Three people tried to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible over the course of about 10 posts.

Do you really not get it still?


I mean, really. Just so you'll stop being a bitch and using it in every post, please explain what you don't understand about it.



[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:35 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 5:34:07 PM

its a blantant lie and you're a jackass troll for never admitting that you're ever wrong, even with something so completely and utterly straightforward

i posted the hockey stick graph in that PPT link...you said it wasnt it...but it was...and you're still denying it

6/7/2007 5:36:06 PM

Boone, just stop man. It's clear you are getting trolled. He hasn't hid the fact that he trolls this section from time to time. No one cares enough to suspend him. So he keeps doing it. Don't take the bait, especially when it is that obvious.

6/7/2007 5:37:34 PM

No he isn't denying it. Stop trolling.

6/7/2007 5:38:10 PM

Quote :

"I didn't look at the graph, because I knew they didn't use the 1998 study in the 2007 report. I hadn't expected you to pull this shit."

Quote :

"I was assuming, it's true. Assuming that your counterargument was on-point. And it was indeed dumb of me."

For the what, third time?

I mean, do you want me to grovel for not catching what was a stupid point on your part?

Sorry Tree, for not better interpreting the incredibly stupid point you were making. It's all my fault. I was so, so wrong.


^^ I'm fully aware he's trolling, but he's also playing himself like crazy, and I'll take part in that.

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 5:38:54 PM

Hey, you're the one who felt the need to jump in and answer the question I posed to moron

And then not even look at the link I posted

And hence answer the question wrong

And then do everything in your power to argue shity analogies and context and syntax just so you didn't look like some dumb stoner is smarter than you

Quote :

" I'm fully aware he's trolling"

you misspelled "He's fully aware I'm trolling

6/7/2007 5:40:30 PM

What do you mean playing himself, when he puts this

Quote :

"ts a blantant lie and you're a jackass troll for never admitting that you're ever wrong, even with something so completely and utterly straightforward "

For the third time, even though the rebuttal for it is in language so plain, even an embryo could understand it, it's clear he is trolling, and you taking any time at all to respond to it is the one getting played. Stop lowering yourself to his level.

6/7/2007 5:42:10 PM

Boone must've had a 16 year old correct him on something in class today so he's on his ego trip on TWW

6/7/2007 5:43:02 PM

I think Boone adequately conceded his error in a soap-boxy, which is a HUGE deal for anything here in TSB.

Continuing to harp on a relatively minor misstep is only going to be perceived as trolling, and throw the thread WAY off track.

6/7/2007 5:47:24 PM

^^^^You're right,

the difference between "doesn't" and "hasn't" is just silly semantics, and does nothing to further the debate. Neither does context.

All that matters is that made an incorrect assumption. That is what's really pertinent to the debate.


^^^ I'm just training to be a 75k/yr IT guy some day.

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 5:47:34 PM

I'm just impressed that he can troll this section as hard as he does (did, has, I'm trying to be careful here), yet still have enough time to run a department that commands a 75k salary.

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:49 PM. Reason : clarity]

6/7/2007 5:48:50 PM

or conversely,

that he makes 75k a year, is single, but spends all waking hours on here.

It doesn't matter whether or not he's lying. It's still sad as hell.




[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 5:50:01 PM

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

Quote :

"When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains 'very likely' as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Hurricane surge may be nothing new, study says
Researchers say the frequency of major storms today is about the same as it was during extended periods from the mid-1700s to the mid-1900s.

Quote :

"A surge in major Atlantic hurricanes over the last decade -- often cited as evidence of increasing global warming -- may not be a surge at all but a return to normal storm patterns, according to a new study. Using nearly three centuries of hurricane history recorded in organic storm debris encased in coral reefs, researchers found that the frequency of major hurricanes today was about the same as it was during extended periods from the mid-1700s to the mid-1900s. 'There were periods that were just as active as we see now,' said study coauthor Terrence M. Quinn, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Texas at Austin. At the same time, the researchers found that the number of major hurricanes from the late 1960s to the early 1990s -- a period that our present cycle is often compared to -- was unusually low."

