|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:37:06 [Permalink]
|
You know, guys...
I stopped reading the Rapture Ready Bulletin Board because I just couldn't believe what I was reading came from people who honestly thought they were being serious.
And now I'm seriously considering stop reading threads started by Jerome.
I mean, come on...
Getting hooked up on not being able to accept that graphs are presented in a mathematically correct way, where will it end?
|
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. |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:38:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by dv82matt
So you conceed then that inventing ulterior motives and conspiracy theories to explain why they have not yet updated the data is just silly, right?
|
Sure.
But, I never invented an ulterior motive. You assumed my meaning was conspiracy; this is why I stated that it could be laziness. |
Well you also said:
| It looks like correcting incorrect data might be not in their best interest. |
But now I see that all you meant by this is that updating the incorrect data would interfere with their ability to be lazy. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:39:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You know, guys...
I stopped reading the Rapture Ready Bulletin Board because I just couldn't believe what I was reading came from people who honestly thought they were being serious.
And now I'm seriously considering stop reading threads started by Jerome.
I mean, come on...
Getting hooked up on not being able to accept that graphs are presented in a mathematically correct way, where will it end?
|
You do know that the first graph is a proven falsehood that was presented and used for a long period as 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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:43:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The point of this thread was the use or non use of data and the presentation thereof to create a public thought.
Yes, the presentation of the data on the graphs is relevant to the talk. |
Then why, Jerome, do you fail to acknowledge that those graphs were never intended to "create a public thought?"
If you'd like to discuss the mainstream media's misuse of scientific data, you're likely to find little but agreement around here.
If you'd instead like to continue to level pronouncements at the graphs themselves while ignoring their scientific context, I'm sure that you'll find a receptive audience on any of a number of socially conservative forums.
Of course, this looks like little more than furious back-peddling to me. You let yourself drift far off-topic, and now that you're being called on your claims, you retreat by reminding us of what you originally intended so that you won't have to admit you're wrong on a number of other points. |
- 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 - 09/24/2007 : 20:46:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course, this looks like little more than furious back-peddling to me. You let yourself drift far off-topic, and now that you're being called on your claims, you retreat by reminding us of what you originally intended so that you won't have to admit you're wrong on a number of other points.
|
Please rely my claims on this thread that I have backpedaled from.
|
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 - 09/24/2007 : 20:48:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You do know that the first graph is a proven falsehood that was presented and used for a long period as evidence of MMGW. |
Now we have another claim of yours to contend with, Jerome, that has nothing to do with what you described as the point of this thread. Can you support this claim by referencing scientific data which shows the first graph is, indeed, "a proven falsehood," or will you rely upon some popular-press piece? Or will you say, after being reminded that this is off topic, that it's off topic and drop it?
What was the intent of the people who created that first graph, Jerome? Do you even know, or do you just assume that it was to support the AGW hypothesis? |
- 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 - 09/24/2007 : 20:56:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Please rely my claims on this thread that I have backpedaled from. |
I said "looks like" for a reason, 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 - 09/24/2007 : 20:58:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Please rely my claims on this thread that I have backpedaled from. |
I said "looks like" for a reason, Jerome.
|
 |
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 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:24:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
All I get is a winky? My last response was directly on-topic, Jerome. What's the problem?
|
Ohh, the hockey stick. Yes, I will present the debunking shortly.
I know the standards.
I shall not present unprepared.
|
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 - 09/24/2007 : 21:31:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Ohh, the hockey stick. Yes, I will present the debunking shortly.
I know the standards.
I shall not present unprepared. |
Wow, you're still missing your own point. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 23:55:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Jerome dodges the issue and tries to change the subject? Because otherwise, he'd have to admit that he's just been pwned, and he really doesn't like to do that.
|
Did you really use the word "pwned"?
|
Why the hell not?
Aren't you the guy who deliberately misspells words because you think that a certain letter "looks cool" ?
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 09/24/2007 23:56:13 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 05:51:11 [Permalink]
|
Jerome,
Perhaps we could return to the original topic and leave for a moment the best placement of the zero point on the axis of a graph (I sure was way off the mark when I said you might just change the subject).
Your title:
NASA-1934 Warmest Year on Record!
Yes, this is correct, 1934 was the warmest year in the US. Interesting data. It would be a good area of study to understand why it was so hot and dry in the dust bowl years.
Do you feel this has any relevence to global warming. Since there is a clear trend to increasing global temperatures it would seem that it does not.
As for scientist not blaring this data in headlines - perhaps the thought was that it would just confuse a science deficient population, which it appears was the case with you.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 06:21:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Jerome dodges the issue and tries to change the subject? Because otherwise, he'd have to admit that he's just been pwned, and he really doesn't like to do that.
|
Did you really use the word "pwned"?
|
Why the hell not?
Aren't you the guy who deliberately misspells words because you think that a certain letter "looks cool" ?
|
Thanks, JohnOAS. And my putting it in italics should have at least suggested that I was having fun with it-- like misspelling "TASER" with a Z for aesthetic reasons. |
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 07:30:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
True enough. All the last 120 years will tell you is that there are recent enhancing factors to consider.
|
This is the problem. We are examining data over a 120 year period and concluding that this 120 years is indicative of the next 100 years.
We know so little. We just like to believe we know. In the 30's we thought there was global warming, in the 70's we thought there was global cooling. What exactly makes you think the today we know and are correct as to what the factors are that cause climate change?
|
We know so little yet some people would rather draw the conclusion that allīs ok rather than cut down on pollution just in case itīs adding to GW when cutting down on pollution would be so beneficial to other aspects besides GW. |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
 |
|
NASA-1934 Warmest Year on Record!
