lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Climate Change: Are Humans to Blame?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-25-2009, 06:49 PM   #41
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Because, naturally, there's such an overwhelming concensus:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...pe_on_climate/
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
http://canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1696
http://www.dailytech.com/A+Melting+A...ticle12882.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...zing-heat.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...83-601,00.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l-cooling.html (esp last pp)


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-25-2009, 08:28 PM   #42
Darth Avlectus
If Sunday you're free...
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Why don't you come with me...
Posts: 4,275
Current Game: Poisoning pigeons in the park.
Say, wasn't there a falling out between environmental groups and the American Meteorological Society? Something about the enviros were not happy that AMS refused to endorse them?

If I do recall it was on some thesis of or relating to primary causes. Curious...


We'll murder them all, amid laughter and merriment...except for the few we take home to experiment!

"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-25-2009, 09:24 PM   #43
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
I see, Climatologists, Geologists, Meteorologists with doctorates in their fields don't know much about AGW? Admittedly, I'm not an expert in any of the required fields, but then I highly doubt you are either. What I don't like is your false dichotomy. Essentially saying that in order to not believe in AGW you mustn't know about it.

Also considering that Antarctica's Ice concentration has INCREASED over the past 10 years...

On the other hand, Arctic sea ice has decreased 4.2%/decade since 1979.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html


It seems like both of our sources say there have been changes in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents, which sounds strangely like climate change.

Even if it doesn't to you, I'm still not seeing a reason why we shouldn't reduce emissions anyway? The planet might be cool with all the **** we spew in to the air, but I don't think our own lungs are.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-25-2009, 11:22 PM   #44
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142 View Post
Even if it doesn't to you, I'm still not seeing a reason why we shouldn't reduce emissions anyway? The planet might be cool with all the **** we spew in to the air, but I don't think our own lungs are.
Read my earlier responses. We do enough crap to the planet as it is. Hell anyone who's gone fishing in a lake and caught the trash thrown in it, or the sheer volume of just flat out crappy air. I mean you fly into an airport and see the dingy yellow air. Absolutely I'm for cleaning up the air for better quality of life. I'm all for cleaning up the environment. I am not for this global warming scare tactic which is equivalent to the anti weed campaigns where they used exaggerations to convince people that they were doing wrong.

Nowhere am I claiming we shouldn't clean up our planet. Just that the global warming scare is not where we should be devoting our attention.


Interestingly enough one of the scientists that happens to agree with that sentiment is Lindzen
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lindzen
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
But wait... didn't someone use him as a source FOR global warming?


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 05-26-2009 at 02:33 AM. Reason: darn citations.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 12:18 PM   #45
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
I see, Climatologists, Geologists, Meteorologists with doctorates in their fields don't know much about AGW?
The vast majority accept that the current situation is anthropogenic, so that doesn't really matter. There are probably biologists out there who for some reason or another state they don't believe in evolution, too.

Quote:
Also considering that Antarctica's Ice concentration has INCREASED over the past 10 years...
Far as I know, this is to be expected due to increased precipitation (snowfall in Antarctica's case). Again, as I've already stated, AGW means that some areas get warmer while others get colder. Some areas of Antarctica, which is a large continent, are very likely growing in size, but others are experiencing accelerated melting, and the net result is a loss of ice. This is to be expected.

To my knowledge.

Classic Creationist argument - "there's no consensus, lots of scientists disagree, but the ones who don't follow the dogmas get silenced because {insert arbitrary theory here}". Same spear, new game.

You're making the mistake of looking at science as you do an organized religion, in which dogmas are laid down by authorities for religious and political reasons, and whoever tries to put forward new thoughts is punished or even kicked out of the church. This is the polar opposite of how scientists operate. Scientists, and anyone else using the scientific method, arrive at their conclusions by testing hypotheses, for then to do everything they can to disprove them. If someone tomorrow was to utterly and completely shoot down the scientific notion that the Earth is flat, the Theory of Evolution is real, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, he'd be awarded a Nobel prize and remembered as a genius.

I don't know who the "inquisition" in your cartoon represents, but if it's scientists, the cartoon simply has no backing in reality.

