Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Obsessed]

Since we have all the scientist in this thread, can some one tell me a quick way to test if something is silver? I did the ice test and it passed that.

 

[govols/cc]

Since we have all the scientist in this thread, can some one tell me a quick way to test if something is silver? I did the ice test and it passed that.

Maybe shiny gray

 

[Obsessed]

Maybe shiny gray

Thanks.

It's dull looking. The flash from the phone and the light in back ground made it seem brighter than it is.

I scratched it with my knife and it is a little brighter underneath. It's probably aluminum, which if it is, it's heavy. Weighs just over a pound.

 

[FLVOL69]

Thanks.

It's dull looking. The flash from the phone and the light in back ground made it seem brighter than it is.

I scratched it with my knife and it is a little brighter underneath. It's probably aluminum, which if it is, it's heavy. Weighs just over a pound.

Did you try a magnet?

 

[zreeves]

Since we have all the scientist in this thread, can some one tell me a quick way to test if something is silver? I did the ice test and it passed that.

a couple easy tests are that it should not be magnetic, should have a metallic luster (be shiny) and you may be able to scratch it with your fingernail and should be able to with a penny. if you are willing to break it it should not break in flat surfaces

 

[BartW]

Thanks.

It's dull looking. The flash from the phone and the light in back ground made it seem brighter than it is.

I scratched it with my knife and it is a little brighter underneath. It's probably aluminum, which if it is, it's heavy. Weighs just over a pound.

You could also measure its density. Silver (10.5 g/ml) is heavier than aluminum (2.7 g/ml). Regarding the thread topic:

What Is The Difference Between A Psychic And A Climate Science Denier?

"In fairness, psychics sometimes guess the right answer."

 

[MG1968]

You could also measure its density. Silver (10.5 g/ml) is heavier than aluminum (2.7 g/ml). Regarding the thread topic:

What Is The Difference Between A Psychic And A Climate Science Denier?

"In fairness, psychics sometimes guess the right answer."

You do nothing to help your credibility by linking to a rabidly left-wing blog site like think progress.

Also, the Farmers' Almanac has a better track record than climate alarmists.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Basically if you ask questions and do not blindly believe whatever science tells you then you're a conspiracy theorists and engage in scientific denialism.

 

[govols/cc]

Throw it in the air, if it melts it's silver. Global warming will turn it to mush.

 

[tumscalcium]

Throw it in the air, if it melts it's silver. Global warming will turn it to mush.

If it freezes it's just climate change. Easy indicator.

 

[BartW]

You do nothing to help your credibility by linking to a rabidly left-wing blog site like think progress.

Also, the Farmers' Almanac has a better track record than climate alarmists.

lol: you attack my credibility in the first sentence then come back and reference that astrologist hooey in the second. If Jesus himself came down and told you global warming is real you’d call him a shrub-hugging communist.

Basically if you ask questions and do not blindly believe whatever science tells you then you're a conspiracy theorists and engage in scientific denialism.

No BOT it’s not about your beliefs, it’s about your tactics. All scientists ask questions and challenge or extend existing knowledge. You don’t test the consensus--you deny it. In case you forgot, let’s revisit the meaning of denialism:

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism, Holocaust denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. Chris will be covering denialism of industry groups, such as astroturfing, and the use of a standard and almost sequential set of denialist arguments that he discusses in his Denialist Deck of Cards.

5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.

It’s cute that you’re offended by the labels ‘denialist’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’. We’ve seen numerous examples of denialism (even self-admitted by some) in this thread and they’ve predictably invoked conspiracy theories because:

Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn’t because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it’s that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

You deny the overwhelming scientific consensus and claim it’s all part of some mysterious (yet to be defined) conspiracy involving thousands of scientists spanning several decades, every major scientific body in the world, and every world government. It’s easily one of the most massive and absurd conspiracy theories out there, on par with the Reptilian idea IMO

 

[WooPigSooie]

Its such a shame that the this idea that decades of rampant man-made pollution in all it's various forms has been all tied up with a neat little tag called "global warming" and tossed into the political ring for one group of people to vehemently doubt or out-right deny mainly because their opposition, the other political group, supports it.

