Scientists About To Create Artificial Life
there's much more proof than this, but you'll never properly examine it. the russians proved it, but since it was russians....
as i said, what's so hard about accepting that petroleum can be made in the lab with inorganic matter, so it must be a possible process?(there are lots of synthetic protroleum products and as i pointed out, synthetic petroleum powered the third reich armies quite effectively for some time) actually, abiotic oil makes much more sense of the real-world evidence. it is you braincell, who is in an artificial, made-up world. in fact, you revel in that in the same way that you revel in artificial life. actually, you are repeating things that were misinterpretations of reality. there were always other interpretations, but only recently has the physical evidence and the ability to observe the physical evidence made the truth a little clearer, that oil is mostly abiotic in origin. the crude that comes out of the new russian deeeep wells has NO organic matter in it. none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
none of this is my idea, or just small kooky factions. in scientific and especially in the petroleum industry, this stuff is well known. among the population, it's insanity. still, the reality is the reality. there was a time everybody in the street knew the world was flat and why. even then, there were good observers and men in power who knew otherwise, and in the sailing profession it was no secret that the world was round...
trees are a dumb idea for fuel, btw. hemp grows fast and would be a good crop. alternating with food crops would stop soil depletion. probably, internal combustion engines are dirty and inneficient for mass use anyway. the nice thing about them though is that 18th century tooling, which anyone with skill could access in their barn, is sufficient for their construction. without mass marketing, these things likely wouldn't be so out of hand. the problem with electronics is that mass marketing and economy of scale determine usefullness. basically, this "real world" you love so much is the biggest threat to your life. taking care of problems in a strictly more and more technological manner makes more and more problems rather than really solving problems. examples? guns. atom bombs. computers. automobiles. food preservatives. genetic engineering. power plants. nuclear energy. i'm really not at all against technology, i just would rather it serve my needs rather than vice versa. it reminds me of that old song:
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a bird,
How absurd to swallow a bird!
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a cat,
Imagine that, to swallow a cat!
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a dog,
My, what a hog, to swallow a dog!
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a goat,
Just opened her throat and swallowed a goat!
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog,
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a cow,
I wonder how she swallowed a cow?!
She swallowed the cow to catch the goat,
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog,
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a horse,
She's dead, of course!!
as i said, what's so hard about accepting that petroleum can be made in the lab with inorganic matter, so it must be a possible process?(there are lots of synthetic protroleum products and as i pointed out, synthetic petroleum powered the third reich armies quite effectively for some time) actually, abiotic oil makes much more sense of the real-world evidence. it is you braincell, who is in an artificial, made-up world. in fact, you revel in that in the same way that you revel in artificial life. actually, you are repeating things that were misinterpretations of reality. there were always other interpretations, but only recently has the physical evidence and the ability to observe the physical evidence made the truth a little clearer, that oil is mostly abiotic in origin. the crude that comes out of the new russian deeeep wells has NO organic matter in it. none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
none of this is my idea, or just small kooky factions. in scientific and especially in the petroleum industry, this stuff is well known. among the population, it's insanity. still, the reality is the reality. there was a time everybody in the street knew the world was flat and why. even then, there were good observers and men in power who knew otherwise, and in the sailing profession it was no secret that the world was round...
trees are a dumb idea for fuel, btw. hemp grows fast and would be a good crop. alternating with food crops would stop soil depletion. probably, internal combustion engines are dirty and inneficient for mass use anyway. the nice thing about them though is that 18th century tooling, which anyone with skill could access in their barn, is sufficient for their construction. without mass marketing, these things likely wouldn't be so out of hand. the problem with electronics is that mass marketing and economy of scale determine usefullness. basically, this "real world" you love so much is the biggest threat to your life. taking care of problems in a strictly more and more technological manner makes more and more problems rather than really solving problems. examples? guns. atom bombs. computers. automobiles. food preservatives. genetic engineering. power plants. nuclear energy. i'm really not at all against technology, i just would rather it serve my needs rather than vice versa. it reminds me of that old song:
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a bird,
How absurd to swallow a bird!
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a cat,
Imagine that, to swallow a cat!
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a dog,
My, what a hog, to swallow a dog!
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a goat,
Just opened her throat and swallowed a goat!
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog,
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a cow,
I wonder how she swallowed a cow?!
She swallowed the cow to catch the goat,
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog,
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a horse,
She's dead, of course!!
