If we're really quiet.....

[TailgateNut]

global warming and it's effects will not come to fruition.
Just another example of goverment trampling on the right to free speech.






Don’t discuss polar bears, U.S. tells scientists
Officials give environmental groups going to meetings abroad strict warning


Updated: 7:03 p.m. MT March 8, 2007
WASHINGTON - Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday.

Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.

But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.

Story continues below ↓


The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.

Officials want advanced notice
Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.

The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.

Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."

Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.

Hall said a decision is expected in January 2008. A "threatened" listing would bar the government from taking any action that jeopardizes the animal's existence, and might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

Hall defended the policy laid out in the memos, saying it was meant to keep scientists from straying from a set agenda at meetings in countries like Russia, Norway and Canada.

Climate change or 'management' discussion?
For example, he said, one meeting was about "human and polar bear interface." Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.

"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."

The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.

"This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.

"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.

[Garcia Bronco]

I read an article the other day that says Mars is having the same issue with its' climate. Anybody else know anything about this?

[TailgateNut]

Making that type of childish comment I have to assume you do not have children, or if you do, you really could care less about their future.
Typical ostrich comment! If I don't see it, it doesn't exist.

[Bronco Bob]

I read an article the other day that says Mars is having the same issue with its' climate. Anybody else know anything about this?

Could you give us a link to the article so we may better understand what
the article said, and whether it is from a legitmate scientific source
or just another Fox Noise bedfellow. Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

[Garcia Bronco]

Making that type of childish comment I have to assume you do not have children, or if you do, you really could care less about their future.
Typical ostrich comment! If I don't see it, it doesn't exist.

If Mars is going through the same type of warming trend it could mean that it's not as man-made as we would like to believe, and if so we have to re-evaluate the way we sell this to the masses, politicians, and business.

[Garcia Bronco]

Could you give us a link to the article so we may better understand what
the article said, and whether it is from a legitmate scientific source
or just another Fox Noise bedfellow. Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rs-warming.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

[TailgateNut]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rs-warming.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007


Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."



Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

."

seems to me you've found the one "genius" who supports a completely diffenrent theory than the other 99%.
Yeah, let's listen to him!

[Garcia Bronco]

seems to me you've found the one "genius" who supports a completely diffenrent theory than the other 99%.
Yeah, let's listen to him!

Many said the same about Gallieo and Nicholas C. The point is...we don't have all the answers. There is most likely more to our climate than we know. I can probably tell you that an environmental scientist doesn't typically studied much that occurs outside of the atmosphere. I don't know your back ground, but I have a degree built on a broad range sciences, research methods, and technology. I probably view science and research in a different way than you do.


I ask this here all the time....and never get an answer.


Can anyone name the 4 sciences and put them in order?

[TailgateNut]

Many said the same about Gallieo and Nicholas C. The point is...we don't have all the answers. There is most likely more to our climate than we know. I can probably tell you that an environmental scientist doesn't typically studied much that occurs outside of the atmosphere. I don't know your back ground, but I have a degree built on a broad range sciences, research methods, and technology. I probably view science and research in a different way than you do.


I ask this here all the time....and never get an answer.


Can anyone name the 4 sciences and put them in order?


Let's see:


Physical
Earth
Life
and....?


You are corrrect in assuming that there is more to our climate than we know, but I tend to trust an opinion of a majority over that of a single scientist.

As they say: Two heads are better than one!

[Garcia Bronco]

Let's see:


Physical
Earth
Life
and....?


You are corrrect in assuming that there is more to our climate than we know, but I tend to trust an opinion of a majority over that of a single scientist.

As they say: Two heads are better than one!

The first science is physics
The second science is chemistry
The third is biology
The fourth is psychology

As you can see...without the physics...none of the others exist and so on. I better designation would be main sciences. From an engineering perspective, physics breaks down in several catergories. Two of the would be statics and dynamnics. Statics would be the study of forces on rigid bodies at rest...dynamics would be the same on rigid bodies in motion.

In terms of global warming and climate...we are mainly in the realm of the first two, but it can stretch over all 4.

Years ago the majority of people thought the earth was flat, they though the moon was encased in glass, and they thought the sun rotated around the earth. And while we are advancedly superior in so many ways, there is still more that we don't know vs what we do know. Global warming might not be a completely man made event, however...we as a species need to be much more environmentally aware.

[TailgateNut]

Your list is according to .....?

The first two you list are Physical sciences
the last two you list are Life sciences.

So I wasn't too far off, but your question wasn't as clear as it could have been. Correct?

[Bronco Bob]

Many said the same about Gallieo and Nicholas C. The point is...we don't have all the answers.

