NationStates Jolt Archive

Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 02, 2004

Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Compete article: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200412/CUL20041202a.html

I don't believe it but I think on balance it seems to be a theory that explains the available facts better than any other theories at the current time. Scientific method in other words.

This guy has guts. It won't take long for liberals to attack him and attempt to destroy him.

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question."No, it isn't.

Its just common sense to plan for the events that "may" happen and if they do, said event could be very harmfull to us.

This guy has guts. It won't take long for liberals to attack him and attempt to destroy him.

What, the liberal anti-meteorological lobby? WTF are you talking about?

Its just common sense to plan for the events that "may" happen and if they do, said event could be very harmfull to us.
So you are planning for the possibility that eating tofu may actually be bad for you and could kill me. Enlighten me of this plan.

No, it isn't.
Why not just type in bold print that you didn't even bother to read the article?

A quick perusal of the article's homepage reveals this to be yet another right-wing soapbox.

yeah the world isnt getting warmer. it didnt snow more when your grandparents were kids yet they said it did. the world isnt getting warmer, go go ice age!

Recession of the ice caps, warming trends, and ocean salinity changes are observable and measurable facts; therefore, global warming is science, not "religious" or even "speculative." Sadly the Bush administration plays an "uncertainty prevails" policy to prevent having to enforce limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

What a maroon. (the weatherman)

A quick perusal of the article's homepage reveals this to be yet another right-wing soapbox.

Quoting a man that happens to be the head of the university department which would have the most say on this issue in one of the most presitigious scientifc universities in the world.

So you are planning for the possibility that eating tofu may actually be bad for you and could kill me. Enlighten me of this plan.


Good anology here fruit loop. Your talking about tofu and I am talking about planning for global warming and trying to come up with ways to reduce emissons that "may" cause massive destruction in the world. If global warming turns out to be BS, we just have less smog whereas if global warming does occur, we have massive damage.

Good thinking fuck nuts! :rolleyes:

Global warming has been measured - it is occurring. This is not a religious belief, it is measurable fact.

Now, the question becomes: What is causing global warming?

The prevailing scientific opinion is that it is a mixture of things which happens to include greenhouse gases.
A fringe scientific opinion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that humans might ever do and is solely due to normal fluctuations.

The truth is probably the former, as anyone who claims to completely discount a possible source without *clear* proof for a reason to discount that source is usually wrong.


Now, the "impending doom" type fear that people have is very much like religious fundamentalism, taking something to its extreme based on what other people say, rather than examining the evidence. Of course, this can also be said for the "pollution doesn't do anything!" believers.

Good anology here fruit loop. Your talking about tofu and I am talking about planning for global warming and trying to come up with ways to reduce emissons that "may" cause massive destruction in the world. If global warming turns out to be BS, we just have less smog whereas if global warming does occur, we have massive damage.

Good thinking fuck nuts! :rolleyes:
Now, now, children! Tsk! :D

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen

yep, we all know that global warming deniers argue exactly like creationists. they ran out of legitimate arguments nearly a decade ago, so really, its not like they had much of a choice.

"do you believe in evolution? that is a religious question..."

Global warming has been measured - it is occurring. This is not a religious belief, it is measurable fact..
It has been since the ice ages. Blame it on dinosaur-factory emissions? It has also had periods of expansion and contraction which had no correlation with human events.

Now, the question becomes: What is causing global warming?

No, it is "What is causing the CURRENT round of global warming"

The prevailing scientific opinion is that it is a mixture of things which happens to include greenhouse gases.
A fringe scientific opinion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that humans might ever do and is solely due to normal fluctuations.

The truth is probably the former, as anyone who claims to completely discount a possible source without *clear* proof for a reason to discount that source is usually wrong.

And there is where you err. The difference between science and religion is that religion accepts something as fact with no (or in spite of) evidence. They will accept something as fact then attempt to 'prove' it.

Science, on the other hand, will make a postulation then do everything possible to disprove it. If it becomes impossible to disprove it is assumed to be fact until otherwise found.

So making an assumption based on a hypothesis while there is still considerable evidence that it may not be valid and even more variables to check turns it from an issue of science to faith.

