AlGore and his Global Warming Farce

[timfogarty]

The world is billions of years old and has gone through many many changes well before we even were even a spec on the planet.  It cooled and there were ice ages, it heated up, etc etc.

yes, and some of those cycles were caused by things like volcanic eruptions the size of Wyoming, or collisions with comets or meteors.   And, they caused massive extinctions.

if such an event were to happen today, it would again cause mass extinctions, including perhaps 4-5 billion people.  and you won't get to choose which 4-5 billion.

For anyone to believe that any alleged current "climate change" is solely a result of man driving cars and heating their homes is just delusional and ignoring the fact that the earth is billions of years old and has NEVER stayed in a constant state as far as the environment is concerned.

it doesn't matter if some of the current climate change would have happened anyway.   the amount of CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere is accelerating it.   if we can do things to slow it down even a decade or two, that would give us more time to deal with it.

all this comes down to risk probability and impact assessment.  what is the risk and cost of doing something vs the risk and cost of not doing something?    if we set up new rules and regulations to reduce the amount of carbon we pump into the air, and global warming turns out to be false, some people may pay more taxes and some others may make less profit.     if we ignore the problem and global warming turns out to be true, we could have Katrina type storms every year, massive coastal flooding that displaces a billion people, a significant reduction in food production, famine, and war.

[Mons Venus]

"Alarmists" are the ones screaming that we all need to buy PFD's and run to the hills and that we are facing an apocolypse because the earth may be warming a degree or two.

The world is billions of years old and has gone through many many changes well before we even were even a spec on the planet.  It cooled and there were ice ages, it heated up, etc etc.

For anyone to believe that any alleged current "climate change" is solely a result of man driving cars and heating their homes is just delusional and ignoring the fact that the earth is billions of years old and has NEVER stayed in a constant state as far as the environment is concerned.

      

And YOU supported Palin. 

[a_joker10]

A quick note.
Hurricanes are not increasing because of global warming.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/wfaqhurw.htm
Mitigating the affects of climate change would be a lot cheaper then carbon reduction.
The cost of carbon reduction is 5% of the global GDP. Global GDP at present value is 64,903,314,000,000
Which means carbon reduction would cost = $64,903,314,000,000 X .05 = $3,245,165,700,000 This is the equivalent of the worlds 4th biggest economy stopping.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf


Also many examples of climate change are actually problems with land use like, Lake Aural, Lake Chad, Bangladesh and many of the pacific islands.
http://www.unccd.int/cop/cric7/menu.php

[Soul Crusher]

A quick note.
Hurricanes are not increasing because of global warming.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/wfaqhurw.htm
Mitigating the affects of climate change would be a lot cheaper then carbon reduction.
The cost of carbon reduction is 5% of the global GDP. Global GDP at present value is 64,903,314,000,000
Which means carbon reduction would cost = $64,903,314,000,000 X .05 = $3,245,165,700,000 This is the equivalent of the worlds 4th biggest economy stopping.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf


Also many examples of climate change are actually problems with land use like, Lake Aural, Lake Chad, Bangladesh and many of the pacific islands.
http://www.unccd.int/cop/cric7/menu.php

Its all just another ruse to add taxes, regulations, control, and $$$$ to Shaman Gore in his carbon credit scam.

[loco]

...great post Tim.

But as someone who has a background in physics I feel I must notify you of the fatal flaw in your reasoning:

You can't explain complex scientific concepts to religious people... if they understood science they wouldn't be religious in the first place... you are dealing with people who don't understand metaphor, what makes you think they'd fare any better with algebra?


The Luke

The Luke,
tell that to these guys, all great scientists and devout Christians as well:

Nicholas Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.

[bears]

The Luke,
tell that to these guys, all great scientists and devout Christians as well:

Nicholas Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.

man if only these men could have been enlightened by "The Luke".

[The Luke]

The Luke,
tell that to these guys, all great scientists and devout Christians as well:

Nicholas Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.

I'm not familiar with every name on that list... but I'm familiar enough with some of them to do a little correction:

Nicholas Copernicus... atheist.

Blaise Pascal... atheist.

Sir Francis Bacon... playwright, not a scientist.

Johannes Kepler... atheist.

Galileo Galilei... atheist.

Rene Descartes... atheist.

Sir Isaac Newton... some form of mathematical esotericist, not really properly religious. He spent most of his life working on heretical Kabbalist codes.

Robert Boyle... atheist.

Michael Faraday... atheist.

Gregor Mendel... he wasn't definitely a Christian, he was a monk, might have signed up just for an education... most of his work was considered either heretical or blasphemous.

William Thomson Kelvin... atheist.

Max Planck... absolutely an atheist.

Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher

Theodosius Dobzhansky

Arthur Peacocke

Russell Stannard

John Polkinghorne

Francis Collins

...not really familiar with the guys lower down this list, I assume most are part of the 0.1% of scientists that are religious (3+% of scientists are manic depressives for example).

With regard to the top of that list, I think you are confusing being born into a religiously oppressive time and actually being religious.


The Luke

[a_joker10]

I'm not familiar with every name on that list... but I'm familiar enough with some of them to do a little correction:

Blaise Pascal... atheist.

I am not going to go through your whole  list as you are the one trying to say that all of those scientists were atheists.

Obviously you didn't do any research though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal#Last_works_and_death
Miracle

When Pascal was back in Paris just after overseeing the publication of the last Letter, his religion was reinforced by the close association to an apparent miracle in the chapel of the Port-Royal nunnery. His 10-year-old niece, Marguerite Périer, was suffering from a painful fistula lacrymalis that exuded noisome pus through her eyes and nose—an affliction the doctors pronounced hopeless. Then, on March 24, 1657, a believer presented to Port-Royal what he and others claimed to be a thorn from the crown that had tortured Christ. The nuns, in solemn ceremony and singing psalms, placed the thorn on their altar. Each in turn kissed the relic, and one of them, seeing Marguerite among the worshipers, took the thorn and with it touched the girl's sore. That evening, we are told, Marguerite expressed surprise that her eye no longer pained her; her mother was astonished to find no sign of the fistula; a physician, summoned, reported that the discharge and swelling had disappeared. He, not the nuns, spread word of what he termed a miraculous cure. Seven other physicians who had had previous knowledge of Marguerite's fistula signed a statement that in their judgment a miracle had taken place. The diocesan officials investigated, came to the same conclusion, and authorized a Te Deum Mass in Port-Royal. Crowds of believers came to see and kiss the thorn; all of Catholic Paris acclaimed a miracle. Later, both Jansenists and Catholics used this well-documented miracle to their defense. In 1728, Pope Benedict XIII referred to the case as proving that the age of miracles had not passed.

Pascal made himself an armorial emblem of an eye surrounded by a crown of thorns, with the inscription Scio cui credidi—"I know whom I have believed."[20] His beliefs renewed, he set his mind to write his final, unfinished testament, the Pensées.


Many scientists are Christians or of faith.
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

[loco]

I'm not familiar with every name on that list... but I'm familiar enough with some of them to do a little correction:

Nicholas Copernicus... atheist.

Blaise Pascal... atheist.

Sir Francis Bacon... playwright, not a scientist.

Johannes Kepler... atheist.

Galileo Galilei... atheist.

Rene Descartes... atheist.

Sir Isaac Newton... some form of mathematical esotericist, not really properly religious. He spent most of his life working on heretical Kabbalist codes.

Robert Boyle... atheist.

Michael Faraday... atheist.

Gregor Mendel... he wasn't definitely a Christian, he was a monk, might have signed up just for an education... most of his work was considered either heretical or blasphemous.

William Thomson Kelvin... atheist.

Max Planck... absolutely an atheist.

Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher

Theodosius Dobzhansky

Arthur Peacocke

Russell Stannard

John Polkinghorne

Francis Collins

...not really familiar with the guys lower down this list, I assume most are part of the 0.1% of scientists that are religious (3+% of scientists are manic depressives for example).

With regard to the top of that list, I think you are confusing being born into a religiously oppressive time and actually being religious.


The Luke

These guys, Blaise Pascal, atheists?  Nonsense.  As usual you pull "facts" out of your butt and make claims you can't substantiate.  Everyone on that list is/was a great scientist and devout Christian.

And me, confusing being born into a "religiously oppressive time" and actually being religious?  Are you saying these guys were all closet atheists?  By your logic, I could just as easily say that most main stream scientists today are closet Christians who pretend to be atheists out of fear of losing respect, research grants and even their jobs.

As for the scientists at the bottom of the list, they are the most modern, not born into a "religiously oppressive time" as you call it.

You don't know who is Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher or who is Francis Collins?  I'm shocked, this coming from you, a self proclaimed intellectual who brags about his education and loves to talk down to people of faith.  I suggest your read up on these modern scientists.  Even Richard Dawkins shows respect for them.

[The Luke]

These guys, Blaise Pascal, atheists?  Nonsense.  As usual you pull "facts" out of your butt and make claims you can't substantiate.  Everyone on that list is/was a great scientist and devout Christian.

...wasn't Francis Bacon a poet/playwright, not a scientist.

Shouldn't the Masons be taken off that list? Isn't Masonic membership irreconcilable with Christian faith?


