Global Warming Revisited

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:madwife:

why put his burden on our
great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,
grand children :angry: :madwife:
 
Except, in this case, the mechanics have ignored the fact that the car doesn't have an engine anyway. Soil erosion and deforestation outpace carbon pollution, and they additionally hurt the planet's ability to capture carbon and regulate climate.

I hope our grandkids won't be saying "why did you talk about carbon emissions so much while annually exporting (almost irreplaceable) topsoil by the tonnage?"

I'm not sure where you read your journal articles, but deforestation and erosion are huge topics in climate science.
 
I think he's more speaking about the media, not about scientific journals and publications. The ever so important factor of awareness.
 
This is a very bad idea. Something I can actually agree with liberals on. As a Christian, I don't agree with many of the scientific opinions and have very interesting debates. However, science is absolutely fascinating to study and brings upon very good and educated debates. Keeps both sides of the spectrum educated and informed.
But I worry Ted Cruz will prevent us from further exploring controversial scientific endeavors. Should let someone with a serious scientific background handle that department. This is a very stupid move by the Republican Party. NASA needs to be expanded, not contracted!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
How do you, as a non-scientist (I assume -- maybe you're a professor of climatology or geology), "disagree" with established, researched science? On what basis do you form your disagreement? What research have you done that enables you to "disagree"? What is the "other side of the spectrum" of science? How can there be another "side"?


Sent from
 
It's a committee, he only has one vote
At least he will be there to hear a few scientists put forth their views
A lot of NASA money runs through red states, I expect it to keep flowing
 
How do you, as a non-scientist (I assume -- maybe you're a professor of climatology or geology), "disagree" with established, researched science? On what basis do you form your disagreement? What research have you done that enables you to "disagree"? What is the "other side of the spectrum" of science? How can there be another "side"?


Sent from


I'm a biology major. Doesn't make me a scientist by any stretch, but keeps me pretty informed.
And yes I've done quite a bit of research on the tie ins with science and the Bible. My biggest issue with science, though, is accountability with research. It's a very complicated field and therefore the "elites" of the science world can manipulate just about any commoner. But the same can be said of a variety of topics.
The other side is religious scientific studies. It's not all about creation vs. evolution. The ideas can coexist and it's a very entertaining (yet semi-pointless imo) debate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It's a committee, he only has one vote

At least he will be there to hear a few scientists put forth their views

A lot of NASA money runs through red states, I expect it to keep flowing


As much as I am not a fan of Newt Gingrich, he would've been a better republican consultant. But that's obviously not very realistic.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I hope you realize that just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it's not true.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I don't agree with a lot of it because it's just flat out wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Within your branch of biology is medicine

Do you disagree with majority opinions in medicine?


That's a pretty broad statement. However, the advancements in medicine are absolutely incredible (obviously) and medicine and religion don't really have much conflict in facts. Obviously many religious people object to some medical practices, but across the board the more lives it can save the better.
I'm talking more along the lines of disagreeing with many of the non-Darwin evolutionary, counter-creationist arguments. The biggest thing about creation is that, contrary to anyway people want to spin it, there is no way we can prove any creation theories. Whether you're religious or not, it's still a faith in what you believe. Whether that is creationism or the Big Bang.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
There was a time religion and medicine were at odds

Religion and science was at odds over the solar system until fairly recent times

Most religion is not at odds over evolution or age of earth anymore
It seems that what some want to hold onto is Adam being the first man?
 
There was a time religion and medicine were at odds



Religion and science was at odds over the solar system until fairly recent times



Most religion is not at odds over evolution or age of earth anymore

It seems the only some want to hold onto is Adam being the first man?


Religion used to be very anti-science because they viewed it as a threat and would just disagree with everything. But contrary to common thought, evolution and science do not "disprove" the Bible. In fact, in many cases it helps enhance theological and historical studies.
So I don't think that the two are at odds in many areas now, but also they've escalated quite a bit in others. So the debate will always be there until the end of time.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I don't agree with a lot of it because it's just flat out wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I'd be curious what science you believe to be flat out wrong?

