[tomder55]

There is no such thing as scientific consensus . Consensus of politics .The only time it is invoked is when the science is debatable. Nobody ever says E=MC2 is consensus because there is no reason to do so. Nobody contends it as fact. Because facts rely on reproducible results.

Here is another example that illustrates the futility of the claim that there can ever be a consensus in science.

In the past one in 6 women died from fever after child birth .1795, Alexander Gordon said the fevers were infectious processes .The consensus said no.

1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious.The consensus said no.

1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post.

By the beginning of the 20th Century however ...125 years later ..they were proven right and the consensus scientists wrong.

The consensus thought pellagra was infectious .They were wrong . It is a dietary problem.

The world can thank the memory of the Pasteurs that they bucked consensus thinking.

Ususally it is the fringe minority scientists who make the breakthroughs because they dare defy and reject consensus orthodoxy.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

In terms of our discussion about global warming, I'll tell you exactly what ID and evolution have to do with it. You don't believe clearly established science. Therefore, in my view, you have NO credibility on science - period.

It's a fact that science can't tell me where that primordial soup that everything comes from came from. I believe facts, that's enough. I can also read. What makes you any more credible on science?

Steve
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what colors you saw in that image.

[excon]

Ususally it is the fringe minority scientists who make the breakthroughs because they dare defy and reject consensus orthodoxy.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not sure if you're listening to yourself... I think you said that plate tectonics is proven science - or to use your words, a consensus. Are you trying to now say that some fringe crackpot scientist MAY be able to disprove that science??

I think you are, and I think you're dreaming.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

You have said yourself that you are not a scientist and do not know or understand the science behind global warming.

So... if you don't have an understanding of the science involved, how can you possibly say that the science is proven fact? You don't know what the facts are or whether they really are facts or not.

There are several thousand scientists who at the very least question what you are referring to as "facts". Many of them are members of the same organizations as the scientists who support the concept of global warming, with similar bona fides, and similar backgrounds. If science doesn't have an agenda, then these scientists don't have any more of an agenda than the ones who push the global warming theory do.

So how do you know that the wall really is green if you don't know the definition of green or purple, and there are two different sets of people telling you which is which, and both are equally respected in the field of wall coloration? Because that is the situation.

Furthermore, ignoring whether the global warming guys are right or wrong, how does this particular bill passed by the House on Friday deal with the issue of global warming? The supposed purpose of the bill is to

1) cap greenhouse gas emissions,
2) lower the cost of energy for families,
3) create green jobs that help the economy,
4) create energy independence.

How does the bill accomplish any of those things? Unless you have read all 1200 pages of the original bill and the 300 pages of amendments made Thursday night before the bill was voted on, you don't know the answer to that question. Even Carol Browner, the "Energy Czar" admitted she hasn't read the whole bill. Members of Congress have been complaining that they haven't had time to read it before having to vote on it. So how do you know what this bill accomplishes or fails to accomplish? How do you know what it does in ADDITION to its purported purposes? What pork was added to it? What has been added to it that has nothing to do with energy issues and emmissions control?

Forget the global warming debate, excon. The Bill itself is an unknown. How can you support it if you don't even know what it says?

Elliot

[excon]

You have said yourself that you are not a scientist and do not know or understand the science behind global warming.

So... if you don't have an understanding of the science involved, how can you possibly say that the science is proven fact? You don't know what the facts are or whether they really are facts or not.

Hello again, El:

No, I don't know the science behind it. But, I DO understand that throwing our trash into the air is going to have SOME consequences. I know too, that it doesn't take a scientific genius figure that out.

So, if I've got a group of scientists saying that, YEAH, throwing trash into the air DOES do bad stuff, as opposed to those who say that, nahhhh, it doesn't do anything, I'm going to believe the ones who believe more like me. Because that other argument is really pretty stupid on its face.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, El:

No, I don't know the science behind it. But, I DO understand that throwing our trash into the air is going to have SOME consequences. I know too, that it doesn't take a scientific genius figure that out.

So, if I've got a group of scientists saying that, YEAH, throwing trash into the air DOES do bad stuff, as opposed to those who say that, nahhhh, it doesn't do anything, I'm gonna believe the ones who believe more like me. Because that other argument is really pretty stupid on its face.