Last edited by garyb on Sat Jun 30, 2007 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
i think you were responding to me as i was adding my song. 
nope, not against you, really. just correcting a misconception. the oil we use is mostly abiotic too. it's theorized(i love that word
) that the organic matter in the oil we use is mostly contamination as there are certainly organic deposits and even organic petroleum(very small amounts compared to the total volume) in these shallower wells. the funny thing is, as i keep saying, that old wells tend to refill after 10-20years...the stuff that the oil companies want to use most for refining, the purest form, is called "sweet crude", and it has virtually no organic matter in it. in fact, that's the way the standard is set for the oil's quality, by how low the organic content is.
think about it, there would have to be a lot of organic material laid down in a very short time and exposed to increadible pressure over a relatively short time to make the huge pools of crude under the surface. what does most of the organic matter do in the present time? in a very short period of time, it breaks down into base parts and is reabsorbed into the living system. there is very little(relatively)material left behind to make oil(check out the protein chain in the rain forest, a place of plenty where there's almost no nutrients available in a free form. almost all of it is in the system, that's why when the forest is cut and hauled off, there's no replacing the eco system. the vital parts have been hauled off in the trees). if you took all the biological material on earth and buried it all immediately and subjected it to the high temperatures and pressures nessessary to make it all into petroleum, there wouldn't be but a fraction of what we use in a year. the "fossil fuel" myth is a much more easily debunkable one than "god". why don't you start a crusade against such backward thinking?
nope, not against you, really. just correcting a misconception. the oil we use is mostly abiotic too. it's theorized(i love that word
) that the organic matter in the oil we use is mostly contamination as there are certainly organic deposits and even organic petroleum(very small amounts compared to the total volume) in these shallower wells. the funny thing is, as i keep saying, that old wells tend to refill after 10-20years...the stuff that the oil companies want to use most for refining, the purest form, is called "sweet crude", and it has virtually no organic matter in it. in fact, that's the way the standard is set for the oil's quality, by how low the organic content is.think about it, there would have to be a lot of organic material laid down in a very short time and exposed to increadible pressure over a relatively short time to make the huge pools of crude under the surface. what does most of the organic matter do in the present time? in a very short period of time, it breaks down into base parts and is reabsorbed into the living system. there is very little(relatively)material left behind to make oil(check out the protein chain in the rain forest, a place of plenty where there's almost no nutrients available in a free form. almost all of it is in the system, that's why when the forest is cut and hauled off, there's no replacing the eco system. the vital parts have been hauled off in the trees). if you took all the biological material on earth and buried it all immediately and subjected it to the high temperatures and pressures nessessary to make it all into petroleum, there wouldn't be but a fraction of what we use in a year. the "fossil fuel" myth is a much more easily debunkable one than "god". why don't you start a crusade against such backward thinking?
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
At least read the links that you provide!garyb wrote:there's much more proof than this, but you'll never properly examine it. the russians proved it, but since it was russians....
I think we need a crusade against your outrageous, unsubstantiated lies.Gary wrote: the "fossil fuel" myth is a much more easily debunkable one than "god". why don't you start a crusade against such backward thinking?
Last edited by BingoTheClowno on Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gary you will love this:
http://www.conservapedia.com/
This site was developed by and for people like you.
What university did you get your degree in geology from? Bob Jones? I am amazed at your unique talent to come up with facts that are diametrically opposed to commonly accepted science.
http://www.conservapedia.com/
This site was developed by and for people like you.
What university did you get your degree in geology from? Bob Jones? I am amazed at your unique talent to come up with facts that are diametrically opposed to commonly accepted science.
BingoTheClowno wrote:At least read the links that you provide!garyb wrote:there's much more proof than this, but you'll never properly examine it. the russians proved it, but since it was russians....
I think we need a crusade against your outrageous, unsubstantiated lies.Gary wrote: the "fossil fuel" myth is a much more easily debunkable one than "god". why don't you start a crusade against such backward thinking?
what the quote you pulled didn't say is that there is no DIRECT evidence of the biogenic formation of petroleum, either(and there isn't 
)! the article writer was just trying to be fair and unbiased.
Last edited by garyb on Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
well, i'm not really in favor of those guys either. i do like the truth, however so when they speak it, or when you do, i'm just as happy.braincell wrote:Gary you will love this:
http://www.conservapedia.com/
This site was developed by and for people like you.
