The bottom line is that it is VERY tempting to assume that many geological features are man-made when you do not understand the science behind them:

I don't fault the people for seeing what they want to see.. but simple truth is that they are wrong.

I read your abstracts and links. The Masada article costs money, but whether the ramp is natural and looks manmade or not isn't really what I'm getting at, as I said there are streets, many, many buildings with what are clearly windows, ziggurat formations in close proximity to what could be worn sphinxes, appears to make it clear there was a city here. There are also historic accounts of their being 5 cities in this area near the dead sea, so this is probably one of them.
This was the only photo you sent me that in anyway looked at all possibly manmade http://www.fotosearch.com/DGT183/lnd0039/

From what I understand natural volcanic sulphur is almost never more than 40% pure, these balls are 96-98%, which appears to only be achievable using industrial methods like the Claus or Frasch process.

"Gypsum is a common mineral, with thick and extensive evaporite beds in association with sedimentary rocks.
Deposits are known to occur in strata from as early as the Permian age. Gypsum is deposited in lake and sea water, as well as in hot springs,from volcanic vapors, and sulfate solutions in veins. Hydrothermal anhydrite in veins is commonly hydrated to gypsum by groundwater in near surface exposures. It is often associated with the minerals halite and sulfur." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum
The calcium sulfate comes from the limestone structures being burned with sulfur, CaCO3 bonding with sulfur and Oxygen leaving CaSo4, so the gypsum was formed by the burning up of the limestone in the presence of water, which a city would have plenty of. Seemingly doesn't destroy the argument.

You point out a sulphur ball in a cliff wall (wasn't on a ziggurat), but it has the same crystalline shell which is consistent with the many, many other sulphur balls found in this very small area,  "Liquid sulphur is well known to become highly viscous when heated above 160° C. (320 ° F); this viscous sulphur (like selenium) is easily supercooled. At room temperature the product resembles unvulcanized rubber and is called 'plastic sulphur'. This hardens at liquid air temperature to a brittle glass, vitreous sulphur. At this temperature it remains amorphous for an indefinite time; at room temperature, however, the plastic sulphur crystallizes within a few hours, the crystallization proceeding (as with selenium) from the outside to the inside. " http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v172/n4386/pdf/172957a0.pdf  hence the crystalline shell, but since 96-98% sulphur has not been observed naturally anywhere else on earth, where did it come from?

The "brimstone raindrops" aren't just holes in a wall face,or bits of limestone rock left from some geologic event (thats what is around) they are actual balls of sulphur each in the aforementioned crystalline capsules, so the idea that they are sedimentary protrusions that have possibly fallen off seems unlikely  imo.

Pardon the wall of text.

Sample ziggurats

Originally posted by Reborn17

 there are streets, many, many buildings with what are clearly windows, ziggurat formations in close proximity to what could be worn sphinxes, appears to make it clear there was a city here.

::sigh:: I will never learn.  Using reason with the faithful has always been a waste of time.  EVERY time I've tried.  Can't say I didn't try.  For the record, there is NOTHING man made in any of those "cities."

From what I understand natural volcanic sulphur is almost never more than 40% pure, these balls are 96-98%, which appears to only be achievable using industrial methods like the Claus or Frasch process.

There is no sulfur of volcanic origin in those evaporite beds.

"Gypsum is a common mineral, with thick and extensive evaporite beds in association with sedimentary rocks.
Deposits are known to occur in strata from as early as the Permian age. Gypsum is deposited in lake and sea water, as well as in hot springs,from volcanic vapors, and sulfate solutions in veins. Hydrothermal anhydrite in veins is commonly hydrated to gypsum by groundwater in near surface exposures. It is often associated with the minerals halite and sulfur." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

Your point is??  Yes this is exactly what formed the beds in question. Good job cutting and pasting.

The calcium sulfate comes from the limestone structures being burned with sulfur, CaCO3 bonding with sulfur and Oxygen leaving CaSo4, so the gypsum was formed by the burning up of the limestone in the presence of water, which a city would have plenty of. Seemingly doesn't destroy the argument.

