Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Evangelical Rejection Of Reason And Science

Robert F. Smith

By Robert F. Smith
in Miscellaneous

Recommended Posts

BCSpace Grand Master

BCSpace

Posted
Posted
Unless you are assuming that the treatment of the temple and instructions of how to reverence our bodies is based on irrationality, I don't see how you are getting this possibility out of my post.

I don't think anthropomorphizing energy production and resource use correlates very well to our bodies being the temple of God etc.

So in your opinion CO2 does not trap heat?

According to the latest science, such as the CERN report, it's not trapping enough heat for AGW. The evidence has been pointing that way for years now, from the hockey stick data fiasco to the bogus data from sensors that when revisted, showed GW slowed more than a decade ago.

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Call them silly, if you want, but what is it, in these beliefs, that you would consider, "dangerous"?

Best,

T-Shirt

Mr-T,

I imagine that Giberson & Stephens meant by that the suicidal anti-science and anti-intellectual tendencies, along with the lack of kindness and good manners on the part of some of the fundamentalist and evangelical crowd. On those points at least I quite agree with them. Some of us don't like being jostled down the road to oblivion by that confused and demagogic mob. "Never cry mob!" H. Nibley.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Director General of CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, downplayed the results, however, in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.

"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," he said. "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."

BCSpace Grand Master

BCSpace

Posted
Posted
Director General of CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, downplayed the results, however, in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.

"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," he said. "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."

Sure, but the calculations will have to be completely revised and that means there is nothing supporting AGW.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

BCSpace:

No that isn't what he said. He cautioned against intgerpreting the resulst of the study to make generalization about Global Warming. He said that Cosmic Rays play a role in seed particle formation in the development of clouds, and that is only ONE of many parameters used.

It is an interesting find, but to claim that the science of Global Warming is wrong and isn't happening is at best inconsistant with the known facts.

Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted
Zakuska:

That was great! I am so glad you posted that video, TSS. Tripe-as-facts isn't only being used by climate change deniers, but by the other side as well. I was aware that CO2 lagged temperature by about 800 years (as shown in this clip) and then had to put up with a CO2-is-going-to-kill-us-next-week person claiming that the graph of CO2 vs temp proved that CO2 was to blame for the temperature change -- and was never usually in the position to be able to say, "But wait!"

I'm all for spewing out more CO2 anyway. If we can use elevated CO2 to prevent the next ice age from occurring, then we will have done a good thing. As the video clip indicates, the orbital and rotational elements have a weak forcing action, so a bit more CO2 ought to do the trick.

Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted

That was great! I am so glad you posted that video, TSS. Tripe-as-facts isn't only being used by climate change deniers, but by the other side as well. I was aware that CO2 lagged temperature by about 800 years (as shown in this clip) and then had to put up with a CO2-is-going-to-kill-us-next-week person claiming that the graph of CO2 vs temp proved that CO2 was to blame for the temperature change -- and was never usually in the position to be able to say, "But wait!"

I'm all for spewing out more CO2 anyway. If we can use elevated CO2 to prevent the next ice age from occurring, then we will have done a good thing. As the video clip indicates, the orbital and rotational elements have a weak forcing action, so a bit more CO2 ought to do the trick.

Well for God to create the new heaven and the new earth and return the earth to its Paradisical Glory and Garden of Eden State. Its going to take more co2 anyways.

High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Plant Respiration, Potentially Affecting Climate And Crops

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm

Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted

Just because some Random Blog on the Internet says so?

What of all the Nasa Studies that show... just the opposite?

Global green belt.(Brief Article)

Article from: New Scientist | September 15, 2001 | Pearce, Fred | Copyright 2002 New Scientist

The world may be feeling the heat, but it's not all doom and gloom

THE northern hemisphere is blooming, with spring coming earlier and trees growing faster. A new analysis of billions of satellite images collected daily by NASA over the past 20 years shows that the land between 40 [degrees] and 70 [degrees] north is markedly greener than it was in the early 1980s--and global warming is almost certainly the cause.

The study shows that the area, which includes most of Europe, Russia and many central Asian republics is 12 per cent greener, while Canada and the northern half of the US are 8 per cent greener. Most of the land studied is covered in natural …

http://business.high...obal-green-belt

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Vance said:

Yes, "Global warming" is a hoax.

http://globegazette....1cc4c03286.html

Sure, but the calculations will have to be completely revised and that means there is nothing supporting AGW.

Nothing?!

Quite the contrary: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021144716.htm

111021144716-large.jpg

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg

Note the freeze ca. 1815-1816 (the year without a summer) in which the Joseph Smith Sr. family went to Palmyra. That was the result of the volcanic explosion of Mt. Tambora in Indonesia.

Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted

<snip>

Thanks. This was also intresting...

Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.

The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.

Climate warming causes many changes in the global carbon cycle, with the net effect generally considered to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 with increasing temperature -- in other words, a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. Uncertainty in the magnitude of this feedback has led to a wide range in projections of current global warming: about 40% of the uncertainty in these projections comes from this source.

Recent attempts to quantify the feedback by examining the co-variation of pre-industrial climate and CO2 records yielded estimates of about 40 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) CO2 per degree Celsius, which would imply significant amplification of current warming trends.

In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.

http://www.scienceda...00127134721.htm

All the Chicken Little posters who have been blowing the CO2 effects out of proportions earlier on this thread should be ashamed.

:acute:

Some other intresting finds:

Water Vapor plays a bigger role than CO2 on Global warming! We had better shut down all those steam engines!

http://www.scienceda...81117193013.htm

Water Vapor evaporated from trees, cools the earth

http://www.scienceda...10914161729.htm

Vance Grand Master

Vance

Posted
Posted

Oh, wait, I forgot.

Higher temperatures are evidence of Global warming. AND!!!

Lower temperatures are evidence of Global warming. LOL!!!!!

Vance Grand Master

Vance

Posted
Posted

Yeah, but water evaporating consumes heat (in other words it reduces temperature).

So, if we can get more water to evaporate we can reduce the presumed "global warming".

HEY!!!

Why don't we build a tunnel (or trench) from the ocean to death valley. Then fill it up with water, the water will evaporate thus cooling down the whole region.

Plus, it would cause more clouds thus reflecting more of the sun's radiant heat.

A two-fer!!!

LOL!!!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...