Quote:
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
OK, let's accept, for the sake of discussion, that if you do produce results contrary to AGW, you lose your funding? Question then is - why? Just because they disagree with the established dogma? Highly unlikely in my ears. A far more believable scenario is that their research turns out to not be sound.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 06-09-2009 at 05:03 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 12:50 PM   #46
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
Classic Creationist argument - "there's no consensus, lots of scientists disagree, but the ones who don't follow the dogmas get silence because {insert arbitrary theory here}". Same spear, new game.
See: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
I don't know who the "inquisition" in your cartoon represents, but if it's scientists, the cartoon simply has no backing in reality.
That cartoonist contributes to a local right-wing rag trying to pass itself off as unbiased journalism (aka The Arizona Republic). I've heard his stuff is good for yucks, but it's little more than propaganda.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 01:32 PM   #47
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
OK, let's accept, for the sake of discussion, that if you do produce results contrary to AGW, you lose your funding? Question then is - why? Just because they disagree with the established dogma? Highly unlikely in my ears. A far more believable scenario is that their research turns out to not be sound.
Using that kind of "logic", any group that breaks off or is cast aside by the majority is guilty of similiar offenses. Guess you'd have come down on the side of the Catholic Church in its time for rejecting new/differing scientific theories b/c they didn't fit the reigning orthodoxy (think Galileo, et all..).


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 01:33 PM   #48
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
No consensus: how can you say it's a fact when scientists don't agree?!
Consensus: see? There's no room for debate, no dissenting voices! There must be a cover-up afoot!

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 01:47 PM   #49
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
I think it was Ken Miller who put it best, "A lack of consensus does not mean there's a controversy".

What's fun is to find out which scientists (and "scientists") are opposed to a position and then start doing some homework. Who is funding their research? Who is writing them checks? Are they publishing papers hoping to show that there is no climate change while sitting on an advisory board for Exxon, etc?

This is why appeals to authority don't work. First off, even experts can be wrong. Second off, sometimes "experts" can be bought.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 02:12 PM   #50
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
What's fun is to find out which scientists (and "scientists") are opposed to a position and then start doing some homework. Who is funding their research? Who is writing them checks? Are they publishing papers hoping to show that there is no climate change while sitting on an advisory board for Exxon, etc?

This is why appeals to authority don't work. First off, even experts can be wrong. Second off, sometimes "experts" can be bought.
Yeah, would be interesting to look at the political and philosophical leanings, as well as financial backing of the alarmists. Careful, achilles, that argument, as you well know, cuts both ways.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 03:18 PM   #51
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Also considering that Antarctica's Ice concentration has INCREASED over the past 10 years...

Antarctica's Sea Ice concentration. The point is, the ice on the continent is melting. And huge glaciers make their way towards the Antarctic coast right into the sea extending the ice border. Just a thought.


Quote:
West Antarctica is currently experiencing a net outflow of glacial ice, which will increase global sea level over time. A review of the scientific studies looking at data from 1992 to 2006 suggested a net loss of around 50 Gigatonnes of ice per year was a reasonable estimate (around 0.14 mm of sea level rise). Significant acceleration of outflow glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment may have more than doubled this figure for the year 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarct...obal_sea_level



Quote:
In 2003 the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen-B ice shelf collapsed. Between 28 February and 8 March 2008, about 570 square kilometers of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the southwest part of the peninsula collapsed, putting the remaining 15,000 square kilometers of the ice shelf at risk. The ice was being held back by a "thread" of ice about 6 km wide, prior to its collapse on April 5, 2009. According to NASA, the most widespread Antarctic surface melting of the past 30 years occurred in 2005, when an area of ice comparable in size to California briefly melted and refroze; this may have resulted from temperatures rising to as high as 5 °C (41 °F).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarct...global_warming


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 05:10 PM   #52
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Did you happen to notice that person's credentials DE? Need me to spell them out?
Dr Richard Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT

Seems a rather related field to me. Pretty high up there too.

And Ray, do you really want to talk about antarctica's temperatures? It is in fact 4 degrees COLDER than the 60's through 70's 10 year study. Only the peninsula has a higher temp. the remainder of the interior of Antarctica has a lower temp.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 05-26-2009 at 05:28 PM.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 06:01 PM   #53
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Did you happen to notice that person's credentials DE?
I did. I also read his article, namely:

Quote:
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.
In other words, he agrees with the AGW stance.

As for the statements that deny there will be more storms and wilder weather, this is a bit hard to accept when we've observed harsher, more unpredictable weather for years. It's akin to holding a speech at Ground Zero in Manhattan in which you state that Usama ibn Laden does not want to harm the USA.