This idea that man-made pollution in all its various forms may be drastically altering our planets ecosystem more rapidly that many of it's species can adapt should not be drug down to the asinine level of absurdity that is our political arena.

I think if the American public spent less time engaging in petty feuds based on what side of the line they stand on and more time doing the best they can to educate themselves about the topics they are squabbling about.. we might all begin to make wiser decisions for our future.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Since we have all the scientist in this thread, can some one tell me a quick way to test if something is silver? I did the ice test and it passed that.

kill a werewolf with it

 

[FLVOL_79]

"Climate Scientist" is akin to "Custodial Engineer". Actually it reminds me of the "race science" back in the 1800's and early 1900's. People got on that train as well until, like "climate scientists", slowly started becoming discredited. The fact "climate scientists" have to falsify data to get people to take notice is a huge red flag. What it boils down to is people feeling little self worth that they live in a time where there hasn't been a mind blowing world changing scientific discovery (like penicillin) in their lifetimes. So there is an intense need to feel important and climate change is perfect. No hurricanes this year? Blame climate change and man. Too many hurricanes this year? Blame climate change and man. Mudslides killing people? Oh well..I guess thats just rain and not climate change. Forest fires in California! Climate change and man. There is no way any of this climate change took place before the industrial revolution..yeah, no way at all. Volcanoes didn't exist (Pompeii was because of Jupiter the god), snow storms and cold temperatures didnt exist (ice ages fake), etc, etc, the list goes on. People trying to feel important, trying to feel as if man can have a significant impact on mother nature. Laughable.

Climate Scientists are the psychology majors of the science world.

 

[WooPigSooie]

Its true there is a lot of misinformation on this subject. Both from people that support the idea that man-made pollution is a major contributor to drastic climate change in the last few decades and those that would prefer to deny this theory.

There are a lot of special interests locked up in our use of fossil fuels and our waste management systems the way they are right now.
There are also very large potential contracts on the line for alternative energy industries.

Our goal as intelligent people is to sift through all of this while not allowing ourselves to be reeled in by lying politicians that would say whatever their campaign contributors would have them say.

It cannot be reasonably said however that the land development activities and human pollution of nearly 8 billion people on this planet is not exacerbating wild climate changes that our world goes through normally.

Our climate can be volatile enough on its own, the ice ages are a prime examples of that.. even massive volcanoes have had global consequences. We cannot control much of anything about mother nature right now but we CAN control ourselves. Why not let us all support a means of living that reduces the human element of climate change instead of trying to find scapegoats? It wont hurt anyone. Our economy may hiccup in the short-term but large energy corporations will follow wherever the demand leads them. If fossil fuels go out of style, you can be sure the suits at the top of ExxonMobile, BP, etc, will adapt their business model to meet whatever demand is out there. Our long term profits would be just as great in new energy sectors.. but our biggest profit would be in changing our cultural lifestyle to make for a better tomorrow.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Its true there is a lot of misinformation on this subject. Both from people that support the idea that man-made pollution is a major contributor to drastic climate change in the last few decades and those that would prefer to deny this theory.

There are a lot of special interests locked up in our use of fossil fuels and our waste management systems the way they are right now.
There are also very large potential contracts on the line for alternative energy industries.

Our goal as intelligent people is to sift through all of this while not allowing ourselves to be reeled in by lying politicians that would say whatever their campaign contributors would have them say.

It cannot be reasonably said however that the land development activities and human pollution of nearly 8 billion people on this planet is not exacerbating wild climate changes that our world goes through normally.

Our climate can be volatile enough on its own, the ice ages are a prime examples of that.. even massive volcanoes have had global consequences. We cannot control much of anything about mother nature right now but we CAN control ourselves. Why not let us all support a means of living that reduces the human element of climate change instead of trying to find scapegoats? It wont hurt anyone. Our economy may hiccup in the short-term but large energy corporations will follow wherever the demand leads them. If fossil fuels go out of style, you can be sure the suits at the top of ExxonMobile, BP, etc, will adapt their business model to meet whatever demand is out there. Our long term profits would be just as great in new energy sectors.. but our biggest profit would be in changing our cultural lifestyle to make for a better tomorrow.

