unprofessional manner, but whose behavior borders on professional misconduct.

Your "view" as you have already demonstrated is quite narrow, so you will pardon me if I don't put much stock in it.

I wonder if your supervisors know of your views on these matters, particularly how you refer to your colleagues on the internet? You're an angry man, Palerider. How sad for you.

I am the supervisor where I work and have been for over a decade. My colleagues know my views and I know theirs. Among my circle, we are all agreed that those who preach agw aren't actual scientists but the lap dogs of politicians, willing to prostitue science in exchange for grant money.

As to anger, once again, you show that you really don't have a clue. I am Santa Clause. The fact that I don't accept shoddy pseudoscience from the charlatans that produce it or the aclolytes who preach it doesn't have anything at all do do with my level of anger or lack thereof, it has to do with an analytical mind that isn't easily fooled by bright bells and whistles and a mind that doesn't feel the need to join a rquazi religious order to feel good about itself.

Right. That would be because it comes as no surprise to a lot of Earth scientists that the present warming is out of whack with that paleohistory because of the huge volumes of greenhouse gas emissions we are emitting every year, and have emitted in a geologically short peior of time, emissions about which you've yet to address my earlier question.

Once again, prove that CO2 is the culprit. You keep making the claim and making the claim and you keep being completely unable to prove it. Did you note the CO2 levels on the graph I provided? Hundreds, thousands of times higher and no runaway global warming.

I suspect that you know very little about paleohistory, and wouln't know the first thing about how to go about reconstructing it, much less about collecting data on it.

I suspect all you need to know you have already ignored.

If you are actually what you say you are, then you are a disgrace to the profession. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.

The fact that you have been reduced to hand wringing and mewling your flawed observations on my character rather than defending your positon states pretty clearly that I am pretty damned good at what I do and have bested you already.

Since you are one of those who has been duped by one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on modern society, your opinion means exactly jack squat to me. I would be more concerned if you weren't attacking me.

Now are you ready to admit that you can't substantiate your claims with any hard observed evidence or will you continue with the mental masturbation?

 

[palerider]

What utter nonsense. There are two types of species. One is a specialist, such as an aardvark, which eats a specific type of food and lives in a specific environment. The other is the generalist, who can eat most anything and live most anywhere. One reason our species is so successful is that we are generalists. We can eat a lot of dsifferent types of food, and move into a lot of difference niches. So to suggest that if I can't say what the optimum temperature for us is that that somehow negates global warming is a completely meaningless statement. We aren't the only species that habitates this planet. Not only that, but it is because there are so many of us and we are living in so many different environments, that global warming can and likely will so adversely affect us. And that is because climate change is affecting environments across the board, dude. And if it is affecting us so broadly, imagine what it must be doing to the specialists of the world. Gee, for an alleged biochemist, you sure don't see to know much about biology.

Translation = one more claim you can't sbstantiate. What a surprise. And even when you are acknowledging that you can't substantiate your claims, you simply have to repeat the claims again. Talk about sad.

No, what the are doing is making scientific predictions that are testable. Weather men also make predictions. And yet I don't see anyone claiming that they are "evil Marxists trying to take over the world". Do you?

Care to examine some of the comparisons between the predictions and observed data? Here have a look. Simulation hasn't improved much since the site was last updated. Simulation results, rarely, if ever, match observed data. Of course there are plenty of people like you who don't even know that what you are preaching is for the most part the result of computer simulations rather than actual collected data.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

And the wetherman isn't asking for me to change my life. They aren't asking for a huge transfer of wealth from industrial countries to the third world.

 

[palerider]

Oh, I'm sure you could find three theories that I would reject, they just wouldn't be scientific theories.

Lets see.

Do you accept the theory of biophotons? How about odic force? Morphogenetic fields? Lamarckian evolution? Applied kinesiology? Crystal power? Iridology ? Autodynamics ? Hidden variable theory? Synchronicity?

Do you really subscribe to all of these?

I "claim" that you reject the theory of evolution, and global warming theory. As for the third, relativity, I'm not sure, but your posts make your rejection of the other two pretty clear.