Quote :

"The new study is supported by a paper published last month in Nature that reconstructed 5,000 years of hurricane history using cores drilled in sediment deposits in a Caribbean lagoon. It found a period of intense hurricane activity starting about 300 years ago in the middle of what is known as the Little Ice Age, when waters were relatively cool."

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-hurricane7jun07,1,3331095.story?track=rss

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 11:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 11:06:42 PM

Quote :

"in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies."

it might be because 99% of the time they are (or they're a part of a think-tank that is funded by an oil company or an otherwise conflicting interest)

and as i've said again and again, the hurricane arguments (for or against anthro. climate change) are a red herring because hurricanes are so relatively infrequent.

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 11:45:25 PM

Quote :

"The political left's favorite argument is that there is no argument. Their current crusade is to turn 'global warming' into one of those things that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with 'diversity' and 'open space.' The name of 'science' is invoked by the left today, as it has been for more than two centuries. After all, Karl Marx's ideology was called 'scientific socialism' in the 19th century. In the 18th century, Condorcet analogized his blueprint for a better society to engineering, and social engineering has been the agenda ever since. Not all the advocates of 'global warming' are on the left, of course. Crusades are not just for crusaders. There are always hangers-on who can turn the true believers' crusades into votes or money or at least notoriety. Whether the globe really is warming is a question about facts -- and about where those facts are measured: on land, in the air or under the sea. There is no question that there is a 'greenhouse' effect. Otherwise, half the planet would freeze every night when there is no sunlight falling on it. There is also no question that the earth can warm or cool. It has done both at one time or another for thousands of years, even before there were SUVs. If there had never been any global warming before, we wouldn't be able to enjoy Yosemite Valley today for it was once buried under thousands of feet of ice. Back in the 1970s, the environmental hysteria was about the dangers of a new ice age. This hysteria was spread by many of the same individuals and groups who are promoting today's hysteria about global warming. It is not just the sky that is falling. Government money is falling on those who seek grants to study global warming and produce 'solutions' for it. But that money is not as likely to fall on those skeptics in the scientific community who refuse to join the stampede. Yes, Virginia, there are skeptics about global warming among scientists who study weather and climate. There are arguments both ways -- which is why so many in politics and in the media are so busy selling the notion that there is no argument. If you heard both arguments, you might not be so willing to go along with those who are prepared to ruin the economy, sacrificing jobs and the national standard of living on the altar to the latest in an unending series of crusades, conducted by politicians and other people seeking to tell everyone else how to live. What about all those scientists mentioned, cited or quoted by global warming crusaders? There are all kinds of scientists, from chemists to nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further. That ploy has already been used. Then there are genuine scientific experts on weather and climate. The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report on global warming back in 2001 with a very distinguished list of such experts listed. The problem is that not one of those very distinguished scientists actually wrote the report -- or even saw it before it was published. One of those very distinguished climate scientists -- Richard S. Lindzen of MIT -- publicly repudiated the conclusions of that report, even though his name had been among those used as window dressing on the report. But the media may not have told you that. In short, there has been a full court press to convince the public that 'everybody knows' that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living. Among the climate experts who are not part of that 'everybody' are not only Professor Lindzen but also Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, whose book 'Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,' punctures the hot air balloon of the global warming crusaders. So does the book 'Shattered Consensus,' edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of 'everybody.'"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/02/13/global_hot_air

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 12:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 11:59:45 PM

oh gawd. make it stop.

6/8/2007 1:45:26 AM

^^ That's some salisburyboy stuff right there.

6/8/2007 1:58:30 AM

Quote :

"...those who are prepared to ruin the economy, sacrificing jobs and the national standard of living on the altar..."

Now that is some grade A fearmongering bullshit. The wing nuts would like for people to think that human development and environmental responsibility/protection are mutually exclusive.

