Ok here some more "real" science from discovery.org:

The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...C&isEvent=true

Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...C&isEvent=true

A Democrat Looks at his Party...and the State of American Politics (..)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...e&isEvent=true


Now give me a break while I look up the meaning of "Proselytizing". I have an idea though ..

You guys are pathetic! You can't refute this article, nor video, so in your pissyness, you try to turn it into a joke in an attempt to discredit it when you have no other way to discredit the message. No wonder Robinson stated that he gets tons of mail on this subject, and the negative mail among it falls along these exact same lines! It's friggen true!

By the way, isn't it against forum rules to hijack threads?

-S

I don't understand why people bother with these threads. Nobody is going to be converted over the Internet on topics like these that get so much political play.

PD

The tornadoes this year are already what we normally get by August. What I'm pointing to on these record breakers is that they are on a upward trend where Robinson says we are having less.

1998 STATISTICS This was a new record
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/t...902/tr9902.pdf

May tornado count sets record
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...does-may_x.htm

May 2003 Tornado Statistics
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/may2003.htm

marked the most active week of tornadoes on record
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...-tornado_x.htm

U.S. tornadoes far above average this year
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stor...-06-03-oklahom

They're called communists. I believe that is the proper term. Marxist is also acceptable.

Your forgetting the technology advance. In the 1990's, you simply started to see them all. And they have been holding consistant with off years marked with on years. Seems to be random, but overall, its in decline. How do you explain the fewest tornadoes in 30 years last year? This year, it needs to 1550 to offset last year to even simply maintain the average - Good Luck! Not gonna happen.

Now maybe that this is cleared up, we can talk about human caused global warming since the number of tornadoes doesn't touch on that subject. It's simply something the pro global warming crowd likes to bring simply to scare people. Too bad if you analyze the data, its doing the opposite of what the GW crowd wants - probably why its been dropped by them lately.

-S

You guess you are right. But pseudo-science is just so much fun, and sometimes I can't resist, and don't forget that if it's political (like this stuff thats paid for), it's dangerous to completely ignore it.

Well, I mean we all know that we should trust an adult in his 20's or 30's over the Internet that has no scientific background or qualifications whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong and how something works or doesn't work.:roll:

As PD pointed out, you're not going to convert anyone to your side over the Internet. Also, I'll place my bets on the scientists, not an Internet forum user.:up:

And why do you trust Wikipedia, anyway? I mean, anybody with hands and a keyboard can edit an article, go to the discussion section and post the changes made to it, which ensures that 90% of the time it won't be removed (unless it is absolutely preposterous, like saying the sky is purple; make it sound official and 9/10, they'll leave it be). I used to, but I'm losing faith in it. They get some things right, but many times they've got errors in their work (however, the stuff on Kent Hovind seems pretty accurate).

Doppler has been around for a long time. The number one tornado instrument is still people. Nobody in the scientific community can yet forecast or explain the whys so even I would have to pass on any "why" explanation. I don't remember any "global warming crowd" going on about more tornado's coming so thats probably why you haven't heard it lately as some evil plot to scare simple minded people. They did say more hurricanes which they were correct on. The funny part about that is this nutritional scientist lists only hurricanes that made landfall. Don't understand his differentiating but if you count all hurricanes they are on the incline and not level.

Below is the simplest explanation I can put together on mans impact on GW. It very simply states more Co2 equals more green house effect which equals more warming. It's not some plot to kill millions of third world natives as this guy insinuates. If you can't understand the below I just don't know what else to say. Your nutritional scientist should stick to counting calories in big-macs or whatever he does.

The reason the Earth’s surface is warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as
the natural greenhouse effect. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide.
Human activities intensify the blanketing effect through the release of greenhouse gases. For instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% in the industrial era, and this increase is known to be due to human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels and removal of forests. Thus, humankind has dramatically altered the chemical composition of the global atmosphere with substantial implications for climate.
The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. Instead, the greenhouse effect comes from molecules that are more complex and much less common. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater. The same is true for the cold, dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapour has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapour would have near the surface.

Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate. The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch01.pdf

Again - insignificant amount of CO2 we are talking about. The ratio is 27:1 water vapor:CO2 and this is even 'after' we increased CO2 levels by almost 30% in the 20th century. Mathematically, the amount of CO2 we are talking about is so insignificant that it is even impossible to measure scientifically as having an effect on the environment. This is why the video's graphs above show absolutely 'no change' from human activity, and it is also why no one can prove human caused climate change because it is 'immeasurable' farce!

But you know better than all the scientists I guess. Keep that head in the sand! :D

-S

I'm with the Discovery Institute on this one. Teach the controversy.

Replace materialism with science based in Christian, theistic beliefs. It's the only way.

See my above post since you obvioulsy missed it:

-S

I thought wikipedia was unreliable and shouldn't be used as a reference?

The Discovery Institute is a joke. I'm responding in kind.

It's not gravity, it's intelligent falling.

They're weighing in on this issue because climatology necessitates a very old planet.

Not for data. For a jist of what is up, then its fine.

-S

Thats where the video is stored. So what.

-S

Thats the joke of the moment. Here we have someone that believes everything a nutritionist says but disregards what climatologists and every scientific organization in the world says and I have my head in the sand. If I have my head in the sand where would yours be? Where are all these scientists you talk about? What organizations are they in? I'll be going down to McDonald's in a minute to see if the guy who squirts the ketchup can diagnose my Maserati.

It's what the Co2 does. Come on, don't you read?.

Awright, forgetting the Discovery Institute, lets look at the OISM.

You better find more up to date info on Dr. Robinson.

Also, regardless if he is Santa Claus from the North pole, until someone can dispute his paper, he is right.

CO2 is not prevalent enough in the atmosphere to have the effect it is being given by the IPCC - Science by committee, not testing. Love your source! It is so scientific! Lets all agree something is human caused instead of doing testing on our hypothesis (Not a theory mind you) to show its real - real smart people. NOT!

Only an idiot would buy that.

-S

PS. Are we still on discrediting the author and not the subject matter? You guys are still pathetic.

Christian science does not proselytize me.