|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2007 : 10:02:57 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by filthy |
| Let's stick to the science and leave our emotions out of this. |
Is ridicule an emotion? |
It is usually driven by emotion.
| Bill, we've been covering the same tired, ol' ground for, seems like, infinity. It's boring the shit out of me. |
The new senate report just came out yesterday?!?!?!
| Ok you & the earstwhile Jerome thecatman say, 400 scientists, and I say, so what? 400 is a small percentage of the those observing it world-wide. |
1. Who is Jerome?
2. I didn't say anything about 400 scientists. That came from the senate report.
3. I don't point to 400+ scientists and say "see". I have, this whole thread, been pointing to what they have had to say, you know, the "science-y" stuff.
| Were you not paying attention when it was stated that there is always disagreement in science at least until all of the facts had been combined into a solid theory? |
Paying attention? I have been the one screaming it from the roof top. I am also the one that has been pointing out all the revesions and refutes to the prevailing notion, that have come out in just this last year alone. It appears most on this forum don't want to hear those updates as many are contradicing to the orginal conclusion. Yes science corrects itself, that is my point and what I have been deomonstrating in this thread. And who gets to decide when all the facts have been collected to form a theory and how could they prove this conclusion?
| And even then, some few refuse to believe it. |
Of couse! Especially with all this new and conflicting data coming in. Science is correcting itself.
| I state again: Radical climate change is all but upon us and the only question that remains is the one of how much we are contributing to it. |
It seems to me that slowly, but surley, as the new and updated data comes in, that the alarmists battle cry is shifting from climate warming to radical climate change. Certainly this would give the alarmists more wiggle room in their doomsday predictions.
| The rise in mean temperatures over the last couple of centuries, accelerating over the last, several decades is a damned good indicator that we are contributing quite a bit. |
No it's not. The rise in mean temprature has only been 0.7 degrees C. With all the evidence and history of seasawing temps and climate change this is not an indicator of anything.
| And so, how much tax toward cutting greenhouse gasses world wide would you be willing to pay |
As I have demonstrated and predicted. It all comes down to the age old desire for money and who is going to $pay$ and how much they are going to $pay.$
| to keep your descendents from starving? |
Sensationalism.
| So, thecatman really was Jerome. I'd suspected as much. |
Who is Jerome?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 10:33:31 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Cuneiformist |
This is particularly annoying. I had to read through the whole report to find on page 54 the following:
If distributed to households, the annual distribution would be on the order of $1600 to $4900 per family-of-four household.
So the Inhofe blurb is-- if you can believe it!-- cherry picking. And they can't even do that right, since "$4500" doesn't ever show up in the study. Someone mis-typed $4900, obviously. Inhofe is so incompetent that he can't even properly cherry-pick! Anyhow, what's annoying is that while you can take a snippet from someone's blog that is almost certainly misrepresenting the facts, in order to go and prove that in fact, things are being misrepresented, I have to look through the whole thing, figure out what's being discussed (it's fair to say that Inhofe misrepresented more than just the final cost) and then post it here. Which, of course, you won't even acknowledge. |
1. I was referring to the MIT study, not the Inhofe snippet and link to the study.
2. Your clarification of the Inhofe snippet has nothing at all to do with climate warming or radical climate change.
3. My point was not on how much you would be taxed on account of MMGW, but rather that you would be taxed under the guise of MMGW.
| No, based on experience. And I'm already one-for-one (what are the odds?), as the first one I looked at shows Inhofe cherry-picking numbers. |
One for one? The intent of me posting the MIT report was to demonstrate that taxes are going to be levied in the name of MMGW. All you did was add some clarification for an Inhofe snippet. This does nothing to dismiss my notion that taxes will be levied in the name of combating MMGW and CO2.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 11:11:42 [Permalink]
|
Jerome.....
Good to hear from you, it's been several weeks. Old buddy, you're losing your edge. Eight minutes after your first post as catman, Marf picks up on you. You managed to get two posts in before the Masque of the Red Death appeared. I told you a long time ago that if you are going to be even marginally successful at professional trolling, you have to be clever. Posting the same old crap in the same old style just ain't gonna cut it! Regardless of what else you think of him, Dave is nobody's fool, and if he is temporarily off duty, there are several others of the Gestalt Gestapo that are plenty smart enough to recognize your pattern of style-and-subject in a New York minute and push the red button.
Wise up, Jerome. Even if you pre-arrange it with some fundie nut-head like BillScott to take over a lost cause thread like global warming and push it through with multiple endlessly long quotes to four or five pages of nonsense, alternating with acrimony; what's the point? This isn't True Trolling. What's the fun in getting shut out after one or two posts and then watching a dim bulb religious nut case run with your ball?
Next time, find a subject and take about twenty minutes to read up in the indispensible wiki group on what you are going to talk about. Write paragraphs, not crib notes and one-liners. Use links, these folks love links. Look at the crap that BillScott has gotten away with in this thread and he has not even been warned yet. His techniques, while stupefyingly boring, permit him to rehash the same old shit over and over and over without getting ousted, and that's where he gets his jollies.
But your goal is to confound the PTB here and be able to remain undiscovered under a new pseudonym (and presumeably a new computer, because yours rings a bell on Dave's desk every time you boot up)
for a long enough time to cause consternation and dissent and even return to do it again under the same name. Jerome, that takes some work and at least elementary smarts. You have to say SOMETHING that occasionally makes sense and provokes thought in order to remain undiscovered and stay in the fray long enough to throw a bomb now and then!