Still perpetuating the myth that we don't believe throwing trash in the air does bad stuff? And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what colors you saw.

[excon]

Still perpetuating the myth that we don't believe throwing trash in the air does bad stuff? And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what colors you saw.

Hello again, Steve:

What bad stuff DOES it do?

excon

PS> I'm colorblind.

[galveston]

Hello again, Steve:

In terms of our discussion about global warming, I'll tell you exactly what ID and evolution have to do with it. You don't believe clearly established science. Therefore, in my view, you have NO credibility on science - period.

excon

You rant like any other religious zealot.

Scientific IDEAS are NEVER established. They are only accepted until someone proves them WRONG. And that happens over and over and---.

Attributing global warming, if it even exists, to human activities has become a RELIGION. Like any organized religion it resists any attempt to change its basic belief system, and the supression of facts contrary to that is common to religious fanaticism.

This bogus science will destroy this country if we can't stop it.

Do you want higher unemployment rates? 90% higher electriity bills? Really expensive gasoline? Your food is produced by farmers that use fuel and hauled by trucks that burn fuel. Fertilizer is also derived from fossil fuels. You like higher food bills? Even worse, it might result in food shortages. You can't eat that gold you're hoarding.

All these and more will be the result of cap and TAX if is implemented. And that cap and tax is based on BOGUS science.

Why is this country Hell-bent on suicide?

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

What bad stuff DOES it do?

excon

PS> I'm colorblind.

It certainly doesn't help people breathe well.

Steve
P.S. Then why were you talking about us looking at colored walls? If you're colorblind you'd have no reason to look at me funny if I said the green wall was purple, how would you know? By the way, the green and blue are the same color. Things aren't always as they appear.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

No, I don't know the science behind it. But, I DO understand that throwing our trash into the air is going to have SOME consequences. I know too, that it doesn't take a scientific genius figure that out.

So, if I've got a group of scientists saying that, YEAH, throwing trash into the air DOES do bad stuff, as opposed to those who say that, nahhhh, it doesn't do anything, I'm gonna believe the ones who believe more like me. Because that other argument is really pretty stupid on its face.

excon

Define "trash".

Sounds simple, no? But it isn't quite as simple as you think. You see, by "trash" people are referring to greenhouse gasses. They are afraid of greenhouse gasses being thrown into the atmosphere and ruining the environment.

But what are greenhouse gasses?

Greenhouse gasses are gasses that absorb or emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. They are, for the most part, naturally occurring and NECESSARY gasses that are necessary for sustaining life on Earth. Greenhouse gasses include:

Water vapor - (between 36% and 72% of the total of greenhouse gasses)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) - (9%-26%)
Methane (CH4) - (4-9%)
Ozone (O3) - (3-7%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) - (trace amounts)

All of these are naturally occurring gasses, and MUST exist in order for life to exist. They are also natural byproducts of life.

Plants need CO2 to survive, to breath, and they give off oxygen as a byproduct of respiration. We in turn breath oxygen and give off CO2 as a byproduct of respiration. The existence and even the increase in CO2 is necessary for the production of more oxygen for us to breath. Limiting CO2 is the same as limiting oxygen production. CO2 is not a poison. Carbon MONOXIDE (CO) is a poison. But this bill doesn't limit CO production, it limits CO2 production.

Then there's water vapor. Are you truly going to argue that water vapor is a poison or a pollutant?

How about ozone? Ozone is what protects us from the radiation of the sun. We NEED ozone.

Methane? Remember that the global warming guys are trying to get us to use natural gas instead of oil? "Natural Gas" is methane... the supposedly clean stuff.

Nitrous Oxide? It is also known as "laughing gas" and is used as an anaesthetic in dentistry. But it is also a naturally occurring gas that regulates ozone levels in the atmosphere. If you eliminate N2O, you get too much ozone, which results in radiation poisoning. (Too much of it isn't really a problem because it breaks down into nitrogen and oxygen, which end up helping plants grow.)

What these scientists are calling "trash" is anything but. It is part of the environment, and if we limit it, we limit the environment.

So... again, we are stuck with a "political" definition of garbage which translates as "greenhouse gasses" but which differs from the scientific definitions of these gasses and from the common sense definition of "garbage".

