3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!

[LouisvilleFan]

And for those who want to make a positive difference in our environment, Coal River Mountain is the last mountain standing in its area in West Virginia. Hard to believe... I checked it out on [url="http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=37.932825,-81.597519&spn=0.314116,0.806122&t=h&z=11"]Google Maps[/url] and (keeping mind these satellite pictures are usually 3-4 years dated) it's amazing -- and ugly -- what's happened. For those who haven't read about mountaintop removal mining, these coal companies blow off the tops of mountains to extract the coal, which are levelled off and what remains is a landscape of flat-topped "mountains" spotted with lakes full of arsenic, sulfur, and a soup of other minerals that are left behind... held behind a levee... [url="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/tenn-j10.shtml"]or not[/url].

Regardless of how bad global warming actually is or isn't, saving a mountain and supporting a sustainable source of energy is one pro-life cause we should all be able to support. See more at [url="http://www.coalriverwind.org/"]CoalRiverWind.org[/url].

Edited July 27, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1933013' date='Jul 27 2009, 08:29 AM']So, because we're not scientists, we aren't allowed to criticize scientific findings? That's ridiculous.

People act as though scientists are purely altruistic in their pursuits. We accept interpreted data from studies as if a) there wasn't someone paying for the studies, b) the scientists involved didn't have a continued interest in staying employed, and c) scientists themselves didn't have an agenda.

The data is not the whole story. There is plenty of room for non-scientists to critique and have informed opinions about the interpretation, funding sources, and ulterior motives of scientists who hold that global warming is happening.[/quote]
No, what I'm saying is that if you're going to have the gall to decide something is completely false like that, you better have more knowledge about the topic than magazine articles.

[Angel*Star]

[quote name='morostheos' post='1932725' date='Jul 26 2009, 07:52 PM']Lastly, humans are part of many completely natural phenomena. Just because something is completely natural doesn't exclude humans involvement, we are part of nature after all. I don't see many people arguing that humans are not the cause of the completely natural phenomena known as childbirth.[/quote]


How can you say childbirth is completely natural? Most people contracept (and put what into our waterways for all of us?), we put people who create people (invitro) on a pedestal, we vote to kill the sick and old. What is natural about all that? We don't even let animal reproduce on their own. We "take care" of cats and dogs. We have limits on fish and wild life. Is anything natural anymore? We think we control everything in our lives. And we don't.

I think we should care for our world, but not at the expense of people. And for those who believe in global warming or changing or whatever you want to call it, please turn off all your air conditioners and ask stores to do the same. I am really not trying to argue, I am just saying.....

In the meantime, I am enjoying the cool July air because June was very hot.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Angel*Star

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1932492' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:13 PM']Global warming is such a myth ...[/quote]
Global warming doesn't mean that everything gets uniformly warmer. It's means that ambient temperature increases in the atmosphere cause climate change, i.e. a change in weather patterns. For example, record low temperatures in July.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Angel*Star' post='1933072' date='Jul 27 2009, 11:05 AM']How can you say childbirth is completely natural? Most people contracept (and put what into our waterways for all of us?), we put people who create people (invitro) on a pedestal, we vote to kill the sick and old. What is natural about all that? We don't even let animal reproduce on their own. We "take care" of cats and dogs. We have limits on fish and wild life. Is anything natural anymore? We think we control everything in our lives. And we don't.[/quote]

What in the world are you talking about?



[quote]I think we should care for our world, but not at the expense of people. And for those who believe in global warming or changing or whatever you want to call it, please turn off all your air conditioners and ask stores to do the same. I am really not trying to argue, I am just saying.....

In the meantime, I am enjoying the cool July air because June was very hot.[/quote]
wonderful

[Hassan]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1933070' date='Jul 27 2009, 11:00 AM']No, what I'm saying is that if you're going to have the gall to decide something is completely false like that, you better have more knowledge about the topic than magazine articles.[/quote]


I wonder what they will tell their children and grandchildren

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1933089' date='Jul 27 2009, 10:40 AM']I wonder what they will tell their children and grandchildren[/quote]
"Well, you know, I read all about it on the internet and gosh darnit, you shouldn't believe everything you read..."

[Hassan]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1933038' date='Jul 27 2009, 10:09 AM']Right now, global warming as a movement is far more political and economic than it is scientific.[/quote]


That is shockingly wrong.

Anyway.


I fail to understand the logic.

If the data and mainstream scientific consensus is correct then if humans do not substantially alter their current environmental habits it will have a catastrophic effect on the planet and humanity as a whole.