They also said the same thing about Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken. Sometimes a crackpot really is just a crackpot.



There is most likely more to our climate than we know. I can probably tell you that an environmental scientist doesn't typically studied much that occurs outside of the atmosphere. I don't know your back ground, but I have a degree built on a broad range sciences, research methods, and technology. I probably view science and research in a different way than you do.



What's to know?

1. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

2. Since the industrial age man has been burning more and more fossil fuel,
releasing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. The overall climate of the earth is getting warmer.

What-ever else may be contributing to the earth getting warmer,
be it changes in solar radiation, changes in ocean currents,
shifts in the albedo of the land, certainly the increasing burning
of fossil fuel isn't helping things. If anything, these would increase
the need to find alternatives to fossil fuel because we are just
adding insult to injury. If you burn your hand in hot water,
you don't hold it over a gas flame to make it better.

[colosilverado]

seems to me you've found the one "genius" who supports a completely diffenrent theory than the other 99%.
Yeah, let's listen to him!



Yeah, those geniuses that thought the world was round were just flat out stupid. All of those guys who thought it was flat were right. Don't ever listen to anyone other than the masses who regurgitate the same crap without actually investigating or thinking outside the freakin box.

[Bronco Bob]

Yeah, those geniuses that thought the world was round were just flat out stupid. All of those guys who thought it was flat were right. Don't ever listen to anyone other than the masses who regurgitate the same crap without actually investigating or thinking outside the freakin box.

Not sure what sort of point you are trying to make. The educated people,
and that includes all the way back to the ancient Greeks like Pythagoras,
didn't just know the world was round, they could prove it by simple trigonometry.
Plato also taught his students the earth was round.
Aristotle also taught the earth was round and could demonstrate
it by the fact that as you went further north, you could see stars
you couldn't see in the south and stars you could see in the south,
you couldn't see in the north.
Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of the earth and was correct
to within 2%. Ptolemy included longitudes and latitudes in his
books on the earth.
By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century the Earth's spherical shape
was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world.
His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages.
The shape of the Earth was not only discussed in scholarly works written in Latin;
it was also treated in works written in vernacular languages or dialects and intended
for wider audiences. The Norwegian book Konungs Skuggsjá, from around 1250,
states clearly that the Earth is round - and that it is night on the other side of
the Earth when it is daytime in Norway.
And obviously Columbus knew the world was round in 1492, and the Spanish
queen who funded him, otherwise he wouldn't have went west to try to
get to India instead of east like everyone else was doing.
Who are these guys you speak of who thought the world was flat?
Are you trying to say that just the right wing rabble doesn't accept global
warming, that just the educated people are the ones able to prove
global warming?

[Spider]

Yeah, those geniuses that thought the world was round were just flat out stupid. All of those guys who thought it was flat were right. Don't ever listen to anyone other than the masses who regurgitate the same crap without actually investigating or thinking outside the freakin box.

read a few of your takes tonight , one thing is for sure , you aint shy about pulling shít out of your ass and posting it ............ Dealt with plenty like you down here , none of them hardly come around anymore .......... Stupid people get abused down here pretty bad .........

[colosilverado]

read a few of your takes tonight , one thing is for sure , you aint shy about pulling shít out of your ass and posting it ............ Dealt with plenty like you down here , none of them hardly come around anymore .......... Stupid people get abused down here pretty bad .........

Abused? Yeah....whatever. Of course, you wanting to punch your brother is so ultra-impressive. Just because a few pinkos have banned together down here and think they're teaching anyone who disagrees with their anti-US and anti-Bush rants a lesson by calling us ignorant, you think you guys are hurting us or proving anything?
I'm sure the threats against me will come next, since punching your brother isn't far from your mind.
People don't come around here because you guys are like 3rd graders, you think by calling us a few names, you're showing us what's up or something. Pulled something out of my ass? Really? I didn't post some link and try to pass it off as fact like you guys are sooooo fond of doing? You guys can just keep playing paddycake with each other and blaming everyone else in the world for your problems. Have at it. It seems to make you guys proud. If people aren't showing up in here, it has nothing to do with you. It has to do with people not wanting to waste their time with ya. I just feel like mixing it up. I'm not scared of what you type. It doesn't hurt me. It is kinda like sticking a stick into the cage of a rabid dog and you guys sure as hell do bite at that stick. :wave:

[Meck77]

global warming and it's effects will not come to fruition.
Just another example of goverment trampling on the right to free speech.






Don’t discuss polar bears, U.S. tells scientists
Officials give environmental groups going to meetings abroad strict warning

.

