|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2007 : 09:36:16 [Permalink]
|
Kill---http://tinyurl.com/yr7m3w
Sorry I thought i had, but did not.
|
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 : 11:03:55 [Permalink]
|
Kil---"Our point has always been that there is a world-wide consensus among climate scientists that humans are at least of the global climate warming equation."
You seem to be moving the goal post based on these quotes. Its nice to see you redefining your position based on our talks.
Dave---"The consensus is that a human cause for global warming is "very likely." That's it."
Kil--"The conclusion is what the consensus of scientists who are experts on climate agree on.'
Dude---"you are wrong about the scientific consensus concerning global warming and its anthropogenic causes."
Cuneiformist---"the arguments for man-made global warming far transcend one single report."
Dude---"Al Gore relaying the scientific consensus on global warming'
Filthy---"Global warming is real; it's here and we have been shown to be a major part of the problem"
Dave---""this warming is mostly due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Cuneiformist---"man-made global warming"
Humbert---"humans are a significant contributor to it'
As you can see the argument was that man is causing, and now the argument is "humans are at least part of ... the equation."
|
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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 11:08:25 [Permalink]
|
Jerome said:
As you can see the argument was that man is causing, and now the argument is "humans are at least part of ... the equation."
|
You are truly retarded.
No one here has ever suggested, implied, or stated that humans are the sole cause of global warming.
Based on the scientific consensus and the assload of data that it is based upon, we can say with very high confidence that humans are contributing significantly to global warming.
So spare us your imbecilic and dishonest debate tactics.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/19/2007 11:09:01 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2007 : 11:59:40 [Permalink]
|
I stated that we are a "major part of the problem."
So, if I might ask, what percentage of the current climate change would you consider "major?" 20%? 50%? how 'bout 10%?
Think about it, even 10%, with the rest of the causes is not trivial. Does it not make sense to eliminate that 10%? Or 20%, or whatever?
When a large majority of reputable scientists say, "most likely," it is time to get serious about remedial procedures, and to hoard canned goods whilst stockpiling ammunition. "Most likely!" translates into layman's terms as "In-coming, hit the freakin' deck!!" Why is that so difficult to understand?
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 12:03:08 [Permalink]
|
Pielke's argument that the IPCC is too narrow in scope and leaves a lot of science on the cutting room floor for the sake of presenting a particular united front is compelling.
Pieke notes the efficiency in the way it was written but laments the problems that occur when a fairly small group, with the goal of interpreting a very large number of papers is in charge of the message, because of their possible biases.
I sure would like to see an IPCC rebuttal to his arguments.
Never the less, in all of this there is nothing even approaching a denial to the main IPCC conclusion that humans contribute to global warming.
As for a consensus, you might want to look at this:
Gristmill, 'There is no consensus':
The conclusions reached in this document [IPCC 3] have been explicitly endorsed by...
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
(Addendum: One could legitimately argue that such policy statements by necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to present unity of position. Science is ultimately determined in peer reviewed journals. |
Scientific debate? Sure. But not about the bottom line conclusion that climate change is at least in part anthropogenic.
Jerome:
You seem to be moving the goal post based on these quotes. Its nice to see you redefining your position based on our talks. |
Nope. It is you who are moving the goal posts. Your argument now focuses on the IPCC report. Originally, and recently you stated that there is no such thing as man made global warming. You said it's a hoax and called it a religion. You have said that there is no scientific consensus among climate scientists that climate change is not in part due to human activity. But that is exactly where the consensus is. The rest is science doing its thing, which is no surprise if you unders |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 12:20:03 [Permalink]
|
Dude---"No one here has ever suggested, implied, or stated that humans are the sole cause of global warming."
Nor did I state that was your argument.
I stated that your argument was man is the cause (not the sole cause).
Based on the above quotes, that is fact.
Funny how you put the word "sole" into my statements so as to give you a strawman.
The initial refutation of my claim was the ipcc documents.
I have shown the methodology is in dispute among science.
I have shown the conclusions are in dispute among science.
You have presented no data to show these statements incorrect only dogmatic assertions that the information I present does not count.
To all: I have very much enjoyed this discussion; as it seems we are at an impassable point I will move on to another topic, I hope the new topic will provide as much intellectual stimulation for all as this one.
|
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 : 13:02:22 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, from OP:
SO---IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE COULD BE A SCAM TO FORCE POPULATIONS TO PURCHASE "PREFERED PRODUCTS" AND INCREASE TAXES AGAINST "UNPERFERED PRODUCTS"? |
No.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 13:02:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude---"No one here has ever suggested, implied, or stated that humans are the sole cause of global warming."
Nor did I state that was your argument.
I stated that your argument was man is the cause (not the sole cause).
Based on the above quotes, that is fact.
