Patrick Goodenough @ CNS News
The situation facing the planet because of climate change is “as dangerous” as the possibility of war over Iran’s nuclear activities, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told the U.S. Senate on Wednesday.
Delivering what his office described as “a major address and current assessment of the global climate change challenge,” Kerry acknowledged and bemoaned the success of those who question the notion of human-induced global warming. He compared skeptics to flat-earthers and decried what he called a “concerted assault on reason.”
“I believe that the situation we face, Mr. President, is as dangerous as any of the sort of real crises that we talk about – today we had a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on the subject of Syria, and we all know what’s happening with respect to Iran, and nuclear weapons and the possibility even of a war,” Kerry said.
“Well, this issue [climate change] actually is of as significant a level of importance, because it affects life itself on the planet,” he said.
Kerry said the term climate change had become “an unusable word in American politics.”
America is lucky this clown failed.
He really needs to get on his yacht and sail back to Atlantis.
How can anyone take Lurch seriously?
All the hot air from Kerry and the AGW fanatics is the only real “warming” going on. The rest is hyperbole.
What the skeptics say vs. what the science says: Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
@Greg: Science?? Do you have Scientific Proof?? Please provide the Peer Reviewed Scientific Proof that supports your statement. Not theory but proof.
@Common Sense, #6:
In science, a theory is what has become generally accepted as true.
A hypothesis–which is a scientist’s initial educated guess as to why something that’s been observed has happened–only turns into a scientific theory after that guess has been repeatedly tested for accuracy.
A theory is as close as science ever gets to proof. Science does not arrive at absolute proofs for anything. A well-tested theory that explains what you have observed and accurately predicts future observations is as good as it ever gets.
If you want absolute proofs, you’ve got to stick to mathematics.
No, Greg you mistake Law and Theory very badly:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
A theory is held as a predicted outcome of a tested variable not what is “true” and can be debunked and made invalid from testings by the Scientific Method which in turn demands a new theory to be proposed for new testing and is generally offered up in a hypothisis for experiments. Constant testing of Theories in the hundreds or thousands of independent tests that end with the same result may lead to it becoming a Scientific Law. But even Laws, as technology improve and testings occur can be made invalid.
And you never heard of Linear Algebra or these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories ?
@Greg:
Your problem Greg is that you don’t seem to understand “Scientific Method”
@Ditto:
I fixed this for you Ditto, to include the modern day liberal approach to science:
Also Greg, Einstein’s theory of relativity was published in 1915. In 1919, a solar eclipse validated much of this theory when it was shown that light rays from distant suns is deflected by gravity. You can see this during an eclipse, because the stars behind our sun, actually appear to the sides. I guess at the time, the scientific community could have said…..”hey, the science is settled.”
But they didn’t. Almost 100 years later, Einstein’s theory of relativity is still being challenged.
And the foundation of physics isn’t based on Newton’s three theories. They started out as theories, but we now call them the first three laws of physics.
@Mr. Irons, #8:
Scientific laws aren’t an ending point, they’re the preexisting tools that a modern scientist has at the beginning point. Newton’s laws didn’t begin life as theories. They began as observations.
A law is a concise statement that describes some fundamental aspect of how the world behaves. Most often it’s expressed as a short mathematical formula that demonstrates the inflexible relationship that exists between the various elements involved.
A good explanation can be found here: Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
The semantics don’t really matter all that much, until someone attempts to discredit a scientific conclusion by suggesting that it’s only theory. Modern science is primarily in the business of expanding theoretical knowledge, not of discovering new fundamental laws. All of modern technology is an application of scientific theory.
Greg is still trying to wiggle his way past the lack of scientific proof to support the scientific hypothesis of AGW. The “unscientific theory” that proposed global warming, is steadily losing former professional supporters who are now joining the skeptics, esp. after learning of the scientific-fraud and email collaborative conspiracies by Hansen and his fellow AGW fanatics.
True science and proof relies on professional adherence to the Scientific Method. The AGW fanatics are using the same consensus methodology that scientist refer to as ‘flat-earth’ theories. They expect us to take their word for it, rather than have to prove what they can not. That’s completely unscientific and dishonest The skeptics are correct to say show us your work and the facts as to how you came to these conclusions so that the scientific community can test your work and either prove or debunk it. No true scientists blindly accepts a theory simply because of peer pressure.
I think Kerry over-values human life on earth as opposed to life on earth.
Earth has had a varied history of both climate and atmosphere make-up.
Once life got started here, however, it has not been stopped by any changes in climate or atmosphere.
We have seen the rise of the Trilobites and their fall.
We saw the rise of the Dinosaurs to a place of dominance and their fall, too.
Mammals are having their day.
We, mammals, can survive in cold and heat.
But let’s say the climate or the atmosphere changes so much that humans cannot survuve on earth.
A BIG if, btw.
When we have had our day most experts believe insects will emerge as the dominant life-form.
(Termites already out weigh humans 27-to-1 in terms of biomass.)
I say, so what?
Right now you can visit a volcanic vent miles under the seas and find living things thriving there.
What bombast person, what homo sapiens egoist thinks the status quo is so perfect that it MUST go on this way forever?
Kerry apparently joins Gore in this folly.
