Fla teacher accused of wizardry

[Father Time]

He is lucky that they didn't read Exodus 22:18.

[Troy]

Originally Posted by Rave

I tell you,a lot of strange stuff goes on down here in Florida,you California folks don't have all the weirdos!

Rave is right, california can't have all the weirdos, the rest are all in canada. and they all got govenment jobs as well.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Mooseman684

Mercury is 5% of the mass of the Earth is what I said ,and is Hotter than Venus which is almost the same size as Earth....Both are too Hot to live on !
Answer me This...Why do we get Colder Here in the North in Winter when The distance to the Sun remains the same ??? I'll tell you...Just the slightest distance because of the angle in relation to the Equator and lack of number of Solar Hours causes the Polar Ice cap to grow and the temps go from +75 degrees to -50 or colder here in Alaska....Hence the seasons...
If you measure the distance it changes due to the angle it works out to a few thousand miles Difference is all...
This is how critical our Orbit around the sun is...and the distance is.
The Global Warming Alarmists still can't tell me why It has been warming many Degrees since the Last Ice age WITHOUT MAN's so called Influence and in 100 years we have only gained 4/5 of a degree Centigrade...???
CO2 My Butt !

There's alot of truth to what you're saying -- like in my previous posts, when you run the #'s, earth's concentration of CO2 (or more specifically, the change thereof) has no real measurable effect on the median earth temperature. The "solar constant" is not exactly constant (it's close--lucky for us--the sun's just basically a fusion campfire) and we neither have a very precise measure of the heat in or in atmospheric modeling itself. Just like in a room with a radiator and window (using the window to adjust the heat) the room temperature can change when the radiator's hotter, the window opens further, or it gets windier outside (representing convection transfer of the atmosphere). The amount the "window's closed" by all CO2 production over the last 200 years, scaled to a 2 foot window, is on the order of 10 millionths of an inch. Given we can't measure the heat in that accurately, the theory has little credibility. Additionally, we can't control methane in nature really at all (unless we eat less beans and onions !) which is lighter than air (unlike CO2 which is heavier than air) and has a higher potential to get into the upper atomsphere. You could propose an extremely valid counter argument that we should burn all the methane we can right now as quickly as we can to decrease the ability of nature to vent it and thus create "safer" CO2 vice CH4. Either that or tax farting.

For me, folks and politicians blindly supporting this (and attempting to legislate/regulate based upon it--they're suing right now to block power plants we desparately need all over the country) is exactly like how we convicted people of witchcraft (or wizardry) earlier in our history based on opinions of "learned" individuals. To me, the global warming mess is little more than smoke and mirrors. Doing dumb things is doing dumb things; whether based on so-callled "science," religion, astrology, or magic and voodoo.

Anyway, have a good one.

[troy2000]

Whether global warming is happening, and whether it's the result of human activity is one question. I think it is, as best I can tell from what I know and what I've read; you guys are welcome to disagree with me.

But the idea that global warming is some kind of a deliberate plot or hoax makes no more sense to me than the hysterical claims fifty years ago that flouride was a communist plot to deliberately poison the people of the United States. A plot to fake global warming would have to be so widespread, and involve so many thousands of scientists working independently of one another, that it just isn't feasible. It's conspiracy thinking run amok.

[TXplt]

It's a deliberate plot in that many peoples $ and career depend on it. Just like everything this clouds judgment. Really no different than corporate greed. Even amongst its scientific supporters, you'll see wide variances in the data. It's people trying to exploit an effect and determining a "cause" later.

Think about how hard it is to admit you're wrong when you've backed something intensely for a long time (even if it's true). It's hard to abandon ideas, even if they're wrong, when you've bought into them because you lose face, and feel like a chump.

I sometimes think it got its origins in people watching Soylent Green.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by TXplt

It's a deliberate plot in that many peoples $ and career depend on it. Just like everything this clouds judgment. Really no different than corporate greed. Even amongst its scientific supporters, you'll see wide variances in the data. It's people trying to exploit an effect and determining a "cause" later.
Think about how hard it is to admit you're wrong when you've backed something intensely for a long time (even if it's true). It's hard to abandon ideas, even if they're wrong, when you've bought into them because you lose face, and feel like a chump.
I sometimes think it got its origins in people watching Soylent Green.

That can be said about any scientific theory whatsoever, TXplt. Someone's pride, reputation and possibly career are always on the line when one is being advanced or discredited.

Big Buddy, a "consensus" is pretty damn good, when it comes to a scientific theory. You're never going to get 100% of scientists to agree on any subject whatsoever; they're human beings, not pre-programmed data processors.

[TXplt]

I disagree on the consensus part, by the way, as well--you have some that are more vocal (and have more influence) than others and there are many in the scientific and technical community that disagree with this theory (including me--I don't have any cash agenda in this in that my income source doesn't depend on it). Even those who agree disagree (to a significant extent) on both the magnitude and timetable of our or nature's contribution in present, past, or future.