6/8/2007 4:22:31 AM

Quote :

"Robert Dunbar, professor of geological and environmental sciences, provides insight into the energy future of our world and implications for important policy changes to save the planet."

http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/itunes.stanford.edu.1291291512.01291291515.1292747322?i=1470307645

I was browsing iTunes, and I came across this lecture on iTunes U (free stuff from universities) with some professor at Stanford giving a lecture on climate change, where he spends a good chunk of time addressing objections.

I think this is about this lecture: http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2003/03080601.shtml
This is his homepage at stanford: http://dunbar.stanford.edu/dunbar_ges.html

6/8/2007 5:19:41 AM

Global Hot Air: Part II

Quote :

"Propaganda campaigns often acquire a life of their own. Politicians who have hitched their wagons to the star of 'global warming' cannot admit any doubts on their part, or permit any doubts by others from becoming part of a public debate. Neither can environmental crusaders, whose whole sense of themselves as saviors of the planet is at stake, as they try to stamp out any views to the contrary. A recent and revealing example of the ruthless attempts to silence anyone who dares question the global warming crusade began with a 'news' story in the British newspaper 'The Guardian.' It quickly found an echo among American Senators on the left -- Bernard Sanders, an avowed socialist, and John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein, who are unavowed. The headline of the 'news' story said it all: 'Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study.' According to 'The Guardian,' scientists and economists 'have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report.' It is a classic notion on the left in general, and of environmentalist zealots in particular, that no one can disagree with them unless they are either uninformed or dishonest. Here they dispose of scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hysteria by depicting them as being bribed by lobbyists for the oil companies. While such charges may be enough for crusading zealots to wrap themselves ever more tightly in the mantle of virtue, some of us are still old-fashioned enough to want to know the actual facts. In this case, the fact is that the American Enterprise Institute -- a think tank, not a lobbyist -- did what all kinds of think tanks do, all across the political spectrum, all across the country, and all around the world. AEI has planned a roundtable discussion of global warming, attended by people with differing views on the subject. That was their fundamental sin, in the eyes of the global warming crowd. They treated this as an issue, rather than a dogma. Like liberal, conservative, and other think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute pays people who do the work of preparing scholarly papers for presentation at its roundtables. Ten thousand dollars is not an unusual amount and many have received more from other think tanks for similar work. Enter Senators Sanders, Kerry, Leahy, and Feinstein. In a joint letter to the head of the American Enterprise Institute, they express shock, shock, like the corrupt police official in 'Casablanca.' These Senators express 'our very serious concerns' about reports that AEI 'offered to pay scientists up to $10,000 for questioning the findings' of other scientists. The four Senators express how 'saddened' they would be if the reports are true, 'by the depths to which some would sink to undermine the scientific consensus' on global warming. If the reports are true, the Senators continue, 'it would highlight the extent to which moneyed interests distort honest scientific and public policy discussions' by 'bribing scientists to support a pre-determined agenda.' The Senators ask: 'Does your donors' self-interest trump an honest discussion over the well-being of the planet?' They demand that 'AEI will publicly apologize for this conduct.' As the late Art Buchwald once said about comedy and farce in Washington, 'You can't make that up!' If it is a bribe to pay people for doing work, then we are all bribed every day, except for those who inherited enough money not to have to work at all. Among those invited to attend the AEI roundtable are some of the same scientists who produced the recent report that politicians, environmentalists, and the media tout as the last word on global warming. The trump card of the left is that one of the big oil companies contributed money to the American Enterprise Institute -- not as much as one percent of its budget, but enough for a smear. All think tanks have contributors or they could not exist. But facts carry little weight in smears, even by politicians who question other people's honesty."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=global_hot_air_part_ii&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=02/14/2007&page=1

[Edited on June 8, 2007 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/8/2007 11:39:15 AM

Hahah, how many pages will this thread go until hooksaw posts a Prison Planet link?