Now... there are other gasses created by industry that are indeed poisonous and bad for the atmosphere. The problem is that this bill doesn't address the poisons. It only addresses the ones that are not poisonous. Why? Because the poisons can't be accused of contributing to global warming. If they went after those poisons, they libs would have to admit that their crusade isn't against global warming, but rather against INDUSTRY and CAPITALISM.

The only problem with their argument is that the facts on the ground don't bear up their claim. You see, their claim is that we are entering a period of warming caused by industrial production of CO2, CH4 and N2O. Problem is, there is no global warming taking place. We are actually in a period of global cooling, where temperatures are going DOWN not UP. This has actually been shown by several meteorologists and is evident based on meteorological records over the past several decades. We are actually entering a mini-ice-age. And it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, methane or nitrous oxide. It is just part of a natural cycle that occurs.

Bottom line: if scientists can't even agree on a definition of "garbage", and define beneficial and necessary substances that are a natural part of life on Earth as "garbage", then how can we possibly say that the science on this subject is "closed".

By the way, have you ever read any of the scientific work written by the so-called "global wartming deniers"? Try reading some of their stuff. You might find it compelling enough to question the "consensus opinion".

By the way, you do realize, of course, that the words "consensus opinion" are just a fancy way of being wrong with a lot of other people.

Stop following consensus and try thinking for yourself. Stop drinking the koolaid and read up on the subject before you come to a conclusion. Don't take anyone else's word for it. Do your own research.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

So, if I've got a group of scientists saying that, YEAH, throwing trash into the air DOES do bad stuff, as opposed to those who say that, nahhhh, it doesn't do anything, I'm gonna believe the ones who believe more like me. Because that other argument is really pretty stupid on its face.

excon

Do you realize what you just said here. It is not that you believe that these scientists are necessarily right. You just agree with them because they are close to your opinion.

Well, in that case, why bother with science at all. As long as you are better at convincing someone of something, be it right or wrong, we should go along with it.

You essentially just admitted that the global warming debate isn't about science at all, but rather about swaying public opinion regardless of whether the science is actually right or not.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE BEGINNING!!! ALL PR, NO HARD SCIENCE!!!

You just proved our point for us. Thanks.

Elliot

[galveston]

Do you realize what you just said here. It is not that you believe that these scientists are necessarily right. You just agree with them because they are close to your opinion.

Well, in that case, why bother with science at all. As long as you are better at convincing someone of something, be it right or wrong, we should go along with it.

You essentially just admitted that the global warming debate isn't about science at all, but rather about swaying public opinion regardless of whether the science is actually right or not.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE BEGINNING!!! ALL PR, NO HARD SCIENCE!!!

You just proved our point for us. Thanks.

Elliot

Don't confuse him with facts, his mind is made up.:D

[speechlesstx]

OK ex (and all you others that say we skeptics don't rely on science), here's the latest science:

June Global Temperatures Drop Again, 8 Year Downtrend Continues

That means that global temperatures have DROPPED approximately .74°F (.39°C) since The Goracle released "An Inconvenient Truth."

[excon]

Do you realize what you just said here. It is not that you believe that these scientists are necessarily right. You just agree with them because they are close to your opinion.

Hello again, El:

Some peoples opinions on science are based on religion. I ain't one of 'em.

excon

[galveston]

Hello again, El:

Some peoples opinions on science are based on religion. I ain't one of 'em.

excon

Preposterous!

Your opinion, if I understand it on this subject, IS religion.

Science makes no claims of having absolute or final answers. Only ideas that seem to provide answers for the world around us UNTIL EVIDENCE DISPROVING THOSE IDEAS IS PRESENTED.

Religion holds that there ARE absolutes. I can discuss religion with anyone of any persuasion, but when I was pastor, I would NOT allow anyone to speak from my pulpit that held a view that I viewed as error. Part of my job was to keep that pulpit true to the beliefs that I hold.

When scientists refuse to hear a contridictory point of view because they bellieve it to be wrong, then they have crossed over the line from science to religion.

[excon]

Science makes no claims of having absolute or final answers. Only ideas that seem to provide answers for the world around us UNTIL EVIDENCE DISPROVING THOSE IDEAS IS PRESENTED.