I suppose the IDENTICAL layered evaporite beds of gypsum and carbonate that I have seen with my own eyes at the dry lake beds in the american west were also the result of magical fire from god, and not the result of natural processes.  Why was God frying stuff in Nevada? Probably because of all the sinning in Vegas.. he just missed by a couple thousand years.

 You point out a sulphur ball in a cliff wall (wasn't on a ziggurat), but it has the same crystalline shell which is consistent with the many, many other sulphur balls found in this very small area... (see below, can't paste inside a text box.. the ziggurat thing came directly from one of those pseudoscience websites),  "Liquid sulphur is well known to become highly viscous when heated above 160° C. (320 ° F); this viscous sulphur (like selenium) is easily supercooled. At room temperature the product resembles unvulcanized rubber and is called 'plastic sulphur'. This hardens at liquid air temperature to a brittle glass, vitreous sulphur. At this temperature it remains amorphous for an indefinite time; at room temperature, however, the plastic sulphur crystallizes within a few hours, the crystallization proceeding (as with selenium) from the outside to the inside. " ... Umm ok, thanks for the tour of the physical properties of sulfur.  Unfortunately the sulfur in those nodules was never molten...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v172/n4386/pdf/172957a0.pdf 

You have quoted the abstract from a laboratory materials science article that has nothing to do with native sulfur found in field deposits.  Did you pick this artcle randomly just to put something about sulfur in here?

hence the crystalline shell, but since 96-98% sulphur has not been observed naturally anywhere else on earth, where did it come from? Cite your sources.  If this is real data it will be available in a peer reviewed journal with a clear outline of methods for verification. 

The "brimstone raindrops" aren't just holes in a wall face,or bits of limestone rock left from some geologic event (thats what is around) they are actual balls of sulphur each in the aforementioned crystalline capsules, so the idea that they are sedimentary protrusions that have possibly fallen off seems unlikely  imo.  They are sedimentary features that provive the nidus for sulfur production by well documented processes that I have already referenced twice.

Pardon the wall of text.

Above: ziggurat stands amidst ashen ruins in Gomorrah, with darker terrain in rear.
Government sign with gate, attempting to keep vehicles out.

Above: Located on the side of a ziggurat, this brimstone in a shell is opened to reveal the unburned sulfur inside

Above photos and captions are taken directly from the pseudoscience site

Look, I'm sorry if this last post is less friendly... but it is really frustrating to see people absolutely ABANDON good sense because they are so scared of upsetting their belief system.  I put a lot of effort into this, and quite frankly it seems to have been a waste.

Originally posted by Reborn17

Sample ziggurats

Nice pictures.  If you show me how they built in all of the sedimentary structures THEN I'll start to consider the possibility that anything like this ever existed on this site.  If you tell me that GOD magically made the temples look like regular sedimentary rock I officially give up.

Edit- Actually, I officially give up now.  Believe whatever you want.  You know, over the course of my life I've tried to have rational discussions with maybe 50 hardcore fundamentalist christians about straightforward scientific issues like this. I guess logic has no effect on you when you've made up your mind what's true already.  Congrats, you are my official "last lost cause."

You know as I was about to walk out the door I realized something TRULY funny that basically puts the icing on the cake of this fraud.

The "building remains" shown in these videos are composed largely of gypsum.

We currently use gypsum as a component of wallboard in modern construction.  Gypsum was chosen for a VERY SPECIFIC reason in this application.

As a homework assignment, go look up what UNIQUE property gypsum (NOT anhydrite) has that makes it such a safe choice for wallboard.

If you do this, I assure you the absurdity of these pseudoscientists claims will become VERY clear to you.  Talk about missing the obvious....

In other news,  the remains of the TOWER OF BABEL have been located in TEXAS...

Wow- even the creation scientists know this is a hoax.

Finally found someone you might listen to:

A CHRISTIAN with a GEOLOGY degree who has examined the site.  Please follow along as he confirms everything I have already said:

ABR ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER
Vol. 2, Issue 2 Circulation: 2675
February 15, 2002
http://www.christiananswers.net/abr
1-800-430-0008
abrofc@aol.com

Staff Commentary

Ron Wyatt's Sodom
Rev. Gary Byers

Geologist Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research recently examined evidence from a site on the west side of the Dead Sea (at the foot of Masada), suggested by Ron Wyatt as the location of the destroyed Biblical city of Sodom. Austin is one of the few geologists to have critically examined evidence from this region in light of Wyatt's claims. The site was recently visited, and the geological features were photographed by Robert Brecka of Baltimore, MD. Austin examined BreckaÕs photos and also tested and evaluated samples from the area.

