California has begun implementing a "cap and trade" environmental protection program, in which companies purchase credits for their greenhouse gas emissions. Good plan?
As if California wasn't already an inhospitable place for a business, they pile on more taxes on companies. You don't need to be a psychic to predict that even more businesses are going to leave that state. I wonder what would happen if our whole country implemented "cap and trade"?
Man, when you're broke, you'll do anything...
I think you're confused...it's the accumulation of power, wealth, and greed that have, at least partially, lead to global warming and destruction of the planet...
He's quoting Phil Jones, who said these periods have little statistical difference from each other. However, I think you're confused about what statistical significance actually means: all this means is that we can't rule out the possibility of the rates being the same, not that they actually are.
You hate science? Better put down that iPhone and get off of the dang ol' internets then...the web will be better off w/o you!
Well, I guess we are gonna have to fork out more money.... You people do realize shit rolls down hill...?
I'm cool with people choosing
to lower carbon output if it
trips their trigger. Knock
yourself out. Just don't force
me to follow your religion. I
think I'm capable of deciding
how to live on my own.
Its California. What else would you expect from those whack jobs?
Human caused global climate change theory is good for only one thing. Consolidation of power and wealth.
That's because LA is in a valley, so the temperature gradients trap the smog.
Cap and trade leads to corruption.
Los Angeles Times
Well you have a point too, deforestation is a significant problem, especially destruction of tropical forests in the Amazon. Will only contribute to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Veritas your wasting your time with this guy just be happy that regardless of what people like him think scientist will continue to lead us into the future..... I only wish we could leave people like him behind
You got me on #1 and #2.
Actually, make it 3 or more of the preceding thing. If you can agree with three or more of the preceding things, or if you regularly say 3 or more of the preceding things, you're probably what I'd call a science fetishist.
6)if it can't be explained by science, it isn't real
7) have faith in science!
8) faith is for idiots
9) science has replaced god
10) science doesn't rely on assumptions
The list goes on....
There's no precise definition. Anyone who says 2 or more of the following things probably is one
1) science gets me hot in the loins
2)if you don't believe evo theory your anti science
3) because the scientists said so
4) scientific consensus exists, end of discussion
5)science has given us x,y,z...
What is a "science fetishist?" Anyone who doesn't dent reality? Or just the ones who dent Christian mythology in favor of science?
I'd put it this way: that which a science fetishist would sacrifice his very brain to defend. Works nearly 100% of the time.
Also, Brrrrrr, I still stand by my previous statement. Evolution is and always will be central to many fields of science, especially biology in regards to biological mechanism of natural selection (the colloquial "Theory of evolution"). Other types of evolution theory exist as well.
brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, the point is you have no idea what a scientific theory is. at all.
Being a biologist, RJ is infinitely more qualified than I will ever be to discuss evolution. I'd be happy to with my very limited knowledge, though.
…are vitally important to understanding our world. We then apply this knowledge of natural processes and phenomena to combat climate change or develop medicine or create biotechnology or treat/prevent diseases. Denying that is detrimental to society.
The fact that I haven't been convinced by the evolutionists has nothing to do With it being called a "theory", if that's what you're getting at.
Theories both explain and predict. For example, the standard model fits well with the data were getting from the Higgs Bosom discovery. Fossil record links were predicted by the theory of evolution to exist…and the found. In this way, theories, while not knew factual evidence in and of themselves…
@Brrrr. Fundamentally, what is a theory of any kind? It is inherently based upon facts, necessarily contingent upon them. Of course the acts remain the same (fossil record for example). Theories shape our understanding of them and our them into perspective (evolution and standard model).
What would it matter? If I didn't, it would take 2 minutes to go on Wikipedia and find the relevant meaning. And I suspect I have done this numerous times and then forgotten the precise definition, given how unimportant the precise definition is to my day to day activities.
uh, I read their posts. so, again....
do you understand what a theory is? it looks like you don't.
There's also Stephen Gould, who got a bit of guff (from other biologists) for proposing a slightly different version of the evolution theory. So yes, I have seen them argue amongst themselves. Although I haven't personally witnessed the Gould things, only read about them.
Google PZ Myers kaku why do physicists..
Actually, I have. Just a few months ago PZ Myers threw a little hissy fit over something M Kaku said. You can see it on PZs blog. Relating to evolution too, no less.
amy citation....any day now......
with that...have you ever seen geologists, astronomers, biologists, and any other scientist fighting over theory like dumbass political pundits do? uh....no., there's a reason for that.
ahhh, brrrr. I really have no idea what you actually thin science is. I have a guess, bit i'm very sure you have no idea.
you're talking about harmony between geology and biology, as far as theory. these are distinct disciplines. nonetheless, the methods are EXACTLY the same.
Sure, we can talk facts.
So what we have, is a formulation of the evolution theory that erroneously implies that astronomy, geology and the such rely on evolution. Which is precisely what someone who wants to give evo theory more weight that is actually has, would do.
how is it thwt we can look up job creation stats that clearly demonstrate CA is 10th in percentage job creation, #1 in the number of jobs and you just.....say sht.
Interpreting what he says in this manner, there is some glimmer of hope for his chemistry and astronomy claims too.
Nonetheless, the meaning is entirely reversed, with his original formulation, if evo theory crumbles, astronomy and geology would crumble too, with the correct formulation, they won't
while I don't want to step on the toes of my esteemed associate, veritas, please....let me do the talking about biology. I have a little bit more education and insight on the issue.
...with that, cam we get off the geology distraction and talk facts?
From 2001- 2009 California ranked 1st or 2nd in job creation. Since then they have ranked 50th of 50 states. The golden goose has been killed. California won the race to the bottom. No reasonable person wonders why.
I believe I understood what Veritas is trying to say. When he says evolution is central to geology, he's referring to the vital role that geology(fossil record) plays in the evo theory. The way to correctly characterize this is as follows; "geology is central to evolution" not the other way around.
whew. glad to hear it. your posts are appreciated, regardless of our differences.
You're not blocked. The benefits of replying to you simply did not outweigh the costs of doing so. And this is why you have thus far been ignored.
what does historical data have to say about your thinking?
look up the "race to the bottom" theory in economics and get back to us.