What university did you get your degree in geology from? Bob Jones? I am amazed at your unique talent to come up with facts that are diametrically opposed to commonly accepted science.
never you mind about my degrees and where i got them. i can assure you, you are no more knowledgable than i, so if you don't want to be a hypocrite for trying to silence me for speaking about something you know no more than i do, then you should just shut up.
if you or bingo, two gentlemen who have already learned all there is to learn, who take whatever the "leading" authorities tell them as truth without question read the source material, you'd find that abiotic petroleum much better describes the reality we live in. it is the oil companies(who run your government) who don't want you to believe what the russians and honest scientists know(and the russians keep finding more oil!). believe what you want, though. no need to behave like there's sand in your vagina......
hey, go ahead and make your terminator, matrix, cashless, control grid future. some people only learn by doing. do you have to wreck the rest of the people's(and plants and creature's) future doing it? so far all this genetic work has done is make disaster after disaster and you want to act like it's all about the war on the idea of god. the way your leaders'(whom you're too compartmentalized to see what the true purposes are, like the lower bricks in a pyramid can never see the structure they hold up) actions play out, i do believe you're right. this must truly be a war against god. how suicidal. how pointless.
hey, what great bastion of higher learning did you attend, and who funded that institution and why? don't worry, there's no need to answer such a stupid question. any learned person knows that it's the students wish to find answers that is the foundation of learning, not the brand name of the institution. it's more than possible to go to the most prestigious, top quality, most wonderful school and come out an idiot who learned nothing. check out some of those ivy league graduates(or maybe those schools teach two-faced ineptitude, which seems to be a requirement of the highest positions in society). on the other hand, it's possible to attend mediocre schools and still come out at the top of your feild(like say, my grandfather who invented a number of things you take for granted on this very day). such an attack, designed to discredit someone else without directly trying to refute evidence(at least bingo read the article, but not the source material it referenced
)only shows how insecure you are in your reality. somewhere deep, deep inside, you know there's more to the story than you've been told, and many parts of that story that you have been told are outright lies.it's not about you or me. it doesn't matter what we think. what's much more important is "what is the truth?".
a few hundred years ago it was commonly accepted science (?) that the universe rotates around a flat dish called 'the World'braincell wrote:... I am amazed at your unique talent to come up with facts that are diametrically opposed to commonly accepted science.
...and I'm proud to own an original copy of 'The Exploration of Mars' by Willy Ley and Werner von Braun that scientifically proved there is vegetation on Mars changing with seasons - only 50 years ago today
cheers, Tom
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
That's correct, that link says nothing about that, this one does:garyb wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels
You were never wrong in your entire life, weren't you?
no, there's nothing damning or new there.
get over yourself. you win nothing by insulting me, it doesn't matter who is right, what's important is what is fact. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PETROLEUM IS A FOSSIL FUEL AND NOT ABIOTIC AND ALL EMPIRICAL DATA POINTS TO ABIOTIC.
i know your boss rupert murdoch disagrees with me and thinks that funding a world government with a "carbon tax" is a good way to control the unwashed unelightended masses, making the world safe for the illuminated, but that's because he's a pig.
ask the russians why they are now the leading producers of petroleum, with their deep, pure, top quality sweet crude wells that are way too deep to be fossil and that have NO organic markers.
your ignorance is not as staggering as your violent reaction to ideas that don't fit your paradyme. that is as unscientific in thinking as is possible. that is as unrational as possible, and obviously religion isn't your problem or excuse for being so wrong, so????
what makes you more of an expert than me? did you read the source reading? have you investigated the peer-reviewed studies or, do you just nay-say that which disagrees with your handlers?
do the research, think for yourself and then pop off. the REAL WORLD evidence is overwhelming, just like the real world evidence that having everyone's info on one central database is a very bad idea except for the few in charge, just like the real world evidence that genetic manipulation is a much bigger hazard to life on earth than so-called "greenhouse gas", your life breath.
actually, i don't know why your panties are in a knot. i'm not suggesting that we should use more and more petroleum or anything stupid like that. i suspect that you are desperate to dominate someone since you are so inneffectual in the real world, so you try to be an internet bully, but that's just my grade-school profile of you, i could be wrong.
Interesting stuff Gary... We are so flooded with lies day in and day out that it quite a task just to get our facts straight!
Too bad those two clowns just want to pick fights with anything that disagrees with their point of view... I guess they learned nothing about respect and patience in kindergarten!
Cmon guys, be good with the other kids, there's no need to throw stones at each other!
Be at peace
Too bad those two clowns just want to pick fights with anything that disagrees with their point of view... I guess they learned nothing about respect and patience in kindergarten!