Faith meaning that it may be right and is assumed to be right, but it is not yet proven to be factual. Faith is closer to religion than science. Therefore this person is correct, and your 'fringe' scientists are the only ones who are applying scientific method - they are the only real scientists.

Global warming is a reality, much a much less harsh one than a lot of people think. Every few hundred years, the earth gets a little cooler, then a little warmer again, due to the orbit. Pumping fumes into the air still isn't good, though.

It has been since the ice ages. Blame it on dinosaur-factory emissions? It has also had periods of expansion and contraction which had no correlation with human events.
(... stupid blabla...)

It depends if you consider a global warming of 2 degrees over 15 000 years to be comparable to a global warming of 1 degree in 100 years. Got it?

It has been since the ice ages. Blame it on dinosaur-factory emissions? It has also had periods of expansion and contraction which had no correlation with human events.

This is speculation, as we cannot measure what the temperature did millions of years ago. It is a valid idea, and there is evidence to back it up, but it still speculation.

And there is where you err. The difference between science and religion is that religion accepts something as fact with no (or in spite of) evidence. They will accept something as fact then attempt to 'prove' it.

The point I have been making for quite a while.

Science, on the other hand, will make a postulation then do everything possible to disprove it. If it becomes impossible to disprove it is assumed to be fact until otherwise found.

Wrong. Science makes a theory based on all possible evidence. Then, if evidence comes along that disproves it, the theory is changed. Science does perform experiments that *could* disprove the theory, and if it consistently holds up to such experiments, it remains the current theory.

So making an assumption based on a hypothesis while there is still considerable evidence that it may not be valid and even more variables to check turns it from an issue of science to faith.

Which would be what those who say "Human beings have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with global warming" are doing.

Faith is closer to religion than science. Therefore this person is correct, and your 'fringe' scientists are the only ones who are applying scientific method - they are the only real scientists.

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you might have a point. However, the "fringe" scientists ignore quite a bit of data, just like Creationists do.

Like I said, those who say "all global warming is caused by human beings" are faith-based, but so are those who say "no global warming is caused by human beings. Pollution doesn't hurt anything!"

"Do you believe in global warming?" is a meaningless question. It makes more sense to look at the issue by considering it as a chain of specific questions:

*Is the Earth (taken as a whole) getting measurably hotter or cooler?
*Are these changes we are measuring real, or have we made a mistake in our data collection or analysis.
*If the changes are real, what's causing them?
*Are they natural (i.e., long term climate cycles, natural greenhouse gas emissions, or solar output variability) or are they anthropogenic?
*If the climate changes are anthropogenic can we abate/reverse them?
*How much would doing so cost, and would it be cheaper to deal with the consequences or to address the problem? What are the risk/rewards of either path?
*If climate change is caused by human action, and it makes sense to abate/reverse it, how is the best way to go about that? Emission caps? Carbon sequestration? Alternative fuels?
*Which solutions are politically possible? (i.e, what can you actually get people to do.)

Different people take different positions (both scientific and political) on the various questions above. It's a subject way too complicated to boil down to a single question.

This is speculation, as we cannot measure what the temperature did millions of years ago. It is a valid idea, and there is evidence to back it up, but it still speculation.!"

Given that the polar icecaps no longer reach past the great lakes I think it is a fair assumption.



Wrong. Science makes a theory based on all possible evidence. Then, if evidence comes along that disproves it, the theory is changed. Science does perform experiments that *could* disprove the theory, and if it consistently holds up to such experiments, it remains the current theory."

In other words, what I said.



Which would be what those who say "Human beings have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with global warming" are doing..
It could be applied to anyone making a judgement with insufficient or inconclusive data -though few people would make the statement you quoted, there are many who say it is too soon to determine how much, if any, global warming can be attributed to human activity. They are the actual scientists rather than the faithful disciples.



If you actually knew what you were talking about, you might have a point. However, the "fringe" scientists ignore quite a bit of data, just like Creationists do.
Ah yes, a cheap shot - evidence you are threatened. After denial comes anger, then bargaining, then depression and finally acceptance. Glad to see you made the first step.


