Re: The sky is falling

Not with any integrity.

No scientist denies the natural causes, but if you got the impression any did, then you were misinformed.

What are your qualifications?

One may be able to arbitrarily choose his beliefs in matters of faith, but doing so in matters of science shows a lack of understanding or integrity.

Biologists have long manipulated CO2 concentrations and ended up with some plants, like algae, benefiting much more than most from the extra CO2.

I would say that doing so in matters of faith also shows a lack of understanding of integrity. Faith (if you define that as what one believes about God) *should* be based on one's best assessment of reality. A lot more depends on it. In fact, if that is properly done, at the end of the day, all other matters of life will be taken care of properly in the bargain. Kind of a synergistic effect.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

How is this done? In most cases, faith is handed down from generation to generation. Quite often, faith is adopted when one wants to marry someone of a different faith.

Jeff

The same as yours that makes you believe otherwise

However it is OK for you to ignore the scientists that disagree with those that believe man is the cause of global climate change LOL

I wasn't talking about "in most cases". I said as best an assessment of reality (as close to God's reality - otherwise known as truth) as one can get. I also said "if...properly done". Without God there is no integrity. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

It's not, and I haven't. Don't make such false statements.

Therefore you're admitting that you too are unqualified to make scientific judgments about global warming. The difference between us is that you believe you are, and I believe I'm not, and I've gotten my information directly from a real atmospheric scientist who has no political bent.

Me too

Of course you have! You prefer to believe the scientists that say man is the cause, by contributing to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

I prefer to believe those scientist that say variation on the content of the atmophere is a result of natural forces beyond the control of man and those scientist that say CO2 can not cause the earth temperature to change but that changes in the temperature can cause the CO2 content to change.

I hate to tell you this, but, all of us have a political bent, including scientists.

Jeff

Those that are getting government grants to "further their studies of global warning" have a financial "bent" as well LOL

Of course, they do. That doesn't mean that the results they are obtaining are false in any way. Not all climate scientists get government funds, however.

Jeff

In the GW world, that's basphemy!! LOL!

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Why is that blasphemy?

The reality is that a lot of people in academics, including scientists, who often work in universities and colleges, tend to be liveral.

Of course, there are also scientists who work for the government, like in NIH, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, DOE, DOD, D. of Ed., and NASA and NOAA. Some of these ladies and gentlemen are scientists.

Jeff

So in other words, you choose to believe the 1-2% rather than the vast majority. If you went to 100 doctors and 98 said you needed an operation for cancer and 2 said, "don't worry", what would you do?

And where is this CO2 coming from you allege temp. is causing to magically appear? For that matter, what is causing the temp. to rise?

Well, I do have a Ph.D. in chemistry.

But don't take it from me. Look at what the National Academy of Sciences says. The AAAS, American Geophysical Union, Royal Society, EPA, NOAA, WMO, NASA...

Look at the overwhelming majority of articles in scientific journals.

If it's really undecided, wouldn't you think the denialists would be able to find at least one scientific agency or group which agrees with them? Just one?

Yes. It's called "spectroscopy." CO2 absorbs IR and them re-emits it.

Yes. % is irrelevant. A virus would be a tiny % of your body's mass, yet it can kill you.

Isn't it prudent to act now? You're demanding proof, and science doesn't provide proof -- it provides evidence.

So you don't see any difference between science 800 years ago and science now? Are you still having your blood let when you get sick? Do you still think thunder is caused by angry gods?