Temperatures are rising (or, in some cases, of course, falling), weather is becoming both more unpredictable and more severe, and ecosystems and climate is starting to change. All these are facts which we have observed for years and years. That humans are contributing to this process, too, is a fact we've known about for decades.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 05-26-2009 at 06:09 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 07:42 PM   #54
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Lindzen
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
Nice job parsing, DE. Cherry pick much?


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 08:17 PM   #55
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
Nothing in this quote shoots down anything of what I've said. The most outlandish claims are bizarre, and can't happen. Things such as Al Gore's nightmare scenario in which all ice on Greenland melts (real science tells us this may happen in... 3000 years). Things like all life on Earth dying out as all the methane trapped in oceans escapes.

This says nothing, however, about increased hurricane strenghts, more frequent landslides, killer heat waves like the 2005 specimen that killed 3000 in France, melting permafrost toppling forests and damaging houses, and other real scenarios that are already unfolding around us.

Also, it certainly says absolutely nothing about whether AGW is real or manmade.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2009, 09:19 PM   #56
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
The first sentence alone discounts the idea that many of the claims about man's impact on the environment are substantiated by the facts. The second sentence forward dismisses the more radical claims made in the name of AGW. The tenor of Lindzen's article, though, is that much of the claims about AGW are unsubstantiated and amount to fearmongering and political posturing.

Quote:
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
Quote:
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 12:34 AM   #57
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
Nothing in this quote shoots down anything of what I've said. The most outlandish claims are bizarre, and can't happen. Things such as Al Gore's nightmare scenario in which all ice on Greenland melts (real science tells us this may happen in... 3000 years). Things like all life on Earth dying out as all the methane trapped in oceans escapes.

This says nothing, however, about increased hurricane strenghts, more frequent landslides, killer heat waves like the 2005 specimen that killed 3000 in France, melting permafrost toppling forests and damaging houses, and other real scenarios that are already unfolding around us.

Also, it certainly says absolutely nothing about whether AGW is real or manmade.
Yeah, this says nothing about AGW
Quote:
nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.
If you want, I can find a meteorologist's take on the increased hurricane strengths...How about a HURRICANE EXPERT!

Quote:
Gray isn’t shy about events leading up to his memo last year. He says he “went out strong” against scientists who have linked increased hurricane activity to global warming, “and they came back and raised hell about me.” He blasted the scientific establishment, including Nature, for succumbing to dogma and went on to suggest that former Vice President Al Gore is “brainwashing our kids.”


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 12:53 AM   #58
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
If you want, I can find a meteorologist's take on the increased hurricane strengths...How about a HURRICANE EXPERT!
That is the best news I've seen in this thread. So Colorado State University will quit publicizing Gray’s yearly hurricane forcasts guess work if Dr. Philip Klotzabch moves to another institution. Yay, for the pressures of the Global Warming crowd if they are really the ones pressuring him out. Now the insurance industry will have to find another patsy hurricane expert to base their rate increases on.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 01:49 AM   #59
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
That is the best news I've seen in this thread. So Colorado State University will quit publicizing Gray’s yearly hurricane forcasts guess work if Dr. Philip Klotzabch moves to another institution. Yay, for the pressures of the Global Warming crowd if they are really the ones pressuring him out. Now the insurance industry will have to find another patsy hurricane expert to base their rate increases on.
Yeah, because the insurance agencies would hate to have to base their rate increases on GW predictions of more frequent and severe storms every year. I mean They would have to increase rates EVERY year for coastal residents.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 11:11 AM   #60
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Yeah, because the insurance agencies would hate to have to base their rate increases on GW predictions of more frequent and severe storms every year. I mean They would have to increase rates EVERY year for coastal residents.
Those evil insurance agents always raising the rates. Makes me wonder what actuaries, within the insurance and reinsurance industry, are for. You obvious don’t understand the ethical and professional obligations of an insurance agent.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 12:21 PM   #61
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Yeah, this says nothing about AGW
Strawman. Of course it says something about AGW. It does not, however, state AGW is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lind
nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.
He's playing with words here. AGW is not a black-and-white issue - either we're 100% responsible, nor 100% innocent. Global temperatures have always fluctuated, but humans are contributing to this process with our Co2 emissions.

