global climate change

I keep hearing this balderdash about global warming, yet I've not seen one iota of evidence to back it up. In fact my research on the subject seems to indicate stasis, no trend toward warming or cooling. The draining of the everglades, however is no laughing matter. Every year, thousands of acres of habitat is destroyed. We'll pay for this. When the waters stop flowing, the ocean will take Florida back.

Diatoms - lot's of 'em in our atmosphere! http://www.indiana.edu/~diatom/diatom.html They have a possibly major impact on climate. While they are blooming they a) take CO2 out of the system b) increase the oceans's albedo by 9% cooling! c) by trapping heat near the surface they COOL the lower part of the water column d) omit a sulphurous gas which allows more clouds to form more cooling! http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/SUDO/tt/eh/biogeochemistry.html

So in the last ten years how many more degrees had the average annual temperature gained than in the preceeding ten years. I want to see some hard undeniable facts not scientific doubletalk. Show me that the globe is in fact on a warming trend with just one clear long term indicator.

what is your distinction between "hard undeniable facts" and "scientific doubletalk?"

Scientific doubletalk= anything that can be denied. Example: Cigarette smoking causes cancer. This is false. It is scientific doubletalk. Another example: I smoked cigarettes for 24 years. I have no cancer. These are hard undeniable facts.

by definition, all scientific claims can be denied. scientifically, it cannot be said that cigarette smoking causes cancer. technically, cigarette smoking leads to a greater probablity that one will be diagnosed at some point with cancer. maybe if you would take the time to read the literature you would see that such claim are based on a lot of undeniable evidence. the fact that you smoked for 24 years and have not been diagnosed with cancer does not refute the hypothesis that smokers (as a group) get diagnosed with cancer more often than non-smokers.

One of my grandfathers smoked right up until a week before he died. The other never smoked. The one that never smoked died of cancer. His wife smokes, she is still smoking two packs a day, and she is rapidly closing on 100. She had cancer, she beat it and she is clear now. my other grandfather died of Pneumonia at 102. I have two sisters, one smokes, one never did. The one that has never smoked has a problem with recurring cancer. The one that smokes has never had cancer. My father smokes. he has never had cancer. Five smokers in the family, 1 incident of cancer cleared now. Among the nine non-smokers, there are two incidents of cancer, one fatal, one recurring. Looks to me like the non smokers as a group are significantly less healthy than the smokers. If what the government is saying were true, the health picture in my family would be reversed. Therefore it is a lie.

I went through all this balderdash with cyclamates in soft drinks. the government said that they caused cancer in laboratory rats, using the same kind of language they are now using for cigarettes. they subjected these rats to a large dose of cyclamates each day for six months, and they found that a significant number of the rats got cancer. None of the rats died but a large percentage of them had cancer. from this they concluded that cyclamates caused cancer. However, the dose they used was equivalen to the dose an adult human would get if he drank 250 sixteen ounce bottles of soda a day for six months. thats 31 and a quarter gallons of soda a day seven days a week for six months. Want to guess how long the stomach would last? the pancreas? six months? I doubt it.

your family may be lucky, or simply have a genetic predisposition to be better able to process the carcinogens in cigarette smoke. your small sample in no way negates what many years of research on many thousands of people indicates. your soft drink example is also poorly expressed. no one has everys said that "cyclamates cause cancer." exposure to them may up the chances of getting cancer, but the issue of causation is too complex for anyone to make any strong claims straightout. same goes for smoking.

Anyway you see my point. Unless you can definitely say that one thing causes another, every single time, no exceptions, then you are practicing deception. Smoking might increase your chances of getting cancer, but then again, so might sun tanning. Any statement stronger than the above is a lie. Anything that cannot be defended with cold hard evidence, is either a lie or a religion.

then nothing is above 'scientific double speak' Tim. Everything can be refuted. THere is an exception to almost every rule. How about eating an excess of calories makes you fat? Works with many people but not me. Most of the time the difference is in the phrasing. If I said, exercise makes you live longer, you could surely refute that. However, if I said, exercise in daily activity is condusive to a longer life span, you might agree. But then those wouldn't be 'hard facts' then, now would they? Where are the 'hard facts' in your religion? It's seems to me it is a belief and you may or may not have information to back up those beliefs. Well isn't it the same with science. Beliefs, with information to back them up?