Cmon guys, be good with the other kids, there's no need to throw stones at each other!
Be at peace
Gary what is the source of your information? I just did a quick search and according to Louisiana State University the amount of abiotic oil is "infinitesimally low". In layman's terms that means not enough to even mention.
According to Wikipedia:
"Although the abiogenic theory, according to Gold, is widely accepted in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, the vast majority of Western petroleum geologists consider the biogenic theory of petroleum formation scientifically proven."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
I suspect the motivation for Gary's view is totally political look at this:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _oil.shtml
Don't use your republican conservative "christian" values to warp science. That is so putrid I want to hurl right now.
According to Wikipedia:
"Although the abiogenic theory, according to Gold, is widely accepted in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, the vast majority of Western petroleum geologists consider the biogenic theory of petroleum formation scientifically proven."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
I suspect the motivation for Gary's view is totally political look at this:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _oil.shtml
Don't use your republican conservative "christian" values to warp science. That is so putrid I want to hurl right now.
ok.
my main source is all the deep russian oil discovered.
yes, the geologists who work for the rockefellors(standard oil a rothschild/chase bank operation) won't admit abiotic oil. this is just like the UN scientists who have recently come out and said that global warming because of "greenhouse gasses" is a hoax and that they were wrong to go along with it. scientists often change their minds, but the headlines only announce what is part of the program.
examples abound in the well respected scientists' words quoted in this excerpt:
Manmade Global Warming: The Real Assault on
Reason
By Marc Sheppard
In the opening chapter of The Assault on Reason, its seldom reasonable author accuses the Bush administration of exploiting people's fears "to short-circuit debate and drive the public agenda without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest."
Shamelessly abusing lingering September 11th and nascent Iraq anxieties, he argues that the roles of "reason, logic and truth" have been eroded from the American decision-making process. This lack of focus and clarity, charges Al Gore, is personified by an administration that ignores expert advice, circumvents analysis and debate, and suppresses evidence to promote predetermined, agenda driven policies.
What's most confounding about these stinging allegations is that they were penned by the very same man whose Oscar awarded fear-exploitation-film proclaimed - in a gross distortion of prevailing evidence and facts -- that:
"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced -- a catastrophe of our own making."
Indeed, Gore's cataclysmic forecasts of worldwide famine, rising sea-levels, vanishing species, et al, are themselves the very epitome of the same agenda-driven, illogical, expert advice cherry-picking, closed debate, unfounded fear-mongering he devotes the majority of his recent Bush-bashing book to deriding.
For over 15 years, Al Gore has painstakingly ravaged all non-anthropogenic (NA) climate change theories (solar, cosmic, volcanic, etc) along with those scientists advancing them. During that same period, he has helped craft a worldwide global warming orthodoxy which holds the misdeeds of homo sapiens sacrosanct to its dogma and has pulverized anyone in its self-righteous path "without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest." (See Gore's Grave New World)
Reason, Logic, Analysis and Debate
Can there truly exist any reason in such visceral antagonism to natural causation hypotheses given that solar fluctuations throughout retrievable history (observed as sunspots, auroras, etc) tend to sympathize with available climate proxies (e.g. tree-ring chronologies, glacial core and sea sediment samples and other repositories of plant and animal materials)?
In his recent National Post essay, noted Paleoclimatologist R. Timothy Patterson lends voice to the countless researchers who suggest not:
"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."
Patterson cites numerous studies correlating variances in solar output with shifts in solar wind, which in turn impact upon galactic cosmic ray atmospheric penetration and, ultimately, cloud formation on Earth. Increased solar output thereby warms the planet in 2 ways -- by direct radiation and decreased cloud cover. Conversely, when the sun is less bright:
"More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change."
Is it logical, therefore, to disregard all possible forces beyond mankind-emitted CO2 based primarily on hypothetical computer models? Or reasonable to brand those arguing the gas's contribution or suggesting an alternate cause and effect relationship (oceans warmed by NA forces produce more CO2, rather than manmade CO2 causing the warming) as duplicitous shills of big oil interests?
Particularly when, as Patterson points out:
"By comparison [to solar influence], CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
So why do so many scientists continue to sing the Al Gore C-shanty?
