Evangelical Rejection Of Reason And Science

[Vance]

Vance:

You do know the difference between a leading indicator and a trailing(feedback) indicator?

Yes. Do you know that warmer water holds less CO2. So is higher CO2 in the atmosphere a leading or lagging indicator?

Water vapor holds heat, . . .

All substances hold heat. The amount of heat is related to the temperature and specific heat of the substance.

. . . and the more heat the more water vapor the air can hold.

That phrase makes no sense.

Now it is true that air of higher temperature can hold more water vapor.

Do you know the difference between heat and temperature?

How about heat and enthalpy?

Have you ever used a psychrometric chart to solve engineering problems?

[Vance]

The science is NOT settled.

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

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Yes it is settled.

[Calm]

Never mind...

[Vance]

Vance:

Yes it is settled.

The science is settled because some dorky looking guy says so, while ignoring all of the scientists that disagree?

Got it.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Ad hominen.

Say you have a young daughter whom is sick. Yoy naturally tke her to the doctor. That doctor tells yes she is very sick, and that he has a medicine that will cure her. Unfortunately it is expensive.

So you ask for a second opinion, and that doctor tells yes she is very sick and that the medicine is expensive.

You do this one hundred times, All but one tells you the same time.

Now do you go with that one doctor that tells you, or do you go with what the 99 tell you? That is the same case with Global Warming. There are a few outliers(Largely funded by the API, and AEI) that will tell you what you wat to hear, for a price of ccourse.

Lets stick with established scientific institutions, and their publications.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes. Do you know that warmer water holds less CO2. So is higher CO2 in the atmosphere a leading or lagging indicator?

Lol it is funny to see those that believe in AGW when presented with facts. How would you explain this conundrum? Oh wait just focus on something else.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lets stick with established scientific institutions, and their publications.

http://climateprogre...1/05/Muller.pdf

I sense a fallacy here. This is almost like saying "Is there any respected journal that accepts the LDS view of things" when talking about BoM geography or Egyptology ?

I think you are skirting the issues because it goes against your 2nd love.

[Skylla]

Keep the discussion civil please. We will either have to close the thread or suspend people.

Skylla

[thesometimesaint]

http://onlyzerocarbon.org/arctic_feedback.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4221039/Climate-change-fears-spiral-as-warmer-seas-absorbing-less-carbon-dioxide.html

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

http://www.universetoday.com/51396/climate-vs-weather-video/

[Vance]

From Victor Hansen,

So what happened to the global warming craze?

Corruption within the climate-change industry explains some of the sudden turnoff. "Climategate" -- the unauthorized 2009 release of private emails from the Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom -- revealed that many of the world's top climate scientists were knee-deep in manipulating scientific evidence to support preconceived conclusions and personal agendas. Shrill warnings about everything from melting Himalayan glaciers to shrinking polar bear populations turned out not always to be supported by scientific facts.

Unfortunately, "green" during the last three years has also become synonymous with Solyndra-style crony capitalism. Common-sense ideas like more windmills, solar panels, retrofitted houses and electric cars have all been in the news lately. But the common themes were depressingly similar: few jobs created and little competitively priced energy produced, but plenty of political donors who landed hundreds of millions of dollars in low-interest loans from the government.

Of course, it didn't help that the world's most prominent green spokesman, Nobel laureate Al Gore, made tens of millions of dollars from his own advocacy. And he adopted a lifestyle of jet travel and energy-hungry homes at odds with his pleas for everyone else to cut back.

But even without the corruption and hypocrisy, sincere advocates of man-made global warming themselves overreached. At news that the planet had not heated up at all during the last 10 years, "global warming" gave way to "climate change" -- as if to warn the public that unseasonable cold or wet weather was just as man-caused as were the old specters of drought and scorching temperatures.

Then, when "climate change" was not still enough to frighten the public into action, yet a third term followed: "climate chaos." Suddenly some "green experts" claimed that even more terrifying disasters -- from periodic hurricanes and tornadoes to volcanoes and earthquakes -- could for the first time be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. At that point, serially changing the name of the problem suggested to many that there might not be such a problem after all.

LOL!!!!!!

[Robert F. Smith]

Vance: Yes it is settled.

Thank you. I particularly liked Prof. Stephen Schneider's use of the term "stewardship." We need to think about that in the context of the Law of Consecration & Stewardship, and of Brigham Young's ardent argument for taking care of the environment which we have on trust from God.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

You're welcome.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

[Robert F. Smith]

I sense a fallacy here. This is almost like saying "Is there any respected journal that accepts the LDS view of things" when talking about BoM geography or Egyptology ? I think you are skirting the issues because it goes against your 2nd love.

Good point.

However, if Book of Mormon geography or the Book of Abraham were crucial issues to the normative scientific community, and if they made real efforts to study them, then "respected" journals (whatever that might actually be) would deal with them in a serious way -- something not done now or in the past by nearly all non-Mormon scholars and academic journals. When non-Mormon scholars have dealt with such matters within the LDS domain, it is not surprising to me that they have come away with a sobering sense of respect and admiration for the LDS Canon as well as for the LDS community of scholars.

You see some change going on currently in that general arena, particularly in view of the establishment of Mormon Studies programs at Claremont Graduate University and at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Such things have also been taking place off and on for the past 30 years within the American Academy of Religion (which will feature several Mormon papers at the coming annual meeting in San Francisco in late November). All this despite the minority of unscholarly anti-Mormon critics whose rejection of science and reason is their most notable attribute.

[Vance]

Vance:

http://www.guardian....ists-dishonesty

Oh, please! All of the organizations that did the "review" had a vested financial/political power interest in the Global warming hoax.

Could you provide a real independent review?

The bottom line is that the Global temperatures have been going down for the last ten years.

Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the "New Ice Age" scare of the 70's. IT, as was is the current hoax is all about less individual liberty and more government control. It is all political, and you like it because it aligns with your political ideology.

[Vance]

http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/03/climate-change-hoax-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Ad hominem

Ps.