You seem to be contradicting yourself; you refer to science as opinion, say some of it's flat out wrong, you state because you're "Christian" is why you don't agree, and then say the church used to be anti-science. It sounds to me that your church still is very anti-science.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'd be curious what science you believe to be flat out wrong?

You seem to be contradicting yourself; you refer to science as opinion, say some of it's flat out wrong, you state because you're "Christian" is why you don't agree, and then say the church used to be anti-science. It sounds to me that your church still is very anti-science.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I'm not anti-science. Do you have any kind of reading comprehension? I don't agree with many scientific theories, doesn't make me anti-science. I'm a lot more pro-science than most religious people.
And I'm not gonna waste my time arguing scientific theories on a U2 forum. Seems really pointless and I don't have enough time to waste to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'm not anti-science. Do you have any kind of reading comprehension? I don't agree with many scientific theories, doesn't make me anti-science. I'm a lot more pro-science than most religious people.
And I'm not gonna waste my time arguing scientific theories on a U2 forum. Seems really pointless and I don't have enough time to waste to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


If you're going to come into FYM, and make some of the comments you do then you're going to have to learn how to debate like a big boy. So far, you haven't shown you're capable.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
If you're going to come into FYM, and make some of the comments you do then you're going to have to learn how to debate like a big boy. So far, you haven't shown you're capable.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


You're not worth my time


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
You're not worth my time


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


It's not a matter of if you're worth my time or vice versa, the question is are you willing to discuss the topics and be willing to actually be a part of the discussion, for that is how we grow. Or are you going to continue to walk in with your ears plugged, and get angered when someone questions you?

I think we all know the answer. Are you worth FYM's time?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I don't agree with a lot of it because it's just flat out wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


What theories are flat out wrong? Is evolution or the Big Bang Theory wrong because those have been all but completely proven. There's a lot more evidence for the Big Bang Theory and evolution than there is for intelligent design or creationism (both of which have no evidence supporting them).


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'm not anti-science. Do you have any kind of reading comprehension? I don't agree with many scientific theories, doesn't make me anti-science. I'm a lot more pro-science than most religious people.
And I'm not gonna waste my time arguing scientific theories on a U2 forum. Seems really pointless and I don't have enough time to waste to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference



Upon what basis do you "disagree"?

I have such a problem with that word, here and in other contexts. How do you "disagree" with what is empirical data?


Sent from
 
Whether you're religious or not, it's still a faith in what you believe. Whether that is creationism or the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory, like any scientific Theory, makes predictions that can be either confirmed or falsified upon further examination.

For instance, the Big Bang Theory (and particle physics) predicted the existence of a particle that had never existed. But the theory itself suggested it, even though it had never been seen and was never known to even exist. The Theory itself relied upon this particle existing and if it had never been found, you could say it was a theory based on a lot of (educated) faith and that had it never been found...maybe it was wrong?

So what happened? They kept looking and they found it. It basically proved the Big Bang theory as totally true.

I'm not here to suggest that creationism doesn't (or couldn't) make similar predictions that might somehow come true because that's not an argument that is worth anyone's time...but that if they did come true...I wouldn't deny them and you wouldn't either. You should really think about denying something simply because you don't believe it. That doesn't do anyone any good least of all yourself.

The Big Bang theory simply doesn't exist on faith. It's fact. And not only is it fact, it doesn't conflict with the basic idea of creation. I mean, the theory itself suggests creation from a single source. If I were religious, I would totally laud it, not reflexively claim it's based on faith, because it simply isn't.
 
My biggest issue with science, though, is accountability with research. It's a very complicated field and therefore the "elites" of the science world can manipulate just about any commoner. But the same can be said of a variety of topics.

Perhaps you can manipulate "commoners" (why?) but you can't manipulate other scientists. If scientists are losing a scientific debate, they're losing because of their science, not because someone is conspiring for or against them.
 
Back
Top Bottom