Ok Nut I have to jump on this one. It was ALL over the news at the end of the year that Bush admitted the Polar Bears were in trouble. I even saw it on CNN. Where did you get your link? Peta.com?Ha!

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2108212.ece

Bush embraces the endangered polar bear - and accepts the dangers of global warming
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 28 December 2006

In a landmark decision, the Bush administration has concluded that global warming is endangering the existence of the polar bear - an admission that could force the US government to act to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.

In a sharp reversal from its previous position, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has decided one of nature's most iconic creatures should be listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because "the polar bears' habitat may literally be melting".

The decision potentially has huge implications that go beyond the survival of the polar bear: the ESA of 1973 not only requires the government to come up with a recovery plan for the bears but also prevents it from " enacting, funding, or authorising [actions which] adversely modify the animal's critical habitats".

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said that while the administration recognised the role of greenhouse gases in climate change, "the proposal to list the species as threatened cites the threat of receding sea ice [but] does not include a scientific analysis of the causes of climate change. That analysis is beyond the scope of the ESA review process".

Asked directly whether the government was not now required to act to curb emissions, he replied: "We don't have the expertise to make this analysis." He also said studies had concluded oil and gas exploration in the Arctic was not a threat to the bears - a claim contested by some enviromentalists.

But last night campaigners insisted the decision provided the bears with new, legally enforceable protection and opened the way for widespread legal action to force the Bush administration to limit emission of carbon dioxide and other warming gases.

"I think this is a watershed decision," said Kassie Siegel of the Centre for Biological Diversity, one of three groups that petitioned the DOI to act. "Even the Bush administration can no longer deny the science... There definitely is a new source of liability. For large emitters of greenhouse gases, if they do not consider the impact of those emissions on polar bears there is a provision for us and others to sue."

Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), added: " Global warming is the single biggest threat to polar bears survival, and this will require the government to address the impacts on the polar bear." It has long been known that global warming was threatening the existence of polar bears, the world's largest bear whose total population is estimated at 22,000, located in Canada, the US, Greenland, Russia and Norway. The Swiss-based World Conservation Union has estimated the bear's numbers will plunge by 30 per cent over the next 45 years as a result of melting sea ice. In Canada's Hudson Bay area, numbers fell by an estimated 22 per cent per cent between 1997 and 2004.

Last year the Independent on Sunday reported anecdotal testimony from indigenous Inuit from Alaska and Canada who told how thinning ice and longer summers were resulting in fewer polar bears - some of which were drowning at sea as they were trapped on melting floes.

John Keogak, 47, an Inuvialuit hunter from Canada's North-West Territories, said: "The polar bear is part of our culture. They use the ice as a hunting ground for the seals. If there is no ice there is no way the bears will be able to catch the seals... here is an earlier break-up of ice, a later freeze-up. Now it's more rapid. Something is happening."

Science has supported such claims, revealing how in the Arctic, where temperatures are rising much more than elsewhere in the world, ice is decreasing in size every year. Earlier this month researchers from the Colorado-based National Centre for Atmospheric Research suggested summer ice may disappear entirely by 2040 - 40 years earlier than previous estimates.

The report's author Marika Holland, said: "We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic. As the ice retreats, the ocean transports more heat to the Arctic and the open water absorbs more sunlight, further accelerating the rate of warming."

Though the US is responsible for 25 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, the Bush administration has resolutely refused to enforce limits or else enter legally-binding international agreements to tackle climate change, saying such a move would damage the economy. Last month lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argued before the Supreme Court that the science on climate change was uncertain. They further argued that the agency was not empowered to act to curb emissions.

Kert Davies, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "The United States has failed to lead the world in tackling global warming. With under five percent of the world's people, we generate more than 20 percent of the global warming pollution. We must start cutting greenhouse gas emissions or the polar bear will be pushed to the brink of extinction within our lifetime. "

Under the terms of the ESA, the public has 90 days to comment on the DOI proposal. "Our goal ultimately is to combine the best science available with the power of working hand-in-hand with states, tribes, foreign countries, industry, and other partners to minimise the threats to polar bears and conserve this great icon of the Arctic for future generations," said Mr Kempthorne

[colosilverado]

Not sure what sort of point you are trying to make. The educated people,
and that includes all the way back to the ancient Greeks like Pythagoras,
didn't just know the world was round, they could prove it by simple trigonometry.
Plato also taught his students the earth was round.
Aristotle also taught the earth was round and could demonstrate
it by the fact that as you went further north, you could see stars
you couldn't see in the south and stars you could see in the south,
you couldn't see in the north.
Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of the earth and was correct
to within 2%. Ptolemy included longitudes and latitudes in his
books on the earth.
By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century the Earth's spherical shape
was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world.
His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages.
The shape of the Earth was not only discussed in scholarly works written in Latin;
it was also treated in works written in vernacular languages or dialects and intended
for wider audiences. The Norwegian book Konungs Skuggsjá, from around 1250,
states clearly that the Earth is round - and that it is night on the other side of
the Earth when it is daytime in Norway.
And obviously Columbus knew the world was round in 1492, and the Spanish
queen who funded him, otherwise he wouldn't have went west to try to
get to India instead of east like everyone else was doing.
Who are these guys you speak of who thought the world was flat?
Are you trying to say that just the right wing rabble doesn't accept global
warming, that just the educated people are the ones able to prove
global warming?