+1

I am all for recycling of resources and not polluting. I hate litter. You bring up a good point with land development. That definitely can contribute to disasters, such as the recent mud slide incident. However I see no way man does anything that makes it snow more or less or causes more or less hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornado's, etc.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Earthquake in California! Quick libs..Climate Change? Global Cooling? Global Warming? Cow Flatulence? Jesus? Allah? Or...plain old nature?

Duh. Fracking

 

[BartW]

"Climate Scientist" is akin to "Custodial Engineer". Actually it reminds me of the "race science" back in the 1800's and early 1900's. People got on that train as well until, like "climate scientists", slowly started becoming discredited. The fact "climate scientists" have to falsify data to get people to take notice is a huge red flag(1). What it boils down to is people feeling little self worth that they live in a time where there hasn't been a mind blowing world changing scientific discovery (like penicillin) in their lifetimes. So there is an intense need to feel important and climate change is perfect(2). No hurricanes this year? Blame climate change and man. Too many hurricanes this year? Blame climate change and man. Mudslides killing people? Oh well..I guess thats just rain and not climate change. Forest fires in California! Climate change and man. There is no way any of this climate change took place before the industrial revolution..yeah(3), no way at all. Volcanoes didn't exist (Pompeii was because of Jupiter the god), snow storms and cold temperatures didnt exist (ice ages fake), etc, etc, the list goes on. People trying to feel important, trying to feel as if man can have a significant impact on mother nature. Laughable.

Climate Scientists are the psychology majors of the science world.(4)

More emotionally appealing but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Y’all really follow the denialist formula to a T. The repetition bores me, but I’ll address it piece-by-piece anyway.

1. Y’all continue to accuse climate scientists of falsifying data, yet can never provide specifically what data has been falsified. The only place climate scientists are ‘discredited’ is in the denialist blogosphere and faux news (and in your feeble minds).
2. This is equally silly; science is advancing at an accelerating rate. Just in this young 21st century we’ve already mapped the human genome, found the higgs boson, proven the Poincare conjecture, discovered gravity waves, and made incredible advances in nanotechnology, computing, robotics, and medicine among a great many fields.
3. Another straw man we’ve seen over and over. No single weather event is attributable to climate change, but the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is. Yes climate changed before the industrial revolution, but natural variation does not explain the signal we are witnessing.
4. Climate science is interdisciplinary, involving physicists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, chemists, oceanographers, etc. It’s not some isolated clique. If you reject climate science you reject everything. You can’t just pick and choose the aspects of science that reinforce your worldview.

What’s laughable is your conviction that man cannot have significant impact on mother nature. If you haven’t noticed we’ve made quite the imprint.

+1

I am all for recycling of resources and not polluting. I hate litter. You bring up a good point with land development. That definitely can contribute to disasters, such as the recent mud slide incident. However I see no way man does anything that makes it snow more or less or causes more or less hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornado's, etc.

Climate change has no direct effect on earthquakes or volcanoes. But it is worth pointing out that we can and do create artificial earthquakes, for example by fracking, mining, and Marshawn Lynch going beast mode.

 

[WooPigSooie]

+1

I am all for recycling of resources and not polluting. I hate litter. You bring up a good point with land development. That definitely can contribute to disasters, such as the recent mud slide incident. However I see no way man does anything that makes it snow more or less or causes more or less hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornado's, etc.

There is not much of anything people are doing to affect volcanic activity one way or the other. However we are still studying the effects that melt water (fresh water) from our ice caps may be having on our ocean currents.
All the world's weather patterns are directly influenced by ocean currents (or what is called "thermohaline circulation"). The salt in ocean water helps to keep the currents flowing in a certain way that we have come to depend on. As the ice caps melt, the massive amount of fresh water that has been locked up for thousands of years is suddenly diluting, basically, our oceans. This could slow, stop, or drastically change ocean currents, thus drastically changing weather around the globe in the short term. No telling what that sort of change would cause long term if this were to happen.

