Climategate Lies - Page 15 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-12-2010, 04:52 PM   #211
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
then you're lying to yourself, or you don't understand what is implied by Intelligent Design.

it was a theory put forward by the "Discovery Institute" in an attempt to graft some semblance of science onto Creationism.

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roy's beliefs

Faith-Based Evolution - TCS Daily

Quote:
Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis.
There's nothing in his beliefs that would make him fake satellite readings. There are scientists that believe in God and criticism of their science should be based on their science, not their metaphysical beliefs. Evolution is a theory (I happen to think is great) but like all theories there is some element of abstraction that will require more studies and fossil discoveries to add to it. It hasn't been proven but it's the best theory we have.

What's ironic is that Roy's studies are actually adding complexity to our understanding of climate as opposed to the AGW lobby that targets CO2 as the main climate driver.

Do I have to repost Al Gore talking about getting different religions to support AGW? Or how about this politically correct howler?

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...entalists.html

Quote:
'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Prince Charles urges environmentalists

By Rebecca English
Last updated at 1:46 AM on 10th June 2010

Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic 'spiritual principles' in order to protect the environment.

In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man's destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions - but particularly those of Islam.

He said the current 'division' between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment - which goes against the grain of 'sacred traditions'.

Outspoken: Prince Charles speaks to Islamic studies scholars at Oxford. He argued that man's destruction of the world was particularly contrary to Islam

Charles, who is a practising Christian and will become the head of the Church of England when he succeeds to the throne, spoke in depth about his own study of the Koran which, he said, tells its followers that there is 'no separation between man and nature' and says we must always live within our environment's limits.

The prince was speaking to an audience of scholars at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies - which attempts to encourage a better understanding of the culture and civilisation of the religion.

His speech, merging religion with his other favourite subject, the environment, marked the 25th anniversary of the organisation, of which he is patron.

He added: 'The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason - and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us.

'Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.'
http://www.cherwell.org/content/10533

Quote:
HRH Prince Charles spoke at the Sheldonian Theatre on Wednesday, on ‘Islam and the Environment.'

His lecture focussed on what he described as the "division between humanity and nature", which is caused by "global industrialisation."

The lecture was organised by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, of which the Prince is patron, to celebrate its 25th anniversary.

Prince Charles said that "the Islamic world is a custodian...a priceless gift to the rest of world." He made a plea to Islamic scholars, artists, teachers and engineers to fuse the spiritual and practical worlds, on the model of The Prince's School of Traditional Arts.

The Prince, whose income last year was just over £19 million, said "we are clearly living beyond our means."

He argued that the current economic and environmental crisis is the result of a deeper crisis of the soul.

"We need a recovery of the soul to the mainstream of our thinking. Only the sacred traditions have the capacity to do this", he said.

The Prince of Wales blamed a lack of belief in the soul for environmental problems, and said that the planet will not be able to sustain a population likely to rise to 9 billion in 40 years.

He said that it was "baffling" that so many scientists claimed to have faith in God, and yet science was till used in a "damaging" way to exploit the natural world.

Prince Charles even criticised the work of Galileo. Condemning the drive for profit behind scientific research, he said, "This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion."
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 05:42 PM   #212
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Oscar, do you think global governance and a World Government are the same?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 08:45 PM   #213
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I think there are some differences because you don't have to believe in the Bible's version of creation to believe in intelligent design. I don't agree with it but as long as Roy isn't talking to God to give him satellite data it's just a personal opinion for him. I don't think you HAVE to be a complete atheist to be a scientist. I'm sure there are scientists that have crappy bizarre political beliefs "Why Socialism? by Einstein". What matters is the method and work and of course review by skeptics to help advance science.
Have you actually read Why Socialism? It's not an evil essay and many of the points are relevant today.

As far as intelligent design goes it was created by the Discovery Institute to get around the legal rulings against Creation Science in the 1980's and is simply the old argument from design. It's important to note the major examples of "intelligent design" such as the bacterial flagellum and clotting cascades have subsequently been put into a testable evolutionary context. The fact your man Spencer subscribes to ID says that he doesn't understand what science is, and the same goes for your subsequent defenses.

Before you rant on this isn't a case of the Darwinian establishment dismissing radical new ideas; the argument from design significantly predates the origin and has failed to provide any testable hypothesis for the real world since. It's pure God (or alien) of the gaps business.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 08:50 PM   #214
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Evolution is a theory (I happen to think is great) but like all theories there is some element of abstraction that will require more studies and fossil discoveries to add to it. It hasn't been proven but it's the best theory we have.
Evolution is a scientific fact as well as a scientific theory, and your vacillating is interesting.
Quote:
Random Prince Charles Crypto-Muslim Article
How is that relevant? Do you think I support Islamic principles of land management. I happen to think Prince Charles is a complete buffoon and his arguments are a complete slap in the face of most working scientists.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 11:45 PM   #215
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Oscar, do you think global governance and a World Government are the same?
Yes.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 12:03 AM   #216
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yes.
So where do you all get this new dictionary?

Is there some conservative convention where they hand out these new poorly written dictionaries?

There's definately a trait of poor defintions going on in here lately, we'll just add you to the list.

