Comments about global warming.

The argument that because no other single theory hat explains the recent global temperature increase has found widespread accpetance in the scientific community means that anthropogenic global warming is true does not appear to follow scientific logical deduction to me.

The actual note isn't that no other single theory has found acceptance rather it's saying that there is global warming brought on by polluting the atmosphere with heat trapping gases which fully explains the warming being experienced, whereas no other alternative theories exist. The point isn't that other theories don't work therefore let's default to this. Rather greenhouse pollution explains the global warming and nothing else provides so much as a plausible mechanism.

All this appears to mean is that the mechanisms for global and regional climate change are poorly understood by our current science. Without arbitrary assumptions and deletions of significant but poorly understood factors of the climate, AGW does not come close to matching the data we do have.

To the contrary, the data fits amazingly well and if there's any shortcomings it's in predicting the secondary amplification effects. Our direst guesses have thus far been naive in underestimating the effects.

Scients are equally impaired in explaining past global climate changes other than the apparent general consensus that they were natural instead of anthropogenic. It appears that science just doesn't understand enough to be really sure what has caused any global climate changes either now or in the past.

Nothing about ignorance somewhere demands ignorance anywhere. By physics we know that CO2 is going to trap heat, we are releasing a massive amount crushing the previous records and putting it well above 300ppm. This should trap a large amount of heat. The entire planet is getting warmer. -- We have a simple easy to understand mechanism which fully explains what we are seeing and we have no other scientifically accepted theory which comes close. So, what should we conclude? One fully explains what we are seeing and nothing else does. Sure, there could be a something else, but doesn't that mean we're wrong on the basic physics part of greenhouse effect?

Previous heating events were way WAY slower. They were on the order of thousands of years rather than a decade, a decade we just happened to put massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, it's not like this science is newly minted, it's been well understood for decades.



A 1958 film on the question. 6 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide! -- I wish.

My second trollish response! WOOHOO!

I'm on a roll. I usually have to steal trolls from other sites and the dregs of the internet: obscure forums, creationist wikis, the Washington Post, or hidden in various nooks and crannies (filled with kooks and ninnies of course). But for the second time, I've managed to get a negative post on my blog. It brings tears to my eyes (not really).

Anonymous writes (in reply to my blog about Giuliani's debate response where he he accepts the bible to be figurative):

Yeah yeah yeah, like the frigging Democrats will do anything differently.

Different than equivocating about religion to suppose large amounts of the Bible are false without bothering to admit that it's all filled with lies? I didn't say the Democrats would do anything different, in fact, in this respect the Democrats do worse. They seem much less sincere with regards to religion, the reason they are getting my vote.

The leading candidates have already said they aren't getting out of Iraq.

True, they teeter about removing the last 5% after having removed all the major troops really early on. Frankly, yes I find that to be pathetic. However, I don't find the idea of a working surge or there forever to be at all amusing.

Thats why I believe the end is near, delivered by the nukes developed by atheistic scientists (Dawkins tells us most scientists are atheists.)

That doesn't follow. Simply because somebody says most scientists are atheists doesn't mean that most scientists are atheists, nor does it mean that the particular scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were atheists. That said, Dawkins is right as one can tell by surveys concerning religious faith within the NAS and Royal Society as well as general surveys to working scientists. Noting that the majority of top scientists 90% or so, are atheists doesn't preclude the idea that the Manhattan Project was staffed with atheists. That said, it was staffed pretty much with atheists, at least in this country. Due to lack of sharing and other secrets acts the atomic bomb has been reinvented a number of times.

The God Damn atheists are going to destroy the world.

How? With atomic bombs? By making atomic bombs and giving them to religionists? Because we have no morality? -- I guess I won't know. But, I can speak for myself. I I were running the country, I wouldn't use an atomic bomb even if atomic bombs were in route to destroy the country I was running. I would certainly claim I would, simply because the threat of retaliation is required for MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to function, but even soon to be vaporized I wouldn't give the order due to moral restrictions against vaporizing folks. Secondly, why the hell would any atheist want to destroy the world? Really, this is the only life we get and it is precious.

I will die cursing them.

It's probably more likely that you won't. However you will die and be gone and that's it. Though the idea that not accepting the proposition that "God exists" is enough to warrant your curses. Personally I despise aSanta Clausists, they are neither Jolly and all they love is coal.

My Reply to Greta Christina

Proud of myself enough to share.
My reply to Greta Christina

I firmly believe that one's morality has a direct correlation to how much of the Bible they ignore.

I cannot however agree with a few things you said. Primarily: "And I don't think there's any basis for saying that it is." -- I think there is. I think the most adherence to the Bible the more Christian (and consequentially the less moral) an individual is. The Bible is all a Christian really has to go on, I think the more they accept it lock stock and barrel the more Christian they are.

Now, your argument as to why literalists couldn't really accept all of the Bible was that there are contradictions. However, that isn't actually a great argument in this regard. One cannot accept contradictions as true, if they are sane. However, we are talking about Biblical literalists, and these individuals are not so limited as such.

Most Biblical literalists take Jesus at his word in Matthew 5:18, that the OT rules apply. And other such comments. There is a general idea of God is Love. For those people who cling to this idea, I suggest they read the Gospels. Jesus isn't much for turning the other cheek. When he saw people exchanging one type of money for another, he went home made a whip-like thing with pieces of sharp metal attached and returned, to physically attack people with it. Nothing about torn flesh exudes love.

Most of the moral bits, are the secular bits. The idea of loving society as much as self, or doing things to others as you would like them done to you. Those aren't religious reasonings, they are secular points. And they are points which predate Christianity.