Reid A. Bryson, the Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin's Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences knows a thing or two about the subject. As recipient of only the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education, he is often referred to as the father of modern scientific climatology, much as Al Gore ought be credited as the father of modern hysterical climatology. And, while the professor considers all the hype over Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) "a bunch of hooey," he certainly appreciates that:
"There is a lot of money to be made in this. If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Given these patently extortive efforts to circumvent analysis and debate, how can the alarmist marching tune, "the debate is over," possibly resonate as either reasonable or logical in anyone's ears?
The Truth about the IPCC
Adding a false sense of legitimacy to the over-hyping of CO2's potential greenhouse gas (GHG) effect on warming is the oft-Gore-quoted yet woefully compromised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These United Nations based "consensus builders" summarily dismiss solar activity in favor of more politically favorable culprits.
One former member and current outspoken critic of the panel testified to its bias before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in May of 2001. As I wrote following the release of the Working Group I Summary in February of this year, Dr. Richard Lindzen swore that, based on his experiences as a member, the IPCC was actually created specifically to support negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions and would accept no contrary findings from its members:
"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green' credentials in defense of their statements."
i know that the global warming thing is off-topic, i'm just showing how there are very rational people who disagree with some of the accepted reality who have no major axe to grind and who are scientists first, and who are unreported in the newspapers or television and radio stations, as those hundreds of major media outlets are all owned by a handful of people.
hey mister haterman-you don't know me or my political views nearly as well as i know yours. i am not your stereotype. i am not a fundy christian. i won't even put the kind of labels you like upon myself, because i only agree with those people on the points that are true and verifiable by myself. the truth knows no political affiliations, but lies do. who do you affiliate with?
my main source is all the deep russian oil discovered.
yes, the geologists who work for the rockefellors(standard oil a rothschild/chase bank operation) won't admit abiotic oil. this is just like the UN scientists who have recently come out and said that global warming because of "greenhouse gasses" is a hoax and that they were wrong to go along with it. scientists often change their minds, but the headlines only announce what is part of the program.
examples abound in the well respected scientists' words quoted in this excerpt:
Manmade Global Warming: The Real Assault on
Reason
By Marc Sheppard
In the opening chapter of The Assault on Reason, its seldom reasonable author accuses the Bush administration of exploiting people's fears "to short-circuit debate and drive the public agenda without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest."
Shamelessly abusing lingering September 11th and nascent Iraq anxieties, he argues that the roles of "reason, logic and truth" have been eroded from the American decision-making process. This lack of focus and clarity, charges Al Gore, is personified by an administration that ignores expert advice, circumvents analysis and debate, and suppresses evidence to promote predetermined, agenda driven policies.
What's most confounding about these stinging allegations is that they were penned by the very same man whose Oscar awarded fear-exploitation-film proclaimed - in a gross distortion of prevailing evidence and facts -- that:
"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced -- a catastrophe of our own making."
Indeed, Gore's cataclysmic forecasts of worldwide famine, rising sea-levels, vanishing species, et al, are themselves the very epitome of the same agenda-driven, illogical, expert advice cherry-picking, closed debate, unfounded fear-mongering he devotes the majority of his recent Bush-bashing book to deriding.
For over 15 years, Al Gore has painstakingly ravaged all non-anthropogenic (NA) climate change theories (solar, cosmic, volcanic, etc) along with those scientists advancing them. During that same period, he has helped craft a worldwide global warming orthodoxy which holds the misdeeds of homo sapiens sacrosanct to its dogma and has pulverized anyone in its self-righteous path "without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest." (See Gore's Grave New World)
Reason, Logic, Analysis and Debate
Can there truly exist any reason in such visceral antagonism to natural causation hypotheses given that solar fluctuations throughout retrievable history (observed as sunspots, auroras, etc) tend to sympathize with available climate proxies (e.g. tree-ring chronologies, glacial core and sea sediment samples and other repositories of plant and animal materials)?
In his recent National Post essay, noted Paleoclimatologist R. Timothy Patterson lends voice to the countless researchers who suggest not:
"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."
Patterson cites numerous studies correlating variances in solar output with shifts in solar wind, which in turn impact upon galactic cosmic ray atmospheric penetration and, ultimately, cloud formation on Earth. Increased solar output thereby warms the planet in 2 ways -- by direct radiation and decreased cloud cover. Conversely, when the sun is less bright:
"More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change."
Is it logical, therefore, to disregard all possible forces beyond mankind-emitted CO2 based primarily on hypothetical computer models? Or reasonable to brand those arguing the gas's contribution or suggesting an alternate cause and effect relationship (oceans warmed by NA forces produce more CO2, rather than manmade CO2 causing the warming) as duplicitous shills of big oil interests?