6/8/2007 11:50:46 AM

Global Hot Air: Part III (February 15, 2007)

Quote :

"If you take the mainstream media seriously, you might think that every important scientist believes that 'global warming' poses a great threat, and that we need to make drastic changes in the way we live, in order to avoid catastrophes to the environment, to various species, and to ourselves. The media play a key role in perpetuating such beliefs. Often they seize upon every heat wave to hype global warming, but see no implications in record-setting cold weather, such as many places have been experiencing lately. But, when not one hurricane struck the United States all last year, the media had little or nothing to say about the false predictions they had hyped. It's heads I win and tails you lose. Are there serious scientists who specialize in weather and climate who have serious doubts about the doomsday scenarios being pushed by global warming advocates? Yes, there are. There is Dr. S. Fred Singer, who set up the American weather satellite system, and who published some years ago a book titled 'Hot Talk, Cold Science.' More recently, he has co-authored another book on the subject, 'Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.' There have been periods of global warming that lasted for centuries -- and periods of global cooling that also lasted for centuries. So the issue is not whether the world is warmer now than at some time in the past but how much of that warming is due to human beings and how much can we reduce future warming, even if we drastically reduce our standard of living in the attempt. Other serious scientists who are not on the global warming bandwagon include a professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen. His name was big enough for the National Academy of Sciences to list it among the names of other experts on its 2001 report that was supposed to end the debate by declaring the dangers of global warming proven scientifically. Professor Lindzen then objected and pointed out that neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published. It was in fact written by government bureaucrats -- as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion. You want more experts who think otherwise? Try a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Patrick J. Michaels, who refers to the much ballyhooed 2001 IPCC summary as having 'misstatements and errors' that he calls 'egregious.' A professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, David R. Legates, likewise referred to the 2001 IPCC summary as being 'often in direct contrast with the scientific report that accompanies it.' It is the summaries that the media hype. The full 2007 report has not even been published yet. The very attempt to silence all who disagree about global warming ought to raise red flags. Anyone who remembers the 1970s should remember the Club of Rome report that was supposed to be the last word on economic growth grinding to a halt, 'overpopulation' and a rapidly approaching era of mass starvation in the 1980s. In reality, the 1980s saw increased economic growth around the world and, far from mass starvation, an increase in obesity and agricultural surpluses in many countries. But much of the media went for the Club of Rome report and hyped the hysteria. Many in the media resent any suggestion that they are either shilling for an ideological agenda or hyping whatever will sell newspapers or get higher ratings on TV. Here is their chance to check out some heavyweight scientists specializing in weather and climate, instead of taking Al Gore's movie or the pronouncements of government bureaucrats and politicians as the last word."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=global_hot_air_part_iii&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=02/15/2007&page=1

6/9/2007 12:40:38 AM

^^The link to the Hansen critique is the only potentially meaningful thing he's posted so far.

Rantings of an economist who doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the science are meaningless, in a debate of a scientific principle.

6/9/2007 12:49:07 AM

^ Well, I'm one up one you then--because you've never posted anything meaningful.

Yeah, and I suppose that reporters can't report stories about science and editorialists can't write editorials about science because they are not scientists? What about all those chemists, nuclear physicists, entomologists, vulcanologists, and others--none of whom is an expert on weather or climate--that are listed as scientists in support of global warming hysteria? Are they simply ranting?

I don't know how Harry Truman managed to do his job as President of the United States without a degree in presidential administration--or any college degree at all, for that matter. You don't have to be a cow to recognize milk.

BTW, did you know that economics is a social science? Sowell is just as qualified to comment on the issue in question as many of these other "scientists."

[Edited on June 9, 2007 at 2:13 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2007 2:06:44 AM

It would be a fun excersize to dig up Sowell's op-ed pieces on ozone-layer depletion before the Montreal Protocol. I'm sure the cause of ozone-depletion--if he admitted it exists--was volcanoes or something natural. Anything but human released CFCs!

The nuclear physicsts or chemists Sowell mentions might not be informed--we can't say. But let's not pretend Sowell is anything but a hack.

6/9/2007 5:44:56 PM

when you can't refute a person's points, attack him instead, right?

