Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StephenL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By “a case has been made” I assume you mean “an assertion has been made”. Given that a large part of that assertion was based on the accuracy of the climate models, which all turned out to be wrong,…
“All” of them? Now you are making an assertion rather than a case. There are substantial ways in which global warming models have turned out right. I suppose it is a matter of debate if the ways in which they were wrong vastly outweigh the ways in which they were right. But I can’t agree with your categorical assertion.
If you really cared about the people in coal mining areas you might not be so cavalier with their livelihoods.
I was not cavalier. I realize that the decision to ramp down an industry should not be made lightly.
It is quite clear that the issue is not merely scientific, like the debate about the Big Bang Theory, but is deeply political as well. Huge sums of money are involved as well as the lives of millions of people and one is surely justified in pointing out dishonesty and deceit when it arises. One question that for me has never been answered is this: if MMGW is as clearly true as its proponents claim then why is it defended - by scientists - with deception? Why would that be necessary?
By and large, climate scientists are not engaged in deception. Cherry picking examples of questionable ethics does not prove that the vast majority of climate scientists should be discredited. As you pointed out, there are big economic implications at stake. With all that at stake I’m surprised there isn’t more deception going on.
 
“All” of them? Now you are making an assertion rather than a case. There are substantial ways in which global warming models have turned out right. I suppose it is a matter of debate if the ways in which they were wrong vastly outweigh the ways in which they were right. But I can’t agree with your categorical assertion.
I don’t believe there was a serious model that accounted for a 15 year period without warming. If you aren’t happy with “all” I’ll settle for virtually all, but the point really is that “the models” (however you choose to characterize them) were in error over a fairly short time (in terms of climate change), and while it is true that some predictions were accurate, a “right some of the time” record is insufficient to justify the changes its supporters propose.
By and large, climate scientists are not engaged in deception. Cherry picking examples of questionable ethics does not prove that the vast majority of climate scientists should be discredited.
Don’t dismiss the discreditable actions of the IPCC and CRU as cherry picking. Those are some of the most influential organizations in the world on this topic and their behavior is really inexcusable.

Ender
 
Don’t dismiss the discreditable actions of the IPCC and CRU as cherry picking. Those are some of the most influential organizations in the world on this topic and their behavior is really inexcusable.
I don’t think it has been established that the behaviors you refer to were pervasive throughout those organizations. Even if they are some of the most influential organizations in the world on this topic, the assertions made about the facts of global warming are not coming only from the IPCC and CRU.
 
I don’t think it has been established that the behaviors you refer to were pervasive throughout those organizations. Even if they are some of the most influential organizations in the world on this topic, the assertions made about the facts of global warming are not coming only from the IPCC and CRU.
FACT.
You are a Scientist, you changed natural creation.
Or
You are not a Scientist and have never altered anything?

FACT
You are a Scientist who ignored the Biblical warnings
Or
You are a Scientist who wanted to prove that Father is not a spirit?

Therefore are you a Scientist trying to prove that Biblical information was never correct and that you now have your own version of its teachings which ignored the advice of not taking from the Tree of Knowledge.

Who do you think you are, you all know you changed creation and now you live in fear of what you have caused. Why are you all studying Natural changes and arguing over the data?

Did our Father create Science…NO, humans did.
Did our Father warn you in his angelic interventions…YES

What were those warnings…DO NOT TAKE FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE

Why?

Because it is obvious, our consciousness is involved with his own and this has always been the cause of our own self destruction. We have a light consciousness that hears our Father’s light as it interacts with the Creative Act. This is how we consciously gained an overview of his own creative functions…yet ignored the fact that Light has always been present, Light was not created this is the Satanic incident, Light is the real Creator and Light oversees the creation and release of Satan as known by the Ancients.

Where did the Sciences evolve from…the Ancients you simply began to apply the use of technological instruments, instruments that should never have been invented. You then began to give your own versions of what you were witnessing. You then applied your own theories from your own observations stating to your EGO self that you knew more than the ancients. Then you suddenly revert to the use of the Scriptures for new THEORIES…who are you all kidding?