As an aside, though, don't make the common mistake of taking the "natural" label too seriously here. Way too many people today have this idea that whatever is "natural" (as opposed to chemical, non-organic, synthetic, or anthropogenic) is automatically good. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Cancer is healthy. A natural crude oil deposit rupturing, spilling its contents and killing thousands of sea birds is a natural event, as is an asteroid impact wiping out NYC. Just that something is "natural", or "has happened before", doesn't mean it's harmless. No one would look at a volcano about to erupt and go "oh, but volcanoes have always been erupting, it's a natural part of life, who cares if our city is destroyed, we're humans, we have the ability to adapt".

Quote:
If you want, I can find a meteorologist's take on the increased hurricane strengths...How about a HURRICANE EXPERT!
What about him? You tell me why I should trust the tiny minority of scientists opposing AGW over the vast majority that does. The arguments about 'more and more scientists speaking out against dogma' conspiracy theory didn't do it when Creationists used it, nor does it pack any weight now.

Quote:
Gray isn’t shy about events leading up to his memo last year. He says he “went out strong” against scientists who have linked increased hurricane activity to global warming, “and they came back and raised hell about me.” He blasted the scientific establishment, including Nature, for succumbing to dogma and went on to suggest that former Vice President Al Gore is “brainwashing our kids.”
Again, this sounds no different than Creationists bashing biologists for being 'dogmatic' about evolution.

Politicians and media professionals can be dogmatic. Scientists, almost by their very definition, aren't.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 05:38 PM   #62
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
Scientists, almost by their very definition, aren't supposed to be.
Fixed. Of course, scientists are above any kind of corruption too, I suppose. Do you really have such naive and beknighted views of scientists? And if scientists can be "bought" by one side, do you really believe the other side doesn't do the same?

Lindzen's point is that whether AGW is real or not, there's been no proof that it has caused any of the harm ascribed to it. He basically dismisses many of it's purveyor's as alarmists who seek to muzzle the opposing side. Scientific apostates, as it were.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 07:07 PM   #63
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
A little bird sent me this.

Quote:
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]

He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.[2] Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that "of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."[3]
ExxonMobil dirty name has popped up quite often in discussions on AGW science distortion lately, hasn't it?

Quote:
And if scientists can be "bought" by one side, do you really believe the other side doesn't do the same?
I don't believe that just because one side does something, the other side must necessarily do it, too, no.

Quote:
Lindzen's point is that whether AGW is real or not, there's been no proof that it has caused any of the harm ascribed to it.
Which is flat-out nonsense with no scientific backing. It's akin to saying natural selection has no influence on evolution.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 07:56 PM   #64
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
DE funny how you mention creationist arguments.. AGW alarmists have been doing the same thing. They begin with the premise "Global warming is real and man made" They take selected temperatures from around the globe and use them to point out how the Earth is getting warmer. They alter their programs to produce the desired results. And quite frankly much of their data is hidden. In some cases it is fraudulent. A recent example that comes to mind was when they were calling last October the hottest on record. They used Siberian temperatures as the example. There's a problem though.. Siberian October temps were copied over from two months prior.

Rapidly rising sea level is another one that bugs me...

20 feet by the end of the century. as Gore would have us believe. IMPOSSIBLE says I. ONE foot per century is closer to facts.



Then of course there's the rather inconvenient fact that when the world was at it's height of CO2 production temperatures got cooler(WWII)

And of course you are doing exactly what he said. Calling a doctorate in the field an industry stooge. Good job showing why fewer are willing to risk their reputation and come out against AGW.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-27-2009, 10:26 PM   #65
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
@topic:

Permafrost melt poses long-term threat, says study

Sadly, there was no direct quote from Lindzen, so I don't know if posting this will cause the internets to blow up or something.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 01:23 AM   #66
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
I don't believe that just because one side does something, the other side must necessarily do it, too, no.
Well, since we we know that AGW alarmists typically gild the lilly for maximum political effect, why must the other side necessarily be guilty of such unethical behavior as well? Funding from ExxonMobil doesn't axiomatically = malfeasance. That kind of claim seems more the tactic of someone losing the argument. It's probably no wonder that many in this country list AGW/GW farther down their lists of concerns when polled. Too much hype and not enough proof. Using achilles "logic", how many of the 9000+ PhDs and over 20000 other scientists that oppose AGW serve on the boards of ExxonMobil and other industrial "giants". Perhaps you can provide such detailed information. Afterall, it's your "side" that contends that all those people are on big industry's payrolls (or just "stupid" when you can't prove the former).