Sorry Greg you are still are full of shit about this avenue of knowledge. We just tossed out your claims to the trash and you are trying to rewrite how science is done to fit an agenda. A theory is a educated Guess that is backed by testing a specific variable in question in a certain experiment. Only one variable is tested at a time to contrast to a stable base for comparison.. Since this is about co2 and thermal dynamics there have been testings over this in all sorts of tech fields and co2 has been found to be either an inert gas that doesnt insulate in a vacuum or it is used in conjunction with other gases like xenon to prevent electrical fire in contained server cabinet. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fire_suppression#section_3 (note how co2 is used in these systems as both delivery agent and coolant for operational hardware not on fire.) Your constant dismissal of real science and your curious history claims pegs you more akin to an early 20 some year old than some on in their mid/late 50s. You’re puking out idiotics at us and we keep on supplying real sources.
A law is formed from a theory that has sustained repeated testings by peer reviews over at times decades. Newton’s law of gravity was once a theory. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law So please keep your faux intelligence inside your brain pan.
Newton’s laws of physics started as a set of theories that was extensively tested to great lengths. He and his following scientists constantly tested these theories but couldn’t exactly explain why there was gravity or how it was formed. Scientific Laws hold,”true” under certain situations that cause a phenomenon to happen. With the on going studies onto quantum physics some Laws do not hold true with certain behaviors, such as the recent Higgs Boson discovery which is forcing a closer exiamination over how mass is formulated.
@Mr. Irons, #14:
This simply isn’t true, and will not become true no matter how many times its stated. From the article you just cited:
Simply inst true? You sir win the dumb shit of the year award. How do you think a Scientific law is,”observed?”. It’s from constant tests of a theory. You can try to rewrite how science is done but it does not make you correct.
A scientific law is not unquestionable and infallible. It can be made invalid from new avenues of technology and deep testing into new fields. The fact you just tried to deny and post something that dismisses the very meaning of a law, which originates as a theory in a form of a hypothesis, is the exact reason you are seen by members here as idiotic.
And my own article points to a law’s flaws so get some reading comprehension classes. It’s clear you need some badly.
Here’s a bit more for you to read Greg:
http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
Do enjoy.
Even Laws are questioned in extensive testing and new data and new outcomes from a new variable in question can lead to new theories or eventual Laws. No Scienitific Law we have on the books in any Natural or Socialitial Sciences started instantly as a Law. we got to these points by constant tests and re-testing of various theories by dozens or hundreds of scientists who come to the same results from these variables and this process can take decades or even hundreds of years before a new Law is is observed by scientific community consensus from data gathering and extensive testing.
This is why your AGW groupies have a hard time defending their side because there were no proper tests, the “data” provided to “conclude” AGW comes from manipulated data that is impacted on by more than one Variable (testing methods only focus on ONE variable for a theory’s hypothisis validation) and flat out insulting Skeptics (which is ironic because Science is about being skeptical about data and re-testing the outcomes on purpose.)
@Greg:
Uh, no, that is not a correct statement! Ohm’s law has separate formulas regarding AC (alternating currents). The Wilkipedia article on the philosophy of scientific law is very misleading in it’s rather off-hand critique of the limitations of Scientific Laws.
For the most part Ohm’s law remains correct, yes, even regarding changing currents, A simple current change in an electronic circuit will generally follow the observed effects stated by Ohm’s law. but there are certain things that can affect the electrical resistance, the power dissipation (watts) etc.. depending on the design of the circuit, the components used, and external influences on it. These do not disprove or dismiss Ohm’s law, rather they go beyond the limitations of it’s simplistic formula. There are many devices that can change their operational parameters depending on conditions such as electrical bias, the direction of current flow, the environment they are operating in (see cryogenic electronic systems for example).
(Gee, who would think that Wilkapedia might have inaccurate statements?)
Incidentally, you are still evading the issue that AGW has not passed “The Scientific Method” and remains pure group hypothesis. Without the proper application of scientific examination and measurable evidence it remains no more than at a layman’s level of “theory”, (which is below the threshold of “scientific theory” which requires having scientifis proof to support said theory). I think this is probably the most to the point statement I’ve read regarding fanatics such as yourself:
CURT
I was looking at which post to tell of what came to my mind,
and you’re POST IS THE CLOSEST ONE, BECAUSE MY THOUGHT IS ABOUT IRAN,
I have a strong feeling that IRAN HAS BEEN SO ARROGANT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CERTAINTY
OF HAVING ALL THEIR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS ISLAMIC, AND PLUS RUSSIA AND CHINA, COMING AT ANY STAGE OF THE ACTIVITY, ONCE THEY HAVE DONE THE FIRST ACTION TO LURE THE USA AND ISRAEL INSIDE THEIR TERRITORY, THEN ENCIRCLE THEM WITH ALL OTHER JOINING IN,
THINK OF EGYPT LIBYA SYRIA HESBOLA PLUS THE OTHER HATERS LEAD BY THE IRAN AND FOUGHT BY THE ALL ALQADA ROUND UP IN THERE.
OBAMA WOULD FALL IN THAT TRAP EASY, THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL WAR, ARE WE READY FOR THAT? IT COULD EXPLODE
AT ANY TIME,
WHERE ARE OUR NUKES