6/9/2007 7:06:27 PM

^ that would be a concise summary of this thread.

6/9/2007 7:34:06 PM

Quote :

"Well, I'm one up one you then--because you've never posted anything meaningful."

Quote :

"Yeah, and I suppose that reporters can't report stories about science and editorialists can't write editorials about science because they are not scientists?"

Wow, you're dumb. Are you not able to grasp the concept of context?

Why are your non-expert reporters any more credible than other non-expert reporters that disagree? They are not. The only way to get to the heart of the issue is to look at the research behind it. People making assertions based on half-assed knowledge are useless in this type of discussion. My suspicion is that you don't want to discuss the scientists because you can't grasp what they're talking about. If that's the case, it's okay, because we can't all be scientists, but instead of spouting crap you can't even interpret, you should politely excuse yourself from the discussion. TreeTwista at least has some scientific knowledge.

Quote :

"What about all those chemists, nuclear physicists, entomologists, vulcanologists, and others--none of whom is an expert on weather or climate--that are listed as scientists in support of global warming hysteria? Are they simply ranting? "

Post some of their work. You've only posted 1 such document.

Quote :

"I don't know how Harry Truman managed to do his job as President of the United States without a degree in presidential administration--or any college degree at all, for that matter. You don't have to be a cow to recognize milk. "

Non sequitur

Quote :

"BTW, did you know that economics is a social science? Sowell is just as qualified to comment on the issue in question as many of these other "scientists." "

haha, you're comparing a mostly soft science to a hard science. Nice. I also like the use of "scientist" in quotes there.

[Edited on June 10, 2007 at 12:21 AM. Reason : ]

6/10/2007 12:21:35 AM

If he made a substantive point on the science of climate change I'd be happy to join the discussion.

With some modification Sowell could have taken his essay straight from the Answers in Genesis website. He uses the same basic rhetorical tricks--give an example of the fallibility of experts, find outlier scientists that agree with your position, question the motives of those who subscribe to the consensus. It's pretty old hat if you've been involved in various scientific discussions such as the creation/evolution, radiation dose-response, genetically modified foods, relativity, and so on. The point is to make a minority scientific view seem intellectually serious to someone who can't judge the science for themselves.

[Edited on June 10, 2007 at 1:37 AM. Reason : x]

6/10/2007 1:34:54 AM

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Stages%20of%20Denial

This page has some pretty interesting information, if anyone is actually interested in this issue. It's at the least a starting point to help find more info.

6/10/2007 8:18:33 PM

^^^ You are the fucking dumbass. So, not only are you strongly implying that you are some kind of scientist, you are also a political expert? I mean, you talk out of your ass about politics all the time and you clearly can't "grasp" this subject. In addition, global warming is not purely a scientific issue--there are a number of political forces at work, too. If you don't understand that, then you don't truly understand the global warming issue as a whole.

BTW, are you really an 18-year-old sophomore in computer engineering? If not, update your user info. If you are, then STFU.

Quote :

"Post some of their work. You've only posted 1 such document."

WTF?! Clearly, I was referring to the IPCC list--if we ever see the full list--and related lists of so-called experts. In addition, every link I've posted lists numerous experts.

Concerning the Harry Truman example, it is not a non sequitur; you can't even grasp the concept of logical fallacies. If anything, my example would be a false analogy--but it is not false. At any rate, you claim specific expertise is necessary concerning global warming, but you never critically examine your so-called experts--and many of them have no expertise in climate or weather whatsoever.

Quote :

"haha, you're comparing a mostly soft science to a hard science. Nice. I also like the use of 'scientist' in quotes there."

You fucking snob. The quotes were for some of your "scientists," dummy. And, yeah, let's get rid of all the social sciences--they're obviously no good:

Quote :

"social science: 'a scholarly or scientific discipline that deals with such study, generally regarded as including sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, political science, and history.'"

Hell, this is all snake oil, am I right?

^^ Concerning the "outlier scientists," read some of the articles I've posted. You'll see that there are many well-respected and knowledgeable scientists that do not agree with the so-called consensus--one has but to look.