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Last edited by Totenkopf; 05-28-2009 at 01:30 AM.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 06:41 AM   #67
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
Using achilles "logic", how many of the 9000+ PhDs and over 20000 other scientists that oppose AGW serve on the boards of ExxonMobil and other industrial "giants". Perhaps you can provide such detailed information. Afterall, it's your "side" that contends that all those people are on big industry's payrolls (or just "stupid" when you can't prove the former).
Here's a list to help you
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

Might take you a while as there are 31000+ signers to that petition.
Granted you could just start with the 9000 scientists with PhD's

But hey, you Global warming guys can feel good about sharing your belief with Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and John McCain


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 05-28-2009 at 06:49 AM.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 06:51 AM   #68
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
DE funny how you mention creationist arguments.. AGW alarmists have been doing the same thing. They begin with the premise "Global warming is real and man made"
No. Scientists being with a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. That's an entirely different thing entirely.

Oh, and another thought on the "they're just afraid to lose funding" line: are you aware that the scientific field has acknowledged AGW for half a decade? Are you saying that someone, somewhere, has kept the entire field of climate science on a payroll for half a century, so that when the 21st century came about, they could sell electric cars and windmills? I imagine that bribing so many, many tens of thousands of scientists to lie to the public for 50+ years would cost huge sums of dough. Who has that kind of money? The New World Order? The Jews? The Illuminati?

Quote:
They take selected temperatures from around the globe and use them to point out how the Earth is getting warmer.
More dishonesty from you. Of course they're using "selected temperatures", it's impossible to measure the temperature of every square meter of earth. Just like it's impossible for an America-wide survey to ask questions to every single US resident. If the sampling rate is wide enough, however, you get a pretty clear image of rising temperature.

Quote:
They alter their programs to produce the desired results.
Example?

Quote:
And quite frankly much of their data is hidden.
Hidden in what way? I can just picture a scientist going "Eddie, I've come upon a new discovery in the AGW field! But just to be an ass, I'm not showing it to you, nyah, nyah!".

Quote:
In some cases it is fraudulent. A recent example that comes to mind was when they were calling last October the hottest on record. They used Siberian temperatures as the example. There's a problem though.. Siberian October temps were copied over from two months prior.
So you have an example of possible fraud, big deal. There are frauds in every field of science, and in fact every profession out there.

Quote:
Rapidly rising sea level is another one that bugs me...

20 feet by the end of the century. as Gore would have us believe. IMPOSSIBLE says I. ONE foot per century is closer to facts.
I don't know anything about rising sea levels, but you're making the mistake of looking at Gore as some sort of pope. Climate science isn't an organized religion. Gore isn't a scientist, much less a pope, and doesn't represent the scientific viewpoint on the subject.

Al Gore deserves kudos for popularizing and raising awareness on AGW, but should not be consulted for scientific predictions. I believe I've already pointed this out in this thread.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 08:06 AM   #69
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
More dishonesty from you. Of course they're using "selected temperatures", it's impossible to measure the temperature of every square meter of earth. Just like it's impossible for an America-wide survey to ask questions to every single US resident. If the sampling rate is wide enough, however, you get a pretty clear image of rising temperature.
Selected as in just how you did. When they have both east AND west antarctic temps which show a small rise in the western Antarctica and a large DROP in temps in the eastern and central Antarctica.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post

Example?
Well erasing the Midieval warm period comes to mind

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
Hidden in what way? I can just picture a scientist going "Eddie, I've come upon a new discovery in the AGW field! But just to be an ass, I'm not showing it to you, nyah, nyah!".
Actually, in some cases precisely that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
So you have an example of possible fraud, big deal. There are frauds in every field of science, and in fact every profession out there.
Yes, fraud used by the IPCC to influence policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
I don't know anything about rising sea levels, but you're making the mistake of looking at Gore as some sort of pope. Climate science isn't an organized religion. Gore isn't a scientist, much less a pope, and doesn't represent the scientific viewpoint on the subject.

Al Gore deserves kudos for popularizing and raising awareness on AGW, but should not be consulted for scientific predictions. I believe I've already pointed this out in this thread.
I'd disagree. But then I feel that his overhyped fearmongering is diverting resources from real environmental cleanup into a global waste of cash.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 11:48 AM   #70
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Well, since we we know that AGW alarmists typically gild the lilly for maximum political effect, why must the other side necessarily be guilty of such unethical behavior as well? Funding from ExxonMobil doesn't axiomatically = malfeasance. That kind of claim seems more the tactic of someone losing the argument.
So when scientists agreeing with AGW are hypothetically funded by interest organizations (which ones, by the way?), then it's a sign AGW is false, but when anti-AGW scientists are caught being funded by the petroleum industry it's "not necessarily malfesance". Ok.