Like I said, those who say "all global warming is caused by human beings" are faith-based, but so are those who say "no global warming is caused by human beings. Pollution doesn't hurt anything!"
We agree. So then you also agree that it is too soon to mandate extreeme environmental standards that may have no impact or relevance based solely on faith.

Given that the polar icecaps no longer reach past the great lakes I think it is a fair assumption.

We know that the world is now warmer than in the ice age. We do not know and have no reason to assume that the temperatures has been changing at a constant rate for that entire time.

It could be applied to anyone making a judgement with insufficient or inconclusive data -though few people would make the statement you quoted, there are many who say it is too soon to determine how much, if any, global warming can be attributed to human activity. They are the actual scientists rather than the faithful disciples.

Which is exactly what I said when I said that the scientific community agrees that global warming comes from a variety of effects, some of which may be attributed to human activity. I explicitly stated that both the "humans don't do anything at all to the temperature!" (ie, the fringe scientists I referred to) and the "Oh my God! We're all going to die because humans completley cause global warming! are **equally** at fault.

Ah yes, a cheap shot - evidence you are threatened. After denial comes anger, then bargaining, then depression and finally acceptance. Glad to see you made the first step.

You are the one who first stated that the fringe scientists who state that there is no way whatsoever that humans are contributed to global warming were correct, and are *now* stating that only those who say it is all human activity are practising poor science.

We agree. So then you also agree that it is too soon to mandate extreeme environmental standards that may have no impact or relevance based solely on faith.

I think that there are other health risks that would add to the reasons for environmental standards above and beyond the idea of global warming. I also believe that, given that the majority of the scientific community feels that human activity does have *some* effect, it is better to be safe than sorry and we should do what we can to minimize that possible effect. However, I don't think there should be "extreme" standards, and I don't think that they should only be backed up with "OH MY GOD!!! IT"S HOT OUTSIDE!!!"

Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com


CNSNews is a division of Media Research Center, a far right conservative "news" machine, headed by L. Brent Bozell III, who also is the head of the Conservative Victory Committee. Their largest grant contributor is the Scaife Foundation, best known for their relentless attack dog tactics in trying to bring down the Clinton administration.

Bozell has campaigned vigorously to get rid of PBS and served as National Finance Chairman for Pat Buchanan's presidential run.

Judge the veracity and bias of this "source" for yourself.

welp.global warming is happening.indisputable fact.

now the real question is.how much is caused by humanity?and is that enough to threaten any major climeants.
now i dont know how much is caused by humanity.so i cant comment on that.
HOWEVER considering the human species cannot survive as it is outside an iceage,global warming is a big threat to our existanse.beyond the effect pollotion has on us directly.

my belief holds to better safe than sorry,we HAVE alternitive fuel.yet for some reason we DONT use them.that to me is the problem.

I have always blamed global warming on the Sun getting hotter.

"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.


Gee what party does he belong too?

yep, we all know that global warming deniers argue exactly like creationists. they ran out of legitimate arguments nearly a decade ago, so really, its not like they had much of a choice.

"do you believe in evolution? that is a religious question..."

Main difference is this, there are multiple explanations for the occurrence of global warming and cooling. I.e: That it is the result of human activity is not concrete. As opposed to the current state of humans, which is undeniably the result of evolution.

The main point the MIT professor was addressing in his actual speech was that people claim there is scientific consensus of global warming occurring as a result of human activity.

So, no, air quality researchers and meteorologists who deny the concept that global warming is a direct result of human activity are not like creationists, and are not without legitimate arguments.

So, no, air quality researchers and meteorologists who deny the concept that global warming is a direct result of human activity are not like creationists, and are not without legitimate arguments.

There is quite a bit of evidence that human activity has *some* impact on the global temperature. The valid arguments are as to how much difference we are making, but there is a general consensus that we are making *some* difference, however small.

Those who ignore this evidence and state that humans have *no* impact whatsoever on global warming are very much like creationists.

There is quite a bit of evidence that human activity has *some* impact on the global temperature. The valid arguments are as to how much difference we are making, but there is a general consensus that we are making *some* difference, however small.

Those who ignore this evidence and state that humans have *no* impact whatsoever on global warming are very much like creationists.
.. and those who say that human activity is solely responsible for global warming are very much like evangelists.