All of this of coarse is still being investigated and will no doubt be a hot topic of debate for years

 

[FLVOL_79]

More emotionally appealing but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Y’all really follow the denialist formula to a T. The repetition bores me, but I’ll address it piece-by-piece anyway.

1. Y’all continue to accuse climate scientists of falsifying data, yet can never provide specifically what data has been falsified. The only place climate scientists are ‘discredited’ is in the denialist blogosphere and faux news (and in your feeble minds).
2. This is equally silly; science is advancing at an accelerating rate. Just in this young 21st century we’ve already mapped the human genome, found the higgs boson, proven the Poincare conjecture, discovered gravity waves, and made incredible advances in nanotechnology, computing, robotics, and medicine among a great many fields.
3. Another straw man we’ve seen over and over. No single weather event is attributable to climate change, but the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is. Yes climate changed before the industrial revolution, but natural variation does not explain the signal we are witnessing.
4. Climate science is interdisciplinary, involving physicists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, chemists, oceanographers, etc. It’s not some isolated clique. If you reject climate science you reject everything. You can’t just pick and choose the aspects of science that reinforce your worldview.

What’s laughable is your conviction that man cannot have significant impact on mother nature. If you haven’t noticed we’ve made quite the imprint.

Climate change has no direct effect on earthquakes or volcanoes. But it is worth pointing out that we can and do create artificial earthquakes, for example by fracking, mining, and Marshawn Lynch going beast mode.

1. Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Does mapping the human genome help disease stricken people in sub Saharan Africa? See Penicillin was a game changer because it saved lives and helped people instantly. It was huge. None of the scientific discoveries you list have had as great an impact as that. I am not saying they aren't great, but not on the scale of Penicillin. An AIDS vaccine would be on a bad ass level, with a cure for cancer..not gravity waves. So herein lies the problem. A lot of modern scientists desperately desire, like most people, to leave their mark on the world. Most want to be in textbooks next to the Curie's, Franklin, Burbank, Fleming, Newton, etc. But the won't. Here comes climate change! Let's ride this band wagon like Global Warming until people realize its still BS. Climate change science is junk science. Its science with a political agenda. Its the modern snake oil. Its so ambiguous that it allows people to instill fear in others because of big scary "climate change". Normal people call it seasons.

I don't reject climate science, it's real. I reject politicians like Hillary Clinton saying "we have to do something about climate change!!" Like wtf are we going to do? Control the wind's? Lets blow up the moon that will sure as hell be doing something about climate change! Kill all cows..they burp too many greenhouse gases! Oh no the ice caps are refreezing we have to melt them to fit them in with our rising oceans/climate change agenda. It's just a buzzword to get some grant money, instill fear, and garner attention to ones self so they can pat themselves on the back for doing something.

Lastly..mother nature does far more damage to the world than humans do. Simple science here..Volcanoes..the bane of climate scientists everywhere.

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

SO2 effects Earth's surface temperature Global cooling and ozone depletion

Measurements from recent eruptions such as Mount St. Helens, Washington (1980), El Chichon, Mexico (1982), and Mount Pinatubo, Philippines (1991), clearly show the importance of sulfur aerosols in modifying climate, warming the stratosphere, and cooling the troposphere. Research has also shown that the liquid drops of sulfuric acid promote the destruction of the Earth's ozone layer.

olcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.

So climate science witch doctors..how do we stop volcanoes and their destructive climate change?! :whistling:

 

[BartW]

1. Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Does mapping the human genome help disease stricken people in sub Saharan Africa? See Penicillin was a game changer because it saved lives and helped people instantly. It was huge. None of the scientific discoveries you list have had as great an impact as that. I am not saying they aren't great, but not on the scale of Penicillin. An AIDS vaccine would be on a bad ass level, with a cure for cancer..not gravity waves. So herein lies the problem. A lot of modern scientists desperately desire, like most people, to leave their mark on the world. Most want to be in textbooks next to the Curie's, Franklin, Burbank, Fleming, Newton, etc. But the won't. Here comes climate change! Let's ride this band wagon like Global Warming until people realize its still BS. Climate change science is junk science. Its science with a political agenda. Its the modern snake oil. Its so ambiguous that it allows people to instill fear in others because of big scary "climate change". Normal people call it seasons.

