|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2007 : 22:32:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Lets get back on topic. |
Okay:
You still have not explained how you have concluded that "The DATA presented in the studies contradict the 'world wide scientific consensus'." It's a bold claim that you've made, so how do you support it? The Hudson List and accompanying press release don't demonstrate the truth of it, because they're just making bold assertions without showing their methods and logic. So how did you, Jerome, come to conclude what you have concluded?
|
This requires work.
I am up to the task!
I will revisit this topic shortly.
 |
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 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 22:39:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I remember another one. I was mistaken in my interpretation of an ink blot. |
Nope, no inkblots, Jerome, just fuzzy words on a computer screen. Back then, others suggested to you that you might be seeing what you wanted to see in that blurry image, but in your overriding desire to avoid admitting error, you lied and claimed that you could see the words clearly.
It was only after you were busted on your lie that you tried to back peddle and claim you were merely mistaken. But it was too late to try that then, and it is far too late to try and rewrite history now. You were caught in a lie, Jerome, not a "mistake." To pretend that you were not is another lie.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 22:53:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Nope, no inkblots, Jerome, just fuzzy words on a computer screen. Back then, others suggested to you that you might be seeing what you wanted to see in that blurry image, but in your overriding desire to avoid admitting error, you LIED and claimed that you could see the words clearly.
It was only after you were busted on your LIE that you tried to back peddle and claim you were merely mistaken. But it was too late to try that then, and it is far too late to try and rewrite history now. You were caught in a LIE, Jerome, not a "mistake." To pretend that you were not is anotherLIE.
|
Do you know how to write a post without using the word LIE, or a derivative thereof?
 |
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 23:16:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This requires work. |
It shouldn't have taken any work besides typing.
You'd already gone through some thought process, beginning with premises and data, proceeding through various steps of reasoning, and finally coming to the conclusion that you did.
All I asked you to do was type that process up for us, and since I wasn't asking for details (yet), it should have taken little time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 23:18:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Do you know how to write a post without using the word LIE, or a derivative thereof? |
Way to evade the point, Jerome. |
- 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 - 09/21/2007 : 23:33:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This requires work. |
It shouldn't have taken any work besides typing.
You'd already gone through some thought process, beginning with premises and data, proceeding through various steps of reasoning, and finally coming to the conclusion that you did.
All I asked you to do was type that process up for us, and since I wasn't asking for details (yet), it should have taken little time.
|
I was anticipating.
I scanned the studies. I know that a full understanding of the studies will be needed.
|
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 - 09/21/2007 : 23:34:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Do you know how to write a post without using the word LIE, or a derivative thereof? |
Way to evade the point, Jerome.
|
How exactly should one respond to:
LIER, LIER, LIER, PANTS ON FIRE! |
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 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 23:53:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
How exactly should one respond to:
LIER, LIER, LIER, PANTS ON FIRE!
|
You could just say, "Sorry, I was just being a jerk. I'll be less deceptive in the future." If you said that I bet that would be the end of it. (At least until the next time.)
Oh, and include a link to the souce of the quote in your siggy. It's ridiculous for you to be complaining about being called a liar when your every post concludes with an example of deception. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 00:23:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I scanned the studies. I know that a full understanding of the studies will be needed. |
If a full understanding of the studies will be needed to explain how you reached your conclusion, then how could you have reached your conclusion?
Really, Jerome, I think you've made my point for me. The point of mine about you not really knowing what you're talking about, but coming up with half-baked ideas anyway.
After all, if this one were fully baked, you would have had a full understanding of the studies already.
In other words, your continued delaying tactics in explaining how you already reached your conclusion are transparent and weak. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 01:43:18 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, you seem to always begin with a preconcieved idea, usually one from some woo source or another.
You then post a claim based on that preconception, challenging others to prove it wrong. Not until your preconception is laboriously picked apart, do you seem even to bother to do any research. And even then, it's superficial at best, usually nothing better than "scanning" and quote mining, desperately distorting facts (and getting offended when called on the practice), and moving goal posts after the game has begun.
Here's a novel concept: Next time you see a shiny, controversial idea that you instantly take a liking to, pause to wonder why it is controversial, and look it up. Study the pro arguments and the con arguments. Don't just look for support for the preconception. You could find that you were wrong, and learn something new in the process, without embarrassment. (If nothing else, realize that you'll be blindsided by counterarguments if you haven't looked them up in advance.)
Wiki is a pretty good place to start, so long as you read the references.
If you can't dispute the cons to your attractive idea, consider not making a blank statement of fact that it is true. In such a case, if you feel you've just got to post, be tentative, asking people's opinion. If you've researched the idea, and are more sure than ever that it's right, by all means post about it. You may be surprised to learn that others have flexible minds that can process new data. Or you may find that they point out a flaw in your argument that you hadn't considered.
Taking these steps in advance will make your time here much more productive. Remember, drawing a conclusion should come after collecting and evaluating facts and evidence.
On a side note, as a fellow member of these fora, I am asking you once again to please remove the deceptively out-of-context H.H. quote from your sig. It makes you look like a dishonest jerk, and highlights the kind of "research" you have so often done.
|
“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 09/22/2007 03:30:15 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2007 : 02:38:12 [Permalink]
|
I'm bored. This thread has become about as interesting as a Fred Thompson press conference.
So, I again looked closely at the controversy and found this, listing the unvarnished facts of the matter. A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before.
But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.
But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.
Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:
The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.
Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.
Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.
The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?
It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.
It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?
How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.
The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.
The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.
Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.
Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.
What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?
In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.
There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.
Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.
Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.
Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.
During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.
Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.
|
The guy's not a very good writer and he doesn't give reference, but he spits out what he has to say: Everybody who accepts the scientific consesus on global warming is, as of last February, a freakin' communist!
Now there's a telling argument that we haven't seen yet.... Oh, and lest I forget, this screed was written by no less an authority than Neil Boortz.
|
"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 09/22/2007 02:40:30 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 08:50:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If a full understanding of the studies will be needed to explain how you reached your conclusion, then how could you have reached your conclusion?
|
No, a full and complete understanding of every nuance is needed to have a talk on this forum about a subject with which the majority disagrees.
My former Russel quote explains this:
| 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 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 09:46:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
No, a full and complete understanding of every nuance is needed to have a talk on this forum about a subject with which the majority disagrees. |
But we're only disagreeing, right now, about two pages (or so) in a PDF file, and whether they contain "science." The list itself contains no science, because science isn't a list of articles and authors.My former Russel quote explains this:| 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 |
|
And what I hear you saying is that you believed the Hudson List authors and their press release upon grossly insufficient evidence, based upon your instinct. |
- 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 - 09/22/2007 : 10:31:45 [Permalink]
|
According to Real Climate the world wide scientific consensus is defined as:
In order of certainty
1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years
2. People are causing this
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)
|
The science presented in the form of referenced peer reviewed studies in the PDF file to various degrees disputes some of these conclusions.
Science shows:
Natural long term dramatic climate cycles. (disputes 2,3)
The sun is the largest factor in climate change.(disputes 2,3)
Sea levels are not rising rapidly. (disputes 4)
Storms are not worsening. (disputes 4)
Species adapt to climate change. (disputes 4)
You will be interested to know that a goggle search of "world wide scientific consensus" resulted in SFN as the first link.
|
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 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2007 : 11:18:14 [Permalink]
|
Science shows:
Natural long term dramatic climate cycles. (disputes 2,3) |
Indeed, and these can be considered to go back at least 3.5+ billion years.
| The sun is the largest factor in climate change.(disputes 2,3) |
This is the stupidest statement yet put forth on the topic. Of course the sun is the largest factor! Without the sun, there would be no climate. The difference is that over the last 200 years new factors must be considered.
| Sea levels are not rising rapidly. (disputes 4) |
So? Ice takes up more volumn than the water required to form it and there is still a lot of ice to go. Do you deny that the glaciers are shrinking as are the Arctic and Anarctic ice packs?
| Storms are not worsening. (disputes 4) |
Tell that to New Orleans and the Yucatan Peninsula.
| Species adapt to climate change. (disputes 4) |
Not all of them do, and only up to a point, especally if that change affects their diets. Then we are dealing with habitate loss. Few species indeed, can survive that. Including ourselves.
| You will be interested to know that a goggle search of "world wide scientific consensus" resulted in SFN as the first link. |
Neat!!
Here's another link or two a little less hysterical than some most:
First, the EPA: The Earth's climate has changed many times during the planet's history, with events ranging from ice ages to long periods of warmth. Historically, natural factors such as volcanic eruptions, changes in the Earth's orbit, and the amount of energy released from the Sun have affected the Earth's climate. Beginning late in the 18th century, human activities associated with the Industrial Revolution have also changed the composition of the atmosphere and therefore likely are influencing the Earth's climate.
The EPA climate change Web site has four main sections on climate change issues and another section on "What You Can Do" to reduce your contribution.
|
And: Science
For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.
Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.
If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be. See the Science and Health and Environmental Effects sections of this site for more detail.
|
And then The Scientific Basis: C.1 Observed Changes in Globally Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Concentrations and Radiative Forcing
Over the millennium before the Industrial Era, the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases remained relatively constant. Since then, however, the concentrations of many greenhouse gases have increased directly or indirectly because of human activities.
Table 1 provides examples of several greenhouse gases and summarises their 1750 and 1998 concentrations, their change during the 1990s, and their atmospheric lifetimes. The contribution of a species to radiative forcing of climate change depends on the molecular radiative properties of the gas, the size of the increase in atmospheric concentration, and the residence time of the species in the atmosphere, once emitted. The latter – the atmospheric residence time of the greenhouse gas – is a highly policy relevant characteristic. Namely, emissions of a greenhouse gas that has a long atmospheric residence time is a quasi-irreversible commitment to sustained radiative forcing over decades, centuries, or millennia, before natural processes can remove the quantities emitted.
|
Table 1: Table 1: Examples of greenhouse gases that are affected by human activities. [Based upon Chapter 3 and Table 4.1]
CO2
(Carbon Dioxide) CH4
(Methane) N2O
(Nitrous Oxide) CFC-11
(Chlorofluoro-carbon-11) HFC-23
(Hydrofluoro-carbon-23) CF4
(Perfluoro-methane)
Pre-industrial concentration about 280 ppm about 700 ppb about 270 ppb zero zero 40 ppt
Concentration in 1998 365 ppm 1745 ppb 314 ppb 268 ppt 14 ppt 80 ppt
Rate of concentration change b 1.5 ppm/yr a 7.0 ppb/yr a 0.8 ppb/yr -1.4 ppt/yr 0.55 ppt/yr 1 ppt/yr
Atmospheric lifetime 5 to 200 yr c 12 yr d 114 yr d 45 yr 260 yr >50,000 yr
a Rate has fluctuated between 0.9 ppm/yr and 2.8 ppm/yr for CO2 and between 0 and 13 ppb/yr for CH4 over the period 1990 to 1999.
b Rate is calculated over the period 1990 to 1999.
c No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.
d This lifetime has been defined as an “adjustment time” that takes into account the indirect effect of the gas on its own residence time.
|
And so forth.
|
"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!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Consensus Falling Apart by the Day