Since when do religions state whether global warming will occur or not.

Why don't we just assume the worst and make laws to clean stuff up, instead of arguing over whether its real or not...... Better safe than sorry, and there are plenty of environmental effects that we can prove are harmful that would be reduced as a result of tighter controls.

Opposing this viewpoint shows either A: there is some money moving around behind the scenes, or B: the person trying to argue has some personal reason to refute global warming. Unless there is an actual, powerful, negative incentive in trying to prevent global warming, we should do it just to say we've tried our best.

Since when do religions state whether global warming will occur or not.
At this point attributing the cause to human activity requires a leap of faith.

Why don't we just assume the worst and make laws to clean stuff up, instead of arguing over whether its real or not.
Sounds alot like faith to me.

Maybe we should also assume the worst and make laws to force Christian values on people to protect our country from God's wrath, whether it's real or not.

yeah the world isnt getting warmer. it didnt snow more when your grandparents were kids yet they said it did. the world isnt getting warmer, go go ice age!
the average global temperature is increasing. and it is doing so much faster than has occured naturally over the geological history of our planet.

we go through ice ages now and then and periods of greater warmth, this is true. this is partially due to the changing eccentricity of our planet's orbit around the sun.

however, the rate of change in the temperature suggests that the current rise in global warming is not a natural phenomenon.

.. and those who say that human activity is solely responsible for global warming are very much like evangelists.
more like the people who sit there and blatantly ignore the evidence that this isn't normal for our planet are the evangelists... proclaiming that everyone else is horribly misguided by evidence. what can we humans ever do wrong... we're perfect, right?

This guy has guts. It won't take long for liberals to attack him and attempt to destroy him.
Agreed. Environmentalism is, in a vague and distant way, a new belief system based on faith. Even when confronted with evidence supporting the opposing viewpoint, they remain true to their original beliefs.

Unless there is an actual, powerful, negative incentive in trying to prevent global warming, we should do it just to say we've tried our best.
There is. Your paycheck gets jacked every payday to support an "if".

the average global temperature is increasing. and it is doing so much faster than has occured naturally over the geological history of our planet.

we go through ice ages now and then and periods of greater warmth, this is true. this is partially due to the changing eccentricity of our planet's orbit around the sun.

however, the rate of change in the temperature suggests that the current rise in global warming is not a natural phenomenon.
Actually there is no concrete evidence to back up those claims and aconsiderable amount to cast doubt on them. The article linked at the beginning of this thread makes that pretty clear.

this was on rush a few about a week ago

more like the people who sit there and blatantly ignore the evidence that this isn't normal for our planet are the evangelists... proclaiming that everyone else is horribly misguided by evidence. what can we humans ever do wrong... we're perfect, right?
Do you really need someone to connect the dots for you? I had hoped the posters here were above that. Your thread pretty much points out the whole point of what makes you no better than the evangelists - a complete dismissal of any person, evidence or suggestion that challenges your view of the truth. Amen brother!

It has been since the ice ages. Blame it on dinosaur-factory emissions? It has also had periods of expansion and contraction which had no correlation with human events.

*puts hand on forehead*

for one thing: there have been a number of ice ages. therewill continue to be ice ages. there are a number of factors for this, the ellpiticity of the earth, the nuation of the earth (the planet's incline rocks between 21 and 24 degrees) and even precession to a certain extent.

the earth naturally goes through phases of high and low temperature.

however, this increase is much more rapid than the previous increases in our planet's history. this indicates that it's not natural warming, but caused by something that wasn't present in previous warming cycles.

And there is where you err. The difference between science and religion is that religion accepts something as fact with no (or in spite of) evidence. They will accept something as fact then attempt to 'prove' it.

Science, on the other hand, will make a postulation then do everything possible to disprove it. If it becomes impossible to disprove it is assumed to be fact until otherwise found.

there is strong evidence to suggest that we are at least partially to blame for the current rapid increase in temperature on this planet.

So making an assumption based on a hypothesis while there is still considerable evidence that it may not be valid and even more variables to check turns it from an issue of science to faith.

what considerable evidence? the evidence we have points to a much faster increase in temperature than we would normally have. something is not right here. if i could get my astro notes here, i'd post a little thing we have in our notes on the global temperature going back to before the dinosaurs... this is the fastest change in temperature. something different is going on and it doesn't seem like it should be going on.

this was on rush a few about a week ago
Judging from your previous posts, I would've thought that you would be attacking global warming.

