or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Science is Real. - Page 2

post #41 of 249
If you want to know if people can affect the weather just look at the weather report of any major metropolitan area. It's always a few degrees warmer in the city. Why do you think that is?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 249

Trolling more usually refers to posting purely to provoke rather than have a discussion. Most of the posts on the climate issue probably don't fit that category, because the posts likely do represent the posters' views. On the other hand, it is quite apparent that data and evidence are being provided only on one side of the argument - the other side being represented mostly by dismissal and ridicule (although they don't have a monopoly on that). So far, in this thread, I do not see a single reference or link to any studies that conclude either that global warming is not happening or that human activities are not contributing significantly to it.

 

Part of the reason for the dearth of studies concluding no causal relationship is that the essential correlations are quite well-established and accepted. All other factors being equal, we have a few starting points:

 

  • Increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases radiative forcing;

 

  • Increased radiative forcing increases tropospheric and surface heating;

 

  • Fossil fuel burning and other CO₂ producing activities have caused a 30% increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration over the past 150 years.

 

These observations are largely undisputed in the scientific community and the only real reason that they, alone, are not enough to make the case beyond reasonable doubt is the question of the magnitude of the effect and whether another, external, factor may be more important. The sun is the popular candidate, since an increase in solar irradiance would be expected to have a qualitatively similar effect.  However, most measurements indicate irradiance variations over the past 50 years or so that are too low to account for the measured temperature trends, while global climate models predominantly support the hypothesis that the change in radiative forcing via CO₂ concentration increase is large enough to have a significant effect. Atmospheric water vapor concentration is another possibility, but since it self-evidently forms a positive feedback loop it is trivial to conclude that it cannot be the precursor. It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room to produce credible opposing studies that will survive the peer review process in the absence of a previously unrecognized effect.

 

The other curious aspect of the debate is the argument that the research community is under financial pressure to support the anthropogenic theory. The large energy companies, which stand to suffer most from efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions, are major funding sources for academic research, and so I would have expected significant pressure in the other direction if there were any realistic chance of success. The paucity of such work leads me to think that this is not a factor.

post #43 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Trolling more usually refers to posting purely to provoke rather than have a discussion. Most of the posts on the climate issue probably don't fit that category, because the posts likely do represent the posters' views. On the other hand, it is quite apparent that data and evidence are being provided only on one side of the argument - the other side being represented mostly by dismissal and ridicule (although they don't have a monopoly on that). So far, in this thread, I do not see a single reference or link to any studies that conclude either that global warming is not happening or that human activities are not contributing significantly to it.

 

The purpose of this thread was indeed to troll, not to have a conversation. You declare that in THIS trolling thread you do not see people attempting to refute the claims of the troll. The point of dealing with a troll is not to try to engage his claims because they aren't meant to convince but to inflame. The point should be to point out the trolling and stop it.

 

There are threads on these forums filled with all manner of conversation, links and studies dealing with the "other side" of the climate change debate. I doubt you see any refuting in this thread because people don't need to refute that they aren't keeping people in a burning building, nor are they assholes, nor does a music video prove climate change.

 

Quote:

Part of the reason for the dearth of studies concluding no causal relationship is that the essential correlations are quite well-established and accepted. All other factors being equal, we have a few starting points:

 

  • Increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases radiative forcing;

 

  • Increased radiative forcing increases tropospheric and surface heating;

 

  • Fossil fuel burning and other CO₂ producing activities have caused a 30% increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration over the past 150 years.

 

These observations are largely undisputed in the scientific community and the only real reason that they, alone, are not enough to make the case beyond reasonable doubt is the question of the magnitude of the effect and whether another, external, factor may be more important. The sun is the popular candidate, since an increase in solar irradiance would be expected to have a qualitatively similar effect.  However, most measurements indicate irradiance variations over the past 50 years or so that are too low to account for the measured temperature trends, while global climate models predominantly support the hypothesis that the change in radiative forcing via CO₂ concentration increase is large enough to have a significant effect. Atmospheric water vapor concentration is another possibility, but since it self-evidently forms a positive feedback loop it is trivial to conclude that it cannot be the precursor. It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room to produce credible opposing studies that will survive the peer review process in the absence of a previously unrecognized effect.

 

The other curious aspect of the debate is the argument that the research community is under financial pressure to support the anthropogenic theory. The large energy companies, which stand to suffer most from efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions, are major funding sources for academic research, and so I would have expected significant pressure in the other direction if there were any realistic chance of success. The paucity of such work leads me to think that this is not a factor.

 

A few points, first, your statements here are unsupported. The federal government is the single largest source of research dollars in the United States.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #44 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:

The other curious aspect of the debate is the argument that the research community is under financial pressure to support the anthropogenic theory. The large energy companies, which stand to suffer most from efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions, are major funding sources for academic research, and so I would have expected significant pressure in the other direction if there were any realistic chance of success. The paucity of such work leads me to think that this is not a factor.

With regard to funding and the ridiculous notion of a global conspiracy of scientists, Phil Plait wrote a nice little post about that a while back.

 

 

 

Quote:

Let those global warming dollars flow

By Phil Plait | September 20, 2012 11:00 am
 

One of the weirdest (and by that I mean most ridiculous) claims I’ve heard from global warming deniers is the idea that somehow there is a cabal of scientists making up all the information we see about climate change.

First, scientists aren’t very good at that sort of collusion. As Ben Franklin said, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." Scientists as a rule tend to abhor misleading people or out-and-out lying. And those who do tend to be caught by the peer-review process.

Anyway, ignoring the idea that tens of thousands of scientists are playing a Jedi mind trick on the rest of us without a single one of them betraying the secret (and no, Climategate and its sequel don’t count since that was all trumped up smoke and mirrors by the denier crowd), the real reason this claim is ludicrous is because of its supernova-bright irony: a lot of the deniers can be traced to having fossil fuel funding.

Or, as this infographic from Occupy Posters puts it so succinctly:

Mind you, this isn’t supposed to be evidence that global warming deniers are paid frauds. It’s simply using Occam’s Razor, asking which makes more sense. Taken that way, it just shows the idea that scientists are on the wrong side of this is really silly.

Incidentally, guess who’s funding Mitt Romney’s campaign to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? Anyone? Bueller?

With the arctic melting earlier and deeper every year, with temperatures rising, with extreme weather more common, with glaciers retreating, with sea level rising, with droughts ravaging the US, reality is diverging more and more from the claims of the deniers.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #45 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

A few points, first, your statements here are unsupported. The federal government is the single largest source of research dollars in the United States.

 

Really? That's all you can think of as a response? You disagree with all that I wrote, but you have no comment (intelligent or otherwise) on why you disagree? I suggest that actually you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about, and hence are unwilling to write any specifics that would leave you open to definitive rebuttal. And you have the nerve to accuse my posts of lacking content?  Pathetic.

post #46 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

A few points, first, your statements here are unsupported. The federal government is the single largest source of research dollars in the United States.

 

Really? That's all you can think of as a response? You disagree with all that I wrote, but you have no comment (intelligent or otherwise) on why you disagree? I suggest that actually you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about, and hence are unwilling to write any specifics that would leave you open to definitive rebuttal. And you have the nerve to accuse my posts of lacking content?  Pathetic.

 

What was unspecific about claiming the federal government is the largest source of research dollars in the United States.

 

Why should I work to refute unsupported claims of consensus? That isn't science. I'll remove some of the window dressing.

Quote:
we have a few starting points...........these observations are largely undisputed in the scientific community

This isn't science. This is consensus.

Quote:

while global climate models predominantly support

The models haven't been predictive. They are crude. As you note they leave out major factors. Anything that isn't predictive isn't science, isn't useful and doesn't deserve our time and consideration just because of scare tactics or good intentions.

Quote:
The other curious aspect of the debate is the argument that the research community is under financial pressure to support the anthropogenic theory. The large energy companies, which stand to suffer most from efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions, are major funding sources for academic research, and so I would have expected significant pressure in the other direction if there were any realistic chance of success. The paucity of such work leads me to think that this is not a factor.


This is unsupported but helps someone like yourself feel better about the window dressing. Why must large energy companies stand to suffer the most from reduced CO2? As the sole providers of necessary and irreplaceable sources of energy, they stand to benefit the most from anything that limits innovation, and that creates massive regulation just to enter or attempt to establish an alternative industry.

 

Any alternative to the current energy providers now must spend millions, perhaps billions proving they are clean and carbon neutral. Likewise when we enforce our energy utopia via legislation, the original sinners are often excluded. As examples look at alcohol and tobacco. Think about how long something as innocent and cheap as pot has been trying to get legalized while those two prior industries reap all the money they want.

 

So sorry, your scenario doesn't work for me. So prove your point if you want your premise accepted. Since I have no problems seeing and accepting crony-capitalism, I have no concern believing that energy company research can align with and support government research rather than being in opposition to it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

With regard to funding and the ridiculous notion of a global conspiracy of scientists, Phil Plait wrote a nice little post about that a while back.

 

 

Even spammers do a better job of adding content to their copy/paste jobs than this.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #48 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

A few points, first, your statements here are unsupported. The federal government is the single largest source of research dollars in the United States.

 

Really? That's all you can think of as a response? You disagree with all that I wrote, but you have no comment (intelligent or otherwise) on why you disagree? I suggest that actually you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about, and hence are unwilling to write any specifics that would leave you open to definitive rebuttal. And you have the nerve to accuse my posts of lacking content?  Pathetic.

 

What was unspecific about claiming the federal government is the largest source of research dollars in the United States.

 

Why should I work to refute unsupported claims of consensus? That isn't science. I'll remove some of the window dressing.

Quote:
we have a few starting points...........these observations are largely undisputed in the scientific community

This isn't science. This is consensus.

Quote:

while global climate models predominantly support

The models haven't been predictive. They are crude. As you note they leave out major factors. Anything that isn't predictive isn't science, isn't useful and doesn't deserve our time and consideration just because of scare tactics or good intentions.

Quote:
The other curious aspect of the debate is the argument that the research community is under financial pressure to support the anthropogenic theory. The large energy companies, which stand to suffer most from efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions, are major funding sources for academic research, and so I would have expected significant pressure in the other direction if there were any realistic chance of success. The paucity of such work leads me to think that this is not a factor.


This is unsupported but helps someone like yourself feel better about the window dressing. Why must large energy companies stand to suffer the most from reduced CO2? As the sole providers of necessary and irreplaceable sources of energy, they stand to benefit the most from anything that limits innovation, and that creates massive regulation just to enter or attempt to establish an alternative industry.

 

Any alternative to the current energy providers now must spend millions, perhaps billions proving they are clean and carbon neutral. Likewise when we enforce our energy utopia via legislation, the original sinners are often excluded. As examples look at alcohol and tobacco. Think about how long something as innocent and cheap as pot has been trying to get legalized while those two prior industries reap all the money they want.

 

So sorry, your scenario doesn't work for me. So prove your point if you want your premise accepted. Since I have no problems seeing and accepting crony-capitalism, I have no concern believing that energy company research can align with and support government research rather than being in opposition to it.

 

I never claimed that energy companies are the largest source of academic funding, just that they are major funders and that I would expect them to counter any bias in funding. So your observation that federal government funding is larger is completely irrelevant. Why would the energy companies suffer financially? You made one point yourself - it places greater requirements on them to emit less greenhouse gases. The necessary technologies are expensive. In addition it drives research in other types of energy production that are not in their core areas of expertise.

 

I'm not expecting you to refute anything, but disagreeing without saying why is pointless. For example, do you not accept that increased atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases radiative forcing? That underpins most of the papers out there on global climatology. That increased radiative forcing increases tropospheric and surface heating is just simple physics. That CO₂ levels have increased 30% since the industrial revolution is a well-published observation. But, of course, you have nothing intelligent to say about those and instead dismiss them as "consensus" as if that were some kind of dirty word. Consensus in the scientific community is how science advances. And window dressing? Is that the latest blog slogan for discrediting data?

 

And anyway, what do you mean by "it's not science"? The statement that "anything that isn't predictive isn't science" is about as fatuous as it gets. The science lies in the use of hypothesis and testing of both the fundamental processes and the integrated effects to refine the models, which are themselves, in any case, predictive - even if the accuracy of their predictions will not be known for years to come.

 

I realize that you are completely unqualified even to hold an informed opinion on this subject, but seriously, watching your sorry attempts to write about science is just an exercise in horrible fascination.

post #49 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I never claimed that energy companies are the largest source of academic funding, just that they are major funders and that I would expect them to counter any bias in funding. So your observation that federal government funding is larger is completely irrelevant. Why would the energy companies suffer financially? You made one point yourself - it places greater requirements on them to emit less greenhouse gases. The necessary technologies are expensive. In addition it drives research in other types of energy production that are not in their core areas of expertise.