Hello again,

I rest my case.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Democrats Admit That Their Cap and Trade Bill Is a Job Killer
July 06, 2009 11:02 AM ET | Peter Roff | Permanent Link | Print

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

In her remarks bringing the debate over the climate bill to a close, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California urged her colleagues to vote in favor of the cap and trade bill, saying the measure was about four things: "jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs."

She was right—the House-passed version of cap and trade is all about jobs: jobs lost, jobs never created, jobs sent overseas, and, unbelievably, jobs people will be paid for doing long after they cease to exist.

According to Friday's Washington Times, the legislation includes language that provides, should it become law, that people who lose their jobs because of it "could get a weekly paycheck for up to three years, subsidies to find new work and other generous benefits—courtesy of Uncle Sam."

How generous are these benefits? Well, according to the Times, "Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill's 'climate change worker adjustment assistance' program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019."

Instead of being a the source of millions of new jobs of "green jobs"—as House Democrats are fond of saying over and over again—the provision is a hidden admission that their effort is a job killer, not just a massive new tax on energy.

Building a safety net into the legislation is probably the responsible thing to do. The government is going to be directly responsible for the destruction of millions of jobs if the bill passed by the House becomes law—anywhere from a net loss of .5 percent of total jobs over the first 10 years, according to the liberal Brookings Institution, to 3 million by the year 2030, according to the industry-backed Coalition for Affordable American Energy. But wouldn't it be better to leave the jobs alone in the first place? It would certainly be cheaper.

Whatever the Dems say you can pretty well count on the opposite to be true.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Some peoples opinions on science are based on religion. I ain't one of 'em.

excon

I beg to differ. You have just said that you don't know the science, don't understand the science, don't CARE about the science. You are agreeing with the global warming theorists because their opinion matches yours. You are taking it on blind faith, not science, that they are right, without even understanding what it is they have said on the subject, much less what any others might say. Pure blind faith.

THAT is the definition of religious fanaticism, excon. By your own admission, you don't know why you believe what you believe, but you believe it anyway without even taking the time to understand your own beliefs.

You know that I'm pretty religious. I argue religion all the time. I know what the opinions of others' religions are and I understand how to defend against those opinions of others. Yet for all my understanding of Jewish theology, I admitt that much of what I believe is pure blind faith. But I take the time to understand as much as I can about my religious beliefs on a basis other than blind faith.

You, however, haven't even take the time to understand why you believe the way you do. Your's is blind faith without investigation and self reflection. That's fine, in and of itself. I've got nothing against that. But you put forth an opinion about the beliefs of others in this area without even having a basic understanding of your own beliefs and why they are what they are.

You, my friend, are a global-warming-religion fanatic. You accept the tenants of that faith without an understanding of the reason WHY those tenants exist, and without the slightest interest in finding out. All by your own admission, I might add. And when someone questions those tenents, you do what most people who are blind adherants would do... you attack the questioner. (At least it's with words and not with sticks and swords.) And when pushed to the wall, you pull out the holy scripture of "consensus opinion" to defend your position. You are the perfect religious zealot... but your religion is global warming.

Sorry to have to tell it like it is, Excon, but you're a global warming Chassid.

Elliot

[excon]

I beg to differ. You have just said that you don't know the science, don't understand the science, don't CARE about the science.

Hello again, El:

I don't think I said I was ignorant of the science... You are right, however, in that my understanding of the science is rudimentary, at best. What I know is that our atmosphere is finite. Are you impressed yet?? Hold on. I got more. I know that when you throw trash into the air, it DOES something to the atmosphere. I can tell, you're impressed now. But wait, I'm not done. I'm even going to pronounce that what it DOES, isn't good. Hold on. I'm even going to say, it's BAD. Yup - BAD!

Now, you can make fun of my science all you want. You, on the other hand, say throwing your trash into the air is fine, and if I say it does anything, I'm perpetrating a HOAX on you. That's YOUR science - throw trash around and it's cool. Really?? I don't think you listen to yourself very often.

Now, I don't know about you... But, I choose the side who makes at least a little bit of sense.

excon

[tomder55]

Humans exhale C02... BAD

Plants exhale O2... GOOD

Got it ?