Having studied the geology of the local Lisan Marl in both Israel and Jordan, Austin noted the samples were typical of lake environments. Although not having specifically studied Wyatt's site, Austin has observed similar landforms and erosion features in the marl strata northeast of Masada. Referring to the Dead Sea basin as one of the world's best pull-apart basins, he pointed out its similarity to the Imperial Valley and Salton Sea of California in both tectonic structure and desert landforms.

After examining Brecka's photographs of the Lisan Marl on the west side of the Dead Sea, Austin noted the region's world-class examples of desert landforms. He described the Lisan Marl as ancient lake sediment from a former Dead Sea, which occupied the basin at a higher level just thousands of years ago at the time of the "Ice Age." The marl is very poorly consolidated and is composed of microscopic crystals of calcite (calcium carbonate) and gypsum (calcium sulfate with water). Austin identified piping tubes created by vertical fracturing, which then created sinkholes and cave-like structures. Although some have the appearance of human excavations, they are entirely of natural origin. Bridging, arches, rills, sapping structures and gully erosion were prominent in the region. Natural marl joints broke off in linear rectangular features that created narrow mesas (buttes) and pediments (gravel-covered mesas). Circular marl structures ("pinnacles" and "hodos") were also identified. Numerous erosional forms containing resistant strata (known as "elephant knees") were also observed in the marl formation.

Sulfur nodules, common throughout the site, were also examined and Austin suggested their presence was from the chemical alteration of gypsum within the strata. Earthquake-produced fluidization structures of beautiful swirls along with lamination forms and the phenomenon of desert varnish were also observed in the Lisan formations.

With all these features being common natural phenomenon and typical of dried up lake environments, Austin believed many were relic desert forms. He suggested they were created a couple of thousand years ago. Based on Brecka's photographs, Austin saw no reason to believe there was anything that was not a natural geological feature. While not totally ruling it out, he did not observe anything suggesting modification by human activity.

The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) also does not believe there is any evidence for ancient artifacts or structures at the site. Yet, they were favorable to Brecka's interest and encouraged him to apply for an excavation permit. (Photographs and a fuller report of the geological features at this site, believed by Ron Wyatt to be the destroyed city of Sodom, will appear in a coming issue of ABR's quarterly magazine Bible and Spade.)
 

Maybe if you wont listen to a heathen like me this guy can talk some sense into you.

Full text is available Here.

PLEASE TAKE AWAY FROM THIS THAT FAITH AND INTELLIGENCE DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN CONFLICT AT ALL TIMES.

Originally posted by Scubie67

 geesh ...I figured they would find it near Chicago these days

Or San Francisco.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Scubie67

 geesh ...I figured they would find it near Chicago these days

Or San Francisco.

Or anyplace else where those shiftless libruls hang out, right?

Christ, the conservatives on this board become bigger assholes with every passing day. And some of them have the nerve to whine that this is somehow a liberal-dominated forum.

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Scubie67

 geesh ...I figured they would find it near Chicago these days

Or San Francisco.

Or anyplace else where those shiftless libruls hang out, right?

Christ, the conservatives on this board become bigger assholes with every passing day. And some of them have the nerve to whine that this is somehow a liberal-dominated forum.

Liberals tend to be more eager to embrace a state of lowered moral values as part of their never ending need for change.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Scubie67

 geesh ...I figured they would find it near Chicago these days

Or San Francisco.

Or anyplace else where those shiftless libruls hang out, right?

Christ, the conservatives on this board become bigger assholes with every passing day. And some of them have the nerve to whine that this is somehow a liberal-dominated forum.

Liberals tend to be more eager to embrace a state of lowered moral values as part of their never ending need for change.

"Different" moral values do not mean "lowered" moral values, you self-righteous twat.

