Page 121 of 161 FirstFirst ... 2171111117118119120121122123124125131 ... LastLast
Results 3,001 to 3,025 of 4001
  1. #3001
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    For the last time, and I truly mean it this time, your comments about the insurance industry were not germane to the conversation in which I was engaged.

    It was irrelevant. I didn't even read the comments.

    Your comments about the insurance industry said absolutely nothing about whether or not the media and the White House misrepresented or exaggerated what was said in the report in question.

    Let go, man.
    You were bringing up that same line then about how 'you had no one to trust' then.

    I am going to belabor the point because it shows just how full of you are. Its a false dilemma and thats a fallacy.

    We cannot believe them so noone is right.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  2. #3002
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I got throught he Ayn Rand part all the way which said that the person that questioned her had not given her a fair premise. I then went to there little flowchart where they 'recreate' the AGW argument. Thats a strawman but lets lecture people on how Rand demands a reasonable premise. You know when you characterize what the other sides argument and then argue that instead of addressing what the argument is.

    Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?
    DarrinS is offline

  3. #3003
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    No, not really.

    Get the media and world organizations that want me to be alarmed about AGCC and be convinced it is real, that it's bad, and that I can do something about it to FIND an anthropogenic global climate change proponent with credibility and an ability to communicate complicated science in a easy way.

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson, for instance. He might could be a good spokesperson -- even though he's not a climate scientist -- for the AGCC crowd to develop into a credible, reasonable messenger.
    Wait! There are people saying they're wrong again and, quite frankly, they make a more compelling argument, to me -- a simple lay person, not involved in climate science -- that Al Gore, you, or any of the white papers you've linked in here.
    Then I'll wait for the certainty.

    In the meantime quit taking away oil, dumping my money into green energy, and, for God's sake, quit these annoying blockbuster parties masquerading as climate summits...take Al Gore's Nobel and microphone away...and find someone that will report the science reasonably and responsibly.

    And, you can keep your backhanded compliment.

    You call Moerner a hack now. I doubt hacks achieve the level of success he has. He simply disagrees with your position so, it's best to hurl insults in an attempt to discredit.

    Were all the other scientists I quoted and linked -- way back a few pages ago -- hacks, as well?
    God you are full of . Looking for someone with credibility? You choose who has credibility by what they conclude and not how they concude it is the only thing that is certain.
    Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-20-2012 at 02:49 PM.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  4. #3004
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    And can't speak for all AGW skeptics, but the conclusion in that article is well articulated statement of why I'm a skeptic.



    So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
    DarrinS is offline

  5. #3005
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    And can't speak for all AGW skeptics, but the conclusion in that article is well articulated statement of why I'm a skeptic.
    So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
    That sums up my reasons as a proper scientific skeptic, but I have learned to accept the term "denier" just like I have "parts changer."
    Wild Cobra is offline

  6. #3006
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Well, RandomGuy? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?

    So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
    Yonivore is offline

  7. #3007
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?
    I don't make a gross generalization so your not going to pigeonhole me to one. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, there have been tens of thousands of papers. Trying to sum them up as one viewpoint on feedback is fun and all but oversimplification is meaningless in my eyes.

    So how did you like the Obama part? Obama used models. IPCC uses models. AL GORE! he literally equates the two:

    What the Administration did was this: they took a computer model, the same one that originally said the stimulus would be effective, and plugged in the actual spending numbers to get a modeled job creation number. As political messaging, this made perfect sense. As science, the notion of checking a theoretical model’s output with additional runs of the same model, rather than observational data, certainly leaves something to be desired. But to be fair, it’s a tough problem – how does one sort out the effect of changing one variable in a complex system where hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of other variables are changing simultaneously?

    This is the problem scientists face in trying to determine the causes of the 0.7C warming over the last century.
    Its a mindless hack job but I am glad you go to Forbes for your take on climate science.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  8. #3008
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I don't make a gross generalization so your not going to pigeonhole me to one. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, there have been tens of thousands of papers. Trying to sum them up as one viewpoint on feedback is fun and all but oversimplification is meaningless in my eyes.

    So how did you like the Obama part? Obama used models. IPCC uses models. AL GORE! he literally equates the two:



    Its a mindless hack job but I am glad you go to Forbes for your take on