Then clearly you are making a false claim? The question is whether your false claim was made deliberately or as the result of an inability to read words and understand their meanings?

I reject portions of the theory of evolution, not the theory in its entirety. AGW is not a theory. It is a half assed, piss poor hypothesis unsupported by any hard data. And I clearly stated that I have no position with regard to relativity. You have just been caught fabricating data in an effort to support your theory. Unsurpising considering the sort of "science" you view as valid.

 

[palerider]

Does the theory of gravity have flaws?

Yes, but it is supported by a certain amount of hard, observed, testable and repeatable data.

Does the theory of flight have flaws?

Yes, but it is supported by a certain amount of hard, observed, testable and repeatable data.

Does germ theory have flaws?

Yes, but it is supported by a certain amount of hard, observed, testable and repeatable data.

I

f you answered yes to these questions, then my next question is how do any flaws in these theories negate their overall validity when we see every day the amazing scientific advances they have given us?

As I pointed out, they are supported by at least some, in most cases a fairly large body of hard observed, testable, and repeatable data.

Now how about you point out any hard, observed, testable and repeatable data that exists to support any of your pet theories.

 

[palerider]

Just because I might wonder just how anyone in this day and age might reject basic science, that doesn't mean I dislike them.

By your own admission, you don't know the basic science. You accept what one group says vs the other based on your political leanings, not any knowledge of the basic science.

I believe I could go a lot further towards supporting a hypothesis that liberals accept or reject science based on thier political leanings rather than any actual knowledge of the subject using hard, observed data and honest analysis than you could in your claim that conservatives must reject 3 scientific theories.

 

[GenSeneca]

Intelligent people scrutinize AGW every day, and ever other scientific theory, for that matter.

In what way could I scrutinize AGW that would not result in you claiming I was anti-science or just plain stupid?

As far as I can tell, if I don't agree with the belief in AGW, I'm either anti-science or too stupid to understand... PLC has said as much.

What is stupid is when certain people, for political, economic, or religious purposes, vilify science and the people who conduct research.

Oh, like the warmers do anytime there is scientific evidence that contradicts their belief in AGW?

We can have an intelligent discussion of all these theories.

Just apparently not with each other.

The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

What legislation was enacted to force the population to comply with the theory of gravity?

 

[PLC1]

By your own admission, you don't know the basic science. You accept what one group says vs the other based on your political leanings, not any knowledge of the basic science.

What do your political leanings lead you to substitute for the theory of evolution?

I believe I could go a lot further towards supporting a hypothesis that liberals accept or reject science based on thier political leanings rather than any actual knowledge of the subject using hard, observed data and honest analysis than you could in your claim that conservatives must reject 3 scientific theories.

Good. Please do so.

What scientific theories do liberals have to reject based on their political leanings? That has the makings for an interesting discussion.

 

[orogenicman]

Palerider. You seem to think that because I support the view on scientific grounds that man-induced global warming is occurring, that I must defend it as if I am a lone wolf in the wilderness, as if it is not already fully accepted by the world's scientific community. Nothing could be further from the truth. AGW is supported by the vast majority of the world's scientists as well as most governments. The fact is that a very small very right wing minority of scientists (most of whom are either on the payroll of the oil giants, or have received funding from them, and many of whom aren't even scientists at all) don't support the view, and are bleeping like sheeps to tear it down. The fact is that they claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas when over 60 years of research clearly shows it is. The fact is that they make all kinds of excuses for why the Earth is warming, but cannot say what is causing the current warming, or why it is warming so rapidly. All they can do is repeat the mantra that "we didn't do it", and yet cannot explain what,if not global warming, that 6 billion tons of CO2 every year is doing to our atmosphere, and apparently believe that it is a completely inert gas. And because they can't give an alternative theory that actually explains the fact (which they can't even agree on themselves much less agree with anyone else on what those facts are), they (like their creationist brethren, who, by the way, really are "priests", or preachers, if you will, religious folk) concentrate their efforts on trying to destroy not only the science, but the individuals who practice it. I give you the non-existent scandal that was climategate, which by the way, really was a scandal, the scandal being that someone illegally accessed a government server to illegally obtain private e-mails of certain scientists, and then post select examples of those e-mails on the internet in order to attempt to defame those individuals and also derail the international climate negotiations that occurred only a few days after those communications went public. The fact that every single one of those scientists were exonerated of the accusations that we made about them escapes them, or else they claim the investigations were a whitewash. The fact that they committed not only these acts of slander but violated the law in doing so not only shows how desparate they are, but how unprofessional and unethical are the people who are skeptical of AGW. Hey, but come on, defend what they did, Palerider. In fact, set an example for your side and openly publish all of your private e-mails for all the world to see so you can prove to the whole world that you've done nothing unethical in your own field.