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Scubie67

 geesh ...I figured they would find it near Chicago these days

Or San Francisco.

Or anyplace else where those shiftless libruls hang out, right?

Christ, the conservatives on this board become bigger assholes with every passing day. And some of them have the nerve to whine that this is somehow a liberal-dominated forum.

Liberals tend to be more eager to embrace a state of lowered moral values as part of their never ending need for change.

"Different" moral values do not mean "lowered" moral values, you self-righteous twat.

Your language alone makes my point for me, but for a group of people that seem to be focused on what is best for all why do you make war on babies?

Damn!  I was getting all excited to go there and party too.  :(

As an undergrad archaeology student (who still knows much less about sedimentology, stratigraphy, formation processes, etc. than Enkindu), I'd like to thank Enkindu for saying everything I frankly didn't have the energy for, and more. I've found debating science with many Christians and other people of faith (but not all of you, thankfully!) very tiresome when it even remotely conflicts with their ideas about their faith, and I've pretty much stopped doing so myself.

Enk, this isn't even psuedo science...it is nonsense.   Also you're wasting your time.   Trying to tell someone that doesn't even undestand the basics of geology 101 about geology and who is all hung up on God is never going to work.    So forget it.  Let them live in their version of their world and we'll live in the real one.

Praetoriani- thanks for the support.  I really don't know much about archeology. Only way I knew this was a fraud was because it was so easy to recognize the natural features presented.  Would love to hear a few things that struck you watching those clips.

Teala- I know where you're coming from.  I really think that it is the responsible thing to do when we expose this type of ignorance for what it is.  There are many people lacking basic science education that might not be ABLE to recognize fraud so easily.  As frustrating as it may be, I think trying to keep an open dialogue is important even when others abandon rational thinking.

I would think that EDUCATED Christians would be the first to attack this type of pseudoscience because it is SO bad that it severely damages the credibility of research that is done in good faith by trained people.  I don't for a minute think that the creationists are right, but I know several fundamentalist Christian scientists that still do REAL science and take the scientific method very seriously.

Reborn17, where are you? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.  You did request that I evaluate these claims, and now that I have you have disappeared.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Praetoriani- thanks for the support.  I really don't know much about archeology. Only way I knew this was a fraud was because it was so easy to recognize the natural features presented.  Would love to hear a few things that struck you watching those clips.

Teala- I know where you're coming from.  I really think that it is the responsible thing to do when we expose this type of ignorance for what it is.  There are many people lacking basic science education that might not be ABLE to recognize fraud so easily.  As frustrating as it may be, I think trying to keep an open dialogue is important even when others abandon rational thinking.

 

I would think that EDUCATED Christians would be the first to attack this type of pseudoscience because it is SO bad that it severely damages the credibility of research that is done in good faith by trained people.  I don't for a minute think that the creationists are right, but I know several fundamentalist Christian scientists that still do REAL science and take the scientific method very seriously.

Reborn17, where are you? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.  You did request that I evaluate these claims, and now that I have you have disappeared.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth any educated people commenting on -- much less educated Christians. But, since you called me out (as an educated Christian, and someone you know as an educated Christian, I assumed you meant me lol). I usually try to avoid really dumb threads :)

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time with studying the history of archeology and biblical archeology -- this is simply crap.

I don't however believe idiots doing idiot work undermine anyone else's credibility. I believe each individual stands on their own merits. Logic agrees with me as well on this.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Praetoriani- thanks for the support.  I really don't know much about archeology. Only way I knew this was a fraud was because it was so easy to recognize the natural features presented.  Would love to hear a few things that struck you watching those clips.

Teala- I know where you're coming from.  I really think that it is the responsible thing to do when we expose this type of ignorance for what it is.  There are many people lacking basic science education that might not be ABLE to recognize fraud so easily.  As frustrating as it may be, I think trying to keep an open dialogue is important even when others abandon rational thinking.

 

I would think that EDUCATED Christians would be the first to attack this type of pseudoscience because it is SO bad that it severely damages the credibility of research that is done in good faith by trained people.  I don't for a minute think that the creationists are right, but I know several fundamentalist Christian scientists that still do REAL science and take the scientific method very seriously.

