DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ZXRamon** · 08-15-2011, 01:48 PM

Jason Marcel
No, the simple-minded believe it's all a hoax, since America is the only developed country in the world with that many idiots in it who don't take science into account, which is why like 40% of the public sides with conservative talking points. Or maybe it is the other idiots who don't understand the Scientific Method:

NASA Data Pit Scientific Method Against Climate Astrology

...The Scientific Method was in full display last week when the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing published the results of an important study conducted by Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. With access to NASA satellite data measuring the amount of heat escaping the earth’s atmosphere into space, Spencer compared the NASA satellite data to the amount of heat loss predicted by computer models relied upon by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in support of IPCC’s assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Spencer found that the NASA satellite data reveal more heat is escaping into space than IPCC computer models have predicted.

Spencer’s discovery confirms prior heat-loss data reported by another set of NASA satellite instruments. Together, the NASA satellite instruments provide a 25-year record of real-world atmospheric conditions contradicting IPCC computer model predictions.

According to the Scientific Method, when real-world facts contradict a postulated hypothesis, the hypothesis fails. In this case, the failure of IPCC computer models to accurately predict atmospheric heat loss provided strong evidence that the IPCC computer models are based on faulty assumptions.

Rather than celebrating the advancement of knowledge provided by the NASA data and Spencer’s study, government employee “scientists” with a dog in the global warming fight viciously attacked Spencer and chastised the media for reporting this important scientific discovery.

Gavin Schmidt, a vigorous champion of the IPCC computer models and a government employee at NASA’s Goddard Institute (in a different branch of NASA than Spencer), protested the attention given to the NASA data by telling the press, “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data.”

This is a truly remarkable statement. Schmidt would have us believe that when 25 years of objective NASA satellite data contradict IPCC computer model predictions, we are supposed to ignore the real-world data and believe the discredited computer models instead. What are we supposed to do, pretend that the laws of physics have gone on a 25-year vacation?

Schmidt’s comments to the press are illustrative of a person whose taxpayer-funded paycheck is dependent upon the continuation of a failed global warming hypothesis. So long as the federal government operates under the assumption that we must study and address dangerous global warming, Schmidt’s job is secure. On the other hand, when scientists like Dr. Spencer report objective facts that falsify key components of global warming predictions, Schmidt’s government-provided paycheck is jeopardized and Schmidt lashes out.

Schmidt’s attempted denial of the NASA satellite facts is merely another example of global warming activists promoting faith-based principles and circular logic in contradiction of the Scientific Method. When it rains a lot, we are told this proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When it doesn’t rain a lot, we are told this, too, proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When temperatures are hot, we are told this proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When temperatures are cold, we are told this, too, proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. In short, global warming activists have presented a theory for which they identify no set of facts or circumstances that could possibly disprove their theory – not even 25 years of objective NASA satellite data that directly contradict what their computer models say should be happening.

The faith-based circular logic of Schmidt and other global warming activists may be a lot of things, but it is not science. Some have described it as religion, but that is doing a disservice to religion. Religion dictates that when a self-professed prophet’s predictions fail to come true, that person is identified as a false prophet.

A more accurate description of the factual denial practiced by Schmidt regarding the NASA satellite data is Climate Astrology. Astrologers, after all, make all sorts of vague predictions such that anything that later occurs can be alleged to have been predicted in advance. “This could be the moment to take a relationship one stage further” is to National Enquirer astrology what “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming” is to Climate Astrology. Ironically, Kevin Trenberth, the same government employee “ scientist” who said “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming” is the same government employee who lashed out against the Spencer-reported NASA satellite data by telling the press, “I cannot believe it got published.” Jason Marcel
Rick Perry is an idiot. Gee, a Republican that liberals think is an idiot. Let's give the scientific method a try. My hypothesis is that liberals are so stupid that people they think are "idiots" are actually far more cunning than the stupid liberals with their myopic view of reality to see, and therefor tend to hand them their hats at the polls (Reagan and Bush were both BIG idiots according to the left).

That puts Perry in a very good position to send Barack back to the unrepentent left-wing terrorist party circuit in IL come January 2013.

Jason Marcel
His speech reminds you of Bush, and that brings back some pretty painful memories of unfunded mandates and unfunded wars and poorly-planned wars. Gee, unfunded wars, like WWI, WWII, The Revolutionary War! Yeah, unfunded wars are just unheard of before Bush!

As for poorly planned, I will agree that the surge in Iraq (which B.O. and the entire left-wing establishment opposed) should have been done much sooner. The success of the surge evident by the fact that B.O. (who opposed it), has tried to replicate it in Afghanistan

Jason Marcel
Perry vs. Obama in a debate will look like Bartlett vs. that yokel in this debate clip from the West Wing a few years back. West Wing Presidential Debate - YouTube What does it say that you had to refer to a fictional debate from a fictional program about a fictional liberal president written by a liberal writer to show an example of what a debate between a stupid republican and a brilliant democrat would look like, rather than, oh, I don't know, an ACTUAL debate in the real world presidential debate between a supposedly stupid republican and brilliant democrat.