Quote:
It's probably no wonder that many in this country list AGW/GW farther down their lists of concerns when polled.
What with 9/11 and the financial crisis, not to mention that many of them believe they live in areas that won't be affected, of course it isn't.

Quote:
Too much hype and not enough proof. Using achilles "logic", how many of the 9000+ PhDs and over 20000 other scientists that oppose AGW serve on the boards of ExxonMobil and other industrial "giants".
Again with the Creationist arguments - "I have a petition in which {arbitrary number here} scientists express their disbelief in evolution!". Then you actually go into the list and lo and behold, every one of them either has a degree from a diploma mill or in an irrelevant field.

Quote:
Perhaps you can provide such detailed information.
Of course I can't. I'm not going to trawl through 3000 names and do a thorough investigation of every single one to see if they really exist, have attended the university they claim they've attended, and gotten the degree they claim they possess. I'm not going to search university records to see who's earned what or investigate the individual universities to see which ones are diploma mills or otherwise untrustworthy. All this you know, which is why you compile and/or post such gargantuan lists in the first place. Publishing huge reports or epic lists of names for then to slam the opposition when they don't quit their jobs and lock themselves in their basements to spend a month of full-time work to debunk it is a common strategy of people peddling alternative medicine, Creationism, and now AGW denial. Same soup, new bowl.

Quote:
Afterall, it's your "side" that contends that all those people are on big industry's payrolls (
Let's recap here: You guys claim that everyone who disagrees with you are bribed by some invisible NWO-style entity. You then put forward a scientist who actually is funded by an interest organization. When I point this out, you not only shake your head and ask me what it matters who does the funding, but also tell me I am the one to say the opposition is part of a massive bribery scheme. Projecting much?

I pointed out that Lindzen was funded by an oil company, not that "all those people" are. Unless Lindzen is impersonating all of them, of course.

Quote:
or just "stupid" when you can't prove the former)..
Blatant strawman #2. I never said the thousands of scientists on your list were stupid, nor did I say you were. I'm stating that most skeptics I've come across have turned out to be uninformed on the subject. Not knowing the details of a given subject does not equal stupidity.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 11:54 AM   #71
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
As for tommy's response:

Quote:
Selected as in just how you did. When they have both east AND west antarctic temps which show a small rise in the western Antarctica and a large DROP in temps in the eastern and central Antarctica.
Projecting much? We state the average global average temperature is increasing. You bring up an arbitrarily chosen location and use it as proof this is wrong.

You are selecting. Not we.

Quote:
Well erasing the Midieval warm period comes to mind
They... haven't. No one's saying warming hasn't occurred before.

Quote:
Actually, in some cases precisely that.
Example?

Quote:
Yes, fraud used by the IPCC to influence policy.
The IPCC ? The IPCC doesn't conduct climate research, but is rather a task force the UN started when AGW became recognized as a real threat, to determine the appropriate course of action.

Quote:
I'd disagree. But then I feel that his overhyped fearmongering is diverting resources from real environmental cleanup into a global waste of cash.
But then again, unlike me, you probably don't live in an area that's already feeling the effects of AGW.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 12:10 PM   #72
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
This quote caught my attention:

"I'd disagree. But then I feel that his overhyped fearmongering is diverting resources from real environmental cleanup into a global waste of cash."

What is the motive of those supporting AGW? Wasting cash? Does that make any sense to anyone at all?

Let's play dueling motives. I'll throw out a couple and then we can all tack on more as they occur to us.

Potential motive for AGW denial #1 - Don't want to have to change lifestyle. This might not sound like much, but consider the "me" culture in the U.S. that = fuel guzzling SUVs, 50 inch plasma screens in the bathroom AND kitchen, etc. We can't even get people to pay a few extra bucks to change the freakin' lightbulbs.

Potential motive for AGW denial #2 - Money. Err...how many hundreds of billions did ExxonMobil net last year? But clearly I'm a cynical bastard for thinking that they might be motivated by hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Obviously anyone that really knows them would agree that they would give up every penny in an instant if they really thought the environment was in jeopardy.

okay there's a couple for AGW-denial. Now for AGW-support.

Potential motive for AGW support #1 - Lack of something better to do. I don't really understand this argument so someone else will need to flesh it out for me.