C'mon Jerome. You're not stupid. Stop acting like it.
Bill Buck |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 11:38:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
1. I was referring to the MIT study, not the Inhofe snippet and link to the study.
2. Your clarification of the Inhofe snippet has nothing at all to do with climate warming or radical climate change.
3. My point was not on how much you would be taxed on account of MMGW, but rather that you would be taxed under the guise of MMGW.
| No, based on experience. And I'm already one-for-one (what are the odds?), as the first one I looked at shows Inhofe cherry-picking numbers. |
One for one? The intent of me posting the MIT report was to demonstrate that taxes are going to be levied in the name of MMGW. All you did was add some clarification for an Inhofe snippet. This does nothing to dismiss my notion that taxes will be levied in the name of combating MMGW and CO2. |
No, they weren't talking about taxes, Bill scott. At least not like you're thinking. And note, it says "IF distributed to households..."
ETA: Even the Inhofe blurb gets that right: "...would impose a tax-equivalent..." |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 12/21/2007 11:43:14 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 11:50:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I already did. Record Ice extents and dropping temperatures in Antarctica is just as good a place to start as any. We can move to the reliability and track record of man's climate models and their forecasting after that. Sound good? |
Just to be sure, is this what you're talking about? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 12:10:26 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott.....
You ask repeatedly....
and
You know who Jerome is as well as you know your own name. With 1114 posts in SFN, you certainly were here during all of the time of Jerome's reign of terrible trollism.
Come on, what's with all the phony naivete'?
Judging from the similarity of your subject matter and your posting style, your habit of using up acres of screen space with endless cut-and-paste quotes, and preposterous spelling, I suspect that you know Jerome quite well; to the extent that the above effort in this thread is a collaboration. Will wonders never cease, a Troll Patrol!!
Well, have at it, boys. It certainly isn't my complexion to criticize or complain to the management. However, I would like to be amused or entertained, and your repeated gigantic defecations of right wing-nut oil industry crap are just plain tiresome. Are you perhaps paid by the Republican National Committee to be a spokesman for ultracrazy conservative causes? Or are you one of the remaining Immoral Minority left over from the halcyon days of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's demented attempts at political ascendancy?
What or whoever you are, I wish you would pare your preposterous politicking down to one single substantiated statement concerning Global Warming that you care to defend, and then stick with it long enough to either win (unlikely), or lose (very likely) that particular argument. You are firing a shotgun at a ball of steel - damn little damage! If you do have an argument, put it in the form of a single depleted-uranium 50 caliber bullet, and if you can aim, you might dent your target!
That would be interesting to defend and debate! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 12/21/2007 12:15:06 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 13:15:39 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by bngbuck |
| Blah, blah, blah. And blah, blah, blah. Oh and rant, rant, and more ranting etc... etc... etc... |
*yawn* |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2007 : 13:42:14 [Permalink]
|
Eh Buck, Bill's just bullshittin' again. He does that whenever something comes along that either supports his version of reason & logic or goes against it.
*yawn*
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 16:08:10 [Permalink]
|
| Who is Bill Scott? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 16:10:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
C'mon Jerome. You're not stupid. Stop acting like it. |
It's moot now, as far as SFN management is concerned. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 17:13:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
Read Senator Inhofe's full opening statement from today's EPW subcommittee hearing. |
Inhofe, besides being one of the craziest members of the Senate is also the leading global warming denier there. Of course, that doesn't mean he is wrong, but it does mean that I must consider the source... I don't have time now to look into his blather, (I'm getting ready to head out of town) but it does seem interesting to me that all of this "new" news is coming right out of his office.
|
| but it does seem interesting to me that all of this "new" news is coming right out of his office. |
It's coming out of MIT.
A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of...
|
So, would it then be fair to list the studies that came out of MIT supporting AGW? There are lots of them... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 17:35:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Betcha the ten Liberty Dollars Filthy owes me that Jerome is back with a new name and a new computer, and he gets at least four posts in before you catch him! Wanna bet? No, I am not offering him help in any way, (other than goading), swear to Athena! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 17:45:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Wanna bet? |
Nope. The odds in favor of what you describe appear to be very close to one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 18:11:37 [Permalink]
|
BS.....
Quote one:| Not to any of my delight. I am chopping at the bit to discuss anyone of them you care to choose. |
Quote two:| All of which I am fully prepared to discuss. |
Quote three:| Blah, blah, blah. And blah, blah, blah. Oh and rant, rant, and more ranting etc... etc... etc... |
Thanks, BS for your thoughtful, productive discourse. While chomping at the bit, you evidently bit your own tongue off. All I hear is bumbling mumbling! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 19:47:29 [Permalink]
|
bng, you have figured BS out in short order, but that doesn't surprise me. I do think you have misjudged Jerome's capabilities though.
(still laughing at your oh-so accurate assessment of BS's posting style and content, thank you.)
I have also thought that BS is some sort of political operative, probably a volunteer though. No one could possibly spout the same nonsense over and over again, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, without being a true believer.
(spelling edit) |
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 12/21/2007 22:58:42 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
MMGW DEBUNKED!!!