There isn't another planet and there won't be another chance. How in the world do you decide that the best thing to do is gamble that we are so totally off the mark? You are essentially deciding to play Russian roulette with your family's future.

Who in the world hears that there is powerful, perhaps you feel not conclusive, evidence for a catastrophic event which we have a narrow window to curb (it seems to late to stop it) and decides that the sane, rational thing to do nothing and hope for the best.

[Hassan]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1933091' date='Jul 27 2009, 11:43 AM']"Well, you know, I read all about it on the internet and gosh darnit, you shouldn't believe everything you read..."[/quote]


"I do sincerely apologize for the famine but Obama, a secret Muslim pseudo-citizen, wanted to raise my taxes!"


"An expert employed by a think tank funded by Exxon-Mobile assured me that the whole matter was overblown"


"Well yes, but hippies were worried about it. How can I side with the hippies?!"


Who knows?

[StColette]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1933087' date='Jul 27 2009, 12:39 PM']What in the world are you talking about?[/quote]

My guess is she had multiple windows open and posted in the wrong one It gave me a great laugh though in reading your response lol

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1933098' date='Jul 27 2009, 10:50 AM']"I do sincerely apologize for the famine but Obama, a secret Muslim pseudo-citizen, wanted to raise my taxes!"


"An expert employed by a think tank funded by Exxon-Mobile assured me that the whole matter was overblown"


"Well yes, but hippies were worried about it. How can I side with the hippies?!"


Who knows?[/quote]
"I was told to support them or the terrorists would get me, and I mean, if they can fight terrorists, they must be right about global warming being a hoax, too."

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Angel*Star' post='1933072' date='Jul 27 2009, 12:05 PM']And for those who believe in global warming or changing or whatever you want to call it, please turn off all your air conditioners and ask stores to do the same. I am really not trying to argue, I am just saying.....[/quote]

I second that completely.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1933095' date='Jul 27 2009, 12:46 PM']That is shockingly wrong.[/quote]
Really?

Let's go through the logic.

Scientists are human beings who have families, mortgages, and car payments. When it comes to research, almost every scientist is dependent on getting funding from some source. So, the project you're working on has to fit someone's priority list somewhere. Right now, a significant source of climate research funding is coming from ... (wait for it) ... the U.S. government. And what are we funding? We are funding the search for connections between human carbon emissions and the climate.

I'm not saying there is a big conspiracy out there, or that the scientists doing work now are being necessarily dishonest in their findings. (Although, a case could certainly be made for sloppiness in previously-released research.) But I am saying that the political priority we've placed on funding one small aspect of scientific inquiry in this area is shortchanging the overall process. There is no reward in researching opposing viewpoints -- funding is entirely one-sided. And that funding comes primarily from the government, so it is steeped in politics.

As Upton Sinclair stated (and Al Gore quoted in his "Inconvenient Truth" referencing big business opposition to global warming research): "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." To be reliable, science needs to be free to explore all sides of an issue. The way we're funding things now does not provide that sort of incentive. Therefore, we are politicizing scientific pursuits. This is not pure, altruistic science happening here (as if that ever happens). We are creating a monopolistic area of research in which dissent is not tolerated. How exactly does that contribute to a search for truth?

And just think ... I got through all that without referring to your opinion as
[quote name='Hassan' post='1932515' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:37 PM']asinine[/quote]
[quote name='Hassan' post='1932515' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:37 PM']just ignorant[/quote]
[quote name='Hassan' post='1932797' date='Jul 26 2009, 10:39 PM']beyond absurd[/quote]
[quote name='Hassan' post='1933095' date='Jul 27 2009, 12:46 PM']shockingly wrong[/quote]
or an
[quote name='Hassan' post='1932790' date='Jul 26 2009, 10:33 PM']anti science religious zealot[/quote]
And without insulting your sources of information, your ability to teach your children, or your political leanings.

Hmm.



[quote name='Hassan' post='1932790' date='Jul 26 2009, 10:33 PM']That's not going to be presented, at least in the United States, the Holy Father seems to be more with the times on this issue than some here, if large contingents of the Church simply through in their lot with other anti science religious zealots.[/quote]
I'm not anti-science, by any stretch of the imagination. I think scientific pursuit is one of the many avenues we have to discovering truth about the world we live in, and as a means of exploring one of the many ways God has revealed himself to us. However, such pursuit needs to be balanced and fair, and science needs to recognize its limitations.

