Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread
#61
Matrix Wrote:The probabilies of AGW are 90 percent, according to the 2007 IPCC report.

LOL! Thought you said you wanted to go with main stream science? IPCC is not main stream science. It isn't even science at all. BTW, their mandate states from the start that man is causing GW.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#62
LOL.

So Matrix is going to ignore my long post and the other 2 smaller ones since he wrote this:

"When I get more time, i will return to your "skimming" comments, which could explain your response. You failed to comment on the sources posted in that link. Attacking the messenger instead of the message?

As for the above comments on the first two links, I see a great many characterizations and name-calling, but no specifics. It's hard to direct you to scientific links that discuss certain issues, when you fail to specify the issues."

I see the characterizations of your ducking me. S1

You know that I blew that third link crap away.I exposed their lack of background knowledge of the petition process.And that they did not really read the petition link much at all.It is deliberate dishonest criticism is all I read.

I have warned you once that I first read this website in 1998.I have read it several times over the years as I have to keep posting excerpts from it to teach ignorant AGW believers of its true contents.

It looks like you have failed to read it too.Is that why you are now ducking me? Wink1
Reply
#63
Quote:And, of course, it doesn't help when they use tactics such as The Great Global Warming Swindle or "31,000" scientists in denial.

Your growing evidence of abject ignorance of the topic is amusing.

Have you ever read about the people who make up the roster of the "2500 scientists"?

Now contrast it with the 31,000.Whom you have evidently and deliberately posted dishonest comments against.All in hysterical stupidity.

I just showed you the partial breakdown of the 31,000 scientists who SIGNED the petition (some of them were once part of the 2,500 IPPC scientist list).

Here it is again just for you.Note that it is a far more impressive list than the one the IPPC listed.How can YOU overlook this?

From the Petition website you keep posting ignorant crap against:

Quote:Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (5
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)


More in the link if finally YOU Matrix read the contents of the link.The one DR SEITZ help create.The one your teen critics who never read this.Making total fools of themselves in the process.

If YOU Matrix had read through the entire link.You would not have fallen for childish criticism against the roll call of the petitioners themselves.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...gners.html

I am now making a fool out of you in the process.Is it no wonder why AGW scam is falling down? They are being defended by second rate AGW believing scientists.And their moron sheeps.Many who have NO CLIMATE RELATED DEGREE AT ALL!
Reply
#64
scpg02 Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:The probabilies of AGW are 90 percent, according to the 2007 IPCC report.

LOL! Thought you said you wanted to go with main stream science? IPCC is not main stream science. It isn't even science at all. BTW, their mandate states from the start that man is causing GW.

Notice that he ignored my question?

Quote:I have to ask you this question.One I am sure you never considered:

The many IPCC reports are a peer review process or a meta analysis process?

Most AGW believers are ignorant of the mandate as clearly spelled out on the U.N. website.I am sure Matrix is just another gullible fool not realizing how politically controlled the IPCC really is.
Reply
#65
sunsettommy Wrote:Most AGW believers are ignorant of the mandate as clearly spelled out on the U.N. website.I am sure Matrix is just another gullible fool not realizing how politically controlled the IPCC really is.

That or he knows and doesn't care. His constant push of the "precautionary prinicple" raises red flags with me. It's a political tool for pushing an agenda and has no place in a scientific discussion.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#66
scpg02 Wrote:
sunsettommy Wrote:Most AGW believers are ignorant of the mandate as clearly spelled out on the U.N. website.I am sure Matrix is just another gullible fool not realizing how politically controlled the IPCC really is.

That or he knows and doesn't care. His constant push of the "precautionary prinicple" raises red flags with me. It's a political tool for pushing an agenda and has no place in a scientific discussion.

It is certainly not scientific or rational.

If these envirowackos really wanted to help reduce the consumption of coal,oil and other electricity producing power production.They would have long ago pushed for housing designs that would have reduced electric consumption by at least 75%.Eliminate most of the unecessary street lighting in the cities and have better directional lights for the remaining ones that only light the street.

But they don't and there is a reason why.
Reply
#67
scpg02 Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:The probabilies of AGW are 90 percent, according to the 2007 IPCC report.

