What happened to actual discussion ?

One of the real issues with these types of discussions (climate change, evolution, etc.) is that they revolve around macro-sciences and multivariable inputs over large timescales. That, in itself, precludes direct definitive conclusions. Most science can be proven using reproducible results using empirically derived data (scientific method). That can't be said for climate change or evolution. The best we can do is look at as many data points as possible and form a plausible conclusion. If you spend the time analyzing this type of data you will see that there is a considerable amount of evidence that humans are directly contributing to climate change and that evolution is factual.

Another problem with these issues is that most people are not able to understand the science or are to lazy to spend the required amount of time analyzing the data. Most responses opposing climate change and evolution are either emotion based, scientifically ignorant, or based on prejudicial concepts since most of the data you need can't be collected in an appropriate amount of time.

I have devoted my life to science and as a scientist (Molecular biology and Physiology) must blind myself to prejudice and emotion in pursuit of an accurate conclusion. I don't care what the results are as long as I have been diligent in collecting and analyzing the data for what it's worth. I only wish more people would do the same.

That being said, let's keep an open mind and try to play nicely.

 

Hey , it worked for the tabacco industry scientists when they proved smoking was actually good for you and what about Monsanto ? Round up ready soybeans are safe and their synthetic corn fertilizers aren't killing bees , that's ignorant

 

Exactly

Funny that HBMurphy posted an article saying that the increasing CO2 levels would increase crop production

Who's to know

 

...most people aren't going to put down their iphone to dig through "the data"... even so, ...it doesn't matter, because as i've said before, the "burdern of proof", on the part of the alarmists/scientists/etc to provide irrefutable evidence of their claims, hasn't been satisfied for the public at large - and for good reason... it's basically junk science, ...and the credibility of the alarmists has been diminished because of the nefarious political underpinnings that "just so happen" to align w/ the greedy ambitions of the top agitators; power to tax air, abridging sovereignty, monopoly on investment income (carbon "trading"), etc..

i.e. they were(are) trying to prop up a whole new, phony economy based on putting tariffs on air, and taxing cow flatulance - no joke! all the while "energy costs necessarily skyrocket"...

 

Didn't you say yourself you beleived the climate is warming due to natural forces a couple pages back ?

 

no, i said it would be reasonable, or rational, to think that the planet's "climate" undergoes changes from time to time - alluding to lessons in ancient history...

 

So why do you adamantly doubt the science that is saying the climate is generally warming ?

 

Recent climate change due to HAARP.

 

Like I said, you can't get "irrefutable" conclusions on these topics because of the massive timescales. Obviously your paranoia/conspiracy theory of scientists pushing to increase energy costs through a new "phony economy" proves my point regarding emotional conclusions without consideration of factual data.

 

"science"?... wasn't the hockey stick graph "science"... the climate-gate emails, ..."science" too???

 

Nice try on the redirect

 

.."massive timescales" are needed, ...unfortunately the "technology" we have now tends to impart a "temporal distortion", ...the epoch of time covered by modern earth observation satellites, sensors, etc, ...is infinitesimal compared to the baselines you'd need for anything remotely statistically relevant... imagine when the first microscope was invented, ...looking into a whole other world that had never been observed before...

..and like i mentioned before, the people pushing the agenda poisoned the well in terms of public trust... the global warming ship has sailed into the very iceberg they were trying to melt!

 

BAM! Look at all those green chiclets. Welcome to TW.

 

well, what say you???

 

What say I about what

Overwhelming scientific support for the fact that the Earth is in a warming cycle which you said yourself was " reasonable and rational " , why do you need to adamantly deny that ?

 

...but what about the alarmism, ...the notion of a cataclysmic event at our doorstep... are you a subscriber to that?

 

Answer my question first

You said already that it is " reasonable and rational " to believe that the Earth's climate changes , so why do you feel the need to so adamantly deny exactly what you already said is reasonable ?

 

But what about [insert shiny thing over here hoping to distract you alarmist alarmist alarmist ]