Particularly when, as Patterson points out:
"By comparison [to solar influence], CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
So why do so many scientists continue to sing the Al Gore C-shanty?
Reid A. Bryson, the Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin's Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences knows a thing or two about the subject. As recipient of only the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education, he is often referred to as the father of modern scientific climatology, much as Al Gore ought be credited as the father of modern hysterical climatology. And, while the professor considers all the hype over Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) "a bunch of hooey," he certainly appreciates that:
"There is a lot of money to be made in this. If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Given these patently extortive efforts to circumvent analysis and debate, how can the alarmist marching tune, "the debate is over," possibly resonate as either reasonable or logical in anyone's ears?
The Truth about the IPCC
Adding a false sense of legitimacy to the over-hyping of CO2's potential greenhouse gas (GHG) effect on warming is the oft-Gore-quoted yet woefully compromised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These United Nations based "consensus builders" summarily dismiss solar activity in favor of more politically favorable culprits.
One former member and current outspoken critic of the panel testified to its bias before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in May of 2001. As I wrote following the release of the Working Group I Summary in February of this year, Dr. Richard Lindzen swore that, based on his experiences as a member, the IPCC was actually created specifically to support negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions and would accept no contrary findings from its members:
"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green' credentials in defense of their statements."
i know that the global warming thing is off-topic, i'm just showing how there are very rational people who disagree with some of the accepted reality who have no major axe to grind and who are scientists first, and who are unreported in the newspapers or television and radio stations, as those hundreds of major media outlets are all owned by a handful of people.
hey mister haterman-you don't know me or my political views nearly as well as i know yours. i am not your stereotype. i am not a fundy christian. i won't even put the kind of labels you like upon myself, because i only agree with those people on the points that are true and verifiable by myself. the truth knows no political affiliations, but lies do. who do you affiliate with?
Alright,
Let's step back and take a look at who Marc Sheppard is. Marc Sheppard thinks that Global Warming is a hoax and he mocks Al Gore. Marc Sheppard is not listed in the Wikipedia but links to his articles *can* be found in Consverapedia. Here is a typical quote from Conservapedia:
"Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman."
You are starting to look more and more like a right wing conservative. I think this should be obvious to everyone in this group now.
Let's step back and take a look at who Marc Sheppard is. Marc Sheppard thinks that Global Warming is a hoax and he mocks Al Gore. Marc Sheppard is not listed in the Wikipedia but links to his articles *can* be found in Consverapedia. Here is a typical quote from Conservapedia:
"Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman."
You are starting to look more and more like a right wing conservative. I think this should be obvious to everyone in this group now.
Most of the "right-wingers" I know aren't given to trotting out russian sources to back up theories they're putting forth.
Also, discussion is supposed to be for the dissemination and digestion of a variety of points of view. There are no FACTS btw, scientific or otherwise. In daily life what we have is Consensus, something that garyb is diverging from a bit on this particular topic. Hence the flat-world references on the last page...
When it comes to Science there is also a distinct lack of FACTS, except where we must form some basic precepts for which there is no support other than the 'fact' that the entire house of cards would utterly fall apart without these basic precepts. Math suffers from a similar issue (there are occasional unprovable tenants that must be accepted by consensus so that we can get on with more practical applications). What Science puts forth (once you get over the fact that you can't prove you do or don't exist, that anything exists or doesn't etc) is HYPOTHESIS which can be phrased in a Theorum and tested to become a workable THEORY or MODEL. These Models are useful only so far as they work in the cases they are meant to. When they cease to work or minor errata shows up they are either refined or dispensed with in favor of a more applicable model.
So, in reference to Biotic or A-Biotic oil's "actual" origins, there can be no FACTS. There can be only working hypothesis, which get written into textbooks and are argued over as FACTS by people who just consume consensual points of view as being 'reality'. What garyb was pointing out was that Russia had a particular model that seemed to fit the conditions under which they find oil. Western oil companies put forth another theory, which seems to fit their experiences and perhaps their economic & political 'realities'.
All of these points of view are fair game in an open discussion. To put forth one particular view as being FACT and REAL and denounce another isn't discussion, it's bordering on a religious discussion again, even you happen to subscribe to the materialist belief system.
Also, discussion is supposed to be for the dissemination and digestion of a variety of points of view. There are no FACTS btw, scientific or otherwise. In daily life what we have is Consensus, something that garyb is diverging from a bit on this particular topic. Hence the flat-world references on the last page...
