I was having a discussion with some people online about global warming. I'm not a believer in it due to having a fundamental understanding of science and heat transfer. I often wonder why people believe in it, since there is absolutely no proof.

I usually have the discussion and I work it down to the believers to present the "proof" that CO2 causes warming. I always knew environmentalists were dogmatic in the first place, but this really took the cake, in science there is no way to make proofs, but it's happening and I should just take his word for it.

Yes, this is by far the craziest thing I've ever heard. The only "science" you can't make proofs in is "soft" sciences, like psychology. The reason is because you can't measure anything. There really isn't nothing to measure on people to know if they're a serial killer or not.

I just hate the anti-knowledge people. It's so degrading to the minds of men that made this world great. I wonder if they get upset when they drive over a bridge thinking that there is no proof on why it stands up. What a joke.

Science was my only refuge from the dogma crowd and it seems they're trying to infest this place too. I think they need to go back to their religion, believe in their pixies and angels, and let the real minds work on that "proof" you hate so much.


Posted by Christopher | 1:09 PM | | 2 comments »


  1. Anonymous // July 19, 2008 at 9:05 AM  

    As a scientist you should realize that just because there isn't available information for you to dig through that such a thing does not exist. And NASA has come to call it climate change, not global warming as the term is incorrect such that some place can warm and others cool as the enviornment around the world changes from industrialization and urbanization.

    As a scientist you should also realize that for every action in the physical universe there is a reaction.

    Let me hand you this glass of water. It is pure.

    Now let me add some chemicals to the water that are toxic, just a bit. Is the water still safe? Maybe.

    Now let me keep adding chemicals to the water, what will occur in the long run?

    Climate change is a fact. All our actions at industrialization and such actions have had massive effects upon local climates and envrionments. If we have global urbanization you are telling me this won't change our enviornment or climate? For every action there is a consquence in the physical world.

    If we keep adding chemicals to the air that were not there before it MUST change the enviornment in some form as these chemicals bond or not bond with what is available. It could be a good thing, but climate change, especially in local industrialized areas is a reality.

  2. Christopher // July 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM  

    I love this comment.

    First you state, "just because there isn't available information".

    Than you say "climate change is a fact".

    Really? How do you know if there is no information? Dogma, just like I presented.

    All your other comments are just stupid conjecture, and unfortunately there is no room for that in science.

    I'd like to first tell you why I choose to use the term "global warming" instead of "climate change". Global warming is what the environmentalists claim is happening. Climate change just seems like an attempt drastically redefine things so any change in weather can be blamed on "evil capitalism". Sorry, I'm not buying.

    We have an affect on our ecosystem. Every animal does. What you're doing is just using conjecture to some how imply that we are making it warmer. How do you know we're not making it colder? How do you know if we're just making the air slightly more polluted, so we can grow our lifespan? You don't. Hence, you're just speculating, like every other environmentalist out there.

    You have no proof. You're holding up the anti-man dogma. You naturally assume that any sort of progress we make as humans, is bad. This means you're exceptionally bias and don't give a crap about the truth. You just want "global warming" to be true, so you can satisfy your anti-man ego.

    I'm someone that wants to pull people out of poverty and this means burning more oil, it means making more cars, it means paving more roads, it means bull dozing down the rain forest, etc.

    You on the other hand, would love to send millions of people into starvation to save polar bears.