These guys might well have been spiritual or religious, but they couldn't have been proper "Christians"... not when their research was heretical/blasphemous.


The Luke

[loco]

...great post Tim.

But as someone who has a background in physics I feel I must notify you of the fatal flaw in your reasoning:

You can't explain complex scientific concepts to religious people... if they understood science they wouldn't be religious in the first place... you are dealing with people who don't understand metaphor, what makes you think they'd fare any better with algebra?


The Luke

The Luke,

Your above statement is clearly false and ignorant.  End of story.

[The Luke]

The Luke,

Your above statement is clearly false and ignorant.  End of story.

...I apologise. my statement was both sweeping and obnoxious.

What I should have done was referenced the fact that 99+% of the world's top scientists are either atheist or agnostic. It was wrong of me to generalize 99+% to be all inclusive.

That would be like claiming all Evangelical Christians are deluded, when the facts clearly show that only 99+% of Evangelical Christians are delusional.

I apologize again.


The Luke

[a_joker10]

...wasn't Francis Bacon a poet/playwright, not a scientist.

Shouldn't the Masons be taken off that list? Isn't Masonic membership irreconcilable with Christian faith?


These guys might well have been spiritual or religious, but they couldn't have been proper "Christians"... not when their research was heretical/blasphemous.


The Luke

Having faith is a non-negotiable faith requirement of being a Mason.
http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/textfiles/religion.html
Freemasonry stands for the values that are supreme in the life of the church and expects each member to follow his own faith and to place his duty to God above all other duties. We are sure that a member who is true to the principles he learns in Freemasonry will be a better church member because of it.

Also the Anglican church is headed by the British family and Prince Edward is the head of the Masons in England
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5619.asp

Christians are freely allowed to believe in God in any way they choose. That is why there is so many denominations.

[Soul Crusher]

What about albert einstein?

[loco]

...I apologise. my statement was both sweeping and obnoxious.

What I should have done was referenced the fact that 99+% of the world's top scientists are either atheist or agnostic. It was wrong of me to generalize 99+% to be all inclusive.

That would be like claiming all Evangelical Christians are deluded, when the facts clearly show that only 99+% of Evangelical Christians are delusional.

I apologize again.


The Luke

99+%, right?  Because you are such an accurate person, who doesn't even know that Francis Bacon was also a scientist, that Blaise Pascal was a Christian.  You don't even know who Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are.  

[a_joker10]

...I apologise. my statement was both sweeping and obnoxious.

What I should have done was referenced the fact that 99+% of the world's top scientists are either atheist or agnostic. It was wrong of me to generalize 99+% to be all inclusive.

That would be like claiming all Evangelical Christians are deluded, when the facts clearly show that only 99+% of Evangelical Christians are delusional.

I apologize again.


The Luke

Nice making up facts.
The numbers of scientists that believe in religion is much higher.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

[The Luke]

Having faith is a non-negotiable faith requirement of being a Mason.
http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/textfiles/religion.html
Freemasonry stands for the values that are supreme in the life of the church and expects each member to follow his own faith and to place his duty to God above all other duties. We are sure that a member who is true to the principles he learns in Freemasonry will be a better church member because of it.

Also the Anglican church is headed by the British family and Prince Edward is the head of the Masons in England
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5619.asp

Christians are freely allowed to believe in God in any way they choose. That is why there is so many denominations.

...before the Reformation, the one and only Mother Church often issued edicts on the incompatibility of Masonic thought and Christianity.

How could a Mason deeply involved in Kabbalist mysticism also be a Christian? (Newton)

What about albert einstein?

...do more research, he wasn't a deist.

Nice making up facts.
The numbers of scientists that believe in religion is much higher.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

...that's an American poll (America is highly religious). Also, the wording of the question is important.

Ask scientists if there is any organized religion to which they subscribe with whose compendium of tenets they agree wholeheartedly... then 99+% say no.




What does any of this have to do with Global Warming?



The Luke  

[loco]

...before the Reformation, the one and only Mother Church often issued edicts on the incompatibility of Masonic thought and Christianity.

How could a Mason deeply involved in Kabbalist mysticism also be a Christian? (Newton)

...do more research, he wasn't a deist.

...that's an American poll (America is highly religious). Also, the wording of the question is important.

Ask scientists if there is any organized religion to which they subscribe with whose compendium of tenets they agree wholeheartedly... then 99+% say no.




What does any of this have to do with Global Warming?



The Luke  

I could ask you the same:

...great post Tim.

But as someone who has a background in physics I feel I must notify you of the fatal flaw in your reasoning:

You can't explain complex scientific concepts to religious people... if they understood science they wouldn't be religious in the first place... you are dealing with people who don't understand metaphor, what makes you think they'd fare any better with algebra?