 

[orogenicman]

OGM - "What utter nonsense. There are two types of species. One is a specialist, such as an aardvark, which eats a specific type of food and lives in a specific environment. The other is the generalist, who can eat most anything and live most anywhere. One reason our species is so successful is that we are generalists. We can eat a lot of dsifferent types of food, and move into a lot of difference niches. So to suggest that if I can't say what the optimum temperature for us is that that somehow negates global warming is a completely meaningless statement. We aren't the only species that habitates this planet. Not only that, but it is because there are so many of us and we are living in so many different environments, that global warming can and likely will so adversely affect us. And that is because climate change is affecting environments across the board, dude. And if it is affecting us so broadly, imagine what it must be doing to the specialists of the world. Gee, for an alleged biochemist, you sure don't see to know much about biology."

Palerider - Translation = one more claim you can't sbstantiate. What a surprise. And even when you are acknowledging that you can't substantiate your claims, you simply have to repeat the claims again. Talk about sad.

So you are telling the rest of us that you don't think that the very basic biological fact of specialists and generalists is real, either? Did you not attend biology 101 in college? Do you believe that we are the only species that inhabits this planet, or do you believe that we are the only species that counts (probably the latter, eh)?

If you can say what the "optimum" temperature is, let's see it, and then let's see you defend it. I'll give you a ballpark figure, though, one that you yourself have already posted in one of your graphics - 17 degrees C, which is the average global temperature for Earth going back to the Cambrian period. But so what?

 

[orogenicman]

"And the wetherman isn't asking for me to change my life"

So when the weatherman warns of an impending tornado in your viewing area, you just run outside and complain to the tornado that it cannot change your life? Wow, that just takes my breath away.

 

[orogenicman]

warwick hughs - wow, another fringe element ("free lance" scientist). Am I supposed to be impressed?

 

[orogenicman]

"Now how about you point out any hard, observed, testable and repeatable data that exists to support any of your pet theories."

Are you suggesting that the theory of evolution doesn't have any hard, observed, testable, repeatable data in it's support? Or do you believe that God created fossils in order to confuse evil scientists? Or that like your belief with AGW, that DNA is an illusion, that genetics is not supported by any "hard, observed, testable and repeatable data"?

 

[orogenicman]

"You accept what one group says vs the other"

Well, dude, when the "other" group consists of non-scientists, or mostly unknown scientists mostly uninvolved in peer reviewed science, drummed up by the Petroleum, coal, and chemical industries in order to get the public think the the world's real scientists are involved in a conspiracy theory to bring down the world's economy so they can continue to pollute the planet, when the "other" group consists mostly of self-absorbed crack pots, yeah, a lot of thinking people tend not to take their word for it. But I'll give them credit where credit is due. They've managed to convert a lot of uneducated people to their way of thinking, and in doing so, may be endangering us all. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

"In what way could I scrutinize AGW that would not result in you claiming I was anti-science or just plain stupid?"

Well, you could start by learning something about the scientific method, not automaticaly believing that real scientists doing real work on global warming are evil witches out to destroy the world's economy, perhaps give them a little credit for the very hard, often thankless work they do for often very low pay, despite the years and years of colleged education they invested in which put many of them in considerable debt, by not automatically taking the skeptics word on the matter simply because they are telling you what you want to hear. Shall I go on? Oh, then you can do some actual literary research in the peer-reviewed journals to see what the real scientists are saying and why.