The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I'm pretty certain that the unifying force/power they are missing is not love, and that sounds like string theory(about how everything is united and such) but I'm pretty sure string theory is going to lead to a dead end, Professor Lawrence Krauss has a book out criticizing string theory. Why does everything have to be united? the universe is complicated and chaotic, no reason for unification.

What have you got against unification?

NO NO NO, the burden of proof does not fall on me, you are the one making a claim I am the one rejecting it! absence of evidence=evidence of absence,
You have to prove that there is an afterlife, I'm not making a claim myself that has to be backed up, I'm just saying proof of your claim or shut up about your delusional beliefs. You must prove or at least give proof of an afterlife.

One of the proofs shall come in due course. Eventually we all die and pass on. If you are right, there will be nothing. If Paul and Sylvia Brown are right it will be reincarnation. If I'm right based on my reading of the Bible it will be sleep for a while and then eternity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Well I suppose you do, since you already know what I'm about to say.
River Tam: I do. But I like to hear you say it.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but you take a boat in the air that you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as a turn in the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her a home.
River Tam: Storm's getting worse.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: We'll pass through it soon enough.
Serenity (2005)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

If IPCC would show only science that is backed by evidence and facts(and stop making some pretty ridiculous claims), they'd stop giving ammunition to the deniers to feed their ignorance. Fixing the IPCC is a good idea.

There are no deniers. Only those making claims of climate change which is not backed by solid and verifyable evidence and facts.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I like this one. They want to clean up their climate change dog. The one they have now won't hunt. The review committee doesn't approve.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1689960/

If IPCC would show only science that is backed by evidence and facts(and stop making some pretty ridiculous claims), they'd stop giving ammunition to the deniers to feed their ignorance. Fixing the IPCC is a good idea.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I like this one. They want to clean up their climate change dog. The one they have now won't hunt. The review committee doesn't approve.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1689960/

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Actually I think he was using a word that has one meaning in common parlance in a context where it has another meaning. "It's only a Theory" uses the common ordinary language meaning of "theory" in a context, science, where it does not apply. It's called "equivocation" and relies upon the ignorance of the reader.



I'd stay away from such speculations if I were you. Some extraordinarily strong chessplayers have had some extremely nutty ideas, you know. If strenght at chess were the criteria for what we believe in then shouldn't we all join the World Wide Church of God?




Those seem like pretty darned good definitions to me.

Ed

I'm not familiar with the word equivocation, but it sounds like an evasion tactic.

There was also an IM(he has played at the Olympiad) who has a book out called Checkmate Atheists or something like that.

Yeah those were from my science teacher last year(she was a terrible teacher she got them from Google) but they sounded good to me.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I believe he was using theory as in we don't know if it exists or not, which would suit it, if the existence of Dark Matter was a theory(if he thought the existence was still under questioning hypothesis would be more reasonable), which it's not after seeing evidence given by scientists on that matter.

Actually I think he was using a word that has one meaning in common parlance in a context where it has another meaning. "It's only a Theory" uses the common ordinary language meaning of "theory" in a context, science, where it does not apply. It's called "equivocation" and relies upon the ignorance of the reader.

Maybe Bonham isn't a particularly strong chess player? So he doesn't understand opening theory much better then scientific theory.

I'd stay away from such speculations if I were you. Some extraordinarily strong chessplayers have had some extremely nutty ideas, you know. If strenght at chess were the criteria for what we believe in then shouldn't we all join the World Wide Church of God?

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Theories generally incorporate tested hypotheses into themselves(think of hypothesis' like a variation in an opening, so a distinct part of the theory)

Those seem like pretty darned good definitions to me.

Ed

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Then Paul, as usual, is ignoring the evidence. The rational among us might like to have a look at this web page, which explains why we are sure that the current global warming is caused by human activity.

It is easy for scientists analyzing atmosperic carbon dioxide to discern it's origin. The main sources of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in the past few million years has been traced to volcanic action. However the recent rise in carbon dioxide is sourced from organic compounds. We know this because of the relative abundances of various isotopes of carbon, and it is not in doubt. And the only way organically sourced carbon can get into our atmosphere is through burning organic compounds. Oil, coal, natural gas are all fossil fuels and there is no doubt that this is the main source of organically sourced carbon in our atmosphere. It could only come from burning fossil fuels or burning living organisms, such as trees for example. We know very well how much CO2 has come from burning living organism and how much from burning fossil fuels, because we have records. It's mostly from fossil fuels.



Whereas actual scientist know very well it isn't. Paul seem to think that these scientists are so dumb as not to have already considered this possibility. But he's wrong, they have considered it, and what's more they have measured it back for several millenia and have ruled out natural cycles for the current warming.

Now why would Paul believe in these natural cycles? The only way we know about them is because of the very scientists whose findings about current global warming he rejects! He believes science when it suits him, in other words, but not when it doesn't.




And now we see that Paul hasn't the faintest idea of what a scientific theory is. Actually dark matter is not yet a theory because a theory requires us to know what the dark matter is. And we don't, so we can't produce a theory about it. Now the existance of Dark matter is pretty much a proven fact, but what exactly it is still eludes us, and scientists, unlike Paul and his dreamboat Sylvia Browne, admit to their ignorance.

There are various hypotheses about just what kind of particles make up "dark matter", but we don't yet have convincing proof of what hypothesis is correct. We do know pretty well beyond reasonable doubt that it is matter of some kind.

Now I will attempt to educate Paul about what a "Theory" is in science. A theory, in science is not a hypothesis, but a collection of organized knowledge about some aspect of reality. Scientific theories, in other words, are almost identical to "Opening theory" in chess. We may use a given theory to predict some aspect of how nature behaves.

It is particularly silly to see a chess player, presumably familiar with the idea of "opening theory" not understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. But it is, alas, about what we may expect from Mr. Bonham it seems.

Ed

I believe he was using theory as in we don't know if it exists or not, which would suit it, if the existence of Dark Matter was a theory(if he thought the existence was still under questioning hypothesis would be more reasonable), which it's not after seeing evidence given by scientists on that matter.

I don't believe he was talking about what the Dark Matter actually was? Which no one has any idea of so it couldn't possibly be a theory(but possibly a hypothesis)

Maybe Bonham isn't a particularly strong chess player? So he doesn't understand opening theory much better then scientific theory.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Theories generally incorporate tested hypotheses into themselves(think of hypothesis' like a variation in an opening, so a distinct part of the theory)

In my earlier post I was regarding the "Theory of Dark Matter" as to whether it exists or not, Paul Bonham what did you mean when you said Theory of Dark Matter because it is basically a proven fact it does exist and so would not be considered a theory.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

However, I so far have not seen convincing evidence of the "A" part of AGW.

Then Paul, as usual, is ignoring the evidence. The rational among us might like to have a look at this web page, which explains why we are sure that the current global warming is caused by human activity.

It is easy for scientists analyzing atmosperic carbon dioxide to discern it's origin. The main sources of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in the past few million years has been traced to volcanic action. However the recent rise in carbon dioxide is sourced from organic compounds. We know this because of the relative abundances of various isotopes of carbon, and it is not in doubt. And the only way organically sourced carbon can get into our atmosphere is through burning organic compounds. Oil, coal, natural gas are all fossil fuels and there is no doubt that this is the main source of organically sourced carbon in our atmosphere. It could only come from burning fossil fuels or burning living organisms, such as trees for example. We know very well how much CO2 has come from burning living organism and how much from burning fossil fuels, because we have records. It's mostly from fossil fuels.

To me, what we are observing right now could be part of a natural geological cycle.

Whereas actual scientist know very well it isn't. Paul seem to think that these scientists are so dumb as not to have already considered this possibility. But he's wrong, they have considered it, and what's more they have measured it back for several millenia and have ruled out natural cycles for the current warming.

Now why would Paul believe in these natural cycles? The only way we know about them is because of the very scientists whose findings about current global warming he rejects! He believes science when it suits him, in other words, but not when it doesn't.

What you fail to understand is that science is full of THEORY. A specific theory only holds while all observed behavior fits the theory. As soon as something happens that doesn't fit the theory, a new or modified theory is necessary.

Right now there is a THEORY of dark matter.

And now we see that Paul hasn't the faintest idea of what a scientific theory is. Actually dark matter is not yet a theory because a theory requires us to know what the dark matter is. And we don't, so we can't produce a theory about it. Now the existance of Dark matter is pretty much a proven fact, but what exactly it is still eludes us, and scientists, unlike Paul and his dreamboat Sylvia Browne, admit to their ignorance.

There are various hypotheses about just what kind of particles make up "dark matter", but we don't yet have convincing proof of what hypothesis is correct. We do know pretty well beyond reasonable doubt that it is matter of some kind.

Now I will attempt to educate Paul about what a "Theory" is in science. A theory, in science is not a hypothesis, but a collection of organized knowledge about some aspect of reality. Scientific theories, in other words, are almost identical to "Opening theory" in chess. We may use a given theory to predict some aspect of how nature behaves.

It is particularly silly to see a chess player, presumably familiar with the idea of "opening theory" not understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. But it is, alas, about what we may expect from Mr. Bonham it seems.

Ed

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Ed, you should really pay attention if you want any kind of credit at all. Nowhere have I said that AGW "ain't so". I am actually predisposed to believe in AGW, and I've said it many times in this thread. Wake up!

However, I so far have not seen convincing evidence of the "A" part of AGW. To me, what we are observing right now could be part of a natural geological cycle. Paul Beckwith reposts weather events as if they are proof of AGW, not realizing how fickle weather events are, or if he does realize it, he tends to believe some UN person saying the floods in Pakistan are "unprecedented" when that word only has relevance for maybe a few human generations, which in geological time is a blink of an eye. You also fail to grasp this simple point. AGW may be true, but your evidence is nothing. What Vlad and others have pointed out is that Earth has undergone many such climate fluctuations in the past, and Earth was actually warmer than it is now at various times in the geological past. You ignore this in your zeal to prove man is destroying the planet, which again, may well be the case.

Now, as I've pointed out in this thread, the question then becomes, what is the civilized world willing to do based on some PERCENTAGE POSSIBILITY LESS THAN 100% that AGW is real and could destroy everything we hold dear? I seem to be the only one asking this question.


Now as to your other gibberish, which can be narrowed down to your statement "To suggest that because we can only observe some phenomenon indirectly we therefore cannot know it exists, is total nonsense.".....

What you fail to understand is that science is full of THEORY. A specific theory only holds while all observed behavior fits the theory. As soon as something happens that doesn't fit the theory, a new or modified theory is necessary.


Right now there is a THEORY of dark matter. What I explained was that Sylvia Browne has been very specific in stating that the "other side", i.e. where our souls come from and go to after this physical life, is not out in space somewhere, but right here on Earth, occupying the same space, but doing so at such a high frequency that we cannot perceive it. But we can observe it's effects, and the effects of other planetary "other sides" throughout the universe. Once again, Ed, WAKE UP! This is not refuting the theory of Dark Matter at all, rather giving a possible explanation to it.

And like all of the "indirect observations" you spewed about, this explanation also requires a degree of faith. It's a theory, nothing more. I believe in it, you don't, but all observations (NDE's, reincarnation, dark matter, psychic phenomena) so far fit Sylvia's theory, so it remains a valid theory. You would rather engage in ad hominen attacks against Sylvia than give a shred of credence to her theory. But you don't have any single piece of evidence that refutes her theory, or at least I haven't seen it yet.

Dark Matter could be considered a theory(but so is gravity and evolution despite the vast amounts of evidence supporting both), watch the university lecture, A universe from nothing by professor Lawrence Krauss to get more formal knowledge about why dark matter has to exist and how we can observe it and have observed it. I don't believe Dark Matter qualifies as a theory, it is a fact.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

In a post full of half truths and non truths, this one takes the cake. Science knows of and has proven the existance of many things that we cannot directly observe. Virtual particles are a good example, they can never be observed directly but their existance and nature is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Actually of course, we only and always observe everything indirectly. All that our brain can percieve "directly" is the electrical impulses that travel along our nerves. Everthing that we hear, taste, smell, see or feel is by indirect observation. The world we experience is actually created within our brains, and we see feel hear touch and feel only a small part of the actual reality all around us.

Of course the world outside our heads does exist, and we can be sure of it beyond any reasonable doubt as we all are, and with good reason. But that doesn't change the fact that we can never observe it directly.

To suggest that because we can only observe some phenomenon indirectly we therefore cannot know it exists, is total nonsense.

Of course most of the rest of his post is nonsense as well, but he piles nonsense upon nonsense and if you refute all his nonsensicalities he will bring more in and if you refute every bit of nonsense he brings up until there is no bit of nonsense left to refute, he just starts again from the beginning, which by then he has forgotten.

BUT, to actually get back to the thread topic, seeing all that stuff that Paul has written, and comparing his qualification with actual scientists and their observations of actually existing global warming, who are you going to bet on?

If, in other words, on the one hand we have a climate scientist who publishes in peer reviewed journals, and tells you that humanity is currently causing global warming. On the other hand Paul Bonham, who believes in psychic woo and tells you it ain't so. Who will you bet is right?

If you believe Paul please send me an email, because I can give you a great deal on a blue bridge. A little rusty but she still runs great...

Ed, you should really pay attention if you want any kind of credit at all. Nowhere have I said that AGW "ain't so". I am actually predisposed to believe in AGW, and I've said it many times in this thread. Wake up!

However, I so far have not seen convincing evidence of the "A" part of AGW. To me, what we are observing right now could be part of a natural geological cycle. Paul Beckwith reposts weather events as if they are proof of AGW, not realizing how fickle weather events are, or if he does realize it, he tends to believe some UN person saying the floods in Pakistan are "unprecedented" when that word only has relevance for maybe a few human generations, which in geological time is a blink of an eye. You also fail to grasp this simple point. AGW may be true, but your evidence is nothing. What Vlad and others have pointed out is that Earth has undergone many such climate fluctuations in the past, and Earth was actually warmer than it is now at various times in the geological past. You ignore this in your zeal to prove man is destroying the planet, which again, may well be the case.

Now, as I've pointed out in this thread, the question then becomes, what is the civilized world willing to do based on some PERCENTAGE POSSIBILITY LESS THAN 100% that AGW is real and could destroy everything we hold dear? I seem to be the only one asking this question.


Now as to your other gibberish, which can be narrowed down to your statement "To suggest that because we can only observe some phenomenon indirectly we therefore cannot know it exists, is total nonsense.".....

What you fail to understand is that science is full of THEORY. A specific theory only holds while all observed behavior fits the theory. As soon as something happens that doesn't fit the theory, a new or modified theory is necessary.


Right now there is a THEORY of dark matter. What I explained was that Sylvia Browne has been very specific in stating that the "other side", i.e. where our souls come from and go to after this physical life, is not out in space somewhere, but right here on Earth, occupying the same space, but doing so at such a high frequency that we cannot perceive it. But we can observe it's effects, and the effects of other planetary "other sides" throughout the universe. Once again, Ed, WAKE UP! This is not refuting the theory of Dark Matter at all, rather giving a possible explanation to it.

And like all of the "indirect observations" you spewed about, this explanation also requires a degree of faith. It's a theory, nothing more. I believe in it, you don't, but all observations (NDE's, reincarnation, dark matter, psychic phenomena) so far fit Sylvia's theory, so it remains a valid theory. You would rather engage in ad hominen attacks against Sylvia than give a shred of credence to her theory. But you don't have any single piece of evidence that refutes her theory, or at least I haven't seen it yet.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Just a copy/paste error which I have now fixed. And I will repeat it here, just in case.

Great article, that is an excellent website.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

This thread has gone on so long I have decided to repeat myself.

There was certainly a time when I believed that man-made global warming was true, but now I believe it to be a total lie. When Al Gore put out his movie some time ago, everyone got scared. That is, until the world cooled down for five years. Then Gore and the boys changed "global warming" to "climate change" and continued to perpetrate the hoax.

Years ago, Bush Sr. called those who suggested global warming as fear mongers (today they would be members of al Qaeda). Steven Harper called global warming a socialist plot, and other world leaders made similar sorts of statements ridiculing those who claimed global warming was real.

Then, a couple of years back, in the twinkling of an eye, all of a sudden everyone changed their tunes at the same time and now they all want to carbon tax our backsides off. Hmmmm.

This not only demonstrates that global warming/climate change is bull, but that the politicians of our world are puppets to higher powers that are giving them their orders. Now, of course, I might be too cynical. Maybe there was a mass enlightenment among politicians world wide, an enlightenment which did not affect the rest of us.

Al Gore shouldn't influence your decision on global warming, ignore him focus on what the scientists are saying. Global warming and climate change are basically the same thing, but the reason it was changed to climate change because some people didn't realize that the extreme weather actually goes both ways, extreme cold and extreme heat(depending on the location and weather patterns will be completely interrupted changing climate basically). In Europe there is very few governments against global warming and they are basically unified in finding a solution while we are still arguing whether it exists or not over on the West.

Politicians shouldn't be important when it comes to a scientific debate, because they are politicians!! Al Gore is a moron for making this so political that the real science gets hidden behind layers of garbage and lies from the politicians who are on both sides of the debate.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

So you attribute no power whatsoever to love?

From a very easy to find source:

"The fundamental forces (or fundamental interactions) of physics are the ways that individual particles interact with each other. It turns out that for every single interaction that we've observed take place in the universe, they can be broken down to be described by only four (well, generally four - more on that later) types of interactions:

Gravity
Electromagnetism
Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

Many physicists believe that all four of the fundamental forces are, in fact, the manifestations of a single underlying (or unified) force which has yet to be discovered."

Duh!




This is very interesting. You'd RATHER BELIEVE.... that says quite a lot right there. Perhaps you'd RATHER BELIEVE in AGW, because somehow it just sits right with you?





NDE? I didn't claim any proof of anything having to do with NDE. My claim was that there is proof of REINCARNATION due to transcripts of hypnosis sessions, and later research showing that names and events mentioned match up with historical records that the person hypnotized could have had no knowledge of.

Of course, you and others are free to claim some type of collusion or "cheating". Interesting, that. The very same claim made against climate scientists!!! OMG!!!! What comes around goes around.

I love Penn and Teller, and I've seen many of their Bullshit episodes. Well, Adam, sorry to do this, but here's something that will make you wish you'd never brought up Penn and Teller:

"Both (Sharon) Begley and (Penn) Jillette were participants at James Randi's gathering of skeptics, The Amazing Meeting 6, in Las Vegas last month. In her blog post "Penn & Teller, and Believing in Dumb Things," this is how Begley describes what happened:

Someone asked Penn whether he still believed that man-made climate change is bunk, as he has said more than once. Penn's basic answer was: I loathe everything about Al Gore, so since Gore has been crusading against climate change it must be garbage.

Now, Penn & Teller’s terrific “Bull****,” now beginning its sixth season on Showtime, has debunked psychics such as John Edward, feng shui, acupuncture and other forms of pseudoscience and the paranormal. But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, don’t bother me with scientific evidence, I’m going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore. (Both Penn and Teller are well-known libertarians and supporters of the libertarian Cato Institute, which has been one of the leaders in spreading doubt about global warming.) Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."

Oooops!

Ah, I'm glad you bring up Dark Matter. Matter that must exist, but doesn't according to all our methods of observation. I wonder if you really did read Sylvia's book, because she writes very specifically that the "other side" isn't in outer space somewhere, it's right here occupying the same space as Earth (and every other civilized planet in the universe has it's own other side, similarly configured). The components of the other side -- buildings, plants, animals, us -- are as physically real once you are there as everything is here on this side. The problem is, everything on the other side is vibrating at such a high frequency that it is all undetectable by our current means of observation.

Hmmmm.... could it be that the other side is the Dark Matter we seek?


Adam, you will recall that I specifically said that what I believe in, i.e. Syvia's teachings, require some faith. Therefore I'm not posting here to "prove" it in any way. I have stated that reincarnation, the central tenet of Sylvia's teachings, is provable, and the proof is available to anyone who wants to find it. However, I'm not Paul Beckwith, who started this thread to prove AGW theories to doubters. That is, I'm not compelled to prove reincarnation. For anyone wanting to prove it to themselves, do your own research.

The only reason I am posting here at all is because you broadcast your anti-faith pro-science agenda at the bottom of every message you post, and I wrote that it was amusing, to which you took exception. In the ensuing discourse, I have proved that you are a fraud who considers himself open-minded and able to make purely logical judgments free of any bias whatsoever, making those judgments based on fact. Yeah, you and Penn and Teller, you make a great threesome!

And here's one final link for you regarding the drug Ketamine and NDE experiences:

http://oceanofjoy.blogspot.com/2010/...y-dr-karl.html

And this specific passage from that site:

"In this article I will consider more speculative suggestions that the brain can act as a transceiver, converting energy fields beyond the brain into features of the mind, as a television converts waves in the air into sound and vision. Advances in quantum physics suggest that certain drugs, and the conditions which produce NDE's, may 'retune' the brain to provide access to certain fields and 'broadcasts' which are usually inaccessible. This retuning is said to open doors to realms which are always there, rather than actually producing those realms, just as the broadcast of one channel continues when we change channels."

So you see, your vaunted proof that NDE's don't mean anything is itself subject to bias. Who cares if it's biological? If it tunes us into a reality that is beyond this mere physical reality, it doesn't matter how we get there. What you have to prove (in order to prove NDE's don't mean anything) is that the reality that is beyond this reality doesn't really exist.

And as Jerry Seinfeld would say, "Good luck with alllll that!"

I'm pretty certain that the unifying force/power they are missing is not love, and that sounds like string theory(about how everything is united and such) but I'm pretty sure string theory is going to lead to a dead end, Professor Lawrence Krauss has a book out criticizing string theory. Why does everything have to be united? the universe is complicated and chaotic, no reason for unification.

Yes I'd rather believe in something I deem slightly less illogical, then your beliefs(.00000001(GOD) vs .000000000001(your beliefs)). But you don't understand no one would rather believe global warming is happening, it is terrible and is going to cause more and more damage as extreme weather continues, I've seen facts and evidence, and have come to the conclusion that the majority of climatologists observations are correct. But you're right I'd rather have this horrible problem to mankind happen, are you a fool?

Here is an article where a noted skeptic of global warming has changes his mind, Bjorn Lomborg the 3% of climatologists that deny global warming/climate change will continue to dwindle as more and more evidence stacks up against them.

I'm actually sure you did, you talked about how people had NDEs then said word for word exactly what happened two blocks away and this was all documented and recorded and verified but I just have to find it.

Moving on to reincarnation, most religious reincarnations suggest we can be anything not just humans(like trees, insects, other animals, etc...) so is Sylvia Browne's reincarnation just humans or other animals/insects/trees.

I've watched every episode of Penn and Teller:Bullshit, of course I'm aware of Penn Jillette's feelings on AGW(which is odd because he is also a prominent member in the skeptic community). Humans unlike God don't claim to be perfect, even though I have a lot of respect for Penn, he has his flaws, he is acting emotionally on AGW because of how much he hates Al Gore(I'm no fan either). So I don't see how one bad belief not based on scientific evidence but an emotional response has anything to do with their other claims where they have scientists on debunking bullshit basically.

Ed Seedhouse thoroughly refutes your point on dark matter and I'll leave it at that.

Sylvia Browne=bullshit, I'll leave it at that.

anti-religion not anti-faith that is too specific I'm against all religion and everything in religion(faith included),
pro-science yes that sounds accurate.

Why are you so close-minded on your absolute devout beliefs based on Slyvia Browne that you can realize she is a fraud and is making money off of your ignorance. You are a fundamentalist but of some weird side religion/cult based off of Slyvia Browne's garbage. All her claims are bunk due to the fact of the contradicting evidence. If there was none then my claim would be emotional not logical, but there is vast amounts of it. Stop listening to Sylvia Browne's bullshit and try to think logically for yourself, you are basically a slave to her and whatever she spews out is immediate fact for you.

The keyword in that whole paragraph, SPECULATIVE
definitions:
notional: not based on fact or investigation
bad: not financially safe or secure

Speculation is based on guessing or unfounded opinions, so that whole paragraph is unfounded and useless, great quote.

NO NO NO, the burden of proof does not fall on me, you are the one making a claim I am the one rejecting it! absence of evidence=evidence of absence,
You have to prove that there is an afterlife, I'm not making a claim myself that has to be backed up, I'm just saying proof of your claim or shut up about your delusional beliefs. You must prove or at least give proof of an afterlife.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

This thread has gone on so long I have decided to repeat myself.

There was certainly a time when I believed that man-made global warming was true, but now I believe it to be a total lie. When Al Gore put out his movie some time ago, everyone got scared. That is, until the world cooled down for five years. Then Gore and the boys changed "global warming" to "climate change" and continued to perpetrate the hoax.

Years ago, Bush Sr. called those who suggested global warming as fear mongers (today they would be members of al Qaeda). Steven Harper called global warming a socialist plot, and other world leaders made similar sorts of statements ridiculing those who claimed global warming was real.

Then, a couple of years back, in the twinkling of an eye, all of a sudden everyone changed their tunes at the same time and now they all want to carbon tax our backsides off. Hmmmm.

This not only demonstrates that global warming/climate change is bull, but that the politicians of our world are puppets to higher powers that are giving them their orders. Now, of course, I might be too cynical. Maybe there was a mass enlightenment among politicians world wide, an enlightenment which did not affect the rest of us.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I love Penn and Teller, and I've seen many of their Bullshit episodes. Well, Adam, sorry to do this, but here's something that will make you wish you'd never brought up Penn and Teller:

"Both (Sharon) Begley and (Penn) Jillette were participants at James Randi's gathering of skeptics, The Amazing Meeting 6, in Las Vegas last month. In her blog post "Penn & Teller, and Believing in Dumb Things," this is how Begley describes what happened:

Someone asked Penn whether he still believed that man-made climate change is bunk, as he has said more than once. Penn's basic answer was: I loathe everything about Al Gore, so since Gore has been crusading against climate change it must be garbage.

Now, Penn & Teller’s terrific “Bull****,” now beginning its sixth season on Showtime, has debunked psychics such as John Edward, feng shui, acupuncture and other forms of pseudoscience and the paranormal. But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, don’t bother me with scientific evidence, I’m going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore. (Both Penn and Teller are well-known libertarians and supporters of the libertarian Cato Institute, which has been one of the leaders in spreading doubt about global warming.) Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."

Oooops!

On balance, I suspect that global warming exists and that it is probably caused at least in part by people. I also believe that politicians and the very rich are going to use this to manipulate the masses. Not for the good of humanity (that is only an accidental byproduct, or more accurately a good cover) but mainly to retain their positions.

It's like snake oil salesmen of the 1800s who supplied "cures" for all sorts of real ailments. There is no reason to believe that the purchasers didn't really have various afflictions. However, those supplying the potions didn't care whether they helped anyone or not. They were in it for a totally different reason.