Reborn17, where are you? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.  You did request that I evaluate these claims, and now that I have you have disappeared.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth any educated people commenting on -- much less educated Christians. But, since you called me out (as an educated Christian, and someone you know as an educated Christian, I assumed you meant me lol). I usually try to avoid really dumb threads :)

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time with studying the history of archeology and biblical archeology -- this is simply crap.

I don't however believe idiots doing idiot work undermine anyone else's credibility. I believe each individual stands on their own merits. Logic agrees with me as well on this.

Actually Fisher, I was thinking of educated Christians in general.  

People doing this type of pseudoscience can have a huge effect on the perception of science in popular culture.  I'm pretty sure someone connected with this Gomorrah theory actually made it on to 60 minutes at one point (don't have time to look up the link).

I'm already at the point where I have to STOP myself from assuming that any science done by an "openly Christian" person is automatically bad science.  I think cases like this collectively have a REALLY damaging effect on the relationship between faith and science.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Praetoriani- thanks for the support.  I really don't know much about archeology. Only way I knew this was a fraud was because it was so easy to recognize the natural features presented.  Would love to hear a few things that struck you watching those clips.

Teala- I know where you're coming from.  I really think that it is the responsible thing to do when we expose this type of ignorance for what it is.  There are many people lacking basic science education that might not be ABLE to recognize fraud so easily.  As frustrating as it may be, I think trying to keep an open dialogue is important even when others abandon rational thinking.

 

I would think that EDUCATED Christians would be the first to attack this type of pseudoscience because it is SO bad that it severely damages the credibility of research that is done in good faith by trained people.  I don't for a minute think that the creationists are right, but I know several fundamentalist Christian scientists that still do REAL science and take the scientific method very seriously.

Reborn17, where are you? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.  You did request that I evaluate these claims, and now that I have you have disappeared.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth any educated people commenting on -- much less educated Christians. But, since you called me out (as an educated Christian, and someone you know as an educated Christian, I assumed you meant me lol). I usually try to avoid really dumb threads :)

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time with studying the history of archeology and biblical archeology -- this is simply crap.

I don't however believe idiots doing idiot work undermine anyone else's credibility. I believe each individual stands on their own merits. Logic agrees with me as well on this.

Actually Fisher, I was thinking of educated Christians in general.  

People doing this type of pseudoscience can have a huge effect on the perception of science in popular culture.  I'm pretty sure someone connected with this Gomorrah theory actually made it on to 60 minutes at one point (don't have time to look up the link).

I'm already at the point where I have to STOP myself from assuming that any science done by an "openly Christian" person is automatically bad science.  I think cases like this collectively have a REALLY damaging effect on the relationship between faith and science.

Well one could say the same thing about political liberals and science when it comes to man-made global warming.

Everybody has an agenda. Honest people won't fake science to further that agenda, dishonest people will.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Actually Fisher, I was thinking of educated Christians in general.  

People doing this type of pseudoscience can have a huge effect on the perception of science in popular culture.  I'm pretty sure someone connected with this Gomorrah theory actually made it on to 60 minutes at one point (don't have time to look up the link).

I'm already at the point where I have to STOP myself from assuming that any science done by an "openly Christian" person is automatically bad science.  I think cases like this collectively have a REALLY damaging effect on the relationship between faith and science.

 Well one could say the same thing about political liberals and science when it comes to man-made global warming.

Everybody has an agenda. Honest people won't fake science to further that agenda, dishonest people will.

Hard to draw a parallel between the two.

The data supporting global warming due to greenhouse gasses is presented in peer reviewed journals in many disciplines of science.  As far as the researchers I've worked with, the only agenda is to find the truth.  Any scientist with integrity would abandon a theory once good evidence was found that contradicted the theory.  THIS is the real difference.. scientists did not START OUT believing in global warming and then try to make the data fit their wishes.  In fact, the real "holy grail" in the field of climatology would be good evidence CONTRADICTING the idea that greenhous gas emissions bring about measurable climate change.  Any lab that found such evidence would probably end up with a Nobel.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Actually Fisher, I was thinking of educated Christians in general.  