Actually there is no concrete evidence to back up those claims and aconsiderable amount to cast doubt on them. The article linked at the beginning of this thread makes that pretty clear.
there is evidence for a much faster increase.

you see, when the temperature increases, the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 changes. oxygen 16 is lighter and it evaporates easier. thus when the temperature increases, the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 increases.

now, various shell forming sea creatures use the molecules from the ocean to form their shells. my analysing the ratio of O18 to O16 in seashells both current and ancient, we can tell how warm the earth was on average when those particular sea animals lived.

this data has been carefully plotted and the slope of the temperature over the past 100 years or so is noticibly steeper than previously.

Do you really need someone to connect the dots for you? I had hoped the posters here were above that. Your thread pretty much points out the whole point of what makes you no better than the evangelists - a complete dismissal of any person, evidence or suggestion that challenges your view of the truth. Amen brother!
you are the one ignoring evidence.

It depends if you consider a global warming of 2 degrees over 15 000 years to be comparable to a global warming of 1 degree in 100 years. Got it?
you know, you're the only one here who made this very valid point earlier..

and you seem to be the only one who didn't get responded to be the denial crowd.

more like the people who sit there and blatantly ignore the evidence that this isn't normal for our planet are the evangelists... proclaiming that everyone else is horribly misguided by evidence. what can we humans ever do wrong... we're perfect, right?
Dakini, I respect your opinion only because your belief structure makes this the obvious position for you to take. A Buddhist believes they'll most likey have to return to this planet again and again, so the future you has to deal with it.
Makes sense for you on that level.

For the others. do you know that GreenPeace's creator left the orgainization because he felt that it had become hijacked by greasy political groups hungry for funding and power? Disgusted by their crude manipulation of available data to fit their long-term agendas, he left to pursue his own goals.
Ever since it's been run by dangerous, militant fascists with a ravenous thirst for power that rivals even the most ardent capitalists they claim to oppose.

*puts hand on forehead* (and shouts "Heathen!!")


the earth naturally goes through phases of high and low temperature.

however, this increase is much more rapid than the previous increases in our planet's history. this indicates that it's not natural warming, but caused by something that wasn't present in previous warming cycles.
.

According to whom? What is there methodology? Who has verified it from non-correlated sources? What bias may the researchers have? What is the potential for error?

Since humans have only been around for 50,000 years, and modern weather measurement for a fraction of that, it would take a considerable leap of faith to attribute any validity to a statement of what the weather was like in London May 5th, 345,000 BC. (I think it was raining that day)

you know, you're the only one here who made this very valid point earlier..

and you seem to be the only one who didn't get responded to be the denial crowd.
Because us 'environmental atheists' see no validity to his statement.

Show me the money.

According to whom? What is there methodology? Who has verified it from non-correlated sources? What bias may the researchers have? What is the potential for error?

Since humans have only been around for 50,000 years, and modern weather measurement for a fraction of that, it would take a considerable leap of faith to attribute any validity to a statement of what the weather was like in London May 5th, 345,000 BC. (I think it was raining that day)
did you just completely ignore my whole explanation about the ratio of different isotopes of oxygen in the ocean? i'm glad i wrote that all out to someone who totally ignored it... it had nothing to do with specific weather at specific locations, but the average global temperature...

next time you say i'm ignoring evidence, remember this.

also, isn't distorting quotes a bannable offense?

Dakini, I respect your opinion only because your belief structure makes this the obvious position for you to take. A Buddhist believes they'll most likey have to return to this planet again and again, so the future you has to deal with it.
Makes sense for you on that level.
i'm not exactly a buddhist. i just find it very interesting.

but even if i didn't think there was a possibility of reincarnation... i plan on having kids someday. i want them to be able to grow up with breathable air and shit. also, it's truly sad that we take such poor care of the planet that we can't really live without barring the invention of working warp drives and the discovery of another earth-like planet.