When science puts out information that leads to regulations that FORCE a change in lifestyle, That information better be nothing but irrefutable fact. Or the scientists should keep their mouth shut.

If science is a religion it needs to be categorized as such. Otherwise the same rules don't apply,

no, i dont see your point at all. you should try and understand what science is and how it works before you criticize it. you should try and understand what the term "irrefutable fact" really means.

Scientists, by their irresponsible rantings, are messing with my life, indirectly, but still a pest. Part of the problem is that scientists refuse to take responsibility for the results of their actions.

I studied logic. I know what an irrefutable fact is, and the fact that irrefutable facts are completely unknown by most of the scientific community.

so what is an irrefutable fact? and how much science have you studied? how many scientists have you known and queried about this stuff? how is basic logic different from the empirical methodologies of science (last i checked they were one and the same)? what specific "irresponsible rantings " do you refer to? scientists are not messing with your life, policies derived from scientific work are. i've been a scientist for 20 years and have never had the pleasure of being able to mess with anyone's life, except for mine and my ex-wife's. i am curious to know how you defend such a broad hatred and generalization of science as bad.

Eliminating cyclamates, eliminating smoking sections, the challenger disaster, air bags in cars, seat belts in gasoline tankers, electronic engine controls, radar traps, 61mph stall requirement, emp generators, agent orange, I could go on, but are you getting the picture?

Vaccines The microprocessor Longer lifespans Satellite commo Better weather prediction electricity tv remotes radio so what's your point? you still have not specified any good reason why you hate me and my kind so much. is it because science is not perfect? i challenge you to identify one human endeavor that is. in your post above, you present a mishmash of products, some are bad, some good, but why blame science for all of this? you are entitled to your opinion, of course. and you can pull a kaczynski if you want, withdraw from technology, and live in a shack in montana. i just dont think is is very polite to go spouting off about how bad and stupid a certain group of people are just because your life has been inconvenienced, especially since you seem to be ill-informed about the ways of science. your black and white view of things will not work here.

Well I may be wrong, but I don't think that it is right for a scientist, who is supposed to be an expert on whatever subject, to present his subject matter to the public, or to some governmental organization in such a way that the facts that run contrary to his personal bias are downplayed or not mentioned at all. By the way, my list was of things that science has visited on the general populace, that are all bad as far as I'm concerned. And they were force fed to those who have to put up with them. And that, I have a very strong objection to. to suggest that I am on a par with kaczynski is an insult, and I'm sure that, if you had thought it out, you would have realized how ridiculous it is. I just think that scientists need to accept accountability for every use that is made of their discoveries and inventions. If not, my revenge will not be to turn into an anti tech person, it will be to serve on the jury at the trial of one, and see that he is acquitted.

My point is simply this: science has become political. If your kind is going to persist in forcing change to fit your view of correct living, expect backlash.

well i have been VERY insulted by your viewpoint as well. what evidence do you have of scientists presenting information contrary to their personal beliefs? what evidence do you have of scientists force feeding things on people? what evidence do you have of scientists forcing change to some view of correct living? you claim to have "studied logic" and to be an expert on "irrefutable facts." thus, these questions should be readily answered. a deductive line of reasoning is what i think needs to be given as an answer, same as in a trial. by your reasoning, you would condemn Volta and Faraday for crimes against humanity regarding the distribution of pornography, just because they were instrumental in the discovery of electicity. by your reasoning, you would condemn Robert Goddard for the ultimate development of ICBMs and cruise missles (and the Challenger disaster). how is a scientist to be held accountable for all of the uses of his/her knowledge? science is a community activity, and one that is based on the buildup and growth of knowledge. if you know how science works, you know that having accountablity police would be impossible and would horribly impede the growth of knowledge. i apologize if you feel hurt by the Kaczynski reference, tim, but all of this is dead serious to me, and i am greatly offended by your comments made here. i am not saying you shouldnt have them (to each his own), but you also need to realize that there is a price to be paid for having such strange and extreme views.

And never the twain shall meet.

Every thing written is either truth or it is a lie. If it is not all truth or not all of the truth it is a lie. This is pure logic. You argue as if all your arguements are tautology.

whatever.