By your shit definition there is already a world government.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 12:04 AM   #217
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Have you actually read Why Socialism? It's not an evil essay and many of the points are relevant today.
In my mind it's dross, but my point is that what I think of his political ideas has nothing to do with his skill in physics so I don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
As far as intelligent design goes it was created by the Discovery Institute to get around the legal rulings against Creation Science in the 1980's and is simply the old argument from design. It's important to note the major examples of "intelligent design" such as the bacterial flagellum and clotting cascades have subsequently been put into a testable evolutionary context. The fact your man Spencer subscribes to ID says that he doesn't understand what science is, and the same goes for your subsequent defenses.
No it doesn't. He's a meterologist and his beliefs in a creator do not match with the Bible so I don't think it will interfere with satellite data. You're just trying to attack him personally instead of dealing with the data he's collecting. Even NASA doesn't throw him under the bus like you do.

Quote:
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Before you rant on this isn't a case of the Darwinian establishment dismissing radical new ideas; the argument from design significantly predates the origin and has failed to provide any testable hypothesis for the real world since. It's pure God (or alien) of the gaps business.
I'm not interested in arguing for a point of view I don't agree with. My point is that saying he supports a kind of intelligent design doesn't mean he can't be a good meteorologist. His data has nothing to do with intelligent design. Even more importantly if his data doesn't support AGW then that data has to be looked at as opposed to ignored.

Nice try to change the subject onto Some Religious guy vs. Richard Dawkins argument. We're talking about climategate. Calling him a creationist is just a way to dodge his arguments. At least with Michael Mann he has an objective to get rid of the medieval warming period and Steven McIntyre has proved him wrong not because of his station in life or his religious or political views but because he showed the computer models would make a hockey stick even if random data was added. As long as these problems persist and no "independent" review answers these questions no amount of personal attacks or flaunting resumes will matter.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 12:08 AM   #218
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
So where do you all get this new dictionary?

Is there some conservative convention where they hand out these new poorly written dictionaries?

There's definately a trait of poor defintions going on in here lately, we'll just add you to the list.

By your shit definition there is already a world government.
When you have a binding agreement and world taxes and let's say the U.S. decides not to follow the agreement, all the other countries in a binding agreement can punish the U.S. with sanctions. This would be a world government. Every country would have to pay. Once you start something like that it will cause political turmoil to stop it. The fact that you're not concerned about that tells me what I need to know about you.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 12:13 AM   #219
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
How is that relevant? Do you think I support Islamic principles of land management. I happen to think Prince Charles is a complete buffoon and his arguments are a complete slap in the face of most working scientists.
I was responding to Irvine showing that his distaste for the religious in science doesn't seem to match with Prince Charles criticizing religious scientists for not being thoughtful enough of the environment. So therefore it's not new that a scientist is religious or has religious views. There are probably religious scientists that believe in AGW and I'm sure the U.N. wouldn't care (unless they were skeptics).
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 12:43 AM   #220
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The fact that you're not concerned about that tells me what I need to know about you.
And we all knew everything we need to know about you in the first month you signed up and started labeling EVERYTHING socialist or communist.

And that was before you even entered FYM
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 10:37 AM   #221
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I was responding to Irvine showing that his distaste for the religious in science doesn't seem to match with Prince Charles criticizing religious scientists for not being thoughtful enough of the environment.

which doesn't make any sense at all. why on earth would i care what PC thinks?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 10:54 AM   #222
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:07 PM
A certain population of Conservatives especially the further right you go care very much about what their Becks, Rushs, Hannitys think or say, so in turn they believe everyone is like that.

It's just not so
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 11:56 AM   #223
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
which doesn't make any sense at all. why on earth would i care what PC thinks?
It's not what he thinks but the fact that he is amazed that scientists who are religious don't agree enough with him proving scientists can be religious and they do exist. Attacking someone's personal religious beliefs only works if you can prove that the scientist's work is informed by it instead of data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
A certain population of Conservatives especially the further right you go care very much about what their Becks, Rushs, Hannitys think or say, so in turn they believe everyone is like that.

It's just not so
The problem is that people like you say that but then support policies that confirm conservatives worst nightmares.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
And we all knew everything we need to know about you in the first month you signed up and started labeling EVERYTHING socialist or communist.

And that was before you even entered FYM
Well when looking at the political chart thread it would be mostly socialist in this forum.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 12:18 PM   #224
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It's not what he thinks but the fact that he is amazed that scientists who are religious don't agree enough with him proving scientists can be religious and they do exist.
i still don't care what PC thinks.


Quote:
Attacking someone's personal religious beliefs only works if you can prove that the scientist's work is informed by it instead of data.

and if someone advocates for Intelligent Design, it's incredibly clear that his work has been tainted by his religious beliefs.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 12:39 PM   #225
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and if someone advocates for Intelligent Design, it's incredibly clear that his work has been tainted by his religious beliefs.
At least when I say someone is tainted it's because the data shows that. I don't believe that Vikings buried their dead in "Greenland" under permafrost so I don't think arguments that the warming from the little ice age to now is unprecedented are proven. If an intelligent design person can make that argument it isn't tainted because he believes in a creator.

The Fate of Greenland's Vikings

Quote:
Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders' houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures, like the great hall at Brattahlid, they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might benefit from the animals' body heat.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com