Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Little things like the fact that none of the climactic changes in the last 1,000 years can be explained by CO2 levels in the atmosphere, especially when CO2 levels were higher than now, and temperatures were lower.
Little things like MARS WARMING UP, right now, with a distinct LACK of human-generated CO2.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesisusually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausibleand then looks only for items which appear to support it
Like "The planet is warming/cooling and we people are so powerful that we MUST be causing it, and we can fix it."
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. Like extreemely iffy computer models, which have been found to be using invalid rules that just happen to be in violation of observed physics.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
"Just go outside and decide for yourself."
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature. The incessant ignoring of past climactic changes, that vastly PREDATE human industry which currently stands blamed.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms. Such as we must stop global warming, yet it is inevitable, and we cannot stop it.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Speaks for itself, we see the behavior only every single day.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claimsrather than from well-established regularities of nature. Yet again, abject denial of history that does not fit the global warming blame game.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact. See 3 of the above 4 statements.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature. Yet again, ignoring and quiet denial of the factual history of earth climactic change that predates the 19th century.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
The claims of numbers of scientists who claim it exists, so it MUST be real, and the vast majority of scientists qualified to have a respected opinion on the climate and weather activity, (Yes, scientists are not qualified to speak on anything they fancy, only on their areas of expertise) are NOT in agreement with the GW crowd.
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario. Every GW pusher I have heard interviewed, does exactly this, including the most recent one I heard on the way to Guard Drill last Sunday morning.
Nice try Smokin,
You have no facts to the contrary, as there are none.
Your words "For the moment, yes, and in less than 2 decades, it will be a matter of scientific fact I believe"
Your opinion is not based on any more factual information than mine.
Look another long post from Smokin. Smokin's long posts are always full of facts NOT
Go mow your lawn and have a great day
Then there are those like many of you in this forum who don't believe that the Govt should do anything except preach Christian morality and fight wars.
Strangely enough, the one thing your opinion of Global Warming has, is exactly what religious followers, of ALL RELIGIONS have, and it is the only thing that they have, because proof of their religious beliefs is impossible to come by.
Faith.
Because people like you characterize this issue as political, and call it left verses right and anything viewed as left must be contradicted at all costs.
You should look in the mirror while posting on Global Warming sometime Ultra, while contradicting the historical scientific evidence with your opinion that GW is a "settled, proven, issue".
SLSS
He's right you know.
It's never been hotter than now, nope, never.
In the seventies he was positive there was an ice age coming too.
Silent Spring and The Population Bomb are his bibles.
Just another disciple worshipping at the temple of THE ALGORE.
We must all kneel before him.:sqeyes:
Nice try Smokin,
You have no facts to the contrary, as there are none.
Your words "For the moment, yes, and in less than 2 decades, it will be a matter of scientific fact I believe"
Your opinion is not based on any more factual information than mine.
Look another long post from Smokin. Smokin's long posts are always full of facts NOT
Go mow your lawn and have a great day
He has goats for that.
Hey thanks.
Your opinion is not based on any more factual information than mine.
Which factual details would you like to debate, specifically?
The fact that CO2 levels TRAIL the historical global temperature changes, yet some would tell you & I that they precede the changes, which is a direct contradiction to the actual scientific data?
The fact that there is a very CLOSE RELATIONSHIP between earth temperature changes and solar output?
The fact that 5% of the atmosphere is CO2, and 0.54% of THAT 5% (.00027%) of the atmosphere is MAN-MADE CO2, yet it is heating the planet?
The fact that, in the last 100 years, human CO2 output was very low prior to 1940, yet most of the global warming in the last century PREDATES 1940?
The fact that as CO2 emmissions increased HUGELY after 1940, the planet COOLED from 1940 untill 1980?
The fact that there was a midevil warm period, warmer than now, that occured in the 1300's, centuries BEFORE human industry?
The fact that the above midevil warm period, as well as the "little ice age" durring the Maunder Minimum is quietly IGNORED by the global warming pushers, even to the point of removing it from charts?
The fact that a scientist who resigned from the IPCC, whose name was put on a report he had nothing to do with, HAD TO THREATEN TO SUE to get the IPCC to remove his name from the list of contributors?
And he isn't the only one of "the 2500" to be a "supporter" who does not support G.W.
Discussing the concept has displayed people's positions.
Go ahead, start us in discussing the FACTS. Pick a fact.
Just the facts, not the concept, or the socialist anti-capitolist politics driving it.
Which factual details would you like to debate, specifically?
The fact that CO2 levels TRAIL the historical global temperature changes, yet some would tell you & I that they precede the changes, which is a direct contradiction to the actual scientific data?
The fact that there is a very CLOSE RELATIONSHIP between earth temperature changes and solar output?
The fact that 5% of the atmosphere is CO2, and 0.54% of THAT 5% (.00027%) of the atmosphere is MAN-MADE CO2, yet it is heating the planet?
The fact that, in the last 100 years, human CO2 output was very low prior to 1940, yet most of the global warming in the last century PREDATES 1940?
The fact that as CO2 emmissions increased HUGELY after 1940, the planet COOLED from 1940 untill 1980?
The fact that there was a midevil warm period, warmer than now, that occured in the 1300's, centuries BEFORE human industry?
The fact that the above midevil warm period, as well as the "little ice age" durring the Maunder Minimum is quietly IGNORED by the global warming pushers, even to the point of removing it from charts?
The fact that a scientist who resigned from the IPCC, whose name was put on a report he had nothing to do with, HAD TO THREATEN TO SUE to get the IPCC to remove his name from the list of contributors?
And he isn't the only one of "the 2500" to be a "supporter" who does not support G.W.
Discussing the concept has displayed people's positions.
Go ahead, start us in discussing the FACTS. Pick a fact.
Just the facts, not the concept, or the socialist anti-capitolist politics driving it.
Smokin,
Don't have the time to debate details with you on the internet. Everyone
already knows that you are the Heavy Weight Champion of Hot Boat. Debating issues pertaining to negative atmospheric changes, in detail could take years, since neither of are experts.
Here's something for you to ponder,
I believe that we agree that the scientific community is still out on this one. Obviously there is compelling evidence on both sides of the issue, otherwise we would agree.
If the American people treat this issue as if it doesn't exist, little more will be done to reduce the production of emissions. If this belief proven to be invalid, further damage will have been done?
If the American people treat this issue as if it does exist, substantially more will be done to reduce the production of emissions. If this belief proven to be invalid, what damage will have been done?
It's common sense, isn't it?
It's common sense, isn't it?
It's common sense to not pollute. It's not common sense to blindly follow unproven theories into economic and social oblivion.
Your unwavering faith of what "must" be and stubborness to be influenced otherwise or even consider GW theory may be tainted, are amazing. You stereotype anyone not in agreement with your personal beliefs with all the monikers typically thrown about by the liberal left and then complain about the division between parties and the populace.
Your frustration with Smokin' is almost comical from the standpoint of how you discount all of what he throws at you as wrong, yet turn back around and refuse to offer any valid evidence other than personal opinion why he is wrong. And the personal opinion is based almost completely on "because THEY said so". Blind faith is very dangerous.
Please don't assume those disagreeing with your opinions don't care about the environment and don't assume those that disagree with you are blindly following any leader or philosophy. Those of opposing view just often times question the amazing amount of "social consciousness", "flavor of the day" issues that come to dominate our every waking moment. If you aren't careful they often cover up the real issues.
It's not common sense to blindly follow unproven theories into economic and social oblivion.
And you support gdumbya???
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote