Seigfreid wrote: You're right Chuck, we weren't the target audience and that's why I stopped watching after the first episode. I caught snippets of another episode somewhere. I very much prefer something on the scale of "The Universe" production. That was aimed at us and it hit a home run with me. I'm with Joe on the global warming. Tyson didn't need to get into that. The entire climate change 'science' has been corrupted to support certain political goals. The aim was to produce evidence of human influence in global warming due to CO2 emissions. There has been global cooling since 1998 but CO2 has continued to increase. Funny how a beautiful theory can be destroyed by inconvenient facts. None of the computer models forecast that. All of their models have failed. I simply don't know how anyone can deny what science is telling us. The Earth is not cooling. 97% of the world's scientists agree that global warming is occurring and caused, if not exacerbated by humans. The 3% that do not agree are in the money pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Tell me Seigfried... aside from some right wing conspiracy theory that the world's scientists are trying to dupe us all for... what again now? Money? If money was the issue... hell they would just be working for the fossil fuel industry. What is the next vast scientific conspiracy? What's that now? When a scientist like Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees with the vast, vast majority of the worlds other scientists, with all their data...along with the U.S. military and insurance companies... against your opinion... well I'm standing with the scientific consensus. Jon
Please folks, let's not chase away more list members by delving into this yet again. Please take it off-list. Thank you, patrick On 03 Jun 2014, at 16:20, stormcrow60@xmission.com wrote:
I simply don't know how anyone can deny what science is telling us. The Earth is not cooling. 97% of the world's scientists agree that global warming is occurring and caused, if not exacerbated by humans. The 3% that do not agree are in the money pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Tell me Seigfried... aside from some right wing conspiracy theory that the world's scientists are trying to dupe us all for... what again now? Money? If money was the issue... hell they would just be working for the fossil fuel industry. What is the next vast scientific conspiracy? What's that now? When a scientist like Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees with the vast, vast majority of the worlds other scientists, with all their data...along with the U.S. military and insurance companies... against your opinion... well I'm standing with the scientific consensus.
Jon
Last year I saw an episode of Sesame Street that was dedicated to explaining the scientific process. The character chosen was Oscar the Grouch, you know the guy living in the garbage can. He did a song and dance routine where he spelled out the process in three parts. Observe, Record, and Annoy!. It was a wonderful expression of how the truth, once discovered, has to be spread around even if it ruffles feathers. Joe you can't cherry pick your science any more than you can cherry pick your data. Astronomy is part of physics which is the basis of chemistry and the foundation of meteorology. The same method that gave us the HR diagram leads us to human caused global warming. And Rush Limbaugh is not a scientist, his opinions on the matter mean nothing. I'm amazed how people think they can be involved in astronomy but firmly reject global warming, evolution, inflationary cosmology, cigarettes causing cancer, or leaded gasoline causing brain damage in kids. To me these guys are not astronomers or even just involved in astronomy. They are just guys with big expensive toys and narrow minded opinions. DT
Jon, #1 you need a lesson in manners. It's disrespectful to misspell a persons name. You've got the correct spelling right in front of you and you can't even copy it correctly. Frankly, in my eyes, it makes you look like an idiot. Consensus is neither a scientific requirement nor important in science. But it is important in politics. The global warming science had to be created and had only 2 goals; 1. to produce a pre-determined result that human produced CO2 was the problem, and 2, convince the population that if they didn't follow their advice the results would be catastrophic. The goal was never to determine the truth, but only to be able to argue a link to "discernible human influence" on the global climate. Money is not the issue although funding dried up for skeptics of global warming. Political control has been the driver. The most basic assumption here about human caused climate change is that an increase in CO2 will *cause* an increase in temperature. None of the programs used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has produced credible results. The true test of a model is its ability to predict. The standard is for a model to be able to re-create a climate prediction for a known period. All of their models have failed. Also, if man-made CO2 is the cause of the warming, and CO2 has continued to increase, why has there been a measured cooling since 1998? Their models are the only source indicating a problem. They don't work but they're going to act anyway following a principle known as the Precautionary Principle." None of their computer models have ever been validated, in fact, they have produced contradictory results. It's one of those things about science... you can crush a beautiful theoretical model with one ugly fact. Global temperatures declined from 1998 through 2013 while CO2 continued to increase. Did the climate scientists, and I use that term loosely, admit they were wrong, no, they doubled down. They increased their claimed model certainty from 90% to 95%. The whole "Global Warming" linked to a human cause is a corruption of climate science. No question there is climate change going on, always has been and always will be. There was climate change before there were humans. Look it up. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:20 PM, <stormcrow60@xmission.com> wrote:
Seigfreid wrote:
You're right Chuck, we weren't the target audience and that's why I stopped watching after the first episode. I caught snippets of another episode somewhere. I very much prefer something on the scale of "The Universe" production. That was aimed at us and it hit a home run with me.
I'm with Joe on the global warming. Tyson didn't need to get into that. The entire climate change 'science' has been corrupted to support certain political goals. The aim was to produce evidence of human influence in global warming due to CO2 emissions. There has been global cooling since 1998 but CO2 has continued to increase. Funny how a beautiful theory can be destroyed by inconvenient facts. None of the computer models forecast that. All of their models have failed.
I simply don't know how anyone can deny what science is telling us. The Earth is not cooling. 97% of the world's scientists agree that global warming is occurring and caused, if not exacerbated by humans. The 3% that do not agree are in the money pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Tell me Seigfried... aside from some right wing conspiracy theory that the world's scientists are trying to dupe us all for... what again now? Money? If money was the issue... hell they would just be working for the fossil fuel industry. What is the next vast scientific conspiracy? What's that now? When a scientist like Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees with the vast, vast majority of the worlds other scientists, with all their data...along with the U.S. military and insurance companies... against your opinion... well I'm standing with the scientific consensus.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
-- Siegfried
For a proper Scientific debate there needs to be references sited for your data that you are presenting. Always cite your sources, otherwise what you say cannot be accepted as fact only conjecture. I saw no source reference for "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". How do I know it is real or something you just made up without references to the study or theory that states the fact. If you're going to have a debate please follow the proper debate rules. Also No kicking, scratching, punching below the belt, etc... Thank You, Jamie _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Jamie, You are correct; claims require evidence. My post last night referencing the Flying Spaghetti Monster was in response to Patrick's assertion that the Deity was female (please cite evidence Patrick), and posting from my phone demanded brevity and reading glasses. I personally find it hard to believe that pasta can have a gender. Here are two references to the existence of the FSM. They are both Internet references so we all know that it must be true: http://www.venganza.org/about/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster Thank you for your civil reply. I promise no kicking, scratching, or punching. Is biting acceptable? C. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Jamie Bradley <astro@jamiebradley.com> wrote:
For a proper Scientific debate there needs to be references sited for your data that you are presenting. Always cite your sources, otherwise what you say cannot be accepted as fact only conjecture.
I saw no source reference for "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". How do I know it is real or something you just made up without references to the study or theory that states the fact.
If you're going to have a debate please follow the proper debate rules. Also No kicking, scratching, punching below the belt, etc...
Thank You, Jamie
Chuck, Bite me. Dave On Jun 4, 2014, at 5:46, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
Jamie,
You are correct; claims require evidence.
My post last night referencing the Flying Spaghetti Monster was in response to Patrick's assertion that the Deity was female (please cite evidence Patrick), and posting from my phone demanded brevity and reading glasses.
I personally find it hard to believe that pasta can have a gender.
Here are two references to the existence of the FSM. They are both Internet references so we all know that it must be true:
http://www.venganza.org/about/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Thank you for your civil reply. I promise no kicking, scratching, or punching.
Is biting acceptable?
C.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Jamie Bradley <astro@jamiebradley.com> wrote:
For a proper Scientific debate there needs to be references sited for your data that you are presenting. Always cite your sources, otherwise what you say cannot be accepted as fact only conjecture.
I saw no source reference for "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". How do I know it is real or something you just made up without references to the study or theory that states the fact.
If you're going to have a debate please follow the proper debate rules. Also No kicking, scratching, punching below the belt, etc...
Thank You, Jamie
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
For I have been touched by His noodley appendage, I am a Pastafarian. Ra-men. Dan -- Sent from my iPhone. Please pardon any mispelings or errors.
On Jun 4, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
Jamie,
You are correct; claims require evidence.
My post last night referencing the Flying Spaghetti Monster was in response to Patrick's assertion that the Deity was female (please cite evidence Patrick), and posting from my phone demanded brevity and reading glasses.
I personally find it hard to believe that pasta can have a gender.
Here are two references to the existence of the FSM. They are both Internet references so we all know that it must be true:
http://www.venganza.org/about/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Thank you for your civil reply. I promise no kicking, scratching, or punching.
Is biting acceptable?
C.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Jamie Bradley <astro@jamiebradley.com> wrote:
For a proper Scientific debate there needs to be references sited for your data that you are presenting. Always cite your sources, otherwise what you say cannot be accepted as fact only conjecture.
I saw no source reference for "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". How do I know it is real or something you just made up without references to the study or theory that states the fact.
If you're going to have a debate please follow the proper debate rules. Also No kicking, scratching, punching below the belt, etc...
Thank You, Jamie
Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Please everyone, keep it civil and respectful. Name calling has no place in this forum. If anyone wants to continue the discussion on climate change, let's agree to preface the subject line with "Climate" or "OT", in case others are not interested in eating popcorn... Carry on. /R ________________________________ From: Siegfried Jachmann <siegfried@jachmann.org> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:40 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Cosmos2 Jon, #1 you need a lesson in manners. It's disrespectful to misspell a persons name. You've got the correct spelling right in front of you and you can't even copy it correctly. Frankly, in my eyes, it makes you look like an idiot. Consensus is neither a scientific requirement nor important in science. But it is important in politics. The global warming science had to be created and had only 2 goals; 1. to produce a pre-determined result that human produced CO2 was the problem, and 2, convince the population that if they didn't follow their advice the results would be catastrophic. The goal was never to determine the truth, but only to be able to argue a link to "discernible human influence" on the global climate. Money is not the issue although funding dried up for skeptics of global warming. Political control has been the driver. The most basic assumption here about human caused climate change is that an increase in CO2 will *cause* an increase in temperature. None of the programs used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has produced credible results. The true test of a model is its ability to predict. The standard is for a model to be able to re-create a climate prediction for a known period. All of their models have failed. Also, if man-made CO2 is the cause of the warming, and CO2 has continued to increase, why has there been a measured cooling since 1998? Their models are the only source indicating a problem. They don't work but they're going to act anyway following a principle known as the Precautionary Principle." None of their computer models have ever been validated, in fact, they have produced contradictory results. It's one of those things about science... you can crush a beautiful theoretical model with one ugly fact. Global temperatures declined from 1998 through 2013 while CO2 continued to increase. Did the climate scientists, and I use that term loosely, admit they were wrong, no, they doubled down. They increased their claimed model certainty from 90% to 95%. The whole "Global Warming" linked to a human cause is a corruption of climate science. No question there is climate change going on, always has been and always will be. There was climate change before there were humans. Look it up. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:20 PM, <stormcrow60@xmission.com> wrote:
Seigfreid wrote:
You're right Chuck, we weren't the target audience and that's why I stopped watching after the first episode. I caught snippets of another episode somewhere. I very much prefer something on the scale of "The Universe" production. That was aimed at us and it hit a home run with me.
I'm with Joe on the global warming. Tyson didn't need to get into that. The entire climate change 'science' has been corrupted to support certain political goals. The aim was to produce evidence of human influence in global warming due to CO2 emissions. There has been global cooling since 1998 but CO2 has continued to increase. Funny how a beautiful theory can be destroyed by inconvenient facts. None of the computer models forecast that. All of their models have failed.
I simply don't know how anyone can deny what science is telling us. The Earth is not cooling. 97% of the world's scientists agree that global warming is occurring and caused, if not exacerbated by humans. The 3% that do not agree are in the money pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Tell me Seigfried... aside from some right wing conspiracy theory that the world's scientists are trying to dupe us all for... what again now? Money? If money was the issue... hell they would just be working for the fossil fuel industry. What is the next vast scientific conspiracy? What's that now? When a scientist like Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees with the vast, vast majority of the worlds other scientists, with all their data...along with the U.S. military and insurance companies... against your opinion... well I'm standing with the scientific consensus.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
-- Siegfried _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
participants (9)
-
Chuck Hards -
Daniel Holmes -
daniel turner -
Dave Gary -
Jamie Bradley -
Richard Tenney -
Siegfried Jachmann -
stormcrow60＠xmission.com -
Wiggins Patrick