 

You claimed energy companies would be funding research to oppose global warming research. You claimed that since their tainted dollars hadn't basically created a counter campaign, that skepticism is unwarranted. I don't believe anyone claimed energy companies are the largest source of academic funding so is that some sort of straw man? They are the source of funding for their own research of course.

 

You note it places greater requirements on them to emit fewer greenhouse gases and that it drives up the cost of doing business, for everyone and that it makes business expensive. In such an environment the only companies that survive and thrive are big crony business. Thus it is in their interest to promotes such an environment, not to oppose it. We see the same thing in a number of fields in which government is a major player.

 

Quote:

I'm not expecting you to refute anything, but disagreeing without saying why is pointless. For example, do you not accept that increased atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases radiative forcing? That underpins most of the papers out there on global climatology. That increased radiative forcing increases tropospheric and surface heating is just simple physics. That CO₂ levels have increased 30% since the industrial revolution is a well-published observation. But, of course, you have nothing intelligent to say about those and instead dismiss them as "consensus" as if that were some kind of dirty word. Consensus in the scientific community is how science advances. And window dressing? Is that the latest blog slogan for discrediting data?

 

I've not stated that I do not accept anything. I'm simply noting that bad science doesn't become good science because of consensus, or good intentions or claims to save humanity and the planet. Attacking my intelligence is just your passive aggressiveness showing itself again. For example you mention simple physics but the problem with all the models and their predictions is that they are too simple. When their predictions are off, it has always meant that there is some variable, usually something that wasn't though important obviously or else it would have been included the first time, that has thrown model off.

 

That's important.

 

Also, since you are continually harping on intelligence and credentials, please present your own. If you are going to be so rude as to declare someone can't write on a topic, share what makes you believe you can not only write on it but judge why others should not.

 

Quote:

And anyway, what do you mean by "it's not science"? The statement that "anything that isn't predictive isn't science" is about as fatuous as it gets. The science lies in the use of hypothesis and testing of both the fundamental processes and the integrated effects to refine the models, which are themselves, in any case, predictive - even if the accuracy of their predictions will not be known for years to come.

 

I realize that you are completely unqualified even to hold an informed opinion on this subject, but seriously, watching your sorry attempts to write about science is just an exercise in horrible fascination.

 

They are predictive except for they've been completely wrong in their past accuracy and you are asking the world to stake the living standards of billions on them with nothing more than good intentions as a basis for the demands.

 

Thanks for judging my qualifications. I do so appreciate how the mask has slipped from you and we see the angry little man behind it who is shaking his fist at everyone. Perhaps when the green jobs haven't arrived after we borrow and spend $10 trillion dollars, and the planet still is remarkably the same I'll still be equally unqualified.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #50 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You claimed energy companies would be funding research to oppose global warming research. You claimed that since their tainted dollars hadn't basically created a counter campaign, that skepticism is unwarranted. I don't believe anyone claimed energy companies are the largest source of academic funding so is that some sort of straw man? They are the source of funding for their own research of course.

 

I claimed nothing of the sort. I expressed my opinion that I would have expected the energy companies to be a ready source of funding for research that could show fossil fuels were not responsible for the observed warming trends, and that the lack such results is noteworthy. And I never claimed that skepticism is unwarranted - I have been skeptical of the estimated magnitude of anthropogenic warming and felt that some of the studies lacked sufficient rigor since this issue first came to prominence - but you appear to confuse legitimate skepticism with simple pig-headed refusal to accept any reasonable evidence or analysis.

 

Quote:
You note it places greater requirements on them to emit fewer greenhouse gases and that it drives up the cost of doing business, for everyone and that it makes business expensive. In such an environment the only companies that survive and thrive are big crony business. Thus it is in their interest to promotes such an environment, not to oppose it. We see the same thing in a number of fields in which government is a major player.

 

No, I said that it drove up their costs and leads to competition from other, more expensive, energy sources. Not sure how you extrapolate that to mean that they end up benefitting just because they are large. There are many examples of large companies going under when their business model is damaged by external influences. And the energy companies have consistently lobbied against emission restrictions, which rather sinks the argument that they would benefit.

 

Quote:
I've not stated that I do not accept anything. I'm simply noting that bad science doesn't become good science because of consensus, or good intentions or claims to save humanity and the planet. Attacking my intelligence is just your passive aggressiveness showing itself again. For example you mention simple physics but the problem with all the models and their predictions is that they are too simple. When their predictions are off, it has always meant that there is some variable, usually something that wasn't though important obviously or else it would have been included the first time, that has thrown model off.

 

That's probably because you are unable to separate the complexity of a large multi-variable system with the simplicity of the fundamental physical principles that build that complex system. Component effects, such as radiative energy balance, can, indeed, be considered as simple functions. But still you present no counter-arguments or alternative explanations, just demands for ever higher standards of proof, as if you would even understand proof if you saw it.  Can you not bring yourself to make even a single technical argument?  I've not said that you are unintelligent either - just that your arguments are either flawed and ignorant or just missing entirely. Not exactly a compliment I realize, but you don't make it easy.

 

The models have been quite consistent in predicting warming as a reasonably monotonic function of CO₂ concentration, even though they vary on magnitude with each other and with measurements to date. It's also worth considering that the unusually high rate of change of surface temperature, well above anything that has been detected in previous climatological history, would represent a remarkable coincidence if, after millions of years of much slower changes, it just happened to coincide with us significantly raising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations by pumping huge amounts of it into the atmosphere.

 

Quote:
Also, since you are continually harping on intelligence and credentials, please present your own. If you are going to be so rude as to declare someone can't write on a topic, share what makes you believe you can not only write on it but judge why others should not.

 

Oh yes - I know how that game goes. Next you will be demanding to see my certificates and citation index. How about just engaging the technical content of my posts? I'd happily do the same with yours if they contained any.

 

Nor have I said that you cannot write on the subject - just that you repeatedly demonstrate a complete inability to grasp even the basics, both of this subject and of science in general. Because while you continue to make such pompously stupid statements as "This is unsupported but helps someone like yourself feel better about the window dressing" to someone who can actually read, understand and write technical papers without his head exploding, I will continue to highlight your failings.

 

Quote:
Thanks for judging my qualifications. I do so appreciate how the mask has slipped from you and we see the angry little man behind it who is shaking his fist at everyone. Perhaps when the green jobs haven't arrived after we borrow and spend $10 trillion dollars, and the planet still is remarkably the same I'll still be equally unqualified.

 

Well if you must thrust your ignorance in my face then it would be remiss of me not to comment. And I think that's a mirror you see before you. I'm not angry, and I don't think you will find an angry word in my posts. Oh - but you are still on the old "passive-aggressive" thing aren't you - I thought you would have looked it up by now. And give it a rest on the borrowing crusade - I have not advocated for green jobs, or even mentioned green jobs - I'm just commenting on the one-sided science. My preferred course of action would be large-scale re-investment in nuclear power.

 

I just realized that my coffee mug (given to me by some colleagues in another agency) which, of course, is a joke about interrogation resistance techniques, almost perfectly describes your debating technique. Feel free to use it as your signature.

 

Anyway - if you really have nothing substantive to add and are determined to keep reaffirming it by repeated posts - you can continue without any more help from me. 

 

 

post #51 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

With regard to funding and the ridiculous notion of a global conspiracy of scientists, Phil Plait wrote a nice little post about that a while back.

 

 

Even spammers do a better job of adding content to their copy/paste jobs than this.

Yes but even spammers probably have good grasp on the reality of the situation and are more on the ball about GW than you. .1wink.gif

 

And lets look at Mr. Plait's credentials :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait

 

The man's got a Ph.D. How about you trumpy?

 

I happen to like Dr. Plait and have watched him on the Science channel before.


Edited by jimmac - 3/19/13 at 10:26pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #52 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Trolling more usually refers to posting purely to provoke rather than have a discussion. Most of the posts on the climate issue probably don't fit that category, because the posts likely do represent the posters' views. On the other hand, it is quite apparent that data and evidence are being provided only on one side of the argument - the other side being represented mostly by dismissal and ridicule (although they don't have a monopoly on that). So far, in this thread, I do not see a single reference or link to any studies that conclude either that global warming is not happening or that human activities are not contributing significantly to it.

 

The purpose of this thread was indeed to troll, not to have a conversation. You declare that in THIS trolling thread you do not see people attempting to refute the claims of the troll. The point of dealing with a troll is not to try to engage his claims because they aren't meant to convince but to inflame. The point should be to point out the trolling and stop it.

 

There are threads on these forums filled with all manner of conversation, links and studies dealing with the "other side" of the climate change debate. I doubt you see any refuting in this thread because people don't need to refute that they aren't keeping people in a burning building, nor are they assholes, nor does a music video prove climate change.

 

Quote:

Part of the reason for the dearth of studies concluding no causal relationship is that the essential correlations are quite well-established and accepted. All other factors being equal, we have a few starting points:

 

  • Increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases radiative forcing;

 

  • Increased radiative forcing increases tropospheric and surface heating;

 

  • Fossil fuel burning and other CO₂ producing activities have caused a 30% increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration over the past 150 years.

 

These observations are largely undisputed in the scientific community and the only real reason that they, alone, are not enough to make the case beyond reasonable doubt is the question of the magnitude of the effect and whether another, external, factor may be more important. The sun is the popular candidate, since an increase in solar irradiance would be expected to have a qualitatively similar effect.  However, most measurements indicate irradiance variations over the past 50 years or so that are too low to account for the measured temperature trends, while global climate models predominantly support the hypothesis that the change in radiative forcing via CO₂ concentration increase is large enough to have a significant effect. Atmospheric water vapor concentration is another possibility, but since it self-evidently forms a positive feedback loop it is trivial to conclude that it cannot be the precursor. It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room to produce credible opposing studies that will survive the peer review process in the absence of a previously unrecognized effect.

 

The other curious aspect of the debate is the argument that the research community is under financial pressure to support the anthropogenic theory. The large energy companies, which stand to suffer most from efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions, are major funding sources for academic research, and so I would have expected significant pressure in the other direction if there were any realistic chance of success. The paucity of such work leads me to think that this is not a factor.

 

A few points, first, your statements here are unsupported. The federal government is the single largest source of research dollars in the United States.

 

Quote:

The purpose of this thread was indeed to troll, not to have a conversation

Oh really? Then why on earth are you participating?lol.gif Honestly trumpy your ideas about GW being a conspiracy are so laughable.lol.gif

 

Right up there with the notion that the moon landing was faked.

 

If only GW and our part in it's reality weren't true we could all have a good laugh.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #53 of 249

It is amazing how easily some call GW a conspiracy.  The opposite could be true: Global Fineness is a conspiracy by those who are trying to dupe everyone (us little guys) into letting them (the dupers) make an extra buck in the short run.  

 

What also is interesting is the GOP claims to worry soooooooooo much about passing the debt down to our grandkids.  Why don't they care to try to ensure that our grandkids have a beautiful home to live in, and I don't mean a man-made structure?

 

The economy comes before the planet, which enable the economy. 

 

Makes sense.

 

Yeh.  

 

1oyvey.gif

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #54 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I claimed nothing of the sort. I expressed my opinion that I would have expected the energy companies to be a ready source of funding for research that could show fossil fuels were not responsible for the observed warming trends, and that the lack such results is noteworthy. And I never claimed that skepticism is unwarranted - I have been skeptical of the estimated magnitude of anthropogenic warming and felt that some of the studies lacked sufficient rigor since this issue first came to prominence - but you appear to confuse legitimate skepticism with simple pig-headed refusal to accept any reasonable evidence or analysis.

 

So your opinions make no claims. That is an interesting perspective. You expect an action. The action doesn't occur and thus it is noteworthy. There is no need to prove a claim for you or likewise show why when your expectations are not met, it isn't "noteworthy" to them and this isn't proof of some bad intention within them, ignorance or anything else.

 

What is noteworthy is labeling your skepticism "legitimate" while labeling skepticism you don't agree with as "pig-headed." Perhaps you should investigate that definition of passive-aggressive again.

 

Quote:

No, I said that it drove up their costs and leads to competition from other, more expensive, energy sources. Not sure how you extrapolate that to mean that they end up benefitting just because they are large. There are many examples of large companies going under when their business model is damaged by external influences. And the energy companies have consistently lobbied against emission restrictions, which rather sinks the argument that they would benefit.

 

I didn't extrapolate it to benefitting from being large. Only pig-headed and ignorant people would think that way. (Do you see what I did there, isn't it fun to believe other people aren't smart enough to catch on to this aggression?) I said they benefitted from crony-capitalism.

 

Let me simplify this so someone as incapable as yourself can understand it and perhaps grow to the point to where they are informed enough to hold a proper opinion on the matter. (See how fun this can be.)