It is no mystery that the two most respected and succesful democratic presidens are Jeb Bartlett and Andy Sheppard, because they were both self-masterbatory left-wing fantasy presidencies! (although I will admit to enjoying both The American President and West Wing as entertainment)

08-15-2011, 01:48 PM	#12
ZXRamon Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 562 Senior Member	Jason Marcel No, the simple-minded believe it's all a hoax, since America is the only developed country in the world with that many idiots in it who don't take science into account, which is why like 40% of the public sides with conservative talking points. Or maybe it is the other idiots who don't understand the Scientific Method: NASA Data Pit Scientific Method Against Climate Astrology ...The Scientific Method was in full display last week when the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing published the results of an important study conducted by Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. With access to NASA satellite data measuring the amount of heat escaping the earth’s atmosphere into space, Spencer compared the NASA satellite data to the amount of heat loss predicted by computer models relied upon by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in support of IPCC’s assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Spencer found that the NASA satellite data reveal more heat is escaping into space than IPCC computer models have predicted. Spencer’s discovery confirms prior heat-loss data reported by another set of NASA satellite instruments. Together, the NASA satellite instruments provide a 25-year record of real-world atmospheric conditions contradicting IPCC computer model predictions. According to the Scientific Method, when real-world facts contradict a postulated hypothesis, the hypothesis fails. In this case, the failure of IPCC computer models to accurately predict atmospheric heat loss provided strong evidence that the IPCC computer models are based on faulty assumptions. Rather than celebrating the advancement of knowledge provided by the NASA data and Spencer’s study, government employee “scientists” with a dog in the global warming fight viciously attacked Spencer and chastised the media for reporting this important scientific discovery. Gavin Schmidt, a vigorous champion of the IPCC computer models and a government employee at NASA’s Goddard Institute (in a different branch of NASA than Spencer), protested the attention given to the NASA data by telling the press, “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data.” This is a truly remarkable statement. Schmidt would have us believe that when 25 years of objective NASA satellite data contradict IPCC computer model predictions, we are supposed to ignore the real-world data and believe the discredited computer models instead. What are we supposed to do, pretend that the laws of physics have gone on a 25-year vacation? Schmidt’s comments to the press are illustrative of a person whose taxpayer-funded paycheck is dependent upon the continuation of a failed global warming hypothesis. So long as the federal government operates under the assumption that we must study and address dangerous global warming, Schmidt’s job is secure. On the other hand, when scientists like Dr. Spencer report objective facts that falsify key components of global warming predictions, Schmidt’s government-provided paycheck is jeopardized and Schmidt lashes out. Schmidt’s attempted denial of the NASA satellite facts is merely another example of global warming activists promoting faith-based principles and circular logic in contradiction of the Scientific Method. When it rains a lot, we are told this proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When it doesn’t rain a lot, we are told this, too, proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When temperatures are hot, we are told this proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When temperatures are cold, we are told this, too, proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. In short, global warming activists have presented a theory for which they identify no set of facts or circumstances that could possibly disprove their theory – not even 25 years of objective NASA satellite data that directly contradict what their computer models say should be happening. The faith-based circular logic of Schmidt and other global warming activists may be a lot of things, but it is not science. Some have described it as religion, but that is doing a disservice to religion. Religion dictates that when a self-professed prophet’s predictions fail to come true, that person is identified as a false prophet. A more accurate description of the factual denial practiced by Schmidt regarding the NASA satellite data is Climate Astrology. Astrologers, after all, make all sorts of vague predictions such that anything that later occurs can be alleged to have been predicted in advance. “This could be the moment to take a relationship one stage further” is to National Enquirer astrology what “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming” is to Climate Astrology. Ironically, Kevin Trenberth, the same government employee “ scientist” who said “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming” is the same government employee who lashed out against the Spencer-reported NASA satellite data by telling the press, “I cannot believe it got published.” Jason Marcel Rick Perry is an idiot. Gee, a Republican that liberals think is an idiot. Let's give the scientific method a try. My hypothesis is that liberals are so stupid that people they think are "idiots" are actually far more cunning than the stupid liberals with their myopic view of reality to see, and therefor tend to hand them their hats at the polls (Reagan and Bush were both BIG idiots according to the left). That puts Perry in a very good position to send Barack back to the unrepentent left-wing terrorist party circuit in IL come January 2013. Jason Marcel His speech reminds you of Bush, and that brings back some pretty painful memories of unfunded mandates and unfunded wars and poorly-planned wars. Gee, unfunded wars, like WWI, WWII, The Revolutionary War! Yeah, unfunded wars are just unheard of before Bush! As for poorly planned, I will agree that the surge in Iraq (which B.O. and the entire left-wing establishment opposed) should have been done much sooner. The success of the surge evident by the fact that B.O. (who opposed it), has tried to replicate it in Afghanistan Jason Marcel Perry vs. Obama in a debate will look like Bartlett vs. that yokel in this debate clip from the West Wing a few years back. West Wing Presidential Debate - YouTube What does it say that you had to refer to a fictional debate from a fictional program about a fictional liberal president written by a liberal writer to show an example of what a debate between a stupid republican and a brilliant democrat would look like, rather than, oh, I don't know, an ACTUAL debate in the real world presidential debate between a supposedly stupid republican and brilliant democrat. It is no mystery that the two most respected and succesful democratic presidens are Jeb Bartlett and Andy Sheppard, because they were both self-masterbatory left-wing fantasy presidencies! (although I will admit to enjoying both The American President and West Wing as entertainment)
	Quote