Weather Channel Founder "climate denier"

[Bravus]

Not true that the ozone hole was a hoax. The ozone hole was real. The Montreal Protocol of 1989 did something about it and the ozone layer is in the process of healing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

Kind of bizarre to use the example of when humans doing something fixed a problem to argue for not doing something about a problem.

Lots of myths in the rest of the post, not supported by evidence, but when someone has decided any inconvenient evidence is falsified, they have moved beyond the possibility of reason.

[Bravus]

https://skepticalscience.com/Inuit-Climate-Change.html

[CoAspen]

9 hours ago, Bravus said:

.......when someone has decided any inconvenient evidence is falsified, they have moved beyond the possibility of reason.

.....,

Happens so much through out life.

[Gary K]

On 8/24/2017 at 9:19 PM, Bravus said:

Not true that the ozone hole was a hoax. The ozone hole was real. The Montreal Protocol of 1989 did something about it and the ozone layer is in the process of healing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

Kind of bizarre to use the example of when humans doing something fixed a problem to argue for not doing something about a problem.

Lots of myths in the rest of the post, not supported by evidence, but when someone has decided any inconvenient evidence is falsified, they have moved beyond the possibility of reason.

LOL.  Just where is the proof that the Montreal Protocol "healed" the Ozone layer?  Because it's on wikipedia?  There is so much distortion and political correctness there it's completely unreliable. There is no proof.  The amount of cfc's produced by mankind isn't even a small percentage of the cfc's produced naturally.  And don't give me the tired old argument that naturally occurring CFC's are somehow different enough that they don't affect the environment.  A single volcanic explosion produces thousands of tons of the stuff.  See the last link in this post.

Let's look at some other explanations.  How about fluctuations in earth's magnetic field?

http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth

The earth's magnetic field has a half-life of 1400 years.  So, earth's magnetic field is less than half as strong as it was at the birth of Christ.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/

Notice how Mars has no atmosphere because there is no magnetic field.  It once had a magnetic field, according to NASA and it's collapse is the reason, NASA says, it no longer has an atmosphere.  Not my assertion, it's NASA's assertion.  So, only an idiot would argue that a large reduction/fluctuation in the strength of the earth's magnetic field could not cause the hole in the ozone layer and the healing of that hole.  The earth's magnetic field changes on a regular basis, so a weakening or fluctuation in it is as good an explanation as cfcs.  You don't like that explanation?  Go argue it with NASA. 

No naturally occuring cfcs?  Notice all the sources pointing to scientific studies.  Including the ones the politicians have relied on.

http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/

You've been led down the proverbial "garden path" by politicized, corrupt scientists who tailor their "findings" according to whoever pays them.  Don't want to admit scientists could possibly be corrupt?  Read the following link, and then think about how many times conflicting studies are published.  One group will say, this is bad stuff.  The next group will say, this stuff is not bad, it's good for you.  Who says it's good?  Only those whose research was paid for by people with a financial incentive to have people think their product isn't bad....  Pure corrption.  http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story5367-cliffs-edge-bias-in-science-say-it-aint-so-clifford-goldstein

[Bravus]

"The amount of cfc's produced by mankind isn't even a small percentage of the cfc's produced naturally"
Factually false. Would be true about greenhouse gases, but not even remotely so about chlorofluorocarbons.

[Bravus]

The article on the earth's magnetic field is based on the claims of Russell Humphreys, who claims without either scientific or Biblical evidence that all the planets were initially created as spheres of water and their magnetic fields are remnants of that.

In order to credibly challenge the claims of science, it is necessary to understand science.

Rhetoric and links to sites that make claims does not change reality.

[Bravus]

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es990838q

[Gary K]

Bravus,

It's amazing how you will completely ignore things you don't want to see.  I give you strong evidence of scientific fraud and you ignore it completely.   I gave you one source for evidence the magnetic field is collapsing, and you toss it out on something ridiculous.  You throw out so many red herrings and logical fallacies it's not funny.  You want to say science and government are THE reliable source, so I give you science and government sources that lead to conclusions other than your chosen belief, and then, amazingly enough, scientists and government aren't reliable.  You make my point for me.  There is no consensus.

