Pushing The "global Warming Hysteria" A Form Of Priestcraft?

[The Nehor]

Failed climate scientist?  Where did that come from?  It appears you are venting a great deal of heat and emotion without coming to grips with reason and documentation.  Adrian Vance is/was a very accomplished teacher of science, producer of audio/visuals, patent award holder, a great variety of professional interests, etc.

 

Hack writer?  I am a fan of his blog site.  I greatly appreciate his careful review of facts and measurements.  He does a good job of contrasting different viewpoints and provides wonderful commentary.  You should have googled his name before going off on a tirade.

 

Pointless?  I  guess you are a little tired today.  I appreciated your willingness to discuss with me the red-shifting of photons in a previous thread.

I did google his name. I also read his scientific credentials that he uses on Amazon that he uses to sell his books. Dressed up to sound impressive they are really mediocre. His mastery of the sciences does not go beyond the Bachelor level and he used most of it to teach high school science classes. I invite all interested to read themselves. I found it funny.

[thesometimesaint]

That is right.  It is downright scary that they refuse to allow outsiders to review the code for the climate model programming.  It probably is jury-rigged to produce the outcome they want to use scare people into the "new order."

 

SEE Bad, Badder, BEST.

[longview]

Long view:

 

I'm not going to address going to address all of your posts. I will address one.

 

1. CO2 is a pollutant to all animals. It always has been a pollutant. We exhale it to get rid of it out of our bodies. Too much CO2 and you die.

 

2. The burning of fuels produces CO2 whether in our bodies, or anything we burn.

 

3. CO2 traps heat. This was proven in the 1890's.

 

4. We are dumping excess CO2 into the air.

 

5. Repeat from number #1.

CO2 is a natural byproduct of oxidation in living things.  CO2 is utilized by plants and other processes.  Hence CO2 is an important part of the cycling in the edcosystem.  Why then are you demonizing CO2?  Please reference post # 6 of this thread about the proportions naturally produced CO2 as compared with man-made.  And lets cut out the hysteria, my friend.

[thesometimesaint]

the sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

No it isn't. It is getting warmer.

[The Nehor]

That is right.  It is downright scary that they refuse to allow outsiders to review the code for the climate model programming.  It probably is jury-rigged to produce the outcome they want to use scare people into the "new order."

Yes, horrifying that people want to protect their intellectual property. Those bastards.

the sky is falling! The sky is falling!

That is an idiotic rebuttal. I have heard the same argument used with equal validity against the Book of Mormon.

As I stated in my opening post, I am not focusing on the politics but to discuss the evidence and motivation for the "misuse" of science.  Hence the concern for priestcraft.

 

There many places in the Book of Mormon that describe all kinds of agendas of "power seekers" such as "King Men" or Gadianton or various other deceivers.

Priestcraft is specifically a religious phenomenon.

I pointed out why supporting controls to mitigate climate change is unpopular. We even have people bringing polls into the thread to prove it. Your "power seekers" are doing it wrong.

[The Nehor]

And lets cut out the hysteria, my friend.

Hypocrisy coming from someone worried that our science is being controlled by the ill-defined international socialist conspiracy. I am specifically not appealing to fear but if you want to you can't condemn others for doing so.

[thesometimesaint]

CO2 is a natural byproduct of oxidation in living things.  CO2 is utilized by plants and other processes.  Hence CO2 is an important part of the cycling in the edcosystem.  Why then are you demonizing CO2?  Please reference post # 6 of this thread about the proportions naturally produced CO2 as compared with man-made.  And lets cut out the hysteria, my friend.

 

1. CO2 is a natural byproduct oxidation in living and no longer living things. Any time you burn any Carbon containing thing it produces CO2.

 

2. True.

 

3. True.

 

4. I'm not demonizing CO2. CO2 is a well known pollutant. Too much CO2 and you die. Those are empirically known facts.

 

5. We're the one's doing it. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXgDrr6qiUk#t=148

 

6. I'm many things but hysterical isn't one of them.

[phaedrus ut]

When you make up your own rules you can always win the game.  The nice part about science is that no hypothesis can be completely proven, only disproven.  You, or actual scientists, have the opportunity to use science to prove them wrong. 