I see nothing wrong with planting trees, if you so desire. If you want to be "carbon neutral" -- more power to you (I would suggest there might be better things you can do with your $ and time, but that's up to you). I also advocate nuclear and renewables; however, to me it's not OK to get there by perpetrating what I believe to be a lie. Like I said, the major problem in this is we're regulating based on something I (and many others) believe is false. Even those who believe in the theory have to admit there's no way whatsoever we have enough data (or can claim validity to our extrapolations) to tax or regulate based on it. Those unable to do so aren't really "scientitsts." Part of science is knowing that you don't know everything, and you may be wrong at times. In this case, the cost of regulation is very real and high in the field of energy which we really need (and this will kill people). This is completely unacceptable.

Anyway, y'all have a great Mother's day

[AKHunter]

How the hell this thread got from wizardy to global warming is beyond me!


__________________
"All rifles need a sharp pointy object on the end!"
zephri - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

How else could Al Gore get so many to jump onto his bandwagon if there weren't a magic trick involved.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by AKHunter

How else could Al Gore get so many to jump onto his bandwagon if there weren't a magic trick involved.

Okay, that was funny. Gotta admit it...

[Mooseman684]

Here is the Reason ! Read it for yourself Troy !
Global warming BS.gif

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Mooseman684

Here is the Reason ! Read it for yourself Troy !
Attachment 10880

So because Gore says something idiotic, global warming is hogwash? I don't think so...he hopped on it as a cause, but he didn't invent it.

When some fool starts throwing the name of Jesus around, does that mean Christianity is hogwash? When someone claims the right to shoot anyone who tee's him off, does that mean the 2nd Amendment is hogwash?

[JohnBlaze]

although he did invent the internet!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by JohnBlaze

although he did invent the internet!

You know, he never claimed that. He said he was instrumental in creating it, and there's a big difference. If Eisenhower had said he was instrumental in creating our system of Interstate highways, no one would have accused him of claiming he invented freeways.

Here's a letter from Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn, recognized pioneers of the Internet, outlining Gore's contributions to its creation:

IP: Al Gore's support of the Internet, by V.Cerf and B.Kahn [ I second

[JohnBlaze]

I'm already aware of the truth, thank you. I was just making a joke. Relax.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by troy2000

You know, he never claimed that. He said he was instrumental in creating it, and there's a big difference. If Eisenhower had said he was instrumental in creating our system of Interstate highways, no one would have accused him of claiming he invented freeways.

Here's a letter from Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn, recognized pioneers of the Internet, outlining Gore's contributions to its creation:

IP: Al Gore's support of the Internet, by V.Cerf and B.Kahn [ I second

I'd assert that Jenna Jameson and her many "colleagues" in the genre did far more to enhance development and expansion of the internet than anything algore ever did.

And, to me, that's magic !

[JohnBlaze]

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by JohnBlaze

I'm already aware of the truth, thank you. I was just making a joke. Relax.

Well, it worked; you got a laugh out of me before I answered.

But there are too many people out there who seriously believe he claims to be the inventor, instead of the guy in government who helped encourage and fund it. He may have been taking in a little too much territory, but he does deserve a lot of credit.

[bigbuddy21]

troy , you just cant admit that al gore and man made global warming are a hoax
can you.
i know your a liberal and all but still it's so easy to see that al gore is doing this just for money. if he was as concerned about the enviro. then he wouldn't travel everywhere in a private jet, and big black s.u.v.'s
i know that if we keep on you about this that evetually you'll see the light and come around to the right side on this. LOL

[Mooseman684]

Originally Posted by troy2000

So because Gore says something idiotic, global warming is hogwash? I don't think so...he hopped on it as a cause, but he didn't invent it.
When some fool starts throwing the name of Jesus around, does that mean Christianity is hogwash? When someone claims the right to shoot anyone who tee's him off, does that mean the 2nd Amendment is hogwash?

YOU didn't read the article !!!
Jesus aint even mentioned...
The scientific results show that even higher levels of C02 do not cause an increase in temp as was "Modeled by scientists"....
You been fed too much Califoofoo Crap...Stand in my driveway in January for a couple hours...Youll be begging for Global warming !!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Mooseman684

YOU didn't read the article !!!
Jesus aint even mentioned...
The scientific results show that even higher levels of C02 do not cause an increase in temp as was "Modeled by scientists"....
You been fed too much Califoofoo Crap...Stand in my driveway in January for a couple hours...Youll be begging for Global warming !!

Moose, that thing was almost impossible to read. It looks like a blowup of an old xeroxed newspaper, or something. I managed to dig out the essential point that it was claiming Gore said something idiotic about the cyclone in Burma; I'd have gone cross-eyed trying to read enough to sort out exactly why the author thinks so. Can you find a better copy, or give me a title and author or other information so I can look for a legible version online?