LOL! Thought you said you wanted to go with main stream science? IPCC is not main stream science. It isn't even science at all. BTW, their mandate states from the start that man is causing GW.
While I am used to "this is because I say so" arguments, needless to say I am not overly impressed by them.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#68
Matrix Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:The probabilies of AGW are 90 percent, according to the 2007 IPCC report.

LOL! Thought you said you wanted to go with main stream science? IPCC is not main stream science. It isn't even science at all. BTW, their mandate states from the start that man is causing GW.
While I am used to "this is because I say so" arguments, needless to say I am not overly impressed by them.

The key here is not that you are solely "impressed", but whether or not you have been able to "impress" the intellect of the others, with your ability to tango well. I recommend you start by picking yourself off the floor first, and then try again. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#69
Why, I wonder, did you choose to defend the qualifications (rather than the arguments) of 31,000 AGW deniers, while ignoring the substantial claim that the British TV documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindel was itself a swindle -- laced with depective science and out-of-context statements. Why go to such mendacious extremes if the anti-AGW argument is as clear and sound as you would have others believe?

sunsettommy Wrote:Your growing evidence of abject ignorance of the topic is amusing.
I am always pleased when I amuse someone else. I can accept "abject ignormance" as a criticism, albeit it has the ring of cheap journalism rather than academic debate.

sunsettommy Wrote:Have you ever read about the people who make up the roster of the "2500 scientists"?
Surely you're not appealing to the argument of authority? But, never mind, I will return to this subject in another post.

sunsettommy Wrote:Now contrast it with the 31,000.Whom you have evidently and deliberately posted dishonest comments against.All in hysterical stupidity.
Your lack of good will is evident.

sunsettommy Wrote:From the Petition website you keep posting ignorant crap against:
LOL! It's hard to keep track of all your academic high points in this post.

sunsettommy Wrote:More in the link if finally YOU Matrix read the contents of the link.The one DR SEITZ help create.The one your teen critics who never read this.Making total fools of themselves in the process.

If YOU Matrix had read through the entire link.You would not have fallen for childish criticism against the roll call of the petitioners themselves.

I am now making a fool out of you in the process.Is it no wonder why AGW scam is falling down? They are being defended by second rate AGW believing scientists.And their moron sheeps.Many who have NO CLIMATE RELATED DEGREE AT ALL!
It looks to me as though you are used to preaching to the converted. Unfortunately, I am not easily persuaded by abusive language and endless assertions. Shock
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#70
Matrix getting desperate since he is bringing up a deflection:

Quote:Why, I wonder, did you choose to defend the qualifications (rather than the arguments) of 31,000 AGW deniers, while ignoring the substantial claim that the British TV documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindel was itself a swindle -- laced with depective science and out-of-context statements. Why go to such mendacious extremes if the anti-AGW argument is as clear and sound as you would have others believe?

I have not been writing about the swindle documentary.I have been writing about YOUR 3 lousy anti 31,000 PETITION links!

You made initial claims against the 31,000 petition project that I have since been replying..... several times.Your evasiveness is very obvious now.

A desperate deflection attempt.How about discussing the merits of those 3 links instead?

Incredibly he goes on to write this:

Quote:I am always pleased when I amuse someone else. I can accept "abject ignormance" as a criticism, albeit it has the ring of cheap journalism rather than academic debate.

Academic debate?

ROFMAOL!

Why do you think I have increasingly been stating that you are ignorant.You are AVOIDING the debate about the 3 links merits and my highly critical replies of them.It could be because you really do not know how to make a rebuttal since know so little about it.

Quote:Surely you're not appealing to the argument of authority? But, never mind, I will return to this subject in another post.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Gawd no!

What I am trying to do is point out the blindingly obvious fact.That among the 31,000 petitioner signers.There are many who are QUALIFIED to directly read the science papers that pertains to the subject that surrounds the topic of global warming.They read a posted science paper and agreed with it by signing the petition.

I posted a partial list of such people who have the education to be able to read such science papers.There are many THOUSANDS of them on the list I posted.In contrast with the "2,500" IPCC scientists.Many who lack such a science degree to adequately read and understand the same science papers read by the THOUSANDS on the petition list.

Since it is obvious that you have no idea just how few of the 2,500 "scientists have such a climate degree.To be able to read and understand the science papers.You are exposed as being ignorant.