 

Scientific theories will never have 100% consensus but good scientific theories will grow in consensus through testing, measurement, and replication. When 99.9% of experts agree on a conclusion you might have that .1% as a lone wolf genius or a lone wolf crackpot.  A common tactic of the crackpot is to claim they are just asking questions, or just expressing an opinion and providing to testable hypothesis.  Bad science is easily disproven, good science is not.

 

 

Phaedrus

[ERayR]

No it isn't. It is getting warmer.

 

Compared to what? when?

[ERayR]

Scientific theories will never have 100% consensus but good scientific theories will grow in consensus through testing, measurement, and replication. When 99.9% of experts agree on a conclusion you might have that .1% as a lone wolf genius or a lone wolf crackpot.  A common tactic of the crackpot is to claim they are just asking questions, or just expressing an opinion and providing to testable hypothesis.  Bad science is easily disproven, good science is not.

 

 

Phaedrus

 

Or when enough money is at stake.

[phaedrus ut]

Or when enough money is at stake.

 

Yes it's possible that over the past 70 years the growing scientific consensus of climate change is about having money at stake.  Ignoring the fact that every published article is scientifically testable.  This conspiracy has grown to the point where the leading 197 scientific organizations in the world, and the 18 American scientific societies,  agree that that climate change has been caused by human action

 

Climate change denial is legitimately called pseudoscience by these groups.  Fake experts and wackos like Ken Hamm will publish their theories why climate change isn't real.  Their theories hold as much credibility as holocaust denial theories.

Edited April 2, 2014 by phaedrus ut

[USU78]

1. CO2 is a natural byproduct oxidation in living and no longer living things. Any time you burn any Carbon containing thing it produces CO2.

 

2. True.

 

3. True.

 

4. I'm not demonizing CO2. CO2 is a well known pollutant. Too much CO2 and you die. Those are empirically known facts.

 

5. We're the one's doing it. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXgDrr6qiUk#t=148

 

6. I'm many things but hysterical isn't one of them.

 

Twice in a row you put the crux of your "argument" in position # 4.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is a byproduct of animals doing what animals do, as well as a naturally occurring compound generated by chemical reaction outside of animals doing what animals do.

 

If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2 by any appreciable amount, you must reduce the number of animals doing what animals do, since there's little to no hope of stopping naturally-non-animal-generated-occurring CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

People burn things.

 

They burn them inside themselves.

 

They burn them outside themselves.

 

We are fire.

 

To make us "not fire" is to make us stop being ourselves.

 

The only way to make a dent in human-generated CO2 is to reduce the number of humans.

 

Reducing the number of humans is, in the view of most humans, not a laudable goal.

[thesometimesaint]

Compared to what? when?

 

Compared to what is was over the last 400,000 years or so.

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiM1DSmCSUc#t=276

[thesometimesaint]

Or when enough money is at stake.

 

Whom has more incentive? A middle class scientist, or the multi-billionaire Koch brothers?

[Ed6]

The issue of climate change is difficult for non-scientists like me. I hear a lot of noise about it.  I understand that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that it's happening and that man is part of the cause. But then my wife tells me that it's untrue and is a great conspiracy and that the scientists who support it are on the take. She got this information from a neighbor who works for an oil company.  

 

I could try to study this out but it's way over my head and I already have a full-time job.  So I will defer to BYU climate scientists: 

 

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2009/1128/20091128_102935_BYU%20climate%20change%20letter.pdf

[phaedrus ut]

The issue of climate change is difficult for non-scientists like me. I hear a lot of noise about it.  I understand that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that it's happening and that man is part of the cause. But then my wife tells me that it's untrue and is a great conspiracy and that the scientists who support it are on the take. She got this information from a neighbor who works for an oil company.  

 

I could try to study this out but it's way over my head and I already have a full-time job.  So I will defer to BYU climate scientists: 

 

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2009/1128/20091128_102935_BYU%20climate%20change%20letter.pdf

 

That was excellent.  I'm glad I read that.

 

And on that note we will end this political thread.