People doing this type of pseudoscience can have a huge effect on the perception of science in popular culture.  I'm pretty sure someone connected with this Gomorrah theory actually made it on to 60 minutes at one point (don't have time to look up the link).

I'm already at the point where I have to STOP myself from assuming that any science done by an "openly Christian" person is automatically bad science.  I think cases like this collectively have a REALLY damaging effect on the relationship between faith and science.

 Well one could say the same thing about political liberals and science when it comes to man-made global warming.

Everybody has an agenda. Honest people won't fake science to further that agenda, dishonest people will.

 

Hard to draw a parallel between the two.

The data supporting global warming due to greenhouse gasses is presented in peer reviewed journals in many disciplines of science.  As far as the researchers I've worked with, the only agenda is to find the truth.  Any scientist with integrity would abandon a theory once good evidence was found that contradicted the theory.  THIS is the real difference.. scientists did not START OUT believing in global warming and then try to make the data fit their wishes.  In fact, the real "holy grail" in the field of climatology would be good evidence CONTRADICTING the idea that greenhous gas emissions bring about measurable climate change.  Any lab that found such evidence would probably end up with a Nobel.

So you say. But, since I choose not to believe you, sorry, that doesn't work. The big government money is backing certain results being found, and those results are being found. All those peers are also getting government money.

When no government money is behind it, those folks are finding other results.

Sorry this is contested issue and those who believe in liberty are not finding the same thing as those who do not.

All available evidence shows that man is insignificant compared with what is really casing climate change -- the sun and the oceans in natural cycles.

If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't.

We have been through this before, I asked you to prove your case -- you didn't back then.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

So you say. But, since I choose not to believe you, sorry, that doesn't work. The big government money is backing certain results being found, and those results are being found. All those peers are also getting government money.

When no government money is behind it, those folks are finding other results.

Sorry this is contested issue and those who believe in liberty are not finding the same thing as those who do not.

All available evidence shows that man is insignificant compared with what is really casing climate change -- the sun and the oceans in natural cycles.

If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't.

We have been through this before, I asked you to prove your case -- you didn't back then.

Yes, this was the first debate I ever had with you on this board.  As was true back then, it will take me 4 hours driving and the better part of a weekend to compile reasonable evidence.  Back then I decided it would be a waste of time because you wouldn't change your mind regardless of what I showed you.

Now that I know you better I truly believe that you WOULD give any evidence a fair appraisal.  This still represents a hell of a lot  more work than discrediting the fake Gomorrah.  The biggest problem is that many of the articles are only available online if you pay for them.  I still may do this at some point- as much for the fun of it as anything else.  As is stands now, yes you have every right to tell me to "shove it" because frankly I don't have the time or the energy to devote to proving that consensus of the global scientific community is (strangely enough) based on real scientific research.

As for the following statement:  "If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't. "

I offer the following parable:

A research scientist discovers that Cigarette smoke induces demethylation of prometastatic oncogene synuclein-gamma in lung cancer cells by downregulation of DNMT3B. 

A family practitioner reads this paper and concludes that cigarette smoking increases the risk of cancer in his patients.

He tells his patient that continuing to smoke is putting him at MUCH greater risk for lung cancer.  The patient laughs and says, "you have no proof and I have the right to do whatever I want to my body."

One year later the patient sees his doctor again, and once again encourages him to quit smoking because he is increasing his risk of developing cancer.  This time he SHOWS him the research paper about oncogene synuclein-gamma.  The patient shrugs and says, "If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't."

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage 

So you say. But, since I choose not to believe you, sorry, that doesn't work. The big government money is backing certain results being found, and those results are being found. All those peers are also getting government money.

When no government money is behind it, those folks are finding other results.

Sorry this is contested issue and those who believe in liberty are not finding the same thing as those who do not.

All available evidence shows that man is insignificant compared with what is really casing climate change -- the sun and the oceans in natural cycles.

If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't.

We have been through this before, I asked you to prove your case -- you didn't back then.

 

Yes, this was the first debate I ever had with you on this board.  As was true back then, it will take me 4 hours driving and the better part of a weekend to compile reasonable evidence.  Back then I decided it would be a waste of time because you wouldn't change your mind regardless of what I showed you.