I brough up the 2,500 IPCC scientists for a reason.You still fail to see the reason.It is sad since I pointed it out already.

Quote:Your lack of good will is evident.


Your lack of counterpoints are evident.

Wink1

The desperation in high gear:

Quote:LOL! It's hard to keep track of all your academic high points in this post.

Translation:

I have no counterpoint against sunsettommys point.



That there are THOUSANDS of people on the list who are QUALIFIED to read science papers.They signed a petition in agreement with a posted science published paper.That was my point all along.Too bad you can't handle that fact.


Quote:It looks to me as though you are used to preaching to the converted. Unfortunately, I am not easily persuaded by abusive language and endless assertions.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You have been avoiding the argument on the merits of the 3 anti-petition links YOU brought up.In the lame attempt to rebute the 31,000 petition project.

I strongly blasted one link in detail.You never replied in detail in a rebuttal.Just evasive crap.

The sad fact is that you are the typical evasive debater I have come to expect.That is why I am increasigly calling YOU an evasive,ignorant person.

When will you start defending that third link I attacked point by point?
Reply
#71
Um Matrix......

You got the wrong people with the quotes.

I wrote the first one and Maggie wrote the other one.

:oops:
Reply
#72
From your commentary link:

Quote:The conclusion drawn is that the burden of proof remains with the ones who reject the principle.

Uh no it is the people who BRINGS up the precautionary principle ideology.Who have the burden of proof that it is viable and credible.

I think he has it backwards.

People who object to it are normally called skeptics.We have to be convinced by the supporters of the ideology. S1

You know where a certain small group of people (scientists,msm,Enviromentalists)push the AGW hypothesis as the explanation for the slight warming trend since 1850's.The burden of proof is on their shoulders.

People who object to it are normally called skeptics. :lol:

Skeptics do not have to prove it wrong.That is the burden upon who originally propose the idea.We have to be convinced by the supporters of the AGW hypothesis. Wink1
Reply
#73
Matrix Wrote:While I recognize that the principle is contested -- particularly by commercial interests --, I support it for the arguments given in this commentary.

Quote: The conclusion drawn is that the burden of proof remains with the ones who reject the principle

You conveniently overlook the fact that is it the AGW crowd, who attempted to change the science. Thus the "Cautionary Principle" should be turned the other direction, not at the "Skeptics"*



*Inciidentially, your use of "Denier" is a cheap shot, since I know of NOBODY who denies that global warming exists. Engaging in Intellectual dishonesty is not a strong suit.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#74
sunsettommy Wrote:Matrix getting desperate since he is bringing up a deflection:

Quote:Why, I wonder, did you choose to defend the qualifications (rather than the arguments) of 31,000 AGW deniers, while ignoring the substantial claim that the British TV documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindel was itself a swindle -- laced with depective science and out-of-context statements. Why go to such mendacious extremes if the anti-AGW argument is as clear and sound as you would have others believe?

I have not been writing about the swindle documentary.I have been writing about YOUR 3 lousy anti 31,000 PETITION links!
Okay. Let's examine the story so far. First, you skipped the first two links, promising to return to them in due course. When you returned them, you presented garbage and claimed it was a rational argument -- to quote a prominent poster on Al-Jane's. S1

Your comments on the third link did not pertain to the sources cited by the messenger, but rather a critique of the messenger. As I recall, the messenger did not make any ad-hominem comments at all. His research pointed to some questions about the scientific credentials of one of the six-member staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Dr. Arthur Robinson.

For example, of the six staff members of this prominent scientific institute, three are phyicians, one an electrical engineer, another a chemist and one a vetinarian doctor. Hmmmm.

Sound impressive?

The messenger also point out that Dr. Robinson believed in Intelligent Design. Now, I wonder, if a prominent surgeon believed in faith healing, would the scientific community attach credibility to his skills as a surgeon?

When we look closely at the sources the messenger cited, we find statements by Dr. Robinson that are distinctly ideological. Dr. Robinson deplored "government funding of science as harmful to the independence that is essential to science."

Perhaps, but when we read the text of the petition, we encounter some problems:

Quote:We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
According to the wiki source:

Quote:The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever."[4] The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences".[5] This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature[6][7] without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."
Perhaps you would care to comment on this conclusion.