What you imply in your Science is that Satan was first and that heat always existed and from this radiated heat creation was formed. Yet the Bible states Satan was created in the Light and then fell out of it.

Hence the Light has always existed and that Light was altered to cause the fall out. That above the act of the fallout is the real Light, a Light which you could NEVER KNOW EXISTED because it has NO radiation in it THEREFORE concludes that to MONITOR an existence you need TRANSMISSION. Transmission is the sacrificed body, as you have to have a burn present to be able to HEAR it. You cannot place a transmission in a body that never involved TRANSMISSION (our Holy Father), just as the Bible states SION was an act of sacrifice and you ignore the fact that Father exists above this act.

This is the only reason that we could identify creative outcomes as an origin thought process THAT DID NOT INVOLVE TECHNICAL STUDIES. Just think about the origin of Sciences yourself…someone had to first think of it, write about it, conclude it and then practice it. How could that happen…obviously we come from the Creator self…the holy LIGHT SPIRIT.

What was the Biblical warning about taking from the Tree of Knowledge…that you would be cast out of your own creation and live a life of suffering.

Many of us pray to Father and contemplate why it is that we are suffering when we are so innocent. It is obvious if that first humans did not alter the creative act, we would have lived a very different life, free of suffering.

Does our Father love us, Yes he does, does he want us to suffer…NO.

Father has tried to assist us through angelic interventions to try to relay to Scientists what they are causing by altering the creative act.

He has tried to assist us in understanding that if you did not break the atom in the 1900s, by the Year 2012, the devil faces (sound bodies destroyed by radiation) that were once angelic sound balls would have been cleared out of the upper atmosphere. The ancients knew this and documented this, YET you all IGNORED the warnings.

The Sun supports its own body, the fuel that it creates is for its own self, all bodies are self supporting cells. If you cause the Sun to through out balls, it loses its own product…the ability to create illuminated light. The Sun therefore causes the Earth’s light sound to alter and it eventually will not support the light sound we need for life.

The total of the creative attack therefore cannot be monitored by Scientific study because it has an overall effect. CONCLUSION - cause and effect system, you should trying applying it yourself. ie If I take fuel from out of the Sun, I will alter its own radiating body, this of course would also conclude that reactive states would alter in the atmosphere. If I were looking for scientific evidence thinking I am safe doing Science I get proven wrong when an act of GOD destroys life…proving to myself that I should not have been a Scientist!

Where do you think the biblical information came from? It came from the ancients.

Where do you think the first angelic interventions were experienced? With the ancients.

Either you believe in the Biblical literature and apply it as its truth, or you ignore it and destroy our spiritual life.

Father cannot believe that you do not practice what you preach!

All of the SIGNS known and taught by the Catholic Brotherhood have been ignored…why?

Has greed gotten the better of you, I think myself that it is about time that you were honest about your own self deceit. Why were holy brothers throughout your own leadership murdered?
 
I don’t think it has been established that the behaviors you refer to were pervasive throughout those organizations.
“Well, not everyone did it” is a lower standard than I am willing to accept. Nor does it address my question of why, if MMGW is so transparently true, serious scientists at the world’s leading institutions should feel it necessary to employ deceit and dishonesty to make their case?

Ender
 
“Well, not everyone did it” is a lower standard than I am willing to accept.
If the whole point of this exercise is to evaluate the character of climate scientists, I might tend to agree with you. But in this case the only relevance of their character is as a means to determine the scientific truth of global warming theory. If there are other ways to establish that truth, then those with questionable character can be ignored. Climate scientists without that character defect come to essentially the same conclusion. And if you don’t want to trust any authority, you can always go back to the primary raw data, educate yourself on the field (something which I have not done, I must confess, but at least the way is open if I should chose to do so), and see for yourself.
Nor does it address my question of why, if MMGW is so transparently true, serious scientists at the world’s leading institutions should feel it necessary to employ deceit and dishonesty to make their case?
No climate scientist would claim that the theory is transparently true, in the sense that it is true that apples fall to the ground. Einstein’s theory of relativity is now universally accepted, although no one would say it is transparently true. That is too high a bar to demand of any theory. And when a job is difficult, there will always be those who are tempted to take shortcuts, sometimes fooling even themselves (remember cold fusion?).
 