Potential motive for AGW support #2 - ???
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 12:30 PM   #73
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Potential motive for AGW support #2 - ???
Have you forgotten? We're all envious communist-friendly America-hating doomsday hippies who want to set Western civilization back to before industrialization so that the Indians and Chinese can conquer the world.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 01:31 PM   #74
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DE
This will sound harsh, but I divide people into two - those who accept we're causing, or at the very least fuelling, global warming, and those who do not understand the subject. Pardon me, but there seems to be a lot of irrational thinking on the side of the deniers.
Hence "stupid". Not a strawman as you try to contend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
So when scientists agreeing with AGW are hypothetically funded by interest organizations (which ones, by the way?), then it's a sign AGW is false, but when anti-AGW scientists are caught being funded by the petroleum industry it's "not necessarily malfesance". Ok.
I think that it's your absolute credulity about the integrity of "science" that's in question. You fail to show that the man's connection to ExxonMobil has remotely influenced (beyond the typical innuendo) his conclusions, but then dismiss all the "fraudulent" activity on behalf of AGW as aberrations. Funny thing in Lindzen's case is that you agree that he has credibility....but then bitch about his conclusions about the climate surrounding AGW research.


Quote:
What with 9/11 and the financial crisis, not to mention that many of them believe they live in areas that won't be affected, of course it isn't.
Yeah, guess it couldn't be that people just don't believe you haven't proven the AGW case. Oh wait, your quote above....guess their just "stupid"


Quote:
Again with the Creationist arguments - "I have a petition in which {arbitrary number here} scientists express their disbelief in evolution!". Then you actually go into the list and lo and behold, every one of them either has a degree from a diploma mill or in an irrelevant field.
More innuendo and name calling. Very logical and credible arguments. Are you confusing your obsession about creationism w/AGW opposition?

Quote:
Of course I can't. I'm not going to trawl through 3000 names and do a thorough investigation of every single one to see if they really exist, have attended the university they claim they've attended, and gotten the degree they claim they possess. I'm not going to search university records to see who's earned what or investigate the individual universities to see which ones are diploma mills or otherwise untrustworthy. All this you know, which is why you compile and/or post such gargantuan lists in the first place. Publishing huge reports or epic lists of names for then to slam the opposition when they don't quit their jobs and lock themselves in their basements to spend a month of full-time work to debunk it is a common strategy of people peddling alternative medicine, Creationism, and now AGW denial. Same soup, new bowl.
Must be nice to believe that you can try to marginalize people w/o having to prove anything.

Quote:
Let's recap here: You guys claim that everyone who disagrees with you are bribed by some invisible NWO-style entity. You then put forward a scientist who actually is funded by an interest organization. When I point this out, you not only shake your head and ask me what it matters who does the funding, but also tell me I am the one to say the opposition is part of a massive bribery scheme. Projecting much?
I think you protest to loudly and too much. Lindzen is accepted by "your" side of the argument. Skin included him 2x in his references and you claimed above that his position wasn't anti-AGW. But b/c you don't like his conclusions about the process, all of a sudden he is persona non grata. So, frankly, your claim of projection is thoroughly laughable.

Quote:
I pointed out that Lindzen was funded by an oil company, not that "all those people" are. Unless Lindzen is impersonating all of them, of course.
I never quoted YOU as making that specific claim. Pointed out that using the "logic" of many on your side of the argument that most of these people opposed to AGW either had to be on the boards or payrolls of such companies. That's a lot of people to have to support.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 01:50 PM   #75
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Hence "stupid". Not a strawman as you try to contend.
Really? Does this apply to every subject, or just AGW? Am I stupid if I don't know much about, say, the genealogy of roses, or how to tie various sailor's knots?

'Smart' and 'stupid' have nothing to do with knowledge in a given field. You can have an IQ of 150 and still know absolutely nothing about the politics of Latvia. You can have an IQ of 95 and be the resident expert on Gordon Setter breeding. Given this, your implication that I think people are stupid just because they are ignorant of the details of AGW is quite strange. I don't know anything about tying baskets, does that make me stupid?

Quote:
I think that it's your absolute credulity about the integrity of "science" that's in question.
Not at all. My credulity about the integrity of science has been backed up by your guys

Quote:
You fail to show that the man's connection to ExxonMobil has remotely influenced (beyond the typical innuendo) his conclusions...
So you've departed from the "funding from organization x = fraud" position entirely?

Quote:
Funny thing in Lindzen's case is that you agree that he has credibility....but then bitch about his conclusions about the climate surrounding AGW research.
Of course I "bitch" about them. They're wrong.

