Please...
Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.
What good is a scoreboard of links? Is that your form of confirmation bias?
I took a quick look at those under my name. You are so laughable at times.
Goes hand in hand with AGW research studies being a closed peer review process. Only those who already agree are allowed to peer review their research.
Please...
Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.
What good is a scoreboard of links? Is that your form of confirmation bias?
I took a quick look at those under my name. You are so laughable at times.
(shrugs)
I'm not the one trying to make my case with "what ifs" and things that are provably illogical.
Is a very obvious strawman. I have some rather mild views as to what we should be doing to avoid the worst risks of anthroprogenic global climate change.
You distort these rather mild solutions as if they are, by implication, wildly extreme and irrational. I believe you do this only because I tend to believe the climate scientists when they tell me something is going on.
This is just one example. If you don't like to have your illogical statements, and unproven underlying assertions pointed out to you, then the solution is to take responsibility for yourself, learn to think logically, and apply some mild critical thinking to your underlying assumptions.
Don't go blaming everybody else for your own shortcomings.
Yes, I think you are at some level. Psycopathic/sociopathic, take your pick.And I'm psychopathic.
A rational person would, at this point, ask themselves if someone genuinely thought they were a bit sociopathic, what might have cause that person to make that statement.
Sociopaths aren't real big on introspection, so they simply dismiss and deny that there is something wrong.
Here also is someone who will blame everybody else but themself. You will fail to take responsibility or accept any kind of fault with yourself. The fault will lie with someone else.
Maybe you do actually show some sort of compassion or empathy, maybe you can make an honest statement or argument, I don't know. I certainly don't see much of it here.
To be honest, I quit really reading most of what you post here after finding out that the majority of it is simply dishonest spin and disengenuous bull .
You have proven to just about everybody, even those that would tend to agree with you, that you can't really be trusted to tell the truth.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-18-2011 at 09:04 AM.
Wtf indeed. The author cites no research. You're a gullible idiot.
Someone want to explain to the partschanger whythis is ironic and funny as ?
Actually it does, somewhat tangentally.
And it coincides with research from the Met Office [presumedly short for "Meteorological", is the official weather arm of the UK government http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ -RG] indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.
It goes on:
To be clear:The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.
...
The National Grid will this week release its forecast for winter energy use based on long-range weather forecasts.
Such forecasting is, however, notoriously difficult, especially for the UK, which is subject to a wide range of competing climatic forces.
A Met Office spokesman said that although La Nina was recurring, the temperatures in the equatorial Pacific were so far only 1C below normal, compared with a drop of 2C at the same time last year.
Research by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that in 2010-11 La Nina contributed to record winter snowfalls, spring flooding and drought across the world.
AGW theory and climate scientists readily acknowledge that parts of the world will still experience cold spells.
This is why taking an example of one of those events/trends as somehow debunking the AGW theory is a strawman and something of a dishonest lie.
Were I still bothering to keep track of the number and scale of Yonivores lying on the subject, this would be yet another very clear instance.
I think I have adequately proven the point of the OP long since with his help. Even when he knows someone is going to be checking, he still is unable to bring himself *not* to lie. That is the definition of pathological, is it not?
Nah. Let the man have his rope. What he does with it, is [gallows] humorously up to him.
Why?
Don't you understand it enough to put in words, or do you just believe what others tell you?
Put on your critical thinking hat and try to see why he thinks it is humorous/ironic. I have a pretty good idea what he is hinting at, but I'm not giving it away.
You really need to put this quote in your sig:
its the story of your life.
Worse Than We Thought: Evidence Builds That Scientists Underplay Climate Impacts
But as the impacts of climate change become apparent, many predictions are proving to underplay the actual impacts. Reality, in many instances, is proving to be far worse than most scientists expected.
"We're seeing mounting evidence now that the scientific community, rather than overstating the claim or being alarmist, is the opposite," said Naomi Oreskes, a science historian with the University of California, San Diego. "Scientists have been quite conservative ... in a lot of important and different areas."
http://www.alternet.org/environment/...ts?page=entire
Boutons, of course we will continue to see more warming, even if the causes cease. For decades, there has been missing energy in the energy budget. Less energy leaving than what is incoming which means the earth, most likely the oceans, have been storing heat. The we get a net global warming or cooling is because the energy budget is out of balance. The earths heat content, weather seen in temperature increases or not, will continue until there is balance.
