|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2007 : 07:14:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Fil, anyone's a liar who doesn't agree with Jerome's personal, or borrowed, prevarications. It's the predictable dead end of every losing argument he has.
Basically, the lie that Jerome has grabbed onto like a drowning man clutching life-ring in a storm, is like the following:
Imagine that I commissioned a "study" of several hundred theologists, all of whom wrote about the life of Jesus. Now, if I were to then to point out that none mentioned the Hebrews leaving Egypt, and cite these theologists' papers as evidence of widespread "doubt" about the Exodus, that would be similar to what Jerome is supporting. Then, when inevitably attacked, I could point out the prestigious degrees and honors of the theologians being "defamed." (Last, I would run for cover before those very theologians came after me with torches, pitchforks, tar, feathers, and rope.)
|
Are you stating that this is a factual statement?
Actually, “all of the recent science” — without exception — accepts that global warming is real and caused by humans. |
|
Emphsis mine.
Yes, all of the science, going back to at least the '50s, has shown that GW is happening. That is, honest science. We will make no exception for the mouthings of such corporate suckups as might be fruitlessly claiming otherwise. Hey, how many of them are actually involved in the research? I dunno, but I suspect very damned few, if any.
"You can have your own beliefs," Jerome, "but you can't have your own facts."
|
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 07:18:10 [Permalink]
|
Again just for the fun of it, lets return to your opening statement in this thread:
| New scientific data refutes AGAIN the world wide scientific consensus of man made global warming. |
Quite simply you are wrong. It is just that simple. It is quite telling that you are unable to admit that. Why is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong?
No this is not new - it is previously published.
| refutes AGAIN the world wide scientific consensus of man made global warming |
The article does not refute the consensus. It does not even address the consensus.
Changing the subject, going off on a tangent and dodging the point of this thread makes you look silly and pathetic. Of course you may not even realize it because it may be that you are just delusional and you actually think you are right. 
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 07:31:36 [Permalink]
|
Yes, yes, Jerome, that's the same PDF file we've been discussing here since page three of this thread. It begins with the press release that you linked to in the OP, and then continues on with the actual Hudson List. In no place in that PDF file is any science presented. If there is some in there, as you have claimed, then please point it out, perhaps by quoting the relevant passages. Simply linking to the PDF file again doesn't show anything except that you haven't been following along.| I know your answer. The facts do not count because you do not like the presenter. |
If that's what you think, then you didn't know my answer. You are completely wrong.| Try and prove they are presenting a lie. |
It's easy, as has already been done: the fact that there is a natural climate cycle does not mean that human activities are not responsible for the majority of the current warming. That is precisely what the Hudson Institute would have you believe with the press release and 111 of the 164 studies they list.| It is cowardly and dishonest in it self to claim lier and provide ZERO evidence. |
It is cowardly and dishonest of you to claim that the Hudson Institute has science on its side while the climate scientists are engaged in little but propaganda while providing zero evidence, Jerome. You might have been able to claim the ethical high ground here had you answered the questions put to you directly earlier in this thread. But instead, you danced around and evaded them. Your obvious attempts to get people to play quid pro quo games with you will continue to fail so long as you refuse to be fair about it.
For example, 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? |
- 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 - 09/19/2007 : 07:40:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Fil, anyone's a liar who doesn't agree with Jerome's personal, or borrowed, prevarications. It's the predictable dead end of every losing argument he has.
Basically, the lie that Jerome has grabbed onto like a drowning man clutching life-ring in a storm, is like the following:
Imagine that I commissioned a "study" of several hundred theologists, all of whom wrote about the life of Jesus. Now, if I were to then to point out that none mentioned the Hebrews leaving Egypt, and cite these theologists' papers as evidence of widespread "doubt" about the Exodus, that would be similar to what Jerome is supporting. Then, when inevitably attacked, I could point out the prestigious degrees and honors of the theologians being "defamed." (Last, I would run for cover before those very theologians came after me with torches, pitchforks, tar, feathers, and rope.)
|
Are you stating that this is a factual statement?
| Actually, “all of the recent science” — without exception — accepts that global warming is real and caused by humans. |
|
Which part Jerome? That you are a re-teller and/or retailer of lies, yes, I think that is a statement of demonstrated fact.
My hypothetical parable of the the theologists (should that have been "theologians"?) was just that, a parable. It wasn't literally true, nor meant to appear so. It used to illustrate the way the MMGW-denying so-called study you so fervently support has distorted reality.
Your last quote above isn't something I wrote, though I agree with it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 07:50:00 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
Your quote is not the science referred to in the documnet I presented. |
So? The idea of the document you linked to was to show that there is no scientific consensus about mans contributions to global warming. The authors looked for peer reviewed science articles that support natural cycles and then claim that there is no consensus. But they pulled that one out of their ass because they chose to ignore the intentions of the scientists that they cite.