I don't reject climate science, it's real. I reject politicians like Hillary Clinton saying "we have to do something about climate change!!" Like wtf are we going to do? Control the wind's? Lets blow up the moon that will sure as hell be doing something about climate change! Kill all cows..they burp too many greenhouse gases! Oh no the ice caps are refreezing we have to melt them to fit them in with our rising oceans/climate change agenda. It's just a buzzword to get some grant money, instill fear, and garner attention to ones self so they can pat themselves on the back for doing something.

Lastly..mother nature does far more damage to the world than humans do. Simple science here..Volcanoes..the bane of climate scientists everywhere.

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects


So climate science witch doctors..how do we stop volcanoes and their destructive climate change?! :whistling:

1. We’ve discussed 'climategate' ad nauseum. Some conservative hacks took a few quotes out of context and spun it as “GLOBAL WARMING HOAX EXPOSED LOL” via faux newz and the conservative blogosphere. The CRU staff was cleared of any scientific misconduct by a dozen or so independent official investigations. Read your own link.

2. Mapping the human genome has unlocked the potential for extraordinary medical advances. Instead of responding to symptoms we can identify the fundamental causes of disease. This improves our ability to rapidly and specifically diagnose illnesses, making possible earlier and better treatment for countless maladies. We've already made strides in evolutionary medicine. Not all major discoveries have an immediate impact (in fact few do).

3. More straw men. We can (and inevitably will) mitigate AGW by curbing CO2 emissions.

4. Humans presently emit more than 30 billion tons of CO2 annually (over 100 times as much as volcanoes). Major volcanic eruptions have a short-term cooling effect due to the aerosols (mostly SO2) they inject into the stratosphere. However those gases are short-lived, especially compared to the CO2 that stays in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries.

And as for your use of the term 'junk science'...

Sound science has two meanings. When used by scientists it means robustly supported science, confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed studies. When used in politics (generally by wingnuts) it means ideologically sound science, i.e. a euphemism for industry-funded pseudoscientific bull****.

It is difficult to pin down the exact political meaning because it is a weasel phrase. It seems to be most often used to mean "some bogus 'research' we just cooked up in a think tank". Alternatively, it can also be a play on the uncertainty tactic by demanding 100% definitive, irrefutable proof of something before it is deemed an "acceptable" scientific foundation for policy. If, for example, government agencies issue inconvenient warnings about global warming or environmental degradation, politicians may dismiss them as "junk science" because they allegedly "ignore a great deal of uncertainty on this issue", and demand "sound science" in their place, as happened under the George W. Bush administration over such controversial topics as the link between junk food and obesity, mercury in power station smokestacks and mercury pollution of water sources, the debate over anthropogenic climate change, possible links between smoke inhalation and cancer and the like. Such demands for exact certainty are not in line with mainstream scientific practice and downplay the fact that a substantial consensus may already exist.

An opposite phrase that almost always appears alongside "sound science" is "junk science," which roughly translates not to pseudoscience, but established science that goes against a rigid ideology or might cut into the funder's profits. The term is most commonly used by anti-environmental astroturf campaigns and, sometimes, creationists. In any case, the "sound/junk science" dichotomy is usually a sign that blatant pseudoscience is involved.

Sound Science - RationalWiki

 

[BartW]

Creationists and Climate Skeptics Unite: Watch politicians say there’s no such thing as climate change because of God

Considering some of the recent VN debate about 'student religious freedom' (and my previous discussions of dominionism, anthropism, and conflict thesis) I figured y'all would enjoy this

All across the country—most recently, in the state of Texas—local battles over the teaching of evolution are taking on a new complexion. More and more, it isn't just evolution under attack, it's also the teaching of climate science. The National Center for Science Education, the leading group defending the teaching of evolution across the country, has even broadened its portfolio: Now it protects climate education too.