Why is Alternet making known science as if it wasn't foreseen? Is it because the AGW crowd doesn't understand enough of the various geosciences to see the reality of the forces at work?
Regardless of man or not. The earth would be warming, It's natural.
WC once again displays his failure to understand conversation of energy while chastising others for not understanding the science. Practically every post this dude makes is a classic.
Conversion of energy is latent energy, that can become heat later.
WC once again displays his failure to understand conversation of energy while chastising others for not understanding the science. Practically every post this dude makes is a classic.
Unless you're going to get specific, STFU.
Just because you don't understand what I am talking about, doesn't mean I don't understand. It means you don't understand. Especially since you go strait to accusations without asking me to clarify. It just proves you don't know squat.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-19-2011 at 07:51 AM.
Who said anything about heat? I said energy. You have no clue and its obvious. I don't need that clarified.
I've never heard of that either tbh. Maybe he has a point here....
WC once again displays his failure to understand conversation of energy while chastising others for not understanding the science. Practically every post this dude makes is a classic.
D'oh!
Its actually funny because I think he thought I meant conversion of energy.
these billionaires probably have some very smart people working for them, but of course not as smart as WC, Yoni, and other climate denying shills here.
Investors Worth $20 Trillion Call For Urgent Action on Climate
Today, in the lead-up to the COP 17 climate talks in Durban, South Africa, 285 of the top investors representing $20 trillion in assets signed a letter of support for policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
Well designed and effectively implemented long-term climate change and clean energy policy (“investment-grade policies”) will not only present significant opportunities for investors in areas such as cleaner and renewable energy, energy efficiency and decarbonisation, but will also yield substantial economic benefits including creating new jobs and businesses, stimulating technological innovation, and providing a robust foundation for economic recovery and sustainable long-term economic growth.
The countries that have attracted the most investment in low-carbon technologies, renewable energy and energy efficiency have generally been those that have provided long-term certainty around the structure and incentives associated with these investments. Conversely, many countries have struggled to attract investment because they do not have appropriate policies in place, because the policies are poorly implemented or because the policies do not provide sufficient incentives for investment. A more recent concern has been the move by some governments to retroactively scale back climate change-related policies and incentives, which has deterred investment in those countries.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...on-on-climate/
Dissection of ClimageGate emails, going back to the mid-90's.
Some interesting stuff. Make of it what you will.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf
Without bothering to read the piece, I am going to take a wild guess...
Another detailed analysis by a website with an obvious narrative about the subject that (shocker) confirms that narrative to a T.
I make very little of that.
The opening graphic on page 1 depecting the IPCC as the anic about to hit an iceberg labeled "truth", pretty much detroys any credibility about the follow up conclusions that the paper might have.
I stopped reading there, as I don't think it is worth my time reading yet another stilted, biased diatribe.
Hopefully *it* doesn't compare climate scientists to Nazis.
I puzzled over that for a second as well.Its actually funny because I think he thought I meant conversion of energy.
It is a bit damning that WC didn't figure out that you meant conservation.
You will note that he still can't find/state the irony/humor implied by you in his earlier statement either. Being able to figure out why you might imply that requires critical thinking skills that I have always said he did not possess. That may be just my confirmation bias talking, but an inability to accurately state the position of someone you are discussing complex topics with, once again, dovetails with the assertion of the OP.
The implication:
"the AGW crowd" believes that the climate of our planet is fixed and immutable, without natural changes.
Fallacy: Straw Man
1) AGW crowd (person A) says that man-made action is causing warming trends beyond what would naturally occur otherwise (position X).
2) WC (person B) presents the implication:
"the AGW crowd" believes that the climate of our planet is fixed and immutable, without natural changes (position Y)
3) WC implies that because anybody, including person A, that believes position Y is obviously "ignorant of geosciences",
4) therefore position X is flawed.
Given:
1) Logical fallacies represent ty logic
and
2) WC believes things that are logical fallacies.
Therefore:
WC's logical reasoning is ty, QED.
Given:
1) All pseudoscientists have ty logical reasoning.
and
2) WC/Darrin/Yonivore have ty logical reasoning.
Can we safely conclude, based on this information, that WC/Darrin/Yonivore are NOT pseudoscientists?
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