I don't think any of you are qualified to call this guy a moron because of what he thinks, that is my point. Global warming, yeah, I agree that it is a problem. I've also read things that say that there were the same temperature swings eras ago. Before evil man and evil Bush stepped out of the swamps.

[Garcia Bronco]

Your list is according to .....?

The first two you list are Physical sciences
the last two you list are Life sciences.

So I wasn't too far off, but your question wasn't as clear as it could have been. Correct?

You could call then anything at a 10000 foot view...but those are the four sciences and that's all there is.

[W*GS]

I read an article the other day that says Mars is having the same issue with its' climate. Anybody else know anything about this?

Read

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars

[Bronco Bob]

Read

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars

Thanks W*gs. Just as I suspected, comparing temperature changes on mars
to temperature changes on earth is comparing apples and oranges.

I found this line particularly fascinating:

"However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining
slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum."

Because the deniers of human activeity causing global warming have
been claiming the sun is heating up and that is why the earth is getting
warmer.

[Bronco Bob]

I don't think any of you are qualified to call this guy a moron because of what he thinks, that is my point. Global warming, yeah, I agree that it is a problem. I've also read things that say that there were the same temperature swings eras ago. Before evil man and evil Bush stepped out of the swamps.

No one said he was a moron. Just that he is wrong. Read W*gs link and
that will tell you what is going on on mars.

Its just like plate tectonics. When that theory was first proposed it
was a radical idea and there were lots of deniers. Eventually most
scientists came around and accepted the theory. But there were
still deniers, some very vocal, some even went to their death beds
insisting that the theory was wrong.

As far as temperature swings eras ago, yes there were, but we didn't evolve
in those eras, we depend on almost an ice age condition for the food and
other essentials for human life. We have never experienced conditions like
it could get if global warming goes unchecked.

Ice core analysis from Antarctica going back 650,000 years indicates that
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere never exceeded 300 parts per million.
We are now at 380 ppm, it is increasing, and the rate of increase is
accelerating. This began over the last 150 years. The rates of increase
you are talking about happened over thousands of years, not mere decades.

Carbonic acid is increasing in the oceans, as they absorb excess CO2 from the
atmosphere. That is also measurable, and tied to the 150-year spike.

Also, carbon 12 and carbon 13 isotope measurements nail the lion's share of
the increase to the combustion of fossil fuels: Coal, oil, natural gas. This is
hardcore work in the field, from various quarters. It is not a pundit-hosted
political debate on Fox "News" between egotistical scientists.

Making the issue of global warming political is just EXACTLY what the right
wing wanted, and they got it. And they sucked you right in, apparently.

[colosilverado]

No one said he was a moron. Just that he is wrong. Read W*gs link and
that will tell you what is going on on mars.

Its just like plate tectonics. When that theory was first proposed it
was a radical idea and there were lots of deniers. Eventually most
scientists came around and accepted the theory. But there were
still deniers, some very vocal, some even went to their death beds
insisting that the theory was wrong.

As far as temperature swings eras ago, yes there were, but we didn't evolve
in those eras, we depend on almost an ice age condition for the food and
other essentials for human life. We have never experienced conditions like
it could get if global warming goes unchecked.

I'm not really interested in what is happening on Mars and I do think that we need to reduce emissions, so what's the point?

[Bronco Bob]

I'm not really interested in what is happening on Mars and I do think that we need to reduce emissions, so what's the point?

You tell me what the point is. You are the one who came on here initially
as giving the impression of being one of the deniers of humans causing global
warming. Or at least supporting one of the deniers.

[colosilverado]

You tell me what the point is. You are the one who came on here initially
as giving the impression of being one of the deniers of humans causing global
warming. Or at least supporting one of the deniers.

My point was that just because his opinion is contrary, doesn't make him an idiot or necessarily wrong.

[Bronco Bob]

My point was that just because his opinion is contrary, doesn't make him an idiot or necessarily wrong.