For the others. do you know that GreenPeace's creator left the orgainization because he felt that it had become hijacked by greasy political groups hungry for funding and power? Disgusted by their crude manipulation of available data to fit their long-term agendas, he left to pursue his own goals.
Ever since it's been run by dangerous, militant fascists with a ravenous thirst for power that rivals even the most ardent capitalists they claim to oppose.
i don't care about greenpeace, this isn't where i got my information.

i got my information from scientific studies... not greenpeace related ones. to hell with them for all i care. i'm a scientist first and foremost... and the evidence we have is that this isn't a normal temperature increase.

i don't care about greenpeace, this isn't where i got my information.

i got my information from scientific studies... not greenpeace related ones. to hell with them for all i care. i'm a scientist first and foremost... and the evidence we have is that this isn't a normal temperature increase.
Too generic. Show me these studies and I'll show you a Greenpeace association.
They're the ACLU of the environmentalist movement. Face facts, without them the movement would probably crumble from lack of funding for the studies you claim to support.
Greenpeace is rather proud of this fact.

Too generic. Show me these studies and I'll show you a Greenpeace association.
They're the ACLU of the environmentalist movement. Face facts, without them the movement would probably crumble from lack of funding for the studies you claim to support.
Greenpeace is rather proud of this fact.
umm... you do know that there are universities with environmental science programmes, right?

and generally, professors study this kind of stuff and receive funding directly from the schools, right? it promotes the school to get a study published.

i'll dig up the source on that particular study, but i still don't think that it's a greenpeace organization deal. it's a scientific study... numbers simply don't lie.

umm... you do know that there are universities with environmental science programmes, right?

and generally, professors study this kind of stuff and receive funding directly from the schools, right? it promotes the school to get a study published.

i'll dig up the source on that particular study, but i still don't think that it's a greenpeace organization deal. it's a scientific study... numbers simply don't lie.


Ummm, no. Usually these studies are funded either by private organizations with political agendas, or are (most of the time) funded by grants the government *awards* with our hard earned tax dollars.
And *numbers don't lie*? No they don't. The scientists who manipulate these numbers and spin them to fit their agendas do.

Ummm, no. Usually these studies are funded either by private organizations with political agendas, or are (most of the time) funded by grants the government *awards* with our hard earned tax dollars.
And *numbers don't lie*? No they don't. The scientists who manipulate these numbers and spin them to fit their agendas do.
i know for a fact that my school does a lot of scientific research.
a lot of my profs are not here to teach, they are here to do research. and the research money comes from tuition and from allumni donations. hell, micheal degroote just gave my school the most money ever given to a candian university on the condition that my school's medical research facilities devote some time to curing a disease he has.

and generally when you look at a study, it is attributed to a university, or someone who is employed at a university.

and webct (the website my course info including notes is on) is being retarded so i can't find the study's source right now.

i can copy out what i have in my notes, if you'd like.

also, i did some research on greenpeace and it seems that those who go on about how it's an evil organization seem to have agendas of their own... so i don't know how credible the detractors of greenpeace are either.

i know for a fact that my school does a lot of scientific research.
a lot of my profs are not here to teach, they are here to do research. and the research money comes from tuition and from allumni donations. hell, micheal degroote just gave my school the most money ever given to a candian university on the condition that my school's medical research facilities devote some time to curing a disease he has.

and generally when you look at a study, it is attributed to a university, or someone who is employed at a university.

and webct (the website my course info including notes is on) is being retarded so i can't find the study's source right now.

i can copy out what i have in my notes, if you'd like.

also, i did some research on greenpeace and it seems that those who go on about how it's an evil organization seem to have agendas of their own... so i don't know how credible the detractors of greenpeace are either.

That says it all. In Canada, most of that grant money is going to socialist programs like welfare and unemployment, and I'd doubt your school would be awarded huge science grants from your government, save for the Sociology department.

Your second comment was intelligent. I'd agree that most of the detractors of Greenpeace have their own agendas, everyone does.

You act as though there's something wrong with helping other people out?

I don't mind paying a little more in taxes, personally. And also, american universities do a fair amount of research too, this same prof has presented models for the collapse of solar nebulae done by professors at yale.