Like all of science, natural cycles should be studied. In fact, they have to be in order to understand the current warming and how it is the same or different from past cycles. That is science. It says nothing at all about how the actual scientists they cite come down on the global warming issue that the authors of the report you presented suggest. It tells us nothing about a lack of consensus. In fact, the report tells us nothing at all. It's total propaganda by liars who had to add a disclaimer in order to not be sued for misrepresenting the results by the scientists they cite.
And you know that Jerome. You know that citing only those articles that look at natural cycles says nothing about a lack of consensus on the issue of MMGW. And as paranoid as you are, you must recognize what the authors did here. Its purpose is to create the illusion that the deniers are correct. But it is smoke and mirrors and it says nothing. There is no science in their science…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 08:14:57 [Permalink]
|
The title of the article:
| Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears* |
The disclaimer:
| Citation of the work of the following scientists does not imply that they necessarily support our conclusions. |
Problem is, in order for the title to show that a consensus doesn't exist, they have to demonstrate that the scientists do necessarily support their conclusions.
It's as simple as that.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 09:08:00 [Permalink]
|
Furthermore, Jerome, you said,| What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW... |
I challenge you to quote any scientist (or anyone here) saying that the consensus is "proof of MMGW." |
- 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 - 09/19/2007 : 17:33:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Furthermore, Jerome, you said,| What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW... |
I challenge you to quote any scientist (or anyone here) saying that the consensus is "proof of MMGW."
|
Here is lots of people using "world wide consensus" as proof/evidence of MMGW.
|
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 - 09/19/2007 : 17:35:28 [Permalink]
|
To EMSBY]:
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by [b]emsby
Hi Jerome - I'm sort of new here, but I've been lurking for a while and I've been following this thread as it has developed. I'm confused by your OP. You referenced "new scientific data." What new data? It seems that the study you are referring to simply took data that already existed and re-interpreted it to mean what these people wanted it to mean. The article states that not "all of" these scientists are "global warming skeptics." What does that mean, exactly? How many of them are? And how did the ones who aren't "global warming skeptics" interpret the data? Because the article seems to get very tricksy with how it says things... It certainly isn't very clear about exactly what this data is and what methods they've used to make their conclusions. They just sort of... say it and declare it to be true. I find it rather hard to believe that this "PR" company has successfully re-interpreted the data that many scientists interpreted another way.
And I have to say that it's awfully dishonest and creepy of you to quote H. Humbert out of context just for the sake of being snarky. That's not very polite of you.
Just my two cents.
|
Welcome, and thanks for your thoughts.
I am a bit of a pariah around here. Not that I do not understand your point; but my snarkiness is consistently eclipsed by vitriol. It is something of a comfortable relationship for both sides.
This talk has been occurring over the course of several months. I presented at the beginning the fact that the "world wide scientific consensus" consists of 30 scientists and 300 governmental officials. Surely you see this as politics and not science with a 10 to 1 governmental influence. This is evidenced from the IPCC documents and the words of one of the 30 scientist involved in the "consensus".
This topic was just another example of science that does not conform to the "WWSC" about "MMGW".
|
I thought this would get lost in the clutter. |
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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 17:53:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Furthermore, Jerome, you said,| What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW... |
I challenge you to quote any scientist (or anyone here) saying that the consensus is "proof of MMGW."
|
Here is lots of people using "world wide consensus" as proof/evidence of MMGW.
|
I'm pretty sure you have the wrong link, since I don't see anyone saying that. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 18:03:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Furthermore, Jerome, you said,| What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW... |
I challenge you to quote any scientist (or anyone here) saying that the consensus is "proof of MMGW."
|
Here is lots of people using "world wide consensus" as proof/evidence of MMGW.
|
Find a particular post, because I see no such thing in that thread. In fact, we opened by trying to explain to you that proof is not even what science does... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 18:06:04 [Permalink]
|
| But before you do that, respond to this. |
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 - 09/19/2007 : 18:23:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The title of the article:
| Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears* |
The disclaimer:
| Citation of the work of the following scientists does not imply that they necessarily support our conclusions. |
Problem is, in order for the title to show that a consensus doesn't exist, they have to demonstrate that the scientists do necessarily support their conclusions.
It's as simple as that.
|
The science contradicts the MMGW theory. This is the point.
|
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 - 09/19/2007 : 18:33:59 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
The science contradicts the MMGW theory. This is the point. |
Not at all. Unless you think the MMGW and natural cycles are mutually exclusive, which the lying authors of that report want you to believe. And maybe you do…
They certainly haven't demonstrated that the scientists they cite think that way.
And so their report fails... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 18:49:41 [Permalink]
|
| The science contradicts the MMGW theory. This is the point. |
I have said it before and I will say it again Jerome, you are either a complete moron, a troll or possibly both. I can see no other explanation for your inexplicably annoying refusal to coherently discuss this topic.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Consensus Falling Apart by the Day