“All” of them? Now you are making an assertion rather than a case. There are substantial ways in which global warming models have turned out right. I suppose it is a matter of debate if the ways in which they were wrong vastly outweigh the ways in which they were right. But I can’t agree with your categorical assertion.

I was not cavalier. I realize that the decision to ramp down an industry should not be made lightly.

By and large, climate scientists are not engaged in deception. Cherry picking examples of questionable ethics does not prove that the vast majority of climate scientists should be discredited. As you pointed out, there are big economic implications at stake. With all that at stake I’m surprised there isn’t more deception going on.
What in the models turned out right?
 
What in the models turned out right?
The first report of the IPCC in 1990 predicted that average global temperatures would rise by 1.1 degrees C by 2030. By 2010, halfway through the prediction period, the actual global air temperature had risen .39 degrees C, close to the halfway target of .55 degrees C. Of course one correct prediction is meaningless, so why did you ask? Did you really think I would be unable to find even one? Or did you plan on using this as an opening for trotting out your list of “failed” predictions?
 
The first report of the IPCC in 1990 predicted that average global temperatures would rise by 1.1 degrees C by 2030. By 2010, halfway through the prediction period, the actual global air temperature had risen .39 degrees C, close to the halfway target of .55 degrees C. Of course one correct prediction is meaningless, so why did you ask? Did you really think I would be unable to find even one? Or did you plan on using this as an opening for trotting out your list of “failed” predictions?
You seem to dismiss failed predictions. Before we disrupt the economy and spend trillions of dollars shouldn’t we know global warming is actually taking place?
 
You seem to dismiss failed predictions. Before we disrupt the economy and spend trillions of dollars shouldn’t we know global warming is actually taking place?
What degree of certainty do you think is appropriate? Remember, are talking about something that, if true, will also result in a huge disruption to the economy. So you are taking a chance either way.
 
What degree of certainty do you think is appropriate? Remember, are talking about something that, if true, will also result in a huge disruption to the economy. So you are taking a chance either way.
Actually it would be nice if the atmosphere were actually warming for starters.
 
Proving that this whole man-made-global-warming hoax is nothing more than a “shakedown” of Industrial Nations by the Third World.
 
Proving that this whole man-made-global-warming hoax is nothing more than a “shakedown” of Industrial Nations by the Third World.
You are confusing the policy issues related to global warming with the science of global warming. They are two separate issues. The walk-out referred to was over compensation and other policy issues. It was not over the science of what is actually happening.
 
You are confusing the policy issues related to global warming with the science of global warming. They are two separate issues. The walk-out referred to was over compensation and other policy issues. It was not over the science of what is actually happening.
You are confusing the natural climate fluctuations of the Earth with a political science.
 
You are confusing the natural climate fluctuations of the Earth with a political science.
If so then so are all the other climate scientists who have studied the matter far more thoroughly than you or I. How fortunate that you can see things from the comfort of your armchair that all these learned people who actually get out there to the oceans and glaciers and ice packs and take measurements cannot see!

Note that I have taken no side in any of the political “what should we do” questions. I am merely refuting your outrageous statement that the scientific facts in the case are a hoax. But I will now say that I think trading carbon credits and compensation for past usage is a bad idea.
 
You seem to dismiss failed predictions. Before we disrupt the economy and spend trillions of dollars shouldn’t we know global warming is actually taking place?
When will we know for certain that global warming is real?

Lately we have been having a lot of weird weather events, many costing the economy billions of dollars but there is uncertainty as to whether this is real climate change or just normal weather variations. Fair enough.

My thoughts on when we will know for certain.

We will know for certain when we governments can no longer afford to repair the climate damage and restore communities to their pre damaged state. We will know when millions of people are been killed and millions of others displaced. When it happens many will claim that “no one could have seen it coming.”

Reality has a way of forcing us to accept the previously unacceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top