When it comes to Science there is also a distinct lack of FACTS, except where we must form some basic precepts for which there is no support other than the 'fact' that the entire house of cards would utterly fall apart without these basic precepts. Math suffers from a similar issue (there are occasional unprovable tenants that must be accepted by consensus so that we can get on with more practical applications). What Science puts forth (once you get over the fact that you can't prove you do or don't exist, that anything exists or doesn't etc) is HYPOTHESIS which can be phrased in a Theorum and tested to become a workable THEORY or MODEL. These Models are useful only so far as they work in the cases they are meant to. When they cease to work or minor errata shows up they are either refined or dispensed with in favor of a more applicable model.
So, in reference to Biotic or A-Biotic oil's "actual" origins, there can be no FACTS. There can be only working hypothesis, which get written into textbooks and are argued over as FACTS by people who just consume consensual points of view as being 'reality'. What garyb was pointing out was that Russia had a particular model that seemed to fit the conditions under which they find oil. Western oil companies put forth another theory, which seems to fit their experiences and perhaps their economic & political 'realities'.
All of these points of view are fair game in an open discussion. To put forth one particular view as being FACT and REAL and denounce another isn't discussion, it's bordering on a religious discussion again, even you happen to subscribe to the materialist belief system.
As you put it facts are based on a consensus; a consensus which doesn't agree with Gary's view, also his source is *very* suspect and biased. What next Gary? The Holocaust never happened?
Scientist are not always right but in general they sure as hell know more than Marc Sheppard and the average American who seems to suffer form a very poor educational system despite being a wealthy nation, but then again what do you expect from people who are more concerned with saving a few tax dollars than actually educating people and meeting their most basic medical needs etc..
Scientist are not always right but in general they sure as hell know more than Marc Sheppard and the average American who seems to suffer form a very poor educational system despite being a wealthy nation, but then again what do you expect from people who are more concerned with saving a few tax dollars than actually educating people and meeting their most basic medical needs etc..
look sir,
either the sources the writer quotes are reliable or not. what the writer or his sources think about homosexuals or whether "conservatives" like him is irrellavant to whether the sources are real. i just pulled the first article with top name scientists just to prove that such claims are not beyond the orthodoxy of thought in this world. i don't give a d*mn who the writer is. i'll tell you another thing that "right wingers" were right about. check the records. it is a fact that nazi death camps put flouride(the main component of seritonin uptake inhibitors like paxil and prozax and xanax) into the camp drinking water to keep the inmates docile. it was the john birch society that opposed water flouridation because they thought is was a plot to sap the will of the population. when they're wrong, they're wrong. those guys have often been wrong, but on that count....when someone gives you helpful information, you should take it regardless of their political views.
stop stting up strawmen and ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum arguements in the face of actual evidence.
i'm amazed that you find a man like al(continental petroleum)gore a reputable source. "oh look at the polar bears stranded on the ice, poor polar bears!" except that polar bears routinely swim hundreds of miles and pull beluga out of the water with their paws and are in the middle of a population explosion. another slight misrepresentaion by gore? the ice core samples showing higher co2 levels when the earth's temperature is higher. the part left out? ice core samples prove that co2 levels rise several hundred years after temperatures begin rising. by the time elevated co2 levels are seen, temperature rise is already a reality and the cycle is nearing the end phase. when the temps rise, animal life blooms and co2 levels rise. then, since plants live on co2, plant life explodes lowering the temps and putting more life giving oxygen into the atmosphere. co2 is not a pollutant. this is elemetary school biology and it's well vetted to boot.
stop hating humanity. what, are you some kind of goa'uld? if you want to label me "conservative", go ahead. i'm "conservative" as in "careful" and "practical" and believing in limited government and personal freedom from the control of despotism. i'm no neocon, neither am i a communist or fascist or any other ism or ist that would dictate people's lives. i do like family and friends and people in general being well. i don't like bullies except in jest and i think it's ok for people to be grownups and not just the state's children and property. for that reason, i'm not a fan of promiscuity because i'm old enough to know the trouble it causes and i don't really approve of abortion, because it was hurtful in my life, but i don't want to legislate against it. if these are bad qualities, i'll stick by them anyway, thanks. i won't apologise for not being decadant enough for you. i'm old enough or almost old enough to be your father(or your older brother), i've been around, and since the truth is no offense, you're talking out your @ss. i can guarantee you with 100% certainty, since i was once believing many of the things you espouse, that the people putting words in your mouth hate humanity and will destroy it if possible. how can you be on the side of the rockefellors, the astors, the lees, the rothschilds, the gores, the murdochs, the turners, the kissengers, the hitchens etc., of the world? trace the funding of the organizations you support! rockefellor grants and foundations support most or all of them.