Not to mention that my government does also fund scientific research programmes. Hell, our space expolration guys don't have to ask a bunch of non-scientists every year for money. They talk to scientists who will know the value of real scientific work instead of say, sending men to mars...

Furthermore, my school gets funding in general from the government. This is why my tuition isn't rediculous. I don't know whether it goes to research or just into the school in general.

Judging from your previous posts, I would've thought that you would be attacking global warming.
what you mean me saying that there is no such thing
i dont need to say it

It has been since the ice ages. Blame it on dinosaur-factory emissions? It has also had periods of expansion and contraction which had no correlation with human events.

No, it is "What is causing the CURRENT round of global warming"


And there is where you err. The difference between science and religion is that religion accepts something as fact with no (or in spite of) evidence. They will accept something as fact then attempt to 'prove' it.

Science, on the other hand, will make a postulation then do everything possible to disprove it. If it becomes impossible to disprove it is assumed to be fact until otherwise found.

So making an assumption based on a hypothesis while there is still considerable evidence that it may not be valid and even more variables to check turns it from an issue of science to faith.

Faith meaning that it may be right and is assumed to be right, but it is not yet proven to be factual. Faith is closer to religion than science. Therefore this person is correct, and your 'fringe' scientists are the only ones who are applying scientific method - they are the only real scientists.

Illogical assumption. Using a the scientific method and arriving at conclusions in line with consensus thinking is still using the scientifc method.

Your highly illogical conclusion would mean that only a scientist doing a study to test something like the second law of thermodynamics in a closed, non-dynamic, equilibrium system would only be using the scientifc method and thus a 'real' scientist if he observed that entropy did not, in fact, exist.

Consensus over time by _numerous scientists_ using the scientific method is how theories are accepted. It is possible that all scientists works are faulty. That is why the most likely theory is the most repeatable shown using the sceintific method.

Michael Crichton actually wrote a very interesting article about this a couple weeks back where he pointed out just how many doomsday theories that scientists have come up with recently have turned out to be completely frivoluous.

I cannot find an online version, but basically to summarize, he pointed towards the shifting doomsday theories that have been presented over the past 50 years. From "The Next Great Ice Age" circa the 50s/early 60s, that claimed the world was about to plummeted into a major ice age, to the over-population theory that claimed by the early 2010s the Earths population would be flying towards 10 billion with no stop in sight, and tens of millions dying per year. Both of these theories have turned out to be completely invalid, and are now almost comical, as the most modern suggestions put Earth's long term population at about 9 billion following stabilization in the modern 3rd world nations. He also pointed to shorter doomsday eruptions like Y2K, the Red Scare/Doomsday Device, etc. Other examples included the theory that power wires gave cancer (now research indicates that their magnetic fields may actually have medical benefits on multiple levels), cellular phones leading to brain cancer (research now starting to indicate cellular radiation may actually aid brain efficiency, not harm it), etc.

We have always found a way to scare the living shit out of ourselves. Global Warming is nearly the newest and most supported of the phenomenon. Living in the NE, I can tell you that the last few winters, including last years which broke multiple records, have sure as hell not been any less powerful than those the elders speak of ;-). Last year in a 3 day span we got nearly 30 inches of snow at one point. Other times it was so cold I was wearing 5 layers when I had to go out for prolonged periods. Hell, the first BoSox game I saw that year I was wearing four levels, and still nearly froze to death.

Don't freak yourselves out.

EDIT: I forgot, he also mentioned the revisions that the theory have undergone from predictions stating tempatures would be skyrocketing with no stop in sight by ~2000(I don't recall the exact date, it was the prediction from the late 60s/early 70s) that has since fallen to 1-2 degrees over the next decade.

You act as though there's something wrong with helping other people out?
You assume to much, and I'm not acting BTW. Thre is nothing wrong with helping someone out. There is something very right about helping your neighbors out. What's not right is forcing people to help each other out.
To jack my paycheck before I even receive it to help someone out that I've never met and might not want to help is stealing from me. I don't need a babysitter to tell me who I should or shouldn't help.
Thank you so much.
I believe that as a responsible adult I can fully decide for myself whom I choose to offer assistance without any direction from Big Government.
Being forced or coerced into giving does not make you "good". In fact, it barely qualifies as helpful.