[Edited on June 10, 2007 at 11:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2007 11:15:30 PM

Quote :

"You are the fucking dumbass. So, not only are you strongly implying that you are some kind of scientist, you are also a political expert? I mean, you talk out of your ass about politics all the time and you clearly can't "grasp" this subject. In addition, global warming is not purely a scientific issue--there are a number of political forces at work, too. If you don't understand that, then you don't truly understand the global warming issue as a whole. "

I'm not a scientist (or at least, I don't have a degree in an purely scientific field), but I deal with lots of scienc-y things. The only thing necessary to understand scientific documents is to understand the terminology (not as simple as it sounds, but it doesn't require a lifetime of devotion).

I don't claim to be a political expert though, but 99.99% of the people in TSB couldn't claim this either, INCLUDING yourself (it would be a joke if you tried to). But, when your statements are objectively illogical, you don't have to be a political expert to see that.

Quote :

"BTW, are you really an 18-year-old sophomore in computer engineering? If not, update your user info. If you are, then STFU. "

Haha, make me. Either way, if you weren't an idiot, you could extrapolate my current age by looking at my join date... if you want assume that information is real.

Quote :

"Quote : "Post some of their work. You've only posted 1 such document." WTF?! Clearly, I was referring to the IPCC list--if we ever see the full list--and related lists of so-called experts. In addition, every link I've posted lists numerous experts. "

The only thing YOU'VE posted that had any kind of science in it was the Hansen rebuttal, as I mentioned earlier. Everything else has been braindead analyses by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about, taking other people who might know what they're talking about, out of context.

Quote :

"Concerning the Harry Truman example, it is not a non sequitur; you can't even grasp the concept of logical fallacies. If anything, my example would be a false analogy--but it is not false. At any rate, you claim specific expertise is necessary concerning global warming, but you never critically examine your so-called experts--and many of them have no expertise in climate or weather whatsoever. "

I don't claim a "specific expertise" i claim an understanding of science (which includes math generally beyond non-physics/engineering majors).

You're claiming (via a false analogy too btw) that since Harry Truman can be president, you can understand things that you can't understand, that conclusion does not follow from that premise.

It's also a false analogy (as well as a dumb analogy to pick), because the conditions that cause Truman to be a successful president are not in any way analogous to the conditions that can cause you to understand climate change. And "false analogy" isn't a formal fallacy anyway, because it's elements can't be discretely defined to a state that is objectively recognized as a "false analogy."

And you don't have to be an expert in "logical fallacies" to be an expert in logic. Logic is innate to the universe.

Quote :

"You fucking snob. The quotes were for some of your "scientists," dummy. And, yeah, let's get rid of all the social sciences--they're obviously no good: Quote : "social science: 'a scholarly or scientific discipline that deals with such study, generally regarded as including sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, political science, and history.'" Hell, this is all snake oil, am I right? "

Wow, yet another logical fallacy from you.

I never claimed the social sciences weren't good, but the social sciences are DEFINITELY the wrong tree to bark up, if you're trying to figure out the best policy to use regarding climate change. At least, it should be far from where you should start barking.

6/11/2007 12:44:14 AM

Quote :

"I'm not a scientist (or at least, I don't have a degree in an purely scientific field), but I deal with lots of scienc-y things."

moron

Congrats! You just made "Soap Box Quotes-2007" with that fucking trinket.

6/11/2007 1:06:11 AM

Engineers can be scientists, but engineering isn't a purely scientific field.

6/11/2007 1:15:05 AM

he's after you for the

Quote :

"science-y"

bit.

which i gotta admit, is kind of funny.



you did set yourself up. you see, you cant argue with hooksaw, because even if youre right, he'll extract some out-of-context quote, or typo, or grammatical error, to shift the conversation from factual analysis and put you off balance until he can come up with another red herring or strawman.

