Suppressed Climate Change Report

[steyou]

Yet another good read.

Man Made BullCrap… ? Stand Up For America

 

[poppy]

"Well, it appears that you've stumbled into The Clearing. Welcome.

The Clearing is my place among the trees. It used to be that the deep forest was a wild, dangerous place. All kinds of nasty things were supposed to live there. And, it just wasn't the forest. Any piece of wilderness was supposed to be filled with unimaginable ugliness, and it was only through the pacifying force of civilization that we could achieve goodness and light. We've since figured out that's not the case, and a clearing in the woods is no longer a refuge from the dark but just part of the natural life cycle of a forest. To me, in fact, wilderness is safer and makes more sense than does the city."

This is part of his "about me" on his website. He does refer to his place among the trees but I stretched it a little bit with a treehouse. Please note that he refers to a natural life cycle. I wonder if he beleives that man is so big that he can interfere with a natural life cycle. Does not appear so. Do we have the ability to change God's soverign plan? Do you think we do? Or was it God's plan all along for man to save himself from himself. Is man that arrogant? I know of some that are.

I was thinking about possibly responding to these questions but I have run into a major obstacle, according to Godchecker.com there are over 2,850 deities in their Holy Database Of All Known Gods. It's going to take some time to reference your questions with each one.

 

[Gidget]

"Well, it appears that you've stumbled into The Clearing. Welcome.

The Clearing is my place among the trees. It used to be that the deep forest was a wild, dangerous place. All kinds of nasty things were supposed to live there. And, it just wasn't the forest. Any piece of wilderness was supposed to be filled with unimaginable ugliness, and it was only through the pacifying force of civilization that we could achieve goodness and light. We've since figured out that's not the case, and a clearing in the woods is no longer a refuge from the dark but just part of the natural life cycle of a forest. To me, in fact, wilderness is safer and makes more sense than does the city."

This is part of his "about me" on his website. He does refer to his place among the trees but I stretched it a little bit with a treehouse. Please note that he refers to a natural life cycle. I wonder if he beleives that man is so big that he can interfere with a natural life cycle. Does not appear so. Do we have the ability to change God's soverign plan? Do you think we do? Or was it God's plan all along for man to save himself from himself. Is man that arrogant? I know of some that are.

Thanks for the clarification about his "treehouse." :roll: Sounds like a fascinating person! Glad I got to read more about him.

G

 

[Yarmap]

In the late 50's & 60's it was the hot earth that was causing all the hurricans
(remember Camille).

I remember in the early '70's when all the "scientist" were predicting that a second Ice Age was coming.


Now its global warming again. I hope I just live long enough to watch the gulf either boil over so we can all have plenty of boilded shrimp or freeze over so we can all meet somewhere in Sowal and go ice skating.

 

[Matt J]

I have two issues with the "debate" over climate change.

1.) If you have less than 20 years left on this planet, please stop telling me how we should be doing it in 21. You had your chance and you missed.

2.) God doesn't play into this. Just as science doesn't play into religion. The two don't meet at any logical point except when you want to disprove one.

 

[pgurney]

I have one issue with this debate.

1) Show me one scientific paper that proves global warming.

It just simply doesn't exist.

 

[happy2Bme]

Hey,

There are days that I read stuff on this site that leads me to think that any given content far surpasses bovine flatulence in the lead toward global warming. I'm in the camp that God is in control, and $#$% happens....that said, I'll take global warming over an ice age any day....that's why I'm happy to be a native Floridian, and why I choose to live in FLORIDA!!!

 

[lerxst]

consensus and politics

Some clarifications are needed.
1) Skeptics of global warming are skeptical of the the idea that climate change is caused by man.
2) Skeptics of global warming are skeptical that climate change data is accurate.
3) Skeptics of global warming are not "pro-pollution" or against being good stewards of the earth or "anti-green".

Now to me, the bottom line in this whole debate is what is officially termed "consensus science" the mingling of politics and science.

Michael Crichton explains what Consensus science is and how it works.
Here is an excerpt from, "Aliens Cause Global warming"

the article in its entirety can be read here:
MichaelCrichton.com | Aliens Cause Global Warming

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

 

[Matt J]

Some clarifications are needed.
1) Skeptics of global warming are skeptical of the the idea that climate change is caused by man.
2) Skeptics of global warming are skeptical that climate change data is accurate.
3) Skeptics of global warming are not "pro-pollution" or against being good stewards of the earth or "anti-green".

Now to me, the bottom line in this whole debate is what is officially termed "consensus science" the mingling of politics and science.

Michael Crichton explains what Consensus science is and how it works.
Here is an excerpt from, "Aliens Cause Global warming"

the article in its entirety can be read here:
MichaelCrichton.com | Aliens Cause Global Warming

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

I don't get the science behind this argument, could you site a paper or study that backs it up? :roll:

 

[steyou]

I was thinking about possibly responding to these questions but I have run into a major obstacle, according to Godchecker.com there are over 2,850 deities in their Holy Database Of All Known Gods. It's going to take some time to reference your questions with each one.

Let me help you out. I believe in the one triune God. God the Father , Jesus Christ his son and the Holy Spirit. Does that narrow it down for you?