oh, and global warming is a hoax according to the scientists quoted and the majority of scientists currently, even though a couple of years ago there was much more support. real scientists change their minds when presented with better evidence and al gore is a lame-@ss. if politics were real, there's no way that GWB ever becomes president(the supreme court has NO authority to choose a winner, duh), but because the system is rigged and guys like gore play along.....
either the sources the writer quotes are reliable or not. what the writer or his sources think about homosexuals or whether "conservatives" like him is irrellavant to whether the sources are real. i just pulled the first article with top name scientists just to prove that such claims are not beyond the orthodoxy of thought in this world. i don't give a d*mn who the writer is. i'll tell you another thing that "right wingers" were right about. check the records. it is a fact that nazi death camps put flouride(the main component of seritonin uptake inhibitors like paxil and prozax and xanax) into the camp drinking water to keep the inmates docile. it was the john birch society that opposed water flouridation because they thought is was a plot to sap the will of the population. when they're wrong, they're wrong. those guys have often been wrong, but on that count....when someone gives you helpful information, you should take it regardless of their political views.
stop stting up strawmen and ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum arguements in the face of actual evidence.
i'm amazed that you find a man like al(continental petroleum)gore a reputable source. "oh look at the polar bears stranded on the ice, poor polar bears!" except that polar bears routinely swim hundreds of miles and pull beluga out of the water with their paws and are in the middle of a population explosion. another slight misrepresentaion by gore? the ice core samples showing higher co2 levels when the earth's temperature is higher. the part left out? ice core samples prove that co2 levels rise several hundred years after temperatures begin rising. by the time elevated co2 levels are seen, temperature rise is already a reality and the cycle is nearing the end phase. when the temps rise, animal life blooms and co2 levels rise. then, since plants live on co2, plant life explodes lowering the temps and putting more life giving oxygen into the atmosphere. co2 is not a pollutant. this is elemetary school biology and it's well vetted to boot.
stop hating humanity. what, are you some kind of goa'uld? if you want to label me "conservative", go ahead. i'm "conservative" as in "careful" and "practical" and believing in limited government and personal freedom from the control of despotism. i'm no neocon, neither am i a communist or fascist or any other ism or ist that would dictate people's lives. i do like family and friends and people in general being well. i don't like bullies except in jest and i think it's ok for people to be grownups and not just the state's children and property. for that reason, i'm not a fan of promiscuity because i'm old enough to know the trouble it causes and i don't really approve of abortion, because it was hurtful in my life, but i don't want to legislate against it. if these are bad qualities, i'll stick by them anyway, thanks. i won't apologise for not being decadant enough for you. i'm old enough or almost old enough to be your father(or your older brother), i've been around, and since the truth is no offense, you're talking out your @ss. i can guarantee you with 100% certainty, since i was once believing many of the things you espouse, that the people putting words in your mouth hate humanity and will destroy it if possible. how can you be on the side of the rockefellors, the astors, the lees, the rothschilds, the gores, the murdochs, the turners, the kissengers, the hitchens etc., of the world? trace the funding of the organizations you support! rockefellor grants and foundations support most or all of them.
oh, and global warming is a hoax according to the scientists quoted and the majority of scientists currently, even though a couple of years ago there was much more support. real scientists change their minds when presented with better evidence and al gore is a lame-@ss. if politics were real, there's no way that GWB ever becomes president(the supreme court has NO authority to choose a winner, duh), but because the system is rigged and guys like gore play along.....
two stupid statements.braincell wrote: The Holocaust never happened?
Scientist are not always right but in general they sure as hell know more than Marc Sheppard..
#1 is stupid for the reason that you don't know me, what my experiences are or who i might know or might have lost. for all you know, i'm a jew. whoops, stereotyped again...
#2 is exceptionally stupid because it is REAL SCIENTISTS who are quoted by your hated mr sheppard(whom i've never read before, i just knew of the scientists quoted and was looking for a concise article with some of those quotes).
as before, you are just launching strawman and ad hominem attacks while avoiding the real argument's facts. these you never debunk. this shows your bad faith in this argument. you are not interested in finding the truth, just being right, which is sooo wrong.