BTW, im an engineer too, who deals with a lot of science-y things at work. specifically instrumentation used in monitoring global climate. NOAA is one of our major customers.

so even though i know a lot more science-y stuff than hooksaw on this very issue, you just cant argue this shit with him. it's like trying to explain evolution with a fundamentalist christian creationist who only took a single Survey of Science class.

6/11/2007 1:48:09 AM

Quote :

"science-y"

Quote :

"which i gotta admit, is kind of funny."

Kind of like "truthiness."

6/11/2007 12:17:56 PM

^^ Yeah, that was meant to be funny.

Putting -y on the end of anything is intrinsically humorous.



[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM. Reason : hooksaw-y for example]

6/11/2007 3:11:33 PM

Funny "heh"

Not funny "OMG LOLOLOL YOU'RE STUPID"

6/11/2007 4:03:54 PM

I have a question for those of you who see global warming as a huge threat to the world:

Do you think it's possible that you are being at least partially misled by fearmongers intent on scaring the population into action?

I am not questioning the science behind global warming, but I am questioning the scare tactics and doomsday predictions associated with the movement. We are all aware of the herd mentality and power of fear on the mainstream population. Is it possible that the threat of global warming has spiraled out of proportion and is being blown up into something bigger than it is?

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : 2]

6/11/2007 4:14:18 PM

^ The media IS distorting the issue, i said that a few pages back.

But on the other side, you have the deniers which react too strongly, and going too far with their opinions, causing some people to believe that humans don't have any affect at all, which is delusional.

6/11/2007 4:24:13 PM

^any effect no, but a big effect is very questionable.

6/12/2007 12:23:04 AM

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

Quote :

"A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

--Al Gore, 09 May 2006

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/

6/12/2007 2:15:08 AM

AKA fearmongering

6/12/2007 2:24:37 AM

^^ interesting quote.

but, given your history of posted opinions on this subject, i have to wonder if you understand what

"over-representation of factual presentations"

means

...

and that goes for you ^ too



[Edited on June 12, 2007 at 2:28 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2007 2:27:30 AM

Quote :

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Quote :

"overrepresentation: 'to give too much representation to; represent in numbers that are disproportionately high.'"

6/12/2007 2:45:06 AM

What joe_schmoe was talking about was that you DRASTICALLY over-represent the significance of research perceived to be anti-global warming as the basis for your anti-global warming opinion.

No one's talked about Al Gore for a couple pages, but if you're calling him out for exaggerating, then you should also call yourself out for the same thing.

6/12/2007 2:48:59 AM

^ This is my thread--have you read the title? My last post was in response to Prawn Star bringing up fear-mongering, which is at the heart of the global warming debate.

And I simply present what has been an underrepresented perspective of legitimate skepticism concerning global warming hysteria and the so-called consensus. If the science at issue is so sound, what can a growing chorus of skeptics hurt, hmm?

[Edited on June 12, 2007 at 3:08 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2007 3:03:26 AM

Quote :

" In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions."

we are already "over-represented" with reports that attempt to deny the scientific reality. and by giving them so much time on the debate floor, we distort their scientific credibility

therefore we need to bring the amount of "factual representation" up in order to overcome the vast amount of bad science parading around as if it were some sort of peer-reviewed and accepted alternatives.

Quote :

"a growing chorus of skeptics"

really? where are they again? names and publications, please.

6/12/2007 3:13:56 AM

Statistics needed
The Deniers -- Part I
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Quote :

"Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are 'likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years' and that the '1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year' of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century. Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own. Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee's assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work."

Quote :

"In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how."

Quote :

"One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. 'I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school.' As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association. While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the 'science is settled' camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion. To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: 'I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.' With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer."

THE CV OF A DENIER

Quote :

"Dr. Edward Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association."

Quote :

"Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

6/12/2007 4:07:35 AM

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.htm

Quote :

"Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, February 13, 2007 The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power. In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist. The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable. In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change."

FLASHBACK:

SUV's On Jupiter?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm

Globalists Love Global Warming
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

[Edited on June 12, 2007 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2007 1:01:12 PM