Funny how you put the word "sole" into my statements so as to give you a strawman. |
"the" cause and "sole" cause are the same fucking thing you retarded little troll.
So, yes, you are LYING about what we have said.
You refuse to address every issue that you are explicitly demonstrated to be wrong about, you continue to lie and misrepresent our statements and those of other people you are cherry-picking from, you change the subject at every opportunity...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 15:00:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HalfMooner---Insults aside; do you still believe that restricting supply reduces demand?
|
Insults aside, I certainly still believe you are nuts when you mislabel a call for reducing demand as "restricting supply." Richardson's clearly stated idea is to reduce demand, not choke off supply. That last notion is your invention, an idée fixe with which you are obsessed, though you have no rational reason to hold this notion. It certainly doesn't originate in the Richardson proposal, which is its polar opposite. You've shown no evidence otherwise, and can't.
A delusion repeated a million times remains a delusion, even with hand-waving thrown in for free. Repetition speaks only to the state of mind of the repeater.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/19/2007 16:54:51 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 18:11:22 [Permalink]
|
I found this very interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/3bsysr
Gore's Film, "An Inconvenient Truth," Becoming Required Viewing in Canadian Schools
"The National Post reports that the move to get the film into schools is not limited to Canada. England has made the movie part of the public school curriculum. The government of Spain is buying the movie for all of its schools. Private donors in Australia are buying copies for schools in that country."
Would any one; regardless of your beliefs in mmgw, not consider Al Gore a propagandist?
Does any one think propaganda should be required learning in school?
|
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 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 19:45:46 [Permalink]
|
I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" not long ago, it was aired on Swedish national TV.
I think it was a good documentary, though a bit too much Al-Gore-personal-cult-ish.
But all-in-all, I can't remember there being any logical flaws or misrepresentation of the science.
I see no reason why this documentary shouldn't be shown in the classroom.
(edit spelling) |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 05/21/2007 19:46:27 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 21:48:57 [Permalink]
|
Presenting as fact things that are disputed in climatology is not a documentary; its propaganda.
www.washtimes.com/world/20060529-124851-7254r.htm
"Inconvenient or not, the nation's top hurricane scientists are divided on whether it's the truth."
" Mr. Emanuel of MIT said that, globally, the number and intensity of hurricanes are unchanged over the past 30 years, and that according to Japanese models, global warming could even lead to a modest decline in the number of hurricanes worldwide."
This is the funniest part of Gore testimony before the senate:
Gore: I think the first step should be a cap-and-trade system that starts with a freeze.
Occidental's coal interests were represented for many years by attorney and former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., among others. Gore, who had a long-time close friendship with Hammer, became the head of its subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company upon his election loss in the Senate. Much of Oxy's coal and phosphate production was from Tennessee, the state Gore represented in the Senate, and Gore owned shares of stock in the company.
Big oil Al Gore is proposing caps---leading to shortages---leading to price increases.
Why do many of these Big Oil men continue to propose shortages?
|
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 - 05/21/2007 : 21:52:01 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse, is it common for Swedish national TV to air the latest Academy Award wining documentary?
|
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 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 01:08:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dr. Mabuse, is it common for Swedish national TV to air the latest Academy Award wining documentary? |
Would not say that it is common. I'll guess everything depends on the relevance and the cost. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/22/2007 : 02:36:58 [Permalink]
|
The Smithsonian Museum is abandoning science in favor of sucking up to the festering pack of hydrophobic rats currently in the White House. WASHINGTON: The Smithsonian Institution toned down an exhibit on climate change in the Arctic for fear of angering the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration, says a former administrator at the museum.
Among other things, the script, or official text, of last year's exhibit was rewritten to minimize and inject more uncertainty into the relationship between global warming and humans, said Robert Sullivan, who was associate director in charge of exhibitions at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
Also, officials omitted scientists' interpretation of some research and let visitors draw their own conclusions from the data, he said. In addition, graphs were altered "to show that global warming could go either way," Sullivan said.
"It just became tooth-pulling to get solid science out without toning it down," said Sullivan, who resigned last fall after 16 years at the museum. He said he left after higher-ups tried to reassign him.
|
The heads of this at-one-time respected institution have become just another bunch of puling, cringing pussies, writhing on their bellies, who have set aside their integrity and their values in favor of Bush's blood pressure -- would that it rise high enough that it pops his tympanums like party balloons at Mardi Gras. "I remember them telling me there was an attempt to make sure there was nothing in there that would be upsetting to any politicians," said John Calder, a lead climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who consulted on the project. "They're not stupid. They don't want to upset the people who pay them."
One consultant, University of Maryland scientist Louis Codispoti, said he would have been less cautious. "I've been going to the Arctic since 1963, and I find some of the changes alarming," he said.
|
|
"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!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Global Warming a Scam (part 2)
Topic Locked
