the "global warming" theory of autism

Post Reply New Topic

the Q wrote

You don't seem to have much of an idea on how science works. Human influenced climate change is supported by the majority of scientists for good reason - the evidence available points towards it. Most of the scientists I've seen that oppose it are either not qualified in a relevant area or have connections to companies who have interests in technologies and products that are contributing to the problem.

That says nothing. I have laid out evidence that you can look up to verify. All you true beleivers have is a generalized belief that persons oh-so-much-smarter than is have made pronouncements. Where is your evidence? Where is there's? Ha! THERE IS NONE.

Actually, it does to a degree. There is a scientific consensus on climate change and this consensus is based on the evidence available. The consensus may not be entirely correct, but there is no substantiated alternate theory.



Yes I can. I made that comment in response to previous comments concerning climate change and "lefties", not nutbag's. I thought starting a new paragraph and typing getting into politics would make it clear that I was moving on.



Science is indeed an "open question" as you put it. That's why anthropogenic climate change is a theory and why scientists are still gathering evidence relevant to it. You seem to forget that conclusions can be and have been made from the evidence presently available. If evidence comes to light that casts serious doubt on the theory or another theory that the evidence applies to better comes along, it will then be considered fairly well discredited.



I'm sorry to say it, but so called science has been used to advance political and corporate agendas. Your argument is common among people who call themselves climate change skeptics. Personally, I think they have it back-to-front.



True. The thing is that as more evidence becomes available, it is becoming harder and harder to dispute the theory. It's kind of like the theory of Evolution in that, generally speaking, scientists no longer debate over the theory being a reality, but the processes that are part of it.



I don't disagree that there are natural cycles involved with climate change. In fact, the evidence gathered supports this. However, I disagree and so would the evidence that Humans currently have little impact. It depends on what you call a minor factor I suppose.



Not scientists, theories. You also can't prove a theory completely except in mathematics, only beyond reasonable doubt.

It's impossible for me to provide all the evidence supporting the theory and my assertions concerning that exist especially considering my being limited to posting web links. However, I can try and make a start for you.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/292/5520/1261?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/index.html
http://www.csiro.au/science/ps38v.html
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pfb4.pdf
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pfcj.pdf
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf

Beyond this, I suggest that you read reputable magazines like Science and try and get you hands on some peer reviewed scientific journals on the subject.

I have read this stuff. I used to believe the bloody theory. But

I used to believe it for the same reasons that all the beleivers belleive it - ignorance and an unwillingness to think for myself and possibly leave the herd.

Hell, I believed that GM wanted to kill its clients with the horribly unsage Corvair. Actually, Nader chose GM because they were the biggest - and the Corvair has safety stats likke any other car of its era.

I believed in the terrors of Love Canal. You ought to check the statistical methods used there.

I believed in global cooling - and they had every much the opinion of science as do the warming crowd. Peer reviewed and all.

I believed there was an ozone hole oner Kinnebunkport.

I believed that electric blankets were dangerous and that microwaves could harm a person and that the Population Bomb would have us all dead from global famine by now and that we would be out of oil by the eighties and that nuke plants were ticking timebombs. . .

I ACCEPTED IT ALL

Because I had been raised as a Communist by a Commie father, and it all fit my political preconceptions. Because all our friends were in agreement. Because it was easy.

American liberalism has naught to do with Voltaire and Jefferson. Current liberalism wants huge government to solve all the problems. Then it makes yp a list of them. "If we're right aboit this, everyone is in danger. You had better listen!" Fine.

And one by one the "theories" come up, laws are writ, treaties that supersede the Constitution are signed, taxes levied. . . years layer no one remembers the phoney Love Canal scare, the laws remain. Alar faded from view, the laws remain and the busimesses that failed aren't helped back to operation. Marischino cherries are a joke, the laws remain. Global Cooling becomes Global Warming and then Climate Change and for AlGore the cure is not at all inconvenient - he loves big government.

This is trash. I don't give a rat's that "scientists" say something. And your dismissal aggain of some scientists - that get money from oil companies BUT WHAT ABOUT A SCIENTIST FUNDED BY A PRO GW ORGANIZATION - IS HE NOT BOUGHT ALSO? no of course not. Sierra Club dollars are pure.

Religion gor bought and bad religion resulted. This is the same. And most people, even most aspies, are sheeple behind a fence and afraid of anyone with wire cutters.