 

Let's imagine that a company can produce of unit of energy at $.10 per unit. At the level of cost they are still a massively large and profitable company. How does legislation that triples the price per unit in many cases, is implemented on a sliding scale over time and that mostly applies to a segment that provides small percentages of energy harm them? How does this really harm them when they can lobby for inclusion into the market at a higher price point than the one they were already earning incredibly large profits at?

 

 

The point of lobbying against something is so the government deals you in. The representatives needs their reelection funds. They need their contributions. This is why Obama hasn't prosecuted anyone from a big bank or from Wall Street. The crocked government gets a permanent toll and they close the gates behind the bad crony businesses they allow in.

Quote:

That's probably because you are unable to separate the complexity of a large multi-variable system with the simplicity of the fundamental physical principles that build that complex system. Component effects, such as radiative energy balance, can, indeed, be considered as simple functions. But still you present no counter-arguments or alternative explanations, just demands for ever higher standards of proof, as if you would even understand proof if you saw it. Can you not bring yourself to make even a single technical argument? I've not said that you are unintelligent either - just that your arguments are either flawed and ignorant or just missing entirely. Not exactly a compliment I realize, but you don't make it easy.

 

The models have been quite consistent in predicting warming as a reasonably monotonic function of CO₂ concentration, even though they vary on magnitude with each other and with measurements to date. It's also worth considering that the unusually high rate of change of surface temperature, well above anything that has been detected in previous climatological history, would represent a remarkable coincidence if, after millions of years of much slower changes, it just happened to coincide with us significantly raising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations by pumping huge amounts of it into the atmosphere.

 

 

The models have been consistantly wrong. Their flaws have nothing to do with me.

 

 

Quote:

 

Oh yes - I know how that game goes. Next you will be demanding to see my certificates and citation index. How about just engaging the technical content of my posts? I'd happily do the same with yours if they contained any.

 

We've had forum posters post all manner of technical content. It just becomes a pissing contest. You don't think I can go to Climate Audit or WattsUp or similar websites and find the rebuttal articles to the exact articles BR or anyone else is posting. I can and others already have done so. That is partially why BR prefers to present posts full of profanity, infographics and music videos. He and others have already been matched note for note. Then it comes down to who can prove who's messenger is the worst or whatever other fallacy they care to fall to out of desperation. You basically declare you "know how the game goes" as well so why fault me for not playing the game you yourself refuse to play.

 

Quote:

Nor have I said that you cannot write on the subject - just that you repeatedly demonstrate a complete inability to grasp even the basics, both of this subject and of science in general. Because while you continue to make such pompously stupid statements as "This is unsupported but helps someone like yourself feel better about the window dressing" to someone who can actually read, understand and write technical papers without his head exploding, I will continue to highlight your failings.

 

Well if you must thrust your ignorance in my face then it would be remiss of me not to comment. And I think that's a mirror you see before you. I'm not angry, and I don't think you will find an angry word in my posts. Oh - but you are still on the old "passive-aggressive" thing aren't you - I thought you would have looked it up by now. And give it a rest on the borrowing crusade - I have not advocated for green jobs, or even mentioned green jobs - I'm just commenting on the one-sided science. My preferred course of action would be large-scale re-investment in nuclear power.

 

I just realized that my coffee mug (given to me by some colleagues in another agency) which, of course, is a joke about interrogation resistance techniques, almost perfectly describes your debating technique. Feel free to use it as your signature.

 

Anyway - if you really have nothing substantive to add and are determined to keep reaffirming it by repeated posts - you can continue without any more help from me.

 

Cue long winded rationalization for why you exempt yourself from the game, expect others to play it, why you should be their editor and how you increasingly slip in insults and little verbal jabs while claiming you aren't upset or bothered. 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Yes but even spammers probably have good grasp on the reality of the situation and are more on the ball about GW than you. .1wink.gif

 

And lets look at Mr. Plait's credentials :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait

 

The man's got a Ph.D. How about you trumpy?

 

I happen to like Dr. Plait and have watched him on the Science channel before.

 

Sorry that I've only got a Masters I guess. What do you have again jimmac?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh really? Then why on earth are you participating?lol.gif Honestly trumpy your ideas about GW being a conspiracy are so laughable.lol.gif

 

Right up there with the notion that the moon landing was faked.

 

If only GW and our part in it's reality weren't true we could all have a good laugh.

 

If a troll sits under a bridge and calls out for a toll, I will point and say troll.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

It is amazing how easily some call GW a conspiracy.  The opposite could be true: Global Fineness is a conspiracy by those who are trying to dupe everyone (us little guys) into letting them (the dupers) make an extra buck in the short run.  

 

What also is interesting is the GOP claims to worry soooooooooo much about passing the debt down to our grandkids.  Why don't they care to try to ensure that our grandkids have a beautiful home to live in, and I don't mean a man-made structure?

 

The economy comes before the planet, which enable the economy. 

 

Makes sense.

 

Yeh.  

 

1oyvey.gif

 

No one called it a conspiracy. The claim by muppet was that business would be best able to conduct a conspiracy since they are the largest source of research funding. I pointed out this wasn't true and that government was the largest single source of funding. The leap to saying business or government is engaging in a massive conspiracy is your own.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #55 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I claimed nothing of the sort. I expressed my opinion that I would have expected the energy companies to be a ready source of funding for research that could show fossil fuels were not responsible for the observed warming trends, and that the lack such results is noteworthy. And I never claimed that skepticism is unwarranted - I have been skeptical of the estimated magnitude of anthropogenic warming and felt that some of the studies lacked sufficient rigor since this issue first came to prominence - but you appear to confuse legitimate skepticism with simple pig-headed refusal to accept any reasonable evidence or analysis.

 

So your opinions make no claims. That is an interesting perspective. You expect an action. The action doesn't occur and thus it is noteworthy. There is no need to prove a claim for you or likewise show why when your expectations are not met, it isn't "noteworthy" to them and this isn't proof of some bad intention within them, ignorance or anything else.

 

What is noteworthy is labeling your skepticism "legitimate" while labeling skepticism you don't agree with as "pig-headed." Perhaps you should investigate that definition of passive-aggressive again.

 

Quote:

No, I said that it drove up their costs and leads to competition from other, more expensive, energy sources. Not sure how you extrapolate that to mean that they end up benefitting just because they are large. There are many examples of large companies going under when their business model is damaged by external influences. And the energy companies have consistently lobbied against emission restrictions, which rather sinks the argument that they would benefit.

 

I didn't extrapolate it to benefitting from being large. Only pig-headed and ignorant people would think that way. (Do you see what I did there, isn't it fun to believe other people aren't smart enough to catch on to this aggression?) I said they benefitted from crony-capitalism.

 

Let me simplify this so someone as incapable as yourself can understand it and perhaps grow to the point to where they are informed enough to hold a proper opinion on the matter. (See how fun this can be.)

 

Let's imagine that a company can produce of unit of energy at $.10 per unit. At the level of cost they are still a massively large and profitable company. How does legislation that triples the price per unit in many cases, is implemented on a sliding scale over time and that mostly applies to a segment that provides small percentages of energy harm them? How does this really harm them when they can lobby for inclusion into the market at a higher price point than the one they were already earning incredibly large profits at?

 

 

The point of lobbying against something is so the government deals you in. The representatives needs their reelection funds. They need their contributions. This is why Obama hasn't prosecuted anyone from a big bank or from Wall Street. The crocked government gets a permanent toll and they close the gates behind the bad crony businesses they allow in.

Quote:

That's probably because you are unable to separate the complexity of a large multi-variable system with the simplicity of the fundamental physical principles that build that complex system. Component effects, such as radiative energy balance, can, indeed, be considered as simple functions. But still you present no counter-arguments or alternative explanations, just demands for ever higher standards of proof, as if you would even understand proof if you saw it. Can you not bring yourself to make even a single technical argument? I've not said that you are unintelligent either - just that your arguments are either flawed and ignorant or just missing entirely. Not exactly a compliment I realize, but you don't make it easy.

 

The models have been quite consistent in predicting warming as a reasonably monotonic function of CO₂ concentration, even though they vary on magnitude with each other and with measurements to date. It's also worth considering that the unusually high rate of change of surface temperature, well above anything that has been detected in previous climatological history, would represent a remarkable coincidence if, after millions of years of much slower changes, it just happened to coincide with us significantly raising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations by pumping huge amounts of it into the atmosphere.

 

 

The models have been consistantly wrong. Their flaws have nothing to do with me.

 

 

Quote:

 

Oh yes - I know how that game goes. Next you will be demanding to see my certificates and citation index. How about just engaging the technical content of my posts? I'd happily do the same with yours if they contained any.

 

We've had forum posters post all manner of technical content. It just becomes a pissing contest. You don't think I can go to Climate Audit or WattsUp or similar websites and find the rebuttal articles to the exact articles BR or anyone else is posting. I can and others already have done so. That is partially why BR prefers to present posts full of profanity, infographics and music videos. He and others have already been matched note for note. Then it comes down to who can prove who's messenger is the worst or whatever other fallacy they care to fall to out of desperation. You basically declare you "know how the game goes" as well so why fault me for not playing the game you yourself refuse to play.

 

Quote:

Nor have I said that you cannot write on the subject - just that you repeatedly demonstrate a complete inability to grasp even the basics, both of this subject and of science in general. Because while you continue to make such pompously stupid statements as "This is unsupported but helps someone like yourself feel better about the window dressing" to someone who can actually read, understand and write technical papers without his head exploding, I will continue to highlight your failings.

 

Well if you must thrust your ignorance in my face then it would be remiss of me not to comment. And I think that's a mirror you see before you. I'm not angry, and I don't think you will find an angry word in my posts. Oh - but you are still on the old "passive-aggressive" thing aren't you - I thought you would have looked it up by now. And give it a rest on the borrowing crusade - I have not advocated for green jobs, or even mentioned green jobs - I'm just commenting on the one-sided science. My preferred course of action would be large-scale re-investment in nuclear power.

 

I just realized that my coffee mug (given to me by some colleagues in another agency) which, of course, is a joke about interrogation resistance techniques, almost perfectly describes your debating technique. Feel free to use it as your signature.

 

Anyway - if you really have nothing substantive to add and are determined to keep reaffirming it by repeated posts - you can continue without any more help from me.

 

Cue long winded rationalization for why you exempt yourself from the game, expect others to play it, why you should be their editor and how you increasingly slip in insults and little verbal jabs while claiming you aren't upset or bothered. 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Yes but even spammers probably have good grasp on the reality of the situation and are more on the ball about GW than you. .1wink.gif

 

And lets look at Mr. Plait's credentials :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait

 

The man's got a Ph.D. How about you trumpy?

 

I happen to like Dr. Plait and have watched him on the Science channel before.

 

Sorry that I've only got a Masters I guess. What do you have again jimmac?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh really? Then why on earth are you participating?lol.gif Honestly trumpy your ideas about GW being a conspiracy are so laughable.lol.gif

 

Right up there with the notion that the moon landing was faked.

 

If only GW and our part in it's reality weren't true we could all have a good laugh.

 

If a troll sits under a bridge and calls out for a toll, I will point and say troll.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

It is amazing how easily some call GW a conspiracy.  The opposite could be true: Global Fineness is a conspiracy by those who are trying to dupe everyone (us little guys) into letting them (the dupers) make an extra buck in the short run.  

 

What also is interesting is the GOP claims to worry soooooooooo much about passing the debt down to our grandkids.  Why don't they care to try to ensure that our grandkids have a beautiful home to live in, and I don't mean a man-made structure?

 

The economy comes before the planet, which enable the economy. 

 

Makes sense.

 

Yeh.  

 

1oyvey.gif

 

No one called it a conspiracy. The claim by muppet was that business would be best able to conduct a conspiracy since they are the largest source of research funding. I pointed out this wasn't true and that government was the largest single source of funding. The leap to saying business or government is engaging in a massive conspiracy is your own.

 

Quote:

Sorry that I've only got a Masters I guess. What do you have again jimmac?

None of your business. However I'm not claiming to know more than a nationally recognized Astronomer. Sorry I've seen this guy many times and the program " How The Universe Works " is one of my favorites. 

 

 

Quote:

If a troll sits under a bridge and calls out for a toll, I will point and say troll.

Usually I've found that when you use that tactic it means you don't have a good argument.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #56 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I claimed nothing of the sort. I expressed my opinion that I would have expected the energy companies to be a ready source of funding for research that could show fossil fuels were not responsible for the observed warming trends, and that the lack such results is noteworthy. And I never claimed that skepticism is unwarranted - I have been skeptical of the estimated magnitude of anthropogenic warming and felt that some of the studies lacked sufficient rigor since this issue first came to prominence - but you appear to confuse legitimate skepticism with simple pig-headed refusal to accept any reasonable evidence or analysis.

