significant global warming is ocurring.

[shoegazer]

Vic, if you want to argure against global warming offer up some peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting your claims.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
Vic, if you want to argure against global warming offer up some peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting your claims.

You have a core sample from a single location in Greenland. I have the well-documented evidence that the scientists at the weather service usually can't predict what the weather will be like tomorrow with anything remotely resembling accuracy. The same computer models being used to predict the weather forecast are used to predict global warming.
I repeat, global warming is not science, it is politics.

 

[shoegazer]

Weather and climate are not one and the same. Weather is day to day. Climate is over long periods of time.

And no, the same computers are not used in most cases. Some of the most powerful computers on the planet are being used for Global Circulation Models.

Politics huh? So, was it politics when scientists discovered the weakening ozone layer and linked it to human emissions of CFCs? Because that led to wide ranging cuts in CFC production and now the ozone layer doesn't have a hole in it.

 

[Vic]

The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

:roll:

There is much more to scientific research than money.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Vic
The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

got a link to that? it should be pretty easy to find if all scientists know it.

what about the CFCs we detected in the stratosphere? CFCs are only man made. they are also known to be a catalyst for the breakup of ozone thanks to some brilliant research that was awarded the nobel prize in chemistry. so, in this case grant money and prestige were involved. does that mean that it's bogus? no. you can't fake your way to a nobel prize.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

Are you now claiming the Ozone/CFC issue was bunk?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic
The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

:roll:

There is much more to scientific research than money.

Yes, but without the money - they couldn't perpetuate the "cause". They've worked people up into believing all this alarmist rhetoric - and whodda thunk it - they get more funding. Nothing states they actually have to show results - they just have to do "studies" - which match their preconceived notions. Wow - you're right - there is more to it than money.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

Are you now claiming the Ozone/CFC issue was bunk?

He's saying it's political.

CsG

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic
The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

Holes in the ozone layer are a fact. And it's very thin.

And you just completely ignored everything i posted? Like everyone else?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Vic
The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

Holes in the ozone layer are a fact. And it's very thin.

And? You have human causation? or just correlation and/or speculation?

CsG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence. That, and grant money, and prestige, etc. That's what modern science is all about. Getting published.

Are you now claiming the Ozone/CFC issue was bunk?

He's saying it's political.

CsG

Difference?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And? You have human causation? or just correlation and/or speculation?

CsG

CFCs are in the stratosphere. CFCs destroy ozone at a spectacular rate. CFCs are only made by man. So, when you see CFCs up there, and you see a weakening ozone layer, you can put two and two together.

We cut CFCs and the holes go away.

Doesn't sound like magic to me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
:roll:

There is much more to scientific research than money.

What do you know? You're 19 and live with your parents.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Are you now claiming the Ozone/CFC issue was bunk?

Science forbid I blasphemy your faith.


shoegazer, everything about the ozone hole assumed corelation equals causation. Everything about global warming assumes the same. The holes in the science are obvious to see, as is the political pressure. Look around. Hmm... hole in ozone discovered, not known whether it was normal or not so automatically assumed to not be normal, CFC's discovered in atmosphere, CFC's known to be a catalyst for the breakup of ozone but never proved to be a cause for the hole, scientists and environmentalists rally in alarm, and legislation is passed that gives world governments massive regulatory control powers over the entire chemical industry. Once the legislation is passed, the issue conveniently disappears like it never happened, and suddenly a new issue appears to be addressed in the same fashion.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And? You have human causation? or just correlation and/or speculation?

CsG

CFCs are in the stratosphere. CFCs destroy ozone at a spectacular rate. CFCs are only made by man. So, when you see CFCs up there, and you see a weakening ozone layer, you can put two and two together.

We cut CFCs and the holes go away.

Doesn't sound like magic to me.

CFCs are the only thing that cause it's disappearance? Seems to me that the Ozone "holes" open and close. Seems like nature rehabilitates itself - no? So anyway - do we know that there wasn't a "problem" before CFCs?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
:roll:

There is much more to scientific research than money.

What do you know? You're 19 and live with your parents.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Are you now claiming the Ozone/CFC issue was bunk?

Science forbid I blasphemy your faith.


shoegazer, everything about the ozone hole assumed corelation equals causation. Everything about global warming assumes the same. The holes in the science are obvious to see, as is the political pressure. Look around. Hmm... hole in ozone discovered, not known whether it was normal or not so automatically assumed to not be normal, CFC's discovered in atmosphere, CFC's known to be a catalyst for the breakup of ozone but never proved to be a cause for the hole, scientists and environmentalists rally in alarm, and legislation is passed that gives world governments massive regulatory control powers over the entire chemical industry. Once the legislation is passed, the issue conveniently disappears like it never happened, and suddenly a new issue appears to be addressed in the same fashion.

