I have noticed that arrogance seems to be one of your flaws. You are not an expert so try to avoid acting like you are. Can you try to have a mature discussion instead of trying to convince others that your word is the definitive word on things? Just a suggestion. Now to your next comment...

The list I provided shows those in the scientific community and related fields that don't agree with the global warming scare. They also give their reasons why. Once again, you are not an expert in the field...nor am I. To discredit a professional just because they don't agree with your mindset is, once again, arrogant. Open your mind and explore the possibilities.

This next comment is interesting.

You just discredited the scientific community saying that it is built on falsification. Continue reading...

You now are basing your theory on scientific observations in order to further your argument. Do you see how you are contradicting yourself? Make up your mind: Is science built on truths or falsifications?? Are you once again picking and choosing data from these "scientists" that is convenient for your argument? And you are saying that MY ignorance is showing? Pot meet kettle.

I will assume that you are an Al Gore fan.

It's not arrogant to demonstrate someone's wrong. You don't need to be an expert to understand the concept of "natural." When you see a flower outside, do you need to consult a botanist to know it's natural and not unnatural? Of course not.

It's not difficult to understand that a big space rock smashing into the Earth would be a natural disaster. Do you also believe exploding Calderas are unnatural?

I don't mean to offend you. It's just my way of talking.

A mathematician and civil engineer are not members of the relevant scientific community, nor are they really "related" fields. If Civil Engineering is a relevant authority in Climatology, then you must also believe an astro-physicist is a relevant authority in botany and biology. They couldn't be more irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what a mathematician thinks about global warming. What matters is what the climatologists think. You wouldn't consult your plumber on issues of medicine, so why consult a guy who designs and builds urban developments? What expertise could he POSSIBLY have relevant to climate change?

I am not discrediting them because they don't agree. I am not discrediting them at all. I am saying their word isn't as authoritative as relevant scientists. That's true. They are not trained professionals in climatology. Therefore, it's an appeal to irrelevant authorities to cite them as much as it would be irrelevant to cite Peter Singer on Economics. He's an ethicist. Not an economist. Similarly, a mathematician is not a climatologist. They have different training and likely do not have access to the same information base.

Simple question: would you take the word of an engineer over an evolutionary biologist when discussing sexual selection in bird species?? Hopefully not.

That makes absolutely no sense. In no way what I wrote "discredited" the entire scientific establishment. Do you even read what you write anymore? Please do, because I don't want to be the only one doing it.

The above's not a contradiction. I said science is built on the attempt to falsify ideas. It's a major component. Scientists actively attempt to discredit and refute hypotheses through rigorous observational testing.

In context of global warming, the "solar cycle" theory has been ruled out because it does not fit the evidence. Therefore, it has been falsified. This means scientists have done their jobs.

No contradiction.

"truths" are not the realm of science. That's math. Proofs and truth are for logic and mathematics. Science can only give the most probable based off of observations, testing.

Your understand of what I just said is so mind-bogglingly bizarre, I really don't know how else to address it. Of course I am using scientific observations and the results of testing to support my belief. That's what you are supposed to do. What about that do you have a problem with?

I agree. You are wrong. I am glad we could come to that mutual understanding.



The previous post or two has them at the bottom in link form. They discuss the pacific oscillation effect I tried to inform you about, which you simply dismissed out of hand, not even understanding what it is.


Then you simply haven't looked very hard, if at all.

Some of these people think "science" is "reality."

Well, it's actually more than just a method, it's putting a philosophy (actually, more than one) into practice.

Science relies on so-called "peer review," i.e. consensus. I'm still waiting for science to use that part of the scientific method where what is hypothesized is replicated on the big bang. When science can replicate the big bang (meaning that whatever exploded or expanded is re-created in a laboratory and then explodes or expands all by itself), I might think about giving it credence. Oh, and I also want to know where whatever exploded or expanded came from.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

It's a bit more complex than that. When they say replication, it doesn't mean they would need to replicate the actual big bang, but rather independent scientists should be able to observe whatever the original group did as well as perform any experiments to test hypotheses. You can have indirect observations and tests to confirm the big bang.

They can make a hypothesis about what would need to happen or be the case, if it were true that the big bang happened. All they need to do is observe and replicate that. We do the same thing with evolution. We can't directly observe long-term evolution. What happens is that scientists make predictions based of of premises and observe to see if they are true. They are testing reality against their predictions.

Peer review is also more than just consensus. It's when independent bodies of scientists--unaffiliated with the study or institution--review the work of colleagues. It helps minimize bias and increase objectivity by having people w/out a stake in the effort critique it.

Really? Have you looked at Saudi Arabia? How about those living in Arizona?

People have been living in Deserts longer then people have been living in the fertile plains.

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

And people who live in the desert today are heavily subsidized by the rest of the world that isn't. How do you think they get the bulk of their food, water, and non-desert essentials? Magic?

If you notice, a lot of desert nomads don't do that well. That's what the majority of actual civilizations were hydraulic.

Uh, I think that's a bit arrogant of you to say that. Read up on the Bedouins.
Bedouins are self sufficient. In fact they were forced to make changes by folks like you. Also check up on the Pashtuns, Apaches and Navajo.. they were also forced to make changes.

It may not be the "life-style" you want. But who are you are or anyone else to say that their life style doesn't suit them?

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Ok, I will take that.. but Science is still not a consensus.. either the methods (as you call them) are 'reality' or they are not.

There is no vote among scientists that can make it so.

I did not see any links in any of your posts. Please post them if they are real.

'pacific Oscillation effect'? You mean the one that has been postulated to have been going on for centuries?