Now that I know you better I truly believe that you WOULD give any evidence a fair appraisal.  This still represents a hell of a lot  more work than discrediting the fake Gomorrah.  The biggest problem is that many of the articles are only available online if you pay for them.  I still may do this at some point- as much for the fun of it as anything else.  As is stands now, yes you have every right to tell me to "shove it" because frankly I don't have the time or the energy to devote to proving that consensus of the global scientific community is (strangely enough) based on real scientific research.

As for the following statement:  "If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't. "

I offer the following parable:

A research scientist discovers that Cigarette smoke induces demethylation of prometastatic oncogene synuclein-gamma in lung cancer cells by downregulation of DNMT3B. 

A family practitioner reads this paper and concludes that cigarette smoking increases the risk of cancer in his patients.

He tells his patient that continuing to smoke is putting him at MUCH greater risk for lung cancer.  The patient laughs and says, "you have no proof and I have the right to do whatever I want to my body."

One year later the patient sees his doctor again, and once again encourages him to quit smoking because he is increasing his risk of developing cancer.  This time he SHOWS him the research paper about oncogene synuclein-gamma.  The patient shrugs and says, "If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't."

Your parable makes MY case not yours.

This is not about medicine, but  in medicine, the predictions come true. that is why we believe that smoking causes cancer -- the predictions come true :)

In climate studies, if you had a good model they would come true. The evidence is not there, the model is wrong, and thus the predictions are wrong.

I have been studying all the evidence I could find since this nonsense started, and the predictions have gotten further and further from the truth. The people on your side have admitted to falsifying and cherrypicking data, and the tide is turning in my favor.

The truth is there was global warming, now there is global cooling -- this has happened many times and it is mostly due to the sun and how the sun warms the oceans. Man is relatively insignificant.

However any time you want to prove it, please do. As always I have looked at the BEST evidence I can find against me, just as I do with political economy, and I find it wanting. Plus it always seems ALL the guys on your side will get MORE money if they believe in AGW.

You need to show me someone who LOSES money if he believes in AGW to make YOUR case. Bet you can't find ONE. I've tried.

Either way, good models are predictive, bad are not.

Just as we free market/austrian guys predicted this boom/bust in real estate (as a largely monetary phenomenon) and the Keynesians did not :)

Oh and it takes a hellovah lot more work because you don't have billions of government dollars behind this Sodom and G dude. If you did and you had state paid for peer review, and people calling the opposition deniers on television and equating people who didn't agree to holocaust deniers, you would have a hellovah time.

sadly the entire peer review aspect of science has been destroyed by government funding of the sciences. Now all science is political. It's a very sad state of affairs and if it continues will lead to the end of science. Already science serves the state and its ends, to a large degree.

The point of my parable was simply that not enough time has passed to see if predictions of global warming are valid or not.  In this particular study N = 1, and there is only one opportunity to assess the effects that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions have on the system.  In my analogy understanding activation of the oncogene was meant to represent understanding of a key part of oncogenesis, just as climate researchers understand components of of global warming mechanisms very clearly.  As with most complex natural systems, thermal equilibrium is not a simple system controlled by positive or negative feedback.  There are MANY interconnected systems reflecting sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Here is a totally made up scenario:

1) Greenhouse gas emissions cause a slight rise in average ambient arctic temperature.

2) Continental ice sheets begin melting, introducing a salinity, temperature, and density change in ocean currents.

3) Weather patterns change due to changes in ocean currents.  New weather patterns generate more cloudcover, which in turn increases albedo, which in turn causes an observed drop in in global temperatures more often than not over a 20 year period.

4) Critics of global warming say "SEE! the earth is cooling not warming!!!"

The mechanism by which greenhouse gases CAUSE warming is well understood.  Timescales and feedback mechanisms are not properly understood because we have a hard time modeling events that have never happened before on a PLANETARY scale.

By running the NUMBERS however, it IS possible to judge the relative size of each inflow and outflow of energy to give us an idea of the relative importance of things like greenhouse gasses as opposed to solar cycles.  Based on these numbers, global warming is a real threat.