 

So your opinions make no claims. That is an interesting perspective. You expect an action. The action doesn't occur and thus it is noteworthy. There is no need to prove a claim for you or likewise show why when your expectations are not met, it isn't "noteworthy" to them and this isn't proof of some bad intention within them, ignorance or anything else.

 

What is noteworthy is labeling your skepticism "legitimate" while labeling skepticism you don't agree with as "pig-headed." Perhaps you should investigate that definition of passive-aggressive again.

 

No - I claimed the content of the opinion that I expressed, and it was not what you mischaracterized me as saying. The rest of your first paragraph is gibberish by the way.

 

Quote:

What is noteworthy is labeling your skepticism "legitimate" while labeling skepticism you don't agree with as "pig-headed." Perhaps you should investigate that definition of passive-aggressive again.

 

Pig-headed, in this case, comprises dismissing 95% of the peer-reviewed papers on a subject as part of a global conspiracy to deceive the world. If you cannot distinguish how that differs from legitimate skepticism then I cannot help you.

 

Since you can't be bothered to check, passive-aggressive refers to hostility characterized by oblique resistance and obstructionism. Kind of fits you really, since you virtually never address actual arguments head on, apparently preferring to deflect, misunderstand, or ignore the content.  I, on the other hand, address everything head on - I am about as direct as is possible - the complete opposite of passive-aggressive. You might accuse my style of argument as aggressive (though not angry), but passive-aggressive it is not.

 

Quote:
Quote:

No, I said that it drove up their costs and leads to competition from other, more expensive, energy sources. Not sure how you extrapolate that to mean that they end up benefitting just because they are large. There are many examples of large companies going under when their business model is damaged by external influences. And the energy companies have consistently lobbied against emission restrictions, which rather sinks the argument that they would benefit.

 

I didn't extrapolate it to benefitting from being large. Only pig-headed and ignorant people would think that way. (Do you see what I did there, isn't it fun to believe other people aren't smart enough to catch on to this aggression?) 

 

 

Yes I saw precisely what you did - you spawned a fully formed non-sequitur. I'm sure you are very proud of yourself. But the thing is - if you want to score points, which apparently you do - it's necessary actually to make sense.

 

Quote:
Quote:

That's probably because you are unable to separate the complexity of a large multi-variable system with the simplicity of the fundamental physical principles that build that complex system. Component effects, such as radiative energy balance, can, indeed, be considered as simple functions. But still you present no counter-arguments or alternative explanations, just demands for ever higher standards of proof, as if you would even understand proof if you saw it. Can you not bring yourself to make even a single technical argument? I've not said that you are unintelligent either - just that your arguments are either flawed and ignorant or just missing entirely. Not exactly a compliment I realize, but you don't make it easy.

 

The models have been quite consistent in predicting warming as a reasonably monotonic function of CO₂ concentration, even though they vary on magnitude with each other and with measurements to date. It's also worth considering that the unusually high rate of change of surface temperature, well above anything that has been detected in previous climatological history, would represent a remarkable coincidence if, after millions of years of much slower changes, it just happened to coincide with us significantly raising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations by pumping huge amounts of it into the atmosphere.

 

The models have been consistantly wrong. Their flaws have nothing to do with me.

 

No they haven't been consistently wrong - they simply haven't achieved the arbitrary level of accuracy that you are presumably, without even knowing it, requiring. But anyway, back to simple naysaying I see. Always a good fallback.

 

Quote:
Quote:

 

Oh yes - I know how that game goes. Next you will be demanding to see my certificates and citation index. How about just engaging the technical content of my posts? I'd happily do the same with yours if they contained any.

 

We've had forum posters post all manner of technical content. It just becomes a pissing contest. You don't think I can go to Climate Audit or WattsUp or similar websites and find the rebuttal articles to the exact articles BR or anyone else is posting. I can and others already have done so. That is partially why BR prefers to present posts full of profanity, infographics and music videos. He and others have already been matched note for note. Then it comes down to who can prove who's messenger is the worst or whatever other fallacy they care to fall to out of desperation. You basically declare you "know how the game goes" as well so why fault me for not playing the game you yourself refuse to play.

 

No - you really don't get it at all.  A technical discussion does not comprise lobbing links to articles or blogs at each other in some kind of "my appeal to authority is bigger than your appeal to authority" game. It comprises making and responding to technical arguments. The paragraphs above that I wrote contained such arguments. 

 

But now you can't even be bothered to find links to throw, let alone make counter-arguments. Your posts are entirely devoid of any content - they are completely worthless. First you complain my points were unsupported, now you say that there is no need for you to respond because someone else made the argument at some unspecified time in the past. 

 

Even if you have no grasp of science we could have a discussion, but you clearly don't want one. And the point is that there are very few, if any, peer-reviewed papers rebutting this stuff, or even alternative hypotheses for the current observations - that is a measure of the extent of the scientific consensus.

 

But, by all means, if you can't address them yourself but you think you do have links to papers that rebut the technical points that I made earlier, or the ideas in general, post them and discuss them. Otherwise I agree with jimmac - why on earth are you in this thread?

 

Quote:
Cue long winded rationalization for why you exempt yourself from the game, expect others to play it, why you should be their editor and how you increasingly slip in insults and little verbal jabs while claiming you aren't upset or bothered. 

 

Cue more gibberish. You don't give up, I'll give you that. What game are you talking about? Can you honestly look at the exchange of posts above and claim that you are the one trying to discuss the science of climate change?  Don't flatter yourself - I'm not trying to be your editor. There's nothing to edit. 

 

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Yes but even spammers probably have good grasp on the reality of the situation and are more on the ball about GW than you. .1wink.gif

 

And lets look at Mr. Plait's credentials :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait

 

The man's got a Ph.D. How about you trumpy?

 

I happen to like Dr. Plait and have watched him on the Science channel before.

 

Sorry that I've only got a Masters I guess. What do you have again jimmac?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh really? Then why on earth are you participating?lol.gif Honestly trumpy your ideas about GW being a conspiracy are so laughable.lol.gif

 

Right up there with the notion that the moon landing was faked.

 

If only GW and our part in it's reality weren't true we could all have a good laugh.

 

If a troll sits under a bridge and calls out for a toll, I will point and say troll.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

It is amazing how easily some call GW a conspiracy.  The opposite could be true: Global Fineness is a conspiracy by those who are trying to dupe everyone (us little guys) into letting them (the dupers) make an extra buck in the short run.  

 

What also is interesting is the GOP claims to worry soooooooooo much about passing the debt down to our grandkids.  Why don't they care to try to ensure that our grandkids have a beautiful home to live in, and I don't mean a man-made structure?

 

The economy comes before the planet, which enable the economy. 

 

Makes sense.

 

Yeh.  

 

1oyvey.gif

 

No one called it a conspiracy. The claim by muppet was that business would be best able to conduct a conspiracy since they are the largest source of research funding. I pointed out this wasn't true and that government was the largest single source of funding. The leap to saying business or government is engaging in a massive conspiracy is your own.

 

You really ought to have figured out by now that misquoting me is not productive. I said that I would have expected the energy companies to have effectively debunked a global warming conspiracy by funding research to show that it was wrong, not that they would have created an opposite conspiracy. And I did not claim that they were the largest source of research funding (just that they are a major source of funding), and I twice corrected you when you alleged that I did. Your intellectual dishonesty in continuing to state that is disappointing, but not unexpected at this stage.

 

A masters eh? Not in a relevant discipline - that much is obvious. And where I wrote "first paragraph", I guess should have written "post".

post #57 of 249

Real science reflects the reality of the universe in which we exist. Real science must be 100% transparent, open, and independent of corporate/special interest influence OR political expediency, OR the comfort zone of the public. Sadly, especially since the turn of this millennium of corporate and political infamy, science - especially in the popular press and mainstream has become severely devalued in favor of the three aforementioned factors. 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #58 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Real science reflects the reality of the universe in which we exist. Real science must be 100% transparent, open, and independent of corporate/special interest influence OR political expediency, OR the comfort zone of the public. Sadly, especially since the turn of this millennium of corporate and political infamy, science - especially in the popular press and mainstream has become severely devalued in favor of the three aforementioned factors. 

 

Clarify there - are you saying that the coverage of science has devalued it, or that the value of the science itself has dropped.

post #59 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No - I claimed the content of the opinion that I expressed, and it was not what you mischaracterized me as saying. The rest of your first paragraph is gibberish by the way.

 

Considering the first paragraph is paraphrasing your reasoning, of course it sounds like gibberish. The reasoning itself is gibberish. It is revealing your terrible circular reasoning.

 

If X is true, then energy companies ought to do Y to counter it.

Energy companies do not do Y and thus it proves X?!?!

 

If Global Warming is true, then energy companies should be researching ways to show they aren't responsible for it.

Energy companies haven't proven they aren't responsible for something they don't think exists and thus it is proof it does exist!!

 

Brilliant!!!!

 

 

Quote:

Pig-headed, in this case, comprises dismissing 95% of the peer-reviewed papers on a subject as part of a global conspiracy to deceive the world. If you cannot distinguish how that differs from legitimate skepticism then I cannot help you.

 

So let's address this matter. You've read all these 95% peer reviewed papers on a subject? Let me guess, you've even the abstracts of the 95% supposedly in agreement papers?

 

Or the reality, you're a guy with a keyboard who saw a bar graph or an infographic and now hold yourself in some superior intellectual position based off a pretty picture that already agreed with what you thought.

 

I'll tell you what, Mr. Supposedly Dealing in Information, let's just deal with that 95-97% for a moment. Everything I've read declares it comes from the IPCC which is an inherently political organization. There have been numerous and very large problems found in all their reports.

 

 

Quote:

Since you can't be bothered to check, passive-aggressive refers to hostility characterized by oblique resistance and obstructionism. Kind of fits you really, since you virtually never address actual arguments head on, apparently preferring to deflect, misunderstand, or ignore the content. I, on the other hand, address everything head on - I am about as direct as is possible - the complete opposite of passive-aggressive. You might accuse my style of argument as aggressive (though not angry), but passive-aggressive it is not.

 

Actually you seldom address things head on. I've asked you to do this dozens of times. You declare yourself to not be interested in stating your position, often declaring you don't want to discuss opinions or perspectives and that you prefer to edit others. I do in fact consider that to be oblique resistance. Your obstructionism is that you think your editing makes you right by virtue of killing the messenger. You consider yourself right in a vacuum. When this is pointed out, the little slights and digs appear.

 

Quote:

Yes I saw precisely what you did - you spawned a fully formed non-sequitur. I'm sure you are very proud of yourself. But the thing is - if you want to score points, which apparently you do - it's necessary actually to make sense.

 

Of course I can see how it doesn't make sense to someone like you. (Boy this is sure fun.) I mean if a massive, greedy multinational oil company can make incredible and obscene profits at a price point, then government intervention to drive the price to 300% of that price point is clearly working against them. Right? Makes no sense at all.

 

 

Quote:

 

No they haven't been consistently wrong - they simply haven't achieved the arbitrary level of accuracy that you are presumably, without even knowing it, requiring. But anyway, back to simple naysaying I see. Always a good fallback.

 

I see it isn't that they aren't wrong. It is that the arbitrary level of right hasn't been achieved. I'm sorry, what were you saying about making sense again?

 

 

Quote:

No - you really don't get it at all. A technical discussion does not comprise lobbing links to articles or blogs at each other in some kind of "my appeal to authority is bigger than your appeal to authority" game. It comprises making and responding to technical arguments. The paragraphs above that I wrote contained such arguments.

 

But now you can't even be bothered to find links to throw, let alone make counter-arguments. Your posts are entirely devoid of any content - they are completely worthless. First you complain my points were unsupported, now you say that there is no need for you to respond because someone else made the argument at some unspecified time in the past.

 

Even if you have no grasp of science we could have a discussion, but you clearly don't want one. And the point is that there are very few, if any, peer-reviewed papers rebutting this stuff, or even alternative hypotheses for the current observations - that is a measure of the extent of the scientific consensus.

 

But, by all means, if you can't address them yourself but you think you do have links to papers that rebut the technical points that I made earlier, or the ideas in general, post them and discuss them. Otherwise I agree with jimmac - why on earth are you in this thread?

 

The better question is why does this thread exist. I've stated that the thread premise is hate speech. It attempts to incite violence, not discuss science. I've given my support for that position. You nor anyone else has addressed or rebutted that point. The fact that BR has cloaked his hate speech as a discussion on climate change just worsens the situation. By adding your little jabs, you justify and rationalize his hate. You are helping in the demonization of disagreement. You fail to realize this and that is also part of why I am here.