Quote:
Yeah, guess it couldn't be that people just don't believe you haven't proven the AGW case.
Not at all. The concerns below AGW have been proven, too, and are still below AGW. If the economy goes belly-up while you hear not too much about AGW, naturally the latter is going to get reduced attention.

Quote:
Oh wait, your quote above....guess their just "stupid"
Another straw man.

Quote:
More innuendo and name calling.
Pointing out that your argument is a tired old Creationist argument is innuendo and name-calling now?

Quote:
Must be nice to believe that you can try to marginalize people w/o having to prove anything.
Prove what? I was presented a web site listing tens of thousands of names, some of them with "PhD" at the end. Other than that note, the site doesn't even list their credentials, it just dumps me a huge block of text and proclaims in huge red numbers that there are 31,478 Signers!111. How am I supposed to know these peoples' names carry any weight whatsoever? I don't. Especially not when the page doesn't tell me their credentials. It's one big appeal to numbers - "we have more people than you do, hence we're right".

You know, it'd have been pretty easy to format the Big Block of Text into a table, with name, signing date and credentials each assigned a column.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 05:24 PM   #76
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
You know, it'd have been pretty easy to format the Big Block of Text into a table, with name, signing date and credentials each assigned a column.
Which would, of course, undermine the whole point of trying to get "a lot of names" and might expose the possibility that some (many? most? all?) of the signatures belong to people that have no background in the field.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 08:00 PM   #77
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
Have you forgotten? We're all envious communist-friendly America-hating doomsday hippies who want to set Western civilization back to before industrialization so that the Indians and Chinese can conquer the world.
And with that, I'm bowing out. You can play in your little sand box all you want. It's pretty obvious that this thread is headed nowhere.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 11:29 PM   #78
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
And with that, I'm bowing out. You can play in your little sand box all you want. It's pretty obvious that this thread is headed nowhere.


_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-29-2009, 07:43 AM   #79
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Which would, of course, undermine the whole point of trying to get "a lot of names" and might expose the possibility that some (many? most? all?) of the signatures belong to people that have no background in the field.
I personally don't know if they even exist. I tried to Google a few, and the results came out pretty empty, most often with the Big Block of Text web site coming up as the #1 hit. But let's list the first few, shall we? No, wait, found someone who'd already done the research, and here you go:

Quote:
A random sample (the first five names from the list alphabetically) would be Earl M. Aagaard, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron.

1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection toany scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery"). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).
5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

Compare these to the first five authors alpha listed for the IPCC AR4 WG1 The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change:

1. Krishna Achutarao. Research Scientist at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Relevant publications: plenty.
2. Robert Adler. NASA Senior Scientist in the Laboratory for Atmospheres and is also currently serving as Project Scientist for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). Relevant publications: plenty.
3. Lisa Alexander. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Relevant publications: plenty.
4. Hans Alexandersson. Climatologist at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Relevant publications: plenty.
5. Richard Allan. Atmospheric scientist, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading. Relevant publications: plenty.
Wow. A guy who admits to pulling scientific conclusions out of the holy book of his religion; a guy who either doesn't exist, or who has evolved an immunity to Google searches; a cancer specialist; a veterinarian specialising in large animals... and... wow, a dead ISP guy. One must wonder if he signed the petition before or after he died.

Everyone is welcome to do his own research, but the names I looked up were about as unimpressive as the ones listed above (in the first bath of names, of course, not the second ).

In the meantime, I'm going to disregard the list as Creationist/quack "let's throw this wall of paper at them and then use their inability to spend years debunking it as evidence!" tactic. Yes, I said years. If one google search takes five minutes and you have 30 000 names, you need to spend 30 000x5, or 150 000, minutes. That's 2500 hours. If you did nothing but trudge your way through the list for eight hours a day, taking no breaks or vacations and at no point slowing down, it'd take you 312 and a half day. For those of us who can't make this a fulltime job? 2 hours a day? You'd be finished in 1250 days, at which point nothing would stop the AGW deniers from simply gathering a new set of 30 000 signatures, or declare your research bunk.

Quote:
It's pretty obvious that this thread is headed nowhere.
:yeahthat:


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 05-29-2009 at 04:00 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-01-2009, 01:12 AM   #80
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
I came across these while digging around for a clip for another thread and thought that they might be informative.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Climate Change: Are Humans to Blame?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.