:thumbsup: Well said.

CsG

 

[shoegazer]

The issue disappeared because the problem was fixed thanks to science. Throughout the whole process of discovering the ozone hole, finding the cause, and convincing goverments and industries of the problem, scientists were checking their hypotheses against the data that was being found and found the data to be consistent with CFCs being the culprit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Holes in the ozone layer are a fact. And it's very thin.

And you just completely ignored everything i posted? Like everyone else?

The hole is a fact. The cause is not. To equate one with the other is to abandon logic entirely.

And frankly, you're a "sworn communist," which means that you are sworn to the destruction of western civilization through deception and violent revolution. So yes, that means you are not credible and that I am going to ignore you most of the time.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, but without the money - they couldn't perpetuate the "cause". They've worked people up into believing all this alarmist rhetoric - and whodda thunk it - they get more funding. Nothing states they actually have to show results - they just have to do "studies" - which match their preconceived notions. Wow - you're right - there is more to it than money.

CsG

It's sales. I see the same thing all the time. Whenever someone tells you that you must buy now or else is the time to get up from the table and walk, 'cause you are about to get fscked. It's amazing how many people fall for it.

Anyway, Tab will think differently when he grows up and gets a wife, kids, and a mortgage.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
The issue disappeared because the problem was fixed thanks to science. Throughout the whole process of discovering the ozone hole, finding the cause, and convincing goverments and industries of the problem, scientists were checking their hypotheses against the data that was being found and found the data to be consistent with CFCs being the culprit.

"Consistent with" but never proven to be. In other words, just like I described.

 

[kogase]

Ahem, seeing as how we all agree that CFCs do in fact deplete ozone, couldn't we also all agree that pumping copious amounts of CFCs into our atmosphere is a bad thing?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shoegazer
The issue disappeared because the problem was fixed thanks to science. Throughout the whole process of discovering the ozone hole, finding the cause, and convincing goverments and industries of the problem, scientists were checking their hypotheses against the data that was being found and found the data to be consistent with CFCs being the culprit.

"Consistent with" but never proven to be. In other words, just like I described.

yes, it's a scientific theory. so is global warming. you know what else is a theory? gravity.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kogase
Ahem, seeing as how we all agree that CFCs do in fact deplete ozone, couldn't we also all agree that pumping copious amounts of CFCs into our atmosphere is a bad thing?

Correlation does not equal causation. That's a logical fallacy (post hoc).

Originally posted by: shoegazer
yes, it's a scientific theory. so is global warming. you know what else is a theory? gravity.

Now you discredit yourself. While the nature of gravity (exactly how and why gravity exists) is a theory, its effects and existence are not. You're attempting to mislead by implying that our lack of knowledge of the nature of gravity is on the same scientific footing as the everyday observation of the existence of gravity, and then also put global warming and the ozone hole on that same footing. Bad science at its finest.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Ahem, seeing as how we all agree that CFCs do in fact deplete ozone, couldn't we also all agree that pumping copious amounts of CFCs into our atmosphere is a bad thing?

Correlation does not equal causation. That's a logical fallacy (post hoc).

Originally posted by: shoegazer
yes, it's a scientific theory. so is global warming. you know what else is a theory? gravity.

Now you discredit yourself. While the nature of gravity (exactly how and why gravity exists) is a theory, its effects and existence are not. You're attempting to mislead by implying that our lack of knowledge of the nature of gravity is on the same scientific footing as the everyday observation of the existence of gravity, and then also put global warming and the ozone hole on that same footing. Bad science at its finest.

what i'm saying is that you can't prove scientific theories. so asking me to prove anthropogenic global warming or ozone depletion due to CFCs is like asking me to prove the theory of gravity. you can't do it. a scientific theory is falsifiable.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Ahem, seeing as how we all agree that CFCs do in fact deplete ozone, couldn't we also all agree that pumping copious amounts of CFCs into our atmosphere is a bad thing?

Correlation does not equal causation. That's a logical fallacy (post hoc).

Yeah, yeah... but you don't seem to be disputing that CFCs actually cause the break up of ozone. You seem to be disputing the claims that the large holes we are seeing in the ozone are caused by CFCs. I'm just saying, whether we know that these giant holes are being caused by CFCs or not, don't you think it would be a bad idea to spew a substance that is known to break up ozone into the atmosphere?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
what i'm saying is that you can't prove scientific theories. so asking me to prove anthropogenic global warming or ozone depletion due to CFCs is like asking me to prove the theory of gravity. you can't do it. a scientific theory is falsifiable.

No, I did no such thing. I asked for verifiable evidence of causation.