 

 

Quote:

Cue more gibberish. You don't give up, I'll give you that. What game are you talking about? Can you honestly look at the exchange of posts above and claim that you are the one trying to discuss the science of climate change? Don't flatter yourself - I'm not trying to be your editor. There's nothing to edit.

 

Of course you aren't editing me. You were attempting that on someone else and I called it out. You weren't attempting a discussion on climate change. You were snapping at someone about economics.

 

 

Quote:

You really ought to have figured out by now that misquoting me is not productive. I said that I would have expected the energy companies to have effectively debunked a global warming conspiracy by funding research to show that it was wrong, not that they would have created an opposite conspiracy. And I did not claim that they were the largest source of research funding (just that they are a major source of funding), and I twice corrected you when you alleged that I did. Your intellectual dishonesty in continuing to state that is disappointing, but not unexpected at this stage.

 

A masters eh? Not in a relevant discipline - that much is obvious. And where I wrote "first paragraph", I guess should have written "post".

 

You're so much fun. Again, feel free to add your credentials to this discussion since you've declared yourself above others. I dealt with your circular reasoning above. I don't feel very sad when you feel misquoted when you are trying to be so slippery. Let's see how slippery you get on the 95% claim now. Let's see what you've read and what you are merely quoting from a pretty picture.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #60 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No - I claimed the content of the opinion that I expressed, and it was not what you mischaracterized me as saying. The rest of your first paragraph is gibberish by the way.

 

Considering the first paragraph is paraphrasing your reasoning, of course it sounds like gibberish. The reasoning itself is gibberish. It is revealing your terrible circular reasoning.

 

If X is true, then energy companies ought to do Y to counter it.

Energy companies do not do Y and thus it proves X?!?!

 

If Global Warming is true, then energy companies should be researching ways to show they aren't responsible for it.

Energy companies haven't proven they aren't responsible for something they don't think exists and thus it is proof it does exist!!

 

Brilliant!!!!

 

 

Quote:

Pig-headed, in this case, comprises dismissing 95% of the peer-reviewed papers on a subject as part of a global conspiracy to deceive the world. If you cannot distinguish how that differs from legitimate skepticism then I cannot help you.

 

So let's address this matter. You've read all these 95% peer reviewed papers on a subject? Let me guess, you've even the abstracts of the 95% supposedly in agreement papers?

 

Or the reality, you're a guy with a keyboard who saw a bar graph or an infographic and now hold yourself in some superior intellectual position based off a pretty picture that already agreed with what you thought.

 

I'll tell you what, Mr. Supposedly Dealing in Information, let's just deal with that 95-97% for a moment. Everything I've read declares it comes from the IPCC which is an inherently political organization. There have been numerous and very large problems found in all their reports.

 

 

Quote:

Since you can't be bothered to check, passive-aggressive refers to hostility characterized by oblique resistance and obstructionism. Kind of fits you really, since you virtually never address actual arguments head on, apparently preferring to deflect, misunderstand, or ignore the content. I, on the other hand, address everything head on - I am about as direct as is possible - the complete opposite of passive-aggressive. You might accuse my style of argument as aggressive (though not angry), but passive-aggressive it is not.

 

Actually you seldom address things head on. I've asked you to do this dozens of times. You declare yourself to not be interested in stating your position, often declaring you don't want to discuss opinions or perspectives and that you prefer to edit others. I do in fact consider that to be oblique resistance. Your obstructionism is that you think your editing makes you right by virtue of killing the messenger. You consider yourself right in a vacuum. When this is pointed out, the little slights and digs appear.

 

Quote:

Yes I saw precisely what you did - you spawned a fully formed non-sequitur. I'm sure you are very proud of yourself. But the thing is - if you want to score points, which apparently you do - it's necessary actually to make sense.

 

Of course I can see how it doesn't make sense to someone like you. (Boy this is sure fun.) I mean if a massive, greedy multinational oil company can make incredible and obscene profits at a price point, then government intervention to drive the price to 300% of that price point is clearly working against them. Right? Makes no sense at all.

 

 

Quote:

 

No they haven't been consistently wrong - they simply haven't achieved the arbitrary level of accuracy that you are presumably, without even knowing it, requiring. But anyway, back to simple naysaying I see. Always a good fallback.

 

I see it isn't that they aren't wrong. It is that the arbitrary level of right hasn't been achieved. I'm sorry, what were you saying about making sense again?

 

 

Quote:

No - you really don't get it at all. A technical discussion does not comprise lobbing links to articles or blogs at each other in some kind of "my appeal to authority is bigger than your appeal to authority" game. It comprises making and responding to technical arguments. The paragraphs above that I wrote contained such arguments.

 

But now you can't even be bothered to find links to throw, let alone make counter-arguments. Your posts are entirely devoid of any content - they are completely worthless. First you complain my points were unsupported, now you say that there is no need for you to respond because someone else made the argument at some unspecified time in the past.

 

Even if you have no grasp of science we could have a discussion, but you clearly don't want one. And the point is that there are very few, if any, peer-reviewed papers rebutting this stuff, or even alternative hypotheses for the current observations - that is a measure of the extent of the scientific consensus.

 

But, by all means, if you can't address them yourself but you think you do have links to papers that rebut the technical points that I made earlier, or the ideas in general, post them and discuss them. Otherwise I agree with jimmac - why on earth are you in this thread?

 

The better question is why does this thread exist. I've stated that the thread premise is hate speech. It attempts to incite violence, not discuss science. I've given my support for that position. You nor anyone else has addressed or rebutted that point. The fact that BR has cloaked his hate speech as a discussion on climate change just worsens the situation. By adding your little jabs, you justify and rationalize his hate. You are helping in the demonization of disagreement. You fail to realize this and that is also part of why I am here.

 

 

Quote:

Cue more gibberish. You don't give up, I'll give you that. What game are you talking about? Can you honestly look at the exchange of posts above and claim that you are the one trying to discuss the science of climate change? Don't flatter yourself - I'm not trying to be your editor. There's nothing to edit.

 

Of course you aren't editing me. You were attempting that on someone else and I called it out. You weren't attempting a discussion on climate change. You were snapping at someone about economics.

 

 

Quote:

You really ought to have figured out by now that misquoting me is not productive. I said that I would have expected the energy companies to have effectively debunked a global warming conspiracy by funding research to show that it was wrong, not that they would have created an opposite conspiracy. And I did not claim that they were the largest source of research funding (just that they are a major source of funding), and I twice corrected you when you alleged that I did. Your intellectual dishonesty in continuing to state that is disappointing, but not unexpected at this stage.

 

A masters eh? Not in a relevant discipline - that much is obvious. And where I wrote "first paragraph", I guess should have written "post".

 

You're so much fun. Again, feel free to add your credentials to this discussion since you've declared yourself above others. I dealt with your circular reasoning above. I don't feel very sad when you feel misquoted when you are trying to be so slippery. Let's see how slippery you get on the 95% claim now. Let's see what you've read and what you are merely quoting from a pretty picture.

Lot's of people I know have a Masters. My step daughter is going for hers right now. As matter of fact it's becoming the new norm. A place held by a Bachelors previously. So you've got a teaching certificate I'd guess. It's still not the equal of a nationally recognized astronomer. And look you're the center of another thread again. Something you claim to not know how that happens. It seems to me that all you have to do is make outrageous claims about something that's widely accepted as fact and you get many people focused on you.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #61 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No - I claimed the content of the opinion that I expressed, and it was not what you mischaracterized me as saying. The rest of your first paragraph is gibberish by the way.

 

Considering the first paragraph is paraphrasing your reasoning, of course it sounds like gibberish. The reasoning itself is gibberish. It is revealing your terrible circular reasoning.

 

If X is true, then energy companies ought to do Y to counter it.

Energy companies do not do Y and thus it proves X?!?!

 

If Global Warming is true, then energy companies should be researching ways to show they aren't responsible for it.

Energy companies haven't proven they aren't responsible for something they don't think exists and thus it is proof it does exist!!

 

Brilliant!!!!

 

You are still misconstruing my reasoning, which is that if they believe (for whatever reason) that global warming is not substantially due to greenhouse gas emissions, then I would expect them to fund research to demonstrate that to be the case.  The paucity of research results concluding that therefore suggests that (1) either they are not funding research, or (2) research is unable to debunk the anthropogenic theory or find an alternative explanation for the observables .

 

Quote:
Quote:

Pig-headed, in this case, comprises dismissing 95% of the peer-reviewed papers on a subject as part of a global conspiracy to deceive the world. If you cannot distinguish how that differs from legitimate skepticism then I cannot help you.

 

So let's address this matter. You've read all these 95% peer reviewed papers on a subject? Let me guess, you've even the abstracts of the 95% supposedly in agreement papers?

 

Or the reality, you're a guy with a keyboard who saw a bar graph or an infographic and now hold yourself in some superior intellectual position based off a pretty picture that already agreed with what you thought.

 

I'll tell you what, Mr. Supposedly Dealing in Information, let's just deal with that 95-97% for a moment. Everything I've read declares it comes from the IPCC which is an inherently political organization. There have been numerous and very large problems found in all their reports.

 

That's an interesting tactic. So you are not actually disputing that the vast majority of published research supports the hypothesis, but you are relying on the arguments that since I cannot credibly claim to have read them all (even abstracts) then I cannot use that as evidence, and that all that research is conducted or funded by the IPCC. Is that correct?

 

And would you say that reading all of them is the only way to be informed on this subject? If so I'm puzzled - because you assert that I cannot conclude the consensus but apparently that you can deny it - which presumably means, by your argument, that you have read most of them. And yet you clearly haven't, if only because all the ones that you have read are IPCC...

 

You see, on the provenance of this research, even if you don't have access to the journal databases, a simple Google Scholar search will show you that most are unrelated to the IPCC. So you might be reading IPCC material - especially since they publish review articles - but there is a massive body of research that is unaffiliated. Many articles also serve as excellent review sources, since the authors have done extensive literature searches as part of their work. Outside ones own direct field of research, review articles are the primary means of keeping abreast of other fields.

 

Quote:
Actually you seldom address things head on. I've asked you to do this dozens of times. You declare yourself to not be interested in stating your position, often declaring you don't want to discuss opinions or perspectives and that you prefer to edit others. I do in fact consider that to be oblique resistance. Your obstructionism is that you think your editing makes you right by virtue of killing the messenger. You consider yourself right in a vacuum. When this is pointed out, the little slights and digs appear.

 

It's hard to argue with someone who just continually restates untruths. I have never said that I am uninterested in stating my position - I have, on occasion, said that I did not have a position on a particular subject. Does that disqualify me from discussing the subject? Furthermore, on this thread I have made my position completely clear and addressed, in detail, every point that you have made, so that argument is not remotely tenable.

 

Quote:
Of course I can see how it doesn't make sense to someone like you. (Boy this is sure fun.) I mean if a massive, greedy multinational oil company can make incredible and obscene profits at a price point, then government intervention to drive the price to 300% of that price point is clearly working against them. Right? Makes no sense at all.

 

Not sure why you find making asinine statements to be fun, but each to his own.

 

Just to be clear, you are arguing that regulatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will increase, or at least not reduce, energy company profits, and so they will support such measures - is that correct?  But if that were correct, why have they been lobbying so strongly against such proposals?

 

Quote:
Quote:

 

No they haven't been consistently wrong - they simply haven't achieved the arbitrary level of accuracy that you are presumably, without even knowing it, requiring. But anyway, back to simple naysaying I see. Always a good fallback.

 

I see it isn't that they aren't wrong. It is that the arbitrary level of right hasn't been achieved. I'm sorry, what were you saying about making sense again?

 

Again, just to be clear - you are unfamiliar with the concept that numerical simulations of complex systems never predict precisely, due to errors in the model formulation, model parameters, input deck or numerical artifacts of griding? That one never expects them to achieve exactness, and so one considers how much they deviate from observation? Well that's how this works and, for a global climate model, all these error categories apply and various techniques are used to assess the sensitivity of the model outputs to the unknowns. This has been repeated many times with many different numerical codes, and a quite consistent result is that planetary-scale warming occurs due to the measured increases in greenhouse gases, qualitatively consistent with multidecadel observations.  And this is not even particularly surprising since the basic physics of planetary warming (radiative forcing) primarily hinges on the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases - once those increase (and they demonstrably have), the only real question left is whether we are causing the increase. That, by the way, was the source of my previous skepticism.

 

So anyway, if you wish to dismiss the models just because they have not nailed the magnitude of the temperature increase exactly, then you are, as I have pointed out repeatedly, ignorant of this discipline and, apparently, quite content to remain that way.

 

Quote:
Quote:

No - you really don't get it at all. A technical discussion does not comprise lobbing links to articles or blogs at each other in some kind of "my appeal to authority is bigger than your appeal to authority" game. It comprises making and responding to technical arguments. The paragraphs above that I wrote contained such arguments.