How did these issues get wrapped up together? On its face, there isn't a clear reason—other than a marriage of convenience—why attacks on evolution and attacks on climate change ought to travel side by side. After all, we know why people deny evolution: Religion, especially the fundamentalist kind. And we know why people deny global warming: Free market ideology and libertarianism. These are not, last I checked, the same thing. (If anything, libertarians may be the most religiously skeptical group on the political right.)

And yet clearly there's a relationship between the two issue stances. If you're in doubt, watch this Climate Desk video of a number of members of Congress citing religion in the context of questioning global warming.

Using the Bible to Resist Climate Action: A Supercut

Indeed, recent research suggests that Christian "end times" believers are less likely to see a need for action on global warming.

 

[FLVOL_79]

1. We’ve discussed 'climategate' ad nauseum. Some conservative hacks took a few quotes out of context and spun it as “GLOBAL WARMING HOAX EXPOSED LOL” via faux newz and the conservative blogosphere. The CRU staff was cleared of any scientific misconduct by a dozen or so independent official investigations. Read your own link.

2. Mapping the human genome has unlocked the potential for extraordinary medical advances. Instead of responding to symptoms we can identify the fundamental causes of disease. This improves our ability to rapidly and specifically diagnose illnesses, making possible earlier and better treatment for countless maladies. We've already made strides in evolutionary medicine. Not all major discoveries have an immediate impact (in fact few do).

3. More straw men. We can (and inevitably will) mitigate AGW by curbing CO2 emissions.

4. Humans presently emit more than 30 billion tons of CO2 annually (over 100 times as much as volcanoes). Major volcanic eruptions have a short-term cooling effect due to the aerosols (mostly SO2) they inject into the stratosphere. However those gases are short-lived, especially compared to the CO2 that stays in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries.

And as for your use of the term 'junk science'...


Sound Science - RationalWiki

Worst definition of junk science ever.

The term "junk science" refers to inaccurate analysis and data that is used to skew opinion or push agenda. Junk science may be used by a variety of people for a variety of purposes. The best way to be able to identify junk science examples is to know who are the users, what are the popular topics, how was the information gathered and what was the source of the information.

Some examples of those who may utilize junk science and their reason for use include:

1. Media: To sensationalize or increase its audience. Additionally, biased media sources may use junk science to support their own agenda.

2. Lawyers: To win cases or deceive judges and juries.
Social and political activists: To support their own agendas and build membership.

3. Government regulators: To change the opinions of others or increase their scope of regulation.

4. Businesses: To advance their brand or degrade the products created and sold by competitors.

5. Politicians: To perpetuate their agenda, to bad-mouth an opponent's record, and to garner votes.

6. Scientists: To propel themselves forward in their field for the purpose of awards or compensation.

I highlighted the important ones in regards to scary "climate change" (aka seasons). Read the last one a few times..

And remember science is not as infallible as you imagine it. It wasn't long ago that blacks had smaller brains that whites and incapable of things like reading and writing..you know..based on science. Or when Carl Sagan predicted nuclear winter from nuclear war and how we would have "climate change" and be in an ice age again..Ooops they fudged the data a bit..lots of that goes on in the scientific community (read #6 again).

Climate change worry = Y2K


See you need to have some practical non agenda driven scientific education with a dash of common sense to see past the climate change worry. Stick to not polluting rivers, littering, recycling, you'll be fine with the planet. You know..until an asteroid crashes into us and kills most life (again).

 

[MG1968]

lol: you attack my credibility in the first sentence then come back and reference that astrologist hooey in the second. If Jesus himself came down and told you global warming is real you’d call him a shrub-hugging communist.

You're the alleged scientist, using a political blog should be beneath you. You should give the Farmers' Almanac a look, especially since it's based on observation, not astrology.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Someone's been watching too much Highlander 2: The Quickening...the perfect movie for global warming/climate change advocates run amok..and a huge steaming pile of feces of a movie.