The first link contains comments by THOMAS R. KARL, KEVIN TRENBERTH and JAMES HANSEN.

Quote:The recent article by the chemists, Robinson and Robinson, appearing in The Wall Street Journal's Op-ed section on Thursday, December 4, 1997 "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth" claims that, "there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures." The title of the article and the article itself contain many factual errors, unsubstantiated claims, and misleading statements. We enumerate some of these:
Perhaps you would care to address real rather han imaginary arguments.

In any case, let this be a lesson to you. It is possible to conduct a discussion without resort to gutter language or colorful innuendos. It is really just a matter of self-esteem.
8)
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#75
scpg02 Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:The probabilies of AGW are 90 percent, according to the 2007 IPCC report.

LOL! Thought you said you wanted to go with main stream science? IPCC is not main stream science. It isn't even science at all. BTW, their mandate states from the start that man is causing GW.
S2 I'm always amused when people use language as a battering ram rather than a tool of reason. After being on this thread for awhile. I've come to the conclusion that "environmental skeptics" is a misnomer. I would label your position as "cynical". You know how Oscar Wilde defined a cynic? "A person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. S1
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#76
I would caution anyone from using Wikipedia as a source regarding anything remotely related to the concept of "global warming", regarding discussions around natural, man-made, or CO2.

It is strongly biased toward the GW alarmists and it is not difficult to detect that it is not neutral.


Just an observation.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#77
sunsettommy Wrote:From your commentary link:

Quote:The conclusion drawn is that the burden of proof remains with the ones who reject the principle.

Uh no it is the people who BRINGS up the precautionary principle ideology.Who have the burden of proof that it is viable and credible.

I think he has it backwards.
If no evidence had been presented for the principle, you would be right. As there is some considerable body of evidence for acceptance of the principle (i.e. the EU, Australia and others), it would seem fair to place the burden of proof on those who fail to refute the evidence.

After all, if I claim that, based on the evidence, the earth is eliptical, not flat, it would be up to you to show why that is not the case.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#78
JohnWho Wrote:I would caution anyone from using Wikipedia as a source regarding anything remotely related to the concept of "global warming", regarding discussions around natural, man-made, or CO2.

It is strongly biased toward the GW alarmists and it is not difficult to detect that it is not neutral.


Just an observation.

How True!

Quote:Wikipedia bias
Written by Dr Fred Hansen
Friday, 18 July 2008

Recently, quite a few people who occasionally use Wikipedia have told me that they have noticed that this useful online encyclopaedia is left leaning in some of its entries. I always assumed this might just reflect the same bias in the media as a whole. But I was wrong. The bias does not emerge by default but is vigorously enforced, as this story on Wikipedia global-warming propaganda shows.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers, sums up the situation well:

In theory, Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it; so on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion. But on global warming, Wikipedia offers consensus, Gore-style -- a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

Solomon undertook several attempts to edit the Wikipedia page on global warming and to delete mistakes for instance about British scientist Bennie Peiser, only to find his entries eradicated time and again. Obviously in the people's encyclopaedia there are two classes of editors: one with genuine imprimatur and another that may be censored. Solomon discovered that network administrator William Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, uses his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers see only what he wants them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

There are other examples of course. Just look at the pages Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design and make up your own mind.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#79
sunsettommy Wrote:Um Matrix......

You got the wrong people with the quotes.

I wrote the first one and Maggie wrote the other one.

:oops:
Sorry about that. It's late over here. S1
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#80
JohnWho Wrote:I would caution anyone from using Wikipedia as a source regarding anything remotely related to the concept of "global warming", regarding discussions around natural, man-made, or CO2.

It is strongly biased toward the GW alarmists and it is not difficult to detect that it is not neutral.


Just an observation.
Well, I can't vouch for the global warming assertions of bias, but when I look at Roe versus Wade or Intelligent Design, I see a totally objective scientific description of the facts.

If you see this differently, please explain.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 109 10,882 12-04-2019, 10:23 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 526 158,738 10-30-2019, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 30,489 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 25,348 10-19-2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 684,657 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 56,034 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,744 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 9,491 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,576 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 6,368 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)