 

But now you can't even be bothered to find links to throw, let alone make counter-arguments. Your posts are entirely devoid of any content - they are completely worthless. First you complain my points were unsupported, now you say that there is no need for you to respond because someone else made the argument at some unspecified time in the past.

 

Even if you have no grasp of science we could have a discussion, but you clearly don't want one. And the point is that there are very few, if any, peer-reviewed papers rebutting this stuff, or even alternative hypotheses for the current observations - that is a measure of the extent of the scientific consensus.

 

But, by all means, if you can't address them yourself but you think you do have links to papers that rebut the technical points that I made earlier, or the ideas in general, post them and discuss them. Otherwise I agree with jimmac - why on earth are you in this thread?

 

The better question is why does this thread exist. I've stated that the thread premise is hate speech. It attempts to incite violence, not discuss science. I've given my support for that position. You nor anyone else has addressed or rebutted that point. The fact that BR has cloaked his hate speech as a discussion on climate change just worsens the situation. By adding your little jabs, you justify and rationalize his hate. You are helping in the demonization of disagreement. You fail to realize this and that is also part of why I am here.

 

Why is that a better question? So that you could ignore everything I said there? And a thread about global warming is hate speech attempting to incite violence. You suddenly sound quite insane.

 

Quote:
Of course you aren't editing me. You were attempting that on someone else and I called it out. You weren't attempting a discussion on climate change. You were snapping at someone about economics.

 

I see - so now the reason that you don't want a discussion is that my first post referred to MJ's comment about economics. 

 

Quote:
Quote:

You really ought to have figured out by now that misquoting me is not productive. I said that I would have expected the energy companies to have effectively debunked a global warming conspiracy by funding research to show that it was wrong, not that they would have created an opposite conspiracy. And I did not claim that they were the largest source of research funding (just that they are a major source of funding), and I twice corrected you when you alleged that I did. Your intellectual dishonesty in continuing to state that is disappointing, but not unexpected at this stage.

 

A masters eh? Not in a relevant discipline - that much is obvious. And where I wrote "first paragraph", I guess should have written "post".

 

You're so much fun. Again, feel free to add your credentials to this discussion since you've declared yourself above others. I dealt with your circular reasoning above. I don't feel very sad when you feel misquoted when you are trying to be so slippery. Let's see how slippery you get on the 95% claim now. Let's see what you've read and what you are merely quoting from a pretty picture.

 

That looks remarkably like an admission that you deliberately misquoted me, but with the excuse that it's OK because you think I'm being "slippery". Slippery how, exactly? So far the only points you have made in this post have been predicated (again) on misquoting me, plus asserting that if I have not read all the journal papers then I'm not qualified to comment on the balance of research. You still have not responded with a single technical argument of any kind, and yet accuse me of being slippery. Do you really find that to be a convincing position to take?

 

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications. Additionally, I'm now fully convinced that you are trolling me with your comments - you simply cannot be as stupid as you present yourself to be and I'm somewhat embarrassed that I'm still responding; funny how discussion forums can have that effect. But this will be the last time that I respond to you unless you choose to raise your level of post to the point that I can take you seriously.

post #62 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No - I claimed the content of the opinion that I expressed, and it was not what you mischaracterized me as saying. The rest of your first paragraph is gibberish by the way.

 

Considering the first paragraph is paraphrasing your reasoning, of course it sounds like gibberish. The reasoning itself is gibberish. It is revealing your terrible circular reasoning.

 

If X is true, then energy companies ought to do Y to counter it.

Energy companies do not do Y and thus it proves X?!?!

 

If Global Warming is true, then energy companies should be researching ways to show they aren't responsible for it.

Energy companies haven't proven they aren't responsible for something they don't think exists and thus it is proof it does exist!!

 

Brilliant!!!!

 

You are still misconstruing my reasoning, which is that if they believe (for whatever reason) that global warming is not substantially due to greenhouse gas emissions, then I would expect them to fund research to demonstrate that to be the case.  The paucity of research results concluding that therefore suggests that (1) either they are not funding research, or (2) research is unable to debunk the anthropogenic theory or find an alternative explanation for the observables .

 

Quote:
Quote:

Pig-headed, in this case, comprises dismissing 95% of the peer-reviewed papers on a subject as part of a global conspiracy to deceive the world. If you cannot distinguish how that differs from legitimate skepticism then I cannot help you.

 

So let's address this matter. You've read all these 95% peer reviewed papers on a subject? Let me guess, you've even the abstracts of the 95% supposedly in agreement papers?

 

Or the reality, you're a guy with a keyboard who saw a bar graph or an infographic and now hold yourself in some superior intellectual position based off a pretty picture that already agreed with what you thought.

 

I'll tell you what, Mr. Supposedly Dealing in Information, let's just deal with that 95-97% for a moment. Everything I've read declares it comes from the IPCC which is an inherently political organization. There have been numerous and very large problems found in all their reports.

 

That's an interesting tactic. So you are not actually disputing that the vast majority of published research supports the hypothesis, but you are relying on the arguments that since I cannot credibly claim to have read them all (even abstracts) then I cannot use that as evidence, and that all that research is conducted or funded by the IPCC. Is that correct?

 

And would you say that reading all of them is the only way to be informed on this subject? If so I'm puzzled - because you assert that I cannot conclude the consensus but apparently that you can deny it - which presumably means, by your argument, that you have read most of them. And yet you clearly haven't, if only because all the ones that you have read are IPCC...

 

You see, on the provenance of this research, even if you don't have access to the journal databases, a simple Google Scholar search will show you that most are unrelated to the IPCC. So you might be reading IPCC material - especially since they publish review articles - but there is a massive body of research that is unaffiliated. Many articles also serve as excellent review sources, since the authors have done extensive literature searches as part of their work. Outside ones own direct field of research, review articles are the primary means of keeping abreast of other fields.

 

Quote:
Actually you seldom address things head on. I've asked you to do this dozens of times. You declare yourself to not be interested in stating your position, often declaring you don't want to discuss opinions or perspectives and that you prefer to edit others. I do in fact consider that to be oblique resistance. Your obstructionism is that you think your editing makes you right by virtue of killing the messenger. You consider yourself right in a vacuum. When this is pointed out, the little slights and digs appear.

 

It's hard to argue with someone who just continually restates untruths. I have never said that I am uninterested in stating my position - I have, on occasion, said that I did not have a position on a particular subject. Does that disqualify me from discussing the subject? Furthermore, on this thread I have made my position completely clear and addressed, in detail, every point that you have made, so that argument is not remotely tenable.

 

Quote:
Of course I can see how it doesn't make sense to someone like you. (Boy this is sure fun.) I mean if a massive, greedy multinational oil company can make incredible and obscene profits at a price point, then government intervention to drive the price to 300% of that price point is clearly working against them. Right? Makes no sense at all.

 

Not sure why you find making asinine statements to be fun, but each to his own.

 

Just to be clear, you are arguing that regulatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will increase, or at least not reduce, energy company profits, and so they will support such measures - is that correct?  But if that were correct, why have they been lobbying so strongly against such proposals?

 

Quote:
Quote:

 

No they haven't been consistently wrong - they simply haven't achieved the arbitrary level of accuracy that you are presumably, without even knowing it, requiring. But anyway, back to simple naysaying I see. Always a good fallback.

 

I see it isn't that they aren't wrong. It is that the arbitrary level of right hasn't been achieved. I'm sorry, what were you saying about making sense again?

 

Again, just to be clear - you are unfamiliar with the concept that numerical simulations of complex systems never predict precisely, due to errors in the model formulation, model parameters, input deck or numerical artifacts of griding? That one never expects them to achieve exactness, and so one considers how much they deviate from observation? Well that's how this works and, for a global climate model, all these error categories apply and various techniques are used to assess the sensitivity of the model outputs to the unknowns. This has been repeated many times with many different numerical codes, and a quite consistent result is that planetary-scale warming occurs due to the measured increases in greenhouse gases, qualitatively consistent with multidecadel observations.  And this is not even particularly surprising since the basic physics of planetary warming (radiative forcing) primarily hinges on the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases - once those increase (and they demonstrably have), the only real question left is whether we are causing the increase. That, by the way, was the source of my previous skepticism.

 

So anyway, if you wish to dismiss the models just because they have not nailed the magnitude of the temperature increase exactly, then you are, as I have pointed out repeatedly, ignorant of this discipline and, apparently, quite content to remain that way.

 

Quote:
Quote:

No - you really don't get it at all. A technical discussion does not comprise lobbing links to articles or blogs at each other in some kind of "my appeal to authority is bigger than your appeal to authority" game. It comprises making and responding to technical arguments. The paragraphs above that I wrote contained such arguments.

 

But now you can't even be bothered to find links to throw, let alone make counter-arguments. Your posts are entirely devoid of any content - they are completely worthless. First you complain my points were unsupported, now you say that there is no need for you to respond because someone else made the argument at some unspecified time in the past.

 

Even if you have no grasp of science we could have a discussion, but you clearly don't want one. And the point is that there are very few, if any, peer-reviewed papers rebutting this stuff, or even alternative hypotheses for the current observations - that is a measure of the extent of the scientific consensus.

 

But, by all means, if you can't address them yourself but you think you do have links to papers that rebut the technical points that I made earlier, or the ideas in general, post them and discuss them. Otherwise I agree with jimmac - why on earth are you in this thread?

 

The better question is why does this thread exist. I've stated that the thread premise is hate speech. It attempts to incite violence, not discuss science. I've given my support for that position. You nor anyone else has addressed or rebutted that point. The fact that BR has cloaked his hate speech as a discussion on climate change just worsens the situation. By adding your little jabs, you justify and rationalize his hate. You are helping in the demonization of disagreement. You fail to realize this and that is also part of why I am here.

 

Why is that a better question? So that you could ignore everything I said there? And a thread about global warming is hate speech attempting to incite violence. You suddenly sound quite insane.

 

Quote:
Of course you aren't editing me. You were attempting that on someone else and I called it out. You weren't attempting a discussion on climate change. You were snapping at someone about economics.

 

I see - so now the reason that you don't want a discussion is that my first post referred to MJ's comment about economics. 

 

Quote:
Quote:

You really ought to have figured out by now that misquoting me is not productive. I said that I would have expected the energy companies to have effectively debunked a global warming conspiracy by funding research to show that it was wrong, not that they would have created an opposite conspiracy. And I did not claim that they were the largest source of research funding (just that they are a major source of funding), and I twice corrected you when you alleged that I did. Your intellectual dishonesty in continuing to state that is disappointing, but not unexpected at this stage.

 

A masters eh? Not in a relevant discipline - that much is obvious. And where I wrote "first paragraph", I guess should have written "post".

 

You're so much fun. Again, feel free to add your credentials to this discussion since you've declared yourself above others. I dealt with your circular reasoning above. I don't feel very sad when you feel misquoted when you are trying to be so slippery. Let's see how slippery you get on the 95% claim now. Let's see what you've read and what you are merely quoting from a pretty picture.

 

That looks remarkably like an admission that you deliberately misquoted me, but with the excuse that it's OK because you think I'm being "slippery". Slippery how, exactly? So far the only points you have made in this post have been predicated (again) on misquoting me, plus asserting that if I have not read all the journal papers then I'm not qualified to comment on the balance of research. You still have not responded with a single technical argument of any kind, and yet accuse me of being slippery. Do you really find that to be a convincing position to take?

 

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications. Additionally, I'm now fully convinced that you are trolling me with your comments - you simply cannot be as stupid as you present yourself to be and I'm somewhat embarrassed that I'm still responding; funny how discussion forums can have that effect. But this will be the last time that I respond to you unless you choose to raise your level of post to the point that I can take you seriously.

 

Quote:

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications.

We are all anonymous here. There's no real proof that can be supplied to state that one of us is what we say we are. In that we're all equal in our ability to debate the topics raised here. When we want to supply backup or support for our arguments we must quote elsewhere from a generally recognized source that most agree is valid. trumpy doesn't or doesn't want to understand that.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #63 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Lot's of people I know have a Masters. My step daughter is going for hers right now. As matter of fact it's becoming the new norm. A place held by a Bachelors previously. So you've got a teaching certificate I'd guess. It's still not the equal of a nationally recognized astronomer. And look you're the center of another thread again. Something you claim to not know how that happens. It seems to me that all you have to do is make outrageous claims about something that's widely accepted as fact and you get many people focused on you.1wink.gif

 

You are obviously making an assumption about his degree, but I agree with your other conclusions. He's trolling and I'm getting suckered into playing his game. Not any more though.

post #64 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Lot's of people I know have a Masters. My step daughter is going for hers right now. As matter of fact it's becoming the new norm. A place held by a Bachelors previously. So you've got a teaching certificate I'd guess. It's still not the equal of a nationally recognized astronomer. And look you're the center of another thread again. Something you claim to not know how that happens. It seems to me that all you have to do is make outrageous claims about something that's widely accepted as fact and you get many people focused on you.1wink.gif

 

You are obviously making an assumption about his degree, but I agree with your other conclusions. He's trolling and I'm getting suckered into playing his game. Not any more though.