Also, if given the liberty I believe to be my birthright, I can exercize my right to double check the charities that I choose to donate to as to how much of my donated proceeds the needy will recieve. Try doing that with any accuracy with Big Government.
Besides, where's your morality? Shouldn't you be giving to the needy without being forced to?
I would love to live in a world free from poverty and dependance. Welfare isn't going to get us there. If it did, we'd be out of that forest years ago, and so would Canada.
I want to help and I do, and I always feel better about that choice when I make it on my own.

What, the liberal anti-meteorological lobby? WTF are you talking about?

No, we "liberals" hate liars and people who claim to be scientists that aren't.

Scientists as a whole have agreed that the Bush administration has been the least cooperative with their educated community, and also, has the worst record as per covering up facts to aid their abominable environmental "policy", i.e. global warming, acid rain, mercury, air quality, etc.

Etrusca, get a clue.

Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

Wow. I think he managed to offend almost everyone with that one.

Look, the Earth has had periods of being all tropical and being all polar in the past. It is in a natural warming period as of now but there is evidence that it is being slightly accelerated by our activities.

Other phenomenon associated with this include that Mt. Kilimanjaro will not have any glacers on it anytime soon and bunkers that were high up on the beach on south pacific islands that were used as military bases in WWII are now flooded when the tide comes in.

But I think that if we are warming up faster, we should cool down faster as well when that time comes.

Michael Crichton actually wrote a very interesting article about this a couple weeks back where he pointed out just how many doomsday theories that scientists have come up with recently have turned out to be completely frivoluous.
Lemme help ya: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB110263812346896330-H9jfYNjlaZ3o5yuZHSHbKWDm4,00.html

Gotta luv Google.

I agreed with most of the article, if only because I'd read what it had argued before and because I simply refuse to believe "doomsday" predictions for being too fantastic.

Yes, the world is warming up- but that's not solely humanity's fault. The Sun is getting warmer, and in about 100 million years it will be too warm for humanity to live on Earth (we'd become the second Venus). Plus, as Tremalkier said, the warming hasn't been continuous- last year was one of the coldest winters I'd ever seen (with the tempertaure being below freezing right into March and barely going past it into about mid-April), whereas two years ago it was a really warm winter (and a warm year all around).

(Note: I live near Toronto)

I've also read elsewhere that Kyoto is useless, as all it will do is slow global warming. However, the last line where if Kyoto is adopted economic doom will take place is exactly like the "doom and gloom" global warming projections the scientist is speaking against. The scientist here is assuming that companies- as any good businessed would not do- would continue with the same production itinerary as they did before, without updating it. If companies were forced, by way of government edicts, to reduce greenhouse emissions, they would find a way to produce their products to stay within the limits. Preferably, the governments would also assist and/or pay for this research, as it is within their best interests to find a way to make their industries Kyoto compliant and still running effectively. However, my point is that if Kyoto passes industries just won't sit there and die- they'll find a way to adapt to survive and most, if not all, will.

If anyone has been noticing the climate going crazy of late, people like that have their heads in concrete because they don't want know about it. I've lived in the same place for 20 years and the maximum temperature for my city has risen from 31-33 to 34-36. It is hotter and weather is more extreme than ever.

Our glaciers are receding at a rate never seen by most in the pre-1900's. Small tropical islands are getting smaller (ie more underwater) and people like this are denying we have a problem.

That CNS News web site is dominated by stories relating to issues pushed by the ultra right wing US lobby (being anti-UN, anti-Gay, pro-pollution industry).

did you just completely ignore my whole explanation about the ratio of different isotopes of oxygen in the ocean? i'm glad i wrote that all out to someone who totally ignored it... it had nothing to do with specific weather at specific locations, but the average global temperature...

next time you say i'm ignoring evidence, remember this.

also, isn't distorting quotes a bananable offense?
You're right, I did ignore that. I didn't see it at the bottom of the page. Thanks for pointing it out.

I would be interested in seeing the source. What other possibilities could explain the higher/lower levels? How is it connected to human activity? etc. I admire you actually providing evidence beyone "I heard it from someone who heard it from someone who was told by a real smart guy".