Doesn't make him right either. That's what peer review is all about.
They get a chance to check his facts and see if it makes sense
and to ask questions he might not have considered.

That's why his statement about solar irradiance increasing is wrong.
Because satellite measurements by other scientist show the sun
is in fact getting dimmer. So if global warming is dependent on the
sun's irradiance, we should be getting colder, not warmer.

That's why I wanted you to read W*gs article, because it disputes
the conclusions that this Russian scientist was claiming about
Mars are how it relates to earth.

I don't know, maybe being in Russia he doesn't have access to the data
that our scientists have.

Maybe being Russian he is a paid denier, in that Russia is one of the world's
leading exporters of oil, and any cutting of the use of oil puts less money in
Russia's pocket.

If you dig deep enough, you'll find several of the scientists who deny
man is causing global warming do in fact get paid by oil companies.

[Garcia Bronco]

well...one of the axioms of research methods is just because there is a cause doesn't mean it's the cause.

[Bronco Bob]

well...one of the axioms of research methods is just because there is a cause doesn't mean it's the cause.

In other words sometimes a banana is just a banana?

[TailgateNut]

You could call then anything at a 10000 foot view...but those are the four sciences and that's all there is.

Would you translate that, and answer my question (according to who?).

[Garcia Bronco]

Would you translate that, and answer my question (according to who?).

According to the research methods class I took in college. I don't remember them name nor the author of the text book. Those are the four sciences.

[Bronco Bob]

According to the research methods class I took in college. I don't remember them name nor the author of the text book. Those are the four sciences.

Isn't there really just two sciences, natural sciences and social sciences?

[Garcia Bronco]

Isn't there really just two sciences, natural sciences and social sciences?


No...there are four sciences Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Psychology. Think about it.

Natural Science, Earth Science, Social Science is collection or derivative of the 4 I layed out.

[Bronco Bob]

No...there are four sciences Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Psychology. Think about it.

Natural Science, Earth Science, Social Science is collection or derivative of the 4 I layed out.

What about Astronomy? Earth Sciences? Mathematics? Economics? Anthropology? History? Geography? Law?

I mean by your defininition Chemistry and Biology could ultimately be lumped
under physics, which in turn is highly dependant on Mathematics.

[TailgateNut]

What about Astronomy? Earth Sciences? Mathematics? Economics? Anthropology? History? Geography? Law?

I mean by your defininition Chemistry and Biology could ultimately be lumped
under physics, which in turn is highly dependant on Mathematics.


I've tried to question his assertion that there are "only" four sciences, but according to his Prof. that's it, no questions asked.

Paleontology
Meteorology
Zoology
Medicine
Genetics
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Oceanography
Botany

I'm sure there are others.....

[Garcia Bronco]

What about Astronomy? Earth Sciences? Mathematics? Economics? Anthropology? History? Geography? Law?

I mean by your defininition Chemistry and Biology could ultimately be lumped
under physics, which in turn is highly dependant on Mathematics.

Mathmatics is a tool by which to measure differences and addition. It's just a tool and in many cases can be considered relative. History is archival data. Earth science a designation to describe a collection of the 4, but they all reduce to the 4. Geography is physics and chemistry...and perhaps biology.

You are following the logic though....without physics...there can be no chemistry...without chemistry there can be no biology...without biology there is no psychology. Astronomy is not a science...it is merely observation...what happens in space is physics and chemistry.

Law and Economics...I don't know what you would really classify those under in actual science. The are man made though...the 4 are not. I guess parts of Law and Economics could fall under pschology and just because it's the study of behavior.

[Garcia Bronco]

I've tried to question his assertion that there are "only" four sciences, but according to his Prof. that's it, no questions asked.

Paleontology
Meteorology
Zoology
Medicine
Genetics
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Oceanography
Botany

I'm sure there are others.....

Paleontology - Biology
Meteorology - physics and chemistry
Zoology - Biology
Medicine - all 4
Genetics - Biology
Physics - Physics
Chemistry - Chemistry
Astronomy - Physics and Chemistry
Oceanography - Chemistry, Biology
Botany - Chemistry, Biology

[TailgateNut]

Paleontology - Biology
Meteorology - physics and chemistry
Zoology - Biology
Medicine - all 4
Genetics - Biology
Physics - Physics
Chemistry - Chemistry
Astronomy - Physics and Chemistry
Oceanography - Chemistry, Biology
Botany - Chemistry, Biology


How about Tailgating. It's a science!

[Garcia Bronco]

How about Tailgating. It's a science!

LOL

[TailgateNut]

LOL


Tailgating (Physics, Chemistry, Biology and psychology all in one)

Think about it! They're all "at work"!

[Garcia Bronco]

They are.