One of my favorite writings on the topic of the relationship between science and religion is[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19880601_padre-coyne_en.html"] a letter JPII wrote to George Coyne[/url], director of the Vatican Observatory. In it, he notes that:
[quote]Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either discipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology.[/quote]

When it comes to global warming, science is, in my opinion, in danger of becoming an unconscious theology. We are basing worldwide social policies on scientific research that is far less than conclusive, and that has a growing number of detractors even within the scientific community. That scares me. Continuing on this path will have, in my opinion, devastating impact on the economies of developing countries, and will long term prove debilitating to our own economy.

Even the most loud-mouthed Chicken Littles project that it will take decades for any changes we make in terms of reducing emissions to evidence themselves in the global climate. Taking time to more fully research what's going on, from a variety of viewpoints, is only going to help us to craft better policies. I'd far rather we engage in more comprehensive inquiry than charge ahead without really knowing what we're dealing with.

[takebacktonight]

If one is interested in forming their [b]very own[/b] educated opinions on the matter...this is one one needs to do. Find articles like [url="http://www.cern.ac.cn/12lj/caomingkui/papers/Nature_carbon-1998.pdf"]this one[/url] or [url="ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/henderson98.pdf"]this one[/url] or [url="http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v100/n2/full/6800934a.html"]this one[/url] scroll down (don't read anything) find the pure stats, and analyse the numbers yourself.

What? You can't do that? Neither can I! Neither can most people. This is why there is a bunch of stuff written around those stats. To help us understand, to provide a context.

In order to keep scientists' opinions from getting in the way too much, there is a standardized system of reporting and conducting research...and in order to get published in respected journals, there is a strict vetting process, called peer-review.

Science magazines exist for a reason...Not everyone enjoys curling up with a 50 page article on notch-distalless temporal pattern formation processes in the evolution of butterfly wing patterns on a lazy Saturday morning, but they would be interested in how butterflies got their pretty wing patterns. We just have to remember that the farther we get from the orginal data and the peer-review..the less reliable the interpretation of that data is.

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1933203' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:17 PM']Really?

Let's go through the logic.

Scientists are human beings who have families, mortgages, and car payments. When it comes to research, almost every scientist is dependent on getting funding from some source. So, the project you're working on has to fit someone's priority list somewhere. Right now, a significant source of climate research funding is coming from ... (wait for it) ... the U.S. government. And what are we funding? We are funding the search for connections between human carbon emissions and the climate.

I'm not saying there is a big conspiracy out there, or that the scientists doing work now are being necessarily dishonest in their findings. (Although, a case could certainly be made for sloppiness in previously-released research.) But I am saying that the political priority we've placed on funding one small aspect of scientific inquiry in this area is shortchanging the overall process. There is no reward in researching opposing viewpoints -- funding is entirely one-sided. And that funding comes primarily from the government, so it is steeped in politics.

As Upton Sinclair stated (and Al Gore quoted in his "Inconvenient Truth" referencing big business opposition to global warming research): "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." To be reliable, science needs to be free to explore all sides of an issue. The way we're funding things now does not provide that sort of incentive. Therefore, we are politicizing scientific pursuits. This is not pure, altruistic science happening here (as if that ever happens). We are creating a monopolistic area of research in which dissent is not tolerated. How exactly does that contribute to a search for truth?

And just think ... I got through all that without referring to your opinion as




or an

And without insulting your sources of information, your ability to teach your children, or your political leanings.

Hmm.




I'm not anti-science, by any stretch of the imagination. I think scientific pursuit is one of the many avenues we have to discovering truth about the world we live in, and as a means of exploring one of the many ways God has revealed himself to us. However, such pursuit needs to be balanced and fair, and science needs to recognize its limitations.

One of my favorite writings on the topic of the relationship between science and religion is[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19880601_padre-coyne_en.html"] a letter JPII wrote to George Coyne[/url], director of the Vatican Observatory. In it, he notes that:


When it comes to global warming, science is, in my opinion, in danger of becoming an unconscious theology. We are basing worldwide social policies on scientific research that is far less than conclusive, and that has a growing number of detractors even within the scientific community. That scares me. Continuing on this path will have, in my opinion, devastating impact on the economies of developing countries, and will long term prove debilitating to our own economy.

Even the most loud-mouthed Chicken Littles project that it will take decades for any changes we make in terms of reducing emissions to evidence themselves in the global climate. Taking time to more fully research what's going on, from a variety of viewpoints, is only going to help us to craft better policies. I'd far rather we engage in more comprehensive inquiry than charge ahead without really knowing what we're dealing with.[/quote]


Great rebuttal. From what I have observed in a number of ongoing debates, there is a consistent pattern of Hassan dismissing anyone who disagrees with him as basically a dunce. He can't seem to debate people without sounding as if he's above them in some way, shape or form.

I agree with everything you said.

Edited July 27, 2009 by reelguy227