 

 

Quote:
You are obviously making an assumption about his degree

 

 

Read my above post.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #65 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications.

We are all anonymous here. There's no real proof that can be supplied to state that one of us is what we say we are. In that we're all equal in our ability to debate the topics raised here. When we want to supply backup or support for our arguments we must quote elsewhere from a generally recognized source that most agree is valid. trumpy doesn't or doesn't want to understand that.

 

I agree - one of the attractive aspects of these forums - and frustrating when it is deliberately derailed. I should not have been rewarding such behavior by responding.

post #66 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications.

We are all anonymous here. There's no real proof that can be supplied to state that one of us is what we say we are. In that we're all equal in our ability to debate the topics raised here. When we want to supply backup or support for our arguments we must quote elsewhere from a generally recognized source that most agree is valid. trumpy doesn't or doesn't want to understand that.

 

I agree - one of the attractive aspects of these forums - and frustrating when it is deliberately derailed. I should not have been rewarding such behavior by responding.

That's ok. We've all been there at one time or another when it comes to trumptman.1wink.gif

 

If you want ot get at the truth of his ideas about the world all you have to do is look at the " Dead man Walking Thread. ". The conclusions and rhetorical nonsense there are only underscored by the fact that he was dead wrong. It's the poster child for his nonsense.


Edited by jimmac - 3/21/13 at 10:35pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #67 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Considering the first paragraph is paraphrasing your reasoning, of course it sounds like gibberish. The reasoning itself is gibberish. It is revealing your terrible circular reasoning.

 

If X is true, then energy companies ought to do Y to counter it.

Energy companies do not do Y and thus it proves X?!?!

 

If Global Warming is true, then energy companies should be researching ways to show they aren't responsible for it.

Energy companies haven't proven they aren't responsible for something they don't think exists and thus it is proof it does exist!!

 

Brilliant!!!!

 

You are still misconstruing my reasoning, which is that if they believe (for whatever reason) that global warming is not substantially due to greenhouse gas emissions, then I would expect them to fund research to demonstrate that to be the case.  The paucity of research results concluding that therefore suggests that (1) either they are not funding research, or (2) research is unable to debunk the anthropogenic theory or find an alternative explanation for the observables .

 

You seriously cannot see the assumption in there that the premise starts proving they aren't at fault for something that is ASSUMED true?!?

 

Why would they need to prove they aren't at fault for global warming if they don't think the evidence has proven it is true?

 

 

Quote:

That's an interesting tactic. So you are not actually disputing that the vast majority of published research supports the hypothesis, but you are relying on the arguments that since I cannot credibly claim to have read them all (even abstracts) then I cannot use that as evidence, and that all that research is conducted or funded by the IPCC. Is that correct?

 

And would you say that reading all of them is the only way to be informed on this subject? If so I'm puzzled - because you assert that I cannot conclude the consensus but apparently that you can deny it - which presumably means, by your argument, that you have read most of them. And yet you clearly haven't, if only because all the ones that you have read are IPCC...

 

You see, on the provenance of this research, even if you don't have access to the journal databases, a simple Google Scholar search will show you that most are unrelated to the IPCC. So you might be reading IPCC material - especially since they publish review articles - but there is a massive body of research that is unaffiliated. Many articles also serve as excellent review sources, since the authors have done extensive literature searches as part of their work. Outside ones own direct field of research, review articles are the primary means of keeping abreast of other fields.

 

You are far off the mark here. The IPCC doesn't do research. (You should know such things being so informed as you claim to be.) The point is that you are throwing out a number and using that number to claim that skepticism isn't warranted but rather pig-headed. So I ask the source of the number. You are far off the mark in thinking I am claiming most research is from IPCC or that there isn't research removed from IPCC or whatever those claims happen to be. I'm saying the number that 95% of all published articles are in agreement comes from IPCC. However their review articles, which you note, have been widely off the mark. They are a political organization and they are using, more like abusing science for purposes of propaganda.

 

Your 95% number is just that, propaganda. Show me the source on it.

 

 

Quote:

It's hard to argue with someone who just continually restates untruths. I have never said that I am uninterested in stating my position - I have, on occasion, said that I did not have a position on a particular subject. Does that disqualify me from discussing the subject? Furthermore, on this thread I have made my position completely clear and addressed, in detail, every point that you have made, so that argument is not remotely tenable.

 

The point is, and should be from this point forward, that no one needs an editor. If the only way you desire to "participate" is to not state a position and instead sit on the sidelines sniping at people about how they write, don't be surprised if they dismiss you or are rude.

 

 

Quote:

Not sure why you find making asinine statements to be fun, but each to his own.

 

Just to be clear, you are arguing that regulatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will increase, or at least not reduce, energy company profits, and so they will support such measures - is that correct?  But if that were correct, why have they been lobbying so strongly against such proposals?

 

The way that socialist-fascist government plans have worked makes it pretty clear what happens. The government knows their demands will place hardships on an industry. They ignore and sacrifice the little guys, basically the future competitors. Instead they craft a system, done in conjunction with the large and powerful companies, that will allow them to absorb the costs of said regulation but also reap massive profits as the sector has been cleared of competitors and likewise to get in requires jumping over too high a bar due to government. Thus their profits go up.

 

 

Quote:

Again, just to be clear - you are unfamiliar with the concept that numerical simulations of complex systems never predict precisely, due to errors in the model formulation, model parameters, input deck or numerical artifacts of griding? That one never expects them to achieve exactness, and so one considers how much they deviate from observation? Well that's how this works and, for a global climate model, all these error categories apply and various techniques are used to assess the sensitivity of the model outputs to the unknowns. This has been repeated many times with many different numerical codes, and a quite consistent result is that planetary-scale warming occurs due to the measured increases in greenhouse gases, qualitatively consistent with multidecadel observations.  And this is not even particularly surprising since the basic physics of planetary warming (radiative forcing) primarily hinges on the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases - once those increase (and they demonstrably have), the only real question left is whether we are causing the increase. That, by the way, was the source of my previous skepticism.

 

So anyway, if you wish to dismiss the models just because they have not nailed the magnitude of the temperature increase exactly, then you are, as I have pointed out repeatedly, ignorant of this discipline and, apparently, quite content to remain that way.

 

It's quite cute, and very fun to basically watch you repeat yourself and your rationalization while throwing more terminology in each time. It's sort of like an appeal to authority, your own of course, but your are hoping to bludgeon the opposition.

 

No one said exact. That is your word. The models show a range. The actual outcomes have often been below the low end of that range.

 

 

Quote:

Why is that a better question? So that you could ignore everything I said there? And a thread about global warming is hate speech attempting to incite violence. You suddenly sound quite insane.

 

I suppose I sound insane enough to open a discussion about global warming by asking someone what they think about economics.

 

Those who continually insist on distorting or plain old denying science are akin to assholes blocking the only exits during a fire--not only preventing people from getting out, but doing their best to keep the firemen from getting in.  They have the audacity of telling those firemen that no fire actually exists as the room burns in front of them.

 

BR's point is clear here. What do you do to someone who is blocking the exits and stopping help from entering a theater? If the theater is the world then what do you do when they are endangering and possibly helping kill 6 billion people?

 

You break a few eggs to make an omelet is what you do. He's been challenged on this many times. History shows what happens to those broken eggs. They are murdered.

 

Quote:

I see - so now the reason that you don't want a discussion is that my first post referred to MJ's comment about economics. 

 

There are threads where discussion about global warming is occurring. I've participated in them and will continue to participate. This is the thread where BR states that anyone who denies his outcome is murdering 6 billion people by keeping them in a burning theater.

Quote:

That looks remarkably like an admission that you deliberately misquoted me, but with the excuse that it's OK because you think I'm being "slippery". Slippery how, exactly? So far the only points you have made in this post have been predicated (again) on misquoting me, plus asserting that if I have not read all the journal papers then I'm not qualified to comment on the balance of research. You still have not responded with a single technical argument of any kind, and yet accuse me of being slippery. Do you really find that to be a convincing position to take?

 

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications. Additionally, I'm now fully convinced that you are trolling me with your comments - you simply cannot be as stupid as you present yourself to be and I'm somewhat embarrassed that I'm still responding; funny how discussion forums can have that effect. But this will be the last time that I respond to you unless you choose to raise your level of post to the point that I can take you seriously.

 

I've not misquoted you. Much like BR doesn't like and won't address the implications of his statements, you avoid yours as well. Either that or you really are blind to what you write down. For example on the companies, if they look at the research and conclude it wrong, they don't have to show they aren't the cause for something that doesn't exist. Your assumption that they prove they aren't the cause for something that doesn't exist is an assumption and the basis of their research would use that assumption. When I don't accept that assumption or point it out, you feel "misquoted." That isn't my fault.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications.

We are all anonymous here. There's no real proof that can be supplied to state that one of us is what we say we are. In that we're all equal in our ability to debate the topics raised here. When we want to supply backup or support for our arguments we must quote elsewhere from a generally recognized source that most agree is valid. trumpy doesn't or doesn't want to understand that.

 

I agree - one of the attractive aspects of these forums - and frustrating when it is deliberately derailed. I should not have been rewarding such behavior by responding.

That's ok. We've all been there at one time or another when it comes to trumptman.1wink.gif

 

If you want ot get at the truth of his ideas about the world all you have to do is look at the " Dead man Walking Thread. ". The conclusions and rhetorical nonsense there are only underscored by the fact that he was dead wrong. It's the poster child for his nonsense.

 

Well for me he quite conclusively dismissed the question, troll or just not very bright, in his last post. In a clearly deliberate attempt to tone down the trolling, what remained was raw incomprehension and so a third possibility - both - is apparently the answer. It is certainly the first time that while trying to explain sources of error in numerical simulations in relatively simple language I've been accused of using terminology as a blunt instrument of appeal to (my own) authority. A quite remarkable performance.

post #69 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications.

We are all anonymous here. There's no real proof that can be supplied to state that one of us is what we say we are. In that we're all equal in our ability to debate the topics raised here. When we want to supply backup or support for our arguments we must quote elsewhere from a generally recognized source that most agree is valid. trumpy doesn't or doesn't want to understand that.

 

I agree - one of the attractive aspects of these forums - and frustrating when it is deliberately derailed. I should not have been rewarding such behavior by responding.

That's ok. We've all been there at one time or another when it comes to trumptman.1wink.gif

 

If you want ot get at the truth of his ideas about the world all you have to do is look at the " Dead man Walking Thread. ". The conclusions and rhetorical nonsense there are only underscored by the fact that he was dead wrong. It's the poster child for his nonsense.

 

You're hilarious. Should we go back and revisit all your posts from 2010 where you declared the Republicans would never retake the House? Cycles, cycles, cycles....

 

You were dead wrong. I suppose you are a poster child for nonsense for life now.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications.

We are all anonymous here. There's no real proof that can be supplied to state that one of us is what we say we are. In that we're all equal in our ability to debate the topics raised here. When we want to supply backup or support for our arguments we must quote elsewhere from a generally recognized source that most agree is valid. trumpy doesn't or doesn't want to understand that.

 

I agree - one of the attractive aspects of these forums - and frustrating when it is deliberately derailed. I should not have been rewarding such behavior by responding.

That's ok. We've all been there at one time or another when it comes to trumptman.1wink.gif

 

If you want ot get at the truth of his ideas about the world all you have to do is look at the " Dead man Walking Thread. ". The conclusions and rhetorical nonsense there are only underscored by the fact that he was dead wrong. It's the poster child for his nonsense.

 

You're hilarious. Should we go back and revisit all your posts from 2010 where you declared the Republicans would never retake the House? Cycles, cycles, cycles....

 

You were dead wrong. I suppose you are a poster child for nonsense for life now.

 

 

Quote:

You're hilarious. Should we go back and revisit all your posts from 2010 where you declared the Republicans would never retake the House? Cycles, cycles, cycles....

 

 

Yes could you look those up for me ( as the burden of proof is on you )? As you and your buddy SDW would say I really don't recall saying that so a quote and a link would be nice so we can be sure of the context and to be sure what you're referring to.1wink.gif

 

 On the other hand we have an entire thread " Dead man Walking " ( started by you ) dedicated to the way you think and the conclusions you draw from that.  And as far as cycles go it should be more than obvious to you now that I was right about that. Republicans are very unpopular right now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-numbers-prove-it-the-republican-party-is-estranged-from-america/2013/03/22/3050734c-900a-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

 

Quote:

But while members of the Republican and Democratic parties have become more conservative and liberal, respectively, a bloc of doctrinaire, across-the-board conservatives has become a dominant force on the right. Indeed, their resolve and ultra-conservatism have protected Republican lawmakers from the broader voter backlash that is so apparent in opinion polls.