The Luke

[The Luke]

I could ask you the same:

...perhaps you could explain why so many Global Warming deniers just so happen to also be Evangelical millenarianist End-Times/Rapture-mongers?


The Luke

[loco]

...perhaps you could explain why so many Global Warming deniers just so happen to also be Evangelical millenarianist End-Times/Rapture-mongers?


The Luke

More unsubstantiated claims?  And this makes your above statements any less ignorant how?

[The Luke]

More unsubstantiated claims?  And this makes your above statements any less ignorant how?

Exhibit A: Sarah Palin and her Witchdoctor lead church.


The Luke

[big L dawg]

What about albert einstein?

[The Luke]

Einsteins us of the word "god" couples with his anthropomorphic metaphors lead many to believe he was a deist... he was not.

When Einstein says "god"; he is referring to the interconnected mathematical paradigm underlying out physical reality.

He explained this many times himself, in his writings... in interviews... and in person.



The Luke

[a_joker10]

...before the Reformation, the one and only Mother Church often issued edicts on the incompatibility of Masonic thought and Christianity.

How could a Mason deeply involved in Kabbalist mysticism also be a Christian? (Newton)

...do more research, he wasn't a deist.

...that's an American poll (America is highly religious). Also, the wording of the question is important.

Ask scientists if there is any organized religion to which they subscribe with whose compendium of tenets they agree wholeheartedly... then 99+% say no.




What does any of this have to do with Global Warming?



The Luke  

A Most scientists live in America and I believe in statistics like polls not made up conjecture that has nothing to do with science. So even if 40% of American scientists that is way over your conjecture of 99%. The numbers also don't take into consideration of places like Islamic countries were the numbers of religious adherents is much higher.

B The Masonic movement as we know it didn't start until after the reformation. As a matter of fact the date was 1717.
Which is more made up facts by you. There was an edict put out by the Catholic church against Masonic beliefs, but most masons are protestants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Freemasonry
# Stage 2. Freemasonry of the late 16th Century and into the 17th Century. Surviving Scottish Lodge records, as early as the 1630s, show a gentrification process - a transition from Operative to Speculative Freemasonry - evidenced by increasing non-operative notable gentleman within the membership. [15] Virtually no records of English lodges survive prior to the, speculative, Grand Lodge period of 1717 onwards. The purely speculative ritual and lectures of William Preston (1742-1818) demonstrate an increasing use of a ritual infusion of Enlightenment philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_Freemasonry
The Roman Catholic Church has long been an outspoken critic of Freemasonry, and has continually prohibited members from being Freemasons since In Eminenti Specula in 1739.


what this has to do with global warming is little other than the fact that you brought it up to prove that you knew science and scientific thought and wanted to bash anyone who believed in God in this thread. And to you wanted to use the belief in God as a tool to prove skeptics were religious for some reason.

What has been proven is that you make up statistics and don't do research. The two founding principles of science.
Which means that like many in the Global Warming world your views on the science of global warming has been replaced with belief.

[big L dawg]

A Most scientists live in America and I believe in statistics like polls not made up conjecture that has nothing to do with science. So even if 40% of American scientists that is way over your conjecture of 99%. The numbers also don't take into consideration of places like Islamic countries were the numbers of religious adherents is much higher.

B The Masonic movement as we know it didn't start until after the reformation. As a matter of fact the date was 1717.
Which is more made up facts by you. There was an edict put out by the Catholic church against Masonic beliefs, but most masons are protestants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Freemasonry
# Stage 2. Freemasonry of the late 16th Century and into the 17th Century. Surviving Scottish Lodge records, as early as the 1630s, show a gentrification process - a transition from Operative to Speculative Freemasonry - evidenced by increasing non-operative notable gentleman within the membership. [15] Virtually no records of English lodges survive prior to the, speculative, Grand Lodge period of 1717 onwards. The purely speculative ritual and lectures of William Preston (1742-1818) demonstrate an increasing use of a ritual infusion of Enlightenment philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_Freemasonry
The Roman Catholic Church has long been an outspoken critic of Freemasonry, and has continually prohibited members from being Freemasons since In Eminenti Specula in 1739.


what this has to do with global warming is little other than the fact that you brought it up to prove that you knew science and scientific thought and wanted to bash anyone who believed in God in this thread. And to you wanted to use the belief in God as a tool to prove skeptics were religious for some reason.

What has been proven is that you make up statistics and don't do research. The two founding principles of science.
Which means that like many in the Global Warming world your views on the science of global warming has been replaced with belief.

let's do a mini poll to see if there is any correlation between religious beliefs and globalwarming..I will start............... is global warming real?yes..is god real?no...