Here is more evidence.  And they aren't creationists either.  https://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html

The point is, Bravus, there are studies showing all kinds of things, and many of them contradict each other.  What global warming people do is cherry pick the things they want to believe and then say, see, the science is settled.  It is not.   If science was the be-all and end-all of all of these things scientists would all agree to exactly the same things.  They don't.  One says one thing, another says something else, and they contradict each other.  So, they are not reliable.  They are not a go-to source for truth.  You pick and choose what you want to believe from them.  So do I.  It has nothing to do with not understanding science.  My IQ is most likely as high as yours is as mine is high enough that only a very small percentage of humanity could have a higher one. It has everything to do with basic world views.

As you and I come from completely opposing world views what we accept as the foundational truth upon which we base what we accept we will  never agree on hardly anything.  Everything I accept flows out of Biblical beliefs.  The Bible is my foundation for everything.  It is the ultimate truth.  You reject it and accept things like humanistic philosophy, something I reject completely.  So, when it comes down to how we are going to see the world around us, we will never agree. 

You and I disagree for the same reason CoAspen and I disagree on so much.  We have polar opposite foundations of what we accept as true. 

 

[Gary K]

Bravus,

Here is an example of how easy it is get fraudulent science accepted.  All you need do is make outrageous claims that are agree with the socialist agenda, and voila, automatic approval from other "scientists".  The "peer review" process is a joke.  And this is only one example.  There are many of them.  I just pointed out this one as it is such an extreme example of what gets "approved" as legitimate by other "scientists" that it makes me laugh, and it also confirms just how fraudulent a lot of stuff is that is accepted because it is "peer reviewed".   

A great example of how honest scientists really are.  They are human so they are just as dishonest, greedy, and corruptable as the rest of humanity.  As I look at all of humanity skeptically because of the dishonesty I see on a daily basis, and the fact that they have fallen natures the same as the rest of us, I include scientists in that skepticism.   

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

 

[CoAspen]

Bravus is more than capable of handly any responses on his own, but since you included my name......I would suggest, based on your posts, you simply agree or disagree with any thought or idea, factual or not, based on your private opinion.You make outrageous statements without foundation, such as "All you need do is make outrageous claims that are agree with the socialist agenda, and voila, automatic approval from other "scientists".  The "peer review" process is a joke." So, yes Bravus and myself will have a good laugh!

As a matter of record, the Bible is not a science book and the .org does not claim it to be. So, I would have to assume that those individuals who believe that way have done so simply because they distrust science so much. Science does not claim to have the answer to everything likes those who choose to say" Everything I accept flows out of Biblical beliefs.  The Bible is my foundation for everything."  That is a personal choice but tries to make the Bible into something it was never intended to be.

I accept the Bible as true for its intended purpose, a history of humans and their relationship to their creator, a book whose story line is about how this God desires for His creation to be restored to its original condition. We were given brains and the ability to study all of this creation. Science is a dynamic subject, learning about God is a dynamic also.

When you make a statement such as this, " One says one thing, another says something else, and they contradict each other.  So, they are not reliable." ,  you need to be careful as most anyone can take statements or events from the Bible and make the same claim. Beware of throwing stones!  

[Bravus]

The difference between peer review in the sciences and peer review in the social sciences is also an interesting topic... but probably not one worth spending a lot of time on here.

[Bravus]

Earth's magnetic field oscillates. This is very well understood science. The direction of 'magnetic north' flips about every 200,000 years. There is a  heap of evidence for it, including the floor of Bass Strait, between the Australian mainland and Tasmania. That creationists who are constrained to short timelines take one tiny piece on the graph of an oscillation and turn it into a single decline is simply routine creationist bad science. That they cherry-pick from reputable scientific literature to do so is similarly routine.

It's not that I reject things I don't agree with. I reject things that are against the evidence.

[Bravus]

I'd be interested to see the Bible texts that state the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing.

And, to return to an earlier claim: it would have taken billions of years for Mars' atmosphere to have been removed by solar winds. I'm afraid you can't just take the claim that it happened and ignore the timescale.

[Gregory Matthews]

Climate change is a complex issue.  In part it is due to factors that are inherent in the nature of this planet and beyond any human attempt to mitigate.  Those will continue to evolve regardless of what humans do or do not due.  However, there are elements of climate change that result from the nature of our human mode of life and how we interact with the environment.  Those factors we can change.

I am tired of the name calling and personal attacks that have been made in this thread.  I can appreciate the spirit of those personally attacked who have not responded in kind.  However, those attacks are well beyond what we want for discussion.  Therefore, I will lock this thread.  Enough is enough.  Perhaps after a cooling off period discussion of this complex subject can begin again.