And while Obama's numbers have taken a dip again recently it's nothing when compared to how they view the GOP.

 

We're in a more liberal cycle right now and I'm sure it's just eating you alive.lol.gif Don't worry though the Republicans will come back into the lime light as soon as they shed themselves from the Teapublicans (  the ultra conservative  )  they've come to embrace so much. However I wouldn't plan on returning to the spin cycle ( lol.gif ) you guys enjoyed so much during the 90's and the first decade of this century. The voters aren't buying that anymore. They want results and not just for the rich. 1wink.gif


Edited by jimmac - 3/23/13 at 4:34pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #71 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:

I'm sorely tempted to rise to your bait and list my qualifications, but that would, no doubt, immediately be challenged for proof and, anyway, none of my arguments rely on my qualifications.

We are all anonymous here. There's no real proof that can be supplied to state that one of us is what we say we are. In that we're all equal in our ability to debate the topics raised here. When we want to supply backup or support for our arguments we must quote elsewhere from a generally recognized source that most agree is valid. trumpy doesn't or doesn't want to understand that.

 

I agree - one of the attractive aspects of these forums - and frustrating when it is deliberately derailed. I should not have been rewarding such behavior by responding.

That's ok. We've all been there at one time or another when it comes to trumptman.1wink.gif

 

If you want ot get at the truth of his ideas about the world all you have to do is look at the " Dead man Walking Thread. ". The conclusions and rhetorical nonsense there are only underscored by the fact that he was dead wrong. It's the poster child for his nonsense.

 

Well for me he quite conclusively dismissed the question, troll or just not very bright, in his last post. In a clearly deliberate attempt to tone down the trolling, what remained was raw incomprehension and so a third possibility - both - is apparently the answer. It is certainly the first time that while trying to explain sources of error in numerical simulations in relatively simple language I've been accused of using terminology as a blunt instrument of appeal to (my own) authority. A quite remarkable performance.

It sounds like you have a good grasp of the situation.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #72 of 249

And the only way the Repubs are keeping many positions in the House is through desperate redistricting.  They even floated the idea for the POTUS election...

 

- - - - - -

 

It is amazing how much science people use every day to claim that science isn't real.  Typing on a computer is using science.  Most of the food we eat was scientifically modified or protected (sprays); it came to the supermarket with science.  The houses we live in are based on science.

 

Fox News uses science to force its static upon the otherwise peaceful airwaves.

Our military is based on science.  Ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers don't grow in any field I've ever seen.  Bows and arrows, even just a sharpened blade, that's science.  As is any tool.

The grand churches (and many more demure) built across the country, big and small, with their lighting, colored windows, air-conditioning.  That is science.

The gasoline that powers our cars is science.

Solar power is science.

Water shooting out of a pipe to spray your lawn is science.

Beer is science.

 

In short: no science, no modern American way of life.  (and I don't mean JUST the last one on this list...)

 

And yet science is wrong.


Edited by Bergermeister - 3/22/13 at 9:20pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #73 of 249

Oh yea the democrats never play games when redistricting. Just a bunch of goo-goos doing the people's work. 

post #74 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Oh yea the democrats never play games when redistricting. Just a bunch of goo-goos doing the people's work. 

All politicians play games. It's just that some are more concerned with their constituents as people than others. The other kind of politician care more about their party,  getting their way,  and winning. That doesn't usually fall more on the democratic side. That's why we're in this political climate right now.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

If you want to know if people can affect the weather just look at the weather report of any major metropolitan area. It's always a few degrees warmer in the city. Why do you think that is?

 

I've been out of this thread for awhile, but I imagine it has a lot to do with daytime heat being captured and held by the buildings.

 

This is probably a huge environmental problem on Coruscant.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #76 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

If you want to know if people can affect the weather just look at the weather report of any major metropolitan area. It's always a few degrees warmer in the city. Why do you think that is?

 

I've been out of this thread for awhile, but I imagine it has a lot to do with daytime heat being captured and held by the buildings.

 

This is probably a huge environmental problem on Coruscant.

Pssst! Frank! It's a thread about science not science fiction.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #77 of 249
Thread Starter 

Some folks can't tell the difference because they live their lives in the fantasy section.  Regardless, some interesting findings were reported last week.  We have narrowed down the age of the universe to 13.82 billion years.

 

 

 

Quote:

The Universe is 13.82 billion years old.

The age of the Universe is a little bit higher than we expected. A few years ago, the WMAP spacecraft looked at the Universe much as Planck has, and for the time got the best determination of the cosmic age: 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years old.

Planck has found that the Universe is nearly 100 million years older than that: 13.82 billion years.

At first glance you might think this is a really different number. But look again. The uncertainty in the WMAP age is 120 million years. That means the best estimate is 13.73 billion years, but it could easily be 13.85 or 13.61. Anything in that range is essentially indistinguishable in the WMAP data, and 13.73 is just in the middle of that range.

And that range includes 13.82 billion years. It’s at the high end, but that’s not a big deal. It’s completely consistent with the older estimate, but Planck’s measurements are considered to be more accurate. It will become the new benchmark for astronomers.

 

The whole article is excellent, so I highly recommending reading the whole thing.  What's beautiful, though, is that this is truly science in action.  Were we wrong that the universe was 13.7 billion years old?  Yes, when we didn't state the margin of error.  Are we less wrong now that we have narrowed it to 13.82 billion years?  Absolutely.  We have a better understanding of the universe today than we had yesterday.  We adapt our thoughts based on the new evidence.  We answer some questions and reveal new ones.  Science is a beautiful thing. 

 

 

 

Quote:

I am entirely and thoroughly delighted by these new results.

As a scientist, of course, I like it when we get better measurements, more detail, refined numbers. That’s how we test models, and it helps us understand our ideas better.

But I’m human, and a big part of my brain is still reeling from the fact that we can accurately measure the age of the Universe at all. We can figure out what’s in it, even when most of it is something we cannot see. We can determine not only that it’s expanding, but how quickly.

And best of all, we see that the Universe is doing things we still don’t understand. It’s showing us that there is still more out there, things occurring on so vast a canvas that it both crushes utterly our sense of scale and expands ferociously our imagination.

Every day, we get better at learning what the Universe is doing. And the work continues to find out how. It may even lead us to the answer of the ultimate question of all: why?

If that answer exists (if the question even makes sense), and we can understand it, then we are making our first steps toward it right now.

I still hear some people say that science takes the wonder out of life. Those people are utterly and completely wrong.

Science takes us to the wonder.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #78 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Some folks can't tell the difference because they live their lives in the fantasy section.  Regardless, some interesting findings were reported last week.  We have narrowed down the age of the universe to 13.82 billion years.

 

 

 

Quote:

The Universe is 13.82 billion years old.

The age of the Universe is a little bit higher than we expected. A few years ago, the WMAP spacecraft looked at the Universe much as Planck has, and for the time got the best determination of the cosmic age: 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years old.

Planck has found that the Universe is nearly 100 million years older than that: 13.82 billion years.

At first glance you might think this is a really different number. But look again. The uncertainty in the WMAP age is 120 million years. That means the best estimate is 13.73 billion years, but it could easily be 13.85 or 13.61. Anything in that range is essentially indistinguishable in the WMAP data, and 13.73 is just in the middle of that range.

And that range includes 13.82 billion years. It’s at the high end, but that’s not a big deal. It’s completely consistent with the older estimate, but Planck’s measurements are considered to be more accurate. It will become the new benchmark for astronomers.

 

The whole article is excellent, so I highly recommending reading the whole thing.  What's beautiful, though, is that this is truly science in action.  Were we wrong that the universe was 13.7 billion years old?  Yes, when we didn't state the margin of error.  Are we less wrong now that we have narrowed it to 13.82 billion years?  Absolutely.  We have a better understanding of the universe today than we had yesterday.  We adapt our thoughts based on the new evidence.  We answer some questions and reveal new ones.  Science is a beautiful thing. 

 

 

 

Quote:

I am entirely and thoroughly delighted by these new results.

As a scientist, of course, I like it when we get better measurements, more detail, refined numbers. That’s how we test models, and it helps us understand our ideas better.

But I’m human, and a big part of my brain is still reeling from the fact that we can accurately measure the age of the Universe at all. We can figure out what’s in it, even when most of it is something we cannot see. We can determine not only that it’s expanding, but how quickly.

And best of all, we see that the Universe is doing things we still don’t understand. It’s showing us that there is still more out there, things occurring on so vast a canvas that it both crushes utterly our sense of scale and expands ferociously our imagination.

Every day, we get better at learning what the Universe is doing. And the work continues to find out how. It may even lead us to the answer of the ultimate question of all: why?

If that answer exists (if the question even makes sense), and we can understand it, then we are making our first steps toward it right now.

I still hear some people say that science takes the wonder out of life. Those people are utterly and completely wrong.

Science takes us to the wonder.

 

 

Your post completely misses the point. The fact that you constantly rail against caricatures and strawmen also show how you miss the point.

 

Per you, anyone who disagrees with the Planck project or who do not believe it has made the best determination of the age of the universe, is a liar, a hate monger and wants to harm the planet and humanity.

 

That isn't science. As you note, objective reality doesn't care about humans arguing about which human is most right and has the smallest margin of error with regard to the age of the universe. As you note though, YOU DO care and you will make the logical leap from reality and objectivity to demonization and ad-homs.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #79 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Some folks can't tell the difference because they live their lives in the fantasy section.  Regardless, some interesting findings were reported last week.  We have narrowed down the age of the universe to 13.82 billion years.

 

 

 

Quote:

The Universe is 13.82 billion years old.

The age of the Universe is a little bit higher than we expected. A few years ago, the WMAP spacecraft looked at the Universe much as Planck has, and for the time got the best determination of the cosmic age: 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years old.

Planck has found that the Universe is nearly 100 million years older than that: 13.82 billion years.

At first glance you might think this is a really different number. But look again. The uncertainty in the WMAP age is 120 million years. That means the best estimate is 13.73 billion years, but it could easily be 13.85 or 13.61. Anything in that range is essentially indistinguishable in the WMAP data, and 13.73 is just in the middle of that range.

And that range includes 13.82 billion years. It’s at the high end, but that’s not a big deal. It’s completely consistent with the older estimate, but Planck’s measurements are considered to be more accurate. It will become the new benchmark for astronomers.

 

The whole article is excellent, so I highly recommending reading the whole thing.  What's beautiful, though, is that this is truly science in action.  Were we wrong that the universe was 13.7 billion years old?  Yes, when we didn't state the margin of error.  Are we less wrong now that we have narrowed it to 13.82 billion years?  Absolutely.  We have a better understanding of the universe today than we had yesterday.  We adapt our thoughts based on the new evidence.  We answer some questions and reveal new ones.  Science is a beautiful thing. 

 

 

 

Quote:

I am entirely and thoroughly delighted by these new results.

As a scientist, of course, I like it when we get better measurements, more detail, refined numbers. That’s how we test models, and it helps us understand our ideas better.

But I’m human, and a big part of my brain is still reeling from the fact that we can accurately measure the age of the Universe at all. We can figure out what’s in it, even when most of it is something we cannot see. We can determine not only that it’s expanding, but how quickly.

And best of all, we see that the Universe is doing things we still don’t understand. It’s showing us that there is still more out there, things occurring on so vast a canvas that it both crushes utterly our sense of scale and expands ferociously our imagination.

Every day, we get better at learning what the Universe is doing. And the work continues to find out how. It may even lead us to the answer of the ultimate question of all: why?

If that answer exists (if the question even makes sense), and we can understand it, then we are making our first steps toward it right now.

I still hear some people say that science takes the wonder out of life. Those people are utterly and completely wrong.

Science takes us to the wonder.

 

 

Your post completely misses the point. The fact that you constantly rail against caricatures and strawmen also show how you miss the point.

 

Per you, anyone who disagrees with the Planck project or who do not believe it has made the best determination of the age of the universe, is a liar, a hate monger and wants to harm the planet and humanity.

 

That isn't science. As you note, objective reality doesn't care about humans arguing about which human is most right and has the smallest margin of error with regard to the age of the universe. As you note though, YOU DO care and you will make the logical leap from reality and objectivity to demonization and ad-homs.

Well trumpy he is right and anyone who even remotely tries to imply that they might have a better answer for the age of the universe is just talking out of their ass.

 

Considering your views on GW and other things.....well talk about a leap from reality.1rolleyes.gif

 

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #80 of 249

Nice "clipping"!  I'm laughing so hard I woke up the neighborhood.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.