|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2007 : 23:33:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Did our newest troll just link an article, that he claims supports his claim that MMGW is fake, where the scientist in question is claiming that the IPCC doesn't go far enough in attributing anthropogenic causes?
 
|
He may have, but will in all likelihood ignore this and move on to another "Well how about this one then, nyah nyah" |
John's just this guy, you know. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2007 : 00:26:21 [Permalink]
|
Played the religion card, I see. Tell me, JEROME, exactly how is a genuine concern for an phenomena and the science surrounding it a religion? That is an unusually odoriferous red herring, as it always is when discussing anything that doesn't involve a church and the denizens thereof. It is utterly dishonest and worthy of nothing but scorn.
Do go back and study those links I gave you.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/19/2007 00:27:29 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 02:43:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am sorry you can not see the results of actions beyond the first step.
I contend that "man made global warming" is a religious belief and no reasoning can be found with zealots. |
And you haven't been able to make a coherent argument, using any good standard of evidence. No wonder you're feeling frustrated. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 08:01:09 [Permalink]
|
HalfMooner---" restricting the use (ie., reducing demand)"
Restricting use(ie. lowering supply) is the opposite side of the equation from reducing demand.
"I've rarely if ever run into someone who is so boneheadedly capable of making sweeping idiotic statements, then standing stubbornly behind them."
This certainly applies to my feelings on your above quote.
Just to be clear restricting use lowers supply.
Reducing demand reduces demand.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 08:12:24 [Permalink]
|
I use 5 gallons of x a day out of a total supply of 10 gallons. Every day the amount used is added back by a supplier to the total supply.
I now only use 1 gallon of x a day.
Did supply go down, or did demand go down?
Bonus question: If each gallon originally cost $1, and the amount used per day is lowered, what will the supplier do in order to add incentive to use more?
----
Too funny. It's like living with a six year old. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 05/19/2007 08:15:29 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 08:25:37 [Permalink]
|
http://tinyurl.com/yr7m3w
Maybe you should all read the science discussions before claiming this scienticts concurs with "world wide scientific consesus".
"“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth's atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels….”
"Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists."
As you guys trust this scientist I will use his words to counter your arguments.
He shows how on many occasions the ipcc documents are flawed.
I intentionally picked the guy as I didnt think you would discount him.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 08:40:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HalfMooner---" restricting the use (ie., reducing demand)"
Restricting use(ie. lowering supply) is the opposite side of the equation from reducing demand.
"I've rarely if ever run into someone who is so boneheadedly capable of making sweeping idiotic statements, then standing stubbornly behind them."
This certainly applies to my feelings on your above quote.
Just to be clear restricting use lowers supply.
Reducing demand reduces demand.
|
Read this carefully: Lowering demand IS. NOT. the same as reducing supply. They are at opposite poles of the economic picture. The more you repeat your nonsense, the more certain people are to know you are a cretin. Idiot.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 08:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Did our newest troll just link an article, that he claims supports his claim that MMGW is fake, where the scientist in question is claiming that the IPCC doesn't go far enough in attributing anthropogenic causes?
|
He sure did. Somehow, this fellow confuses opposites. The best that can be said for him is that his body's sequestering carbon.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 08:42:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
He may have, but will in all likelihood ignore this and move on to another "Well how about this one then, nyah nyah" |
Almost correct. JEROME was shown that the article he linked to said the opposite of what he wanted it to say, so - without acknowledging his mistake - he just switched to a different blog entry by the same guy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 08:58:15 [Permalink]
|
HalfMooner---I think maybe you did not read what you wrote
"restricting the use (ie., reducing demand)"
Restriction of use is not reduction of demand.
According to your logic if we restrict the use of drugs demand will be lower and the price will be lower.
According to your logic if we restrict the use of oil demand will be lower and the price will be lower.
Do you see how this logic is not correct?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 09:03:23 [Permalink]
|
Not the brightest of trolls, our Jerome. Not the best-waxed string on the floss roll, nor the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. I even sometimes suspect that a couple of our regular semi-trolls paid him to make them look smart. I'm not naming names, however. Even those fellows come off looking like geniuses compared to this guy, who apparently can't or won't even skim-read the material he quotes from. He repeatedly makes an utter idiot of himself, but fails to be even the least bit embarrassed. Strangely, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for him.
This would be funnier, did it not imply that there are more like him out their whose typing skill exceeds their cognitive ability by several orders of magnitude. That's a sad thought, but I guess Fox News must need such people as writers.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 09:11:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
I use 5 gallons of x a day out of a total supply of 10 gallons. Every day the amount used is added back by a supplier to the total supply.
I now only use 1 gallon of x a day.
Did supply go down, or did demand go down?
Bonus question: If each gallon originally cost $1, and the amount used per day is lowered, what will the supplier do in order to add incentive to use more?
----
Too funny. It's like living with a six year old.
|
You are forgetting if there is a restriction on the amount the supplier can sell(regardless of how much the suppler has) supply goes down.
It creates an artificial shortage.
A shortage tends to cause prices to rise.
If demand decreases and supplies stay the same you are correct, but this is not the proposal of which we speak.
The intention of the proposal is to increase the cost of oil so as to make other energies more competitive thus reducing demand for oil.
Oil is currently cheap in comparison to other forms of energy
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 09:14:19 [Permalink]
|
HalfMooner---Insults aside; do you still believe that restricting supply reduces demand?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 09:19:36 [Permalink]
|
Dave---I provided that article because I presumed you would accept Pielke as valid.
This now allows me to use his other statements in my arguments without him being dicounted.
At this point you must make reasoned responses to his statements and can not "kill the messenger".
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 09:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
Maybe you should all read the science discussions before claiming this scienticts concurs with "world wide scientific consesus". |
The world wide consensus of climatologists is that humans are contributing to global warming. Beyond that, there are often arguments among scientists over the interpretation of data by the scientists themselves. That is part of the process.
Jerome quoting Pielke:
"Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists." |
Thousands of scientists couldn't have written that report. Thousands of scientists contributed to the report. There is a difference. I hate to be left to my own speculations about the intention of the above quote. My problem with this quote is, even though I have searched Pielke's site, I can't find it. I don't doubt that it's there but if you, Jerome are going to be using this source, or any source for that matter, you must provide a link to the page you mined the quote from. Otherwise I must spend hours just to find the context, which I am not willing to do.
Jerome:
As you guys trust this scientist I will use his words to counter your arguments. |
Good luck. His disapproval of the IPCC report says nothing about the scientific consensus that global climate change is not at least in part caused by humans. In fact he goes further than the IPCC report does on that. And it was us who brought the IPCC report into the discussion, not you. Our point has always been that there is a world-wide consensus among climate scientists that humans are at least part of the global climate warming equation. Yours has been that the consensus doesn't exist and humans are not responsible for any global warming. Oh, and that the whole thing is a conspiracy to rob you of some tax money… Dr. Pielke is in agreement with the consensus. He differences with the IPCC says nothing about a lack of agreement that humans are contributing to global warming.
Jerome:
He shows how on many occasions the ipcc documents are flawed. |
I'll go you one further. He doesn't even agree with the premise of the IPCC report because in his view Co2 levels should not be the main focus of the report. It's just one of many causes according to him. I am reading what he says with interest.
Jerome:
I intentionally picked the guy as I didnt think you would discount him. |
Baloney. Nice try though. You initially said:
| Roger Pielke---Whats wrong with this one, I bet dollars to donuts he does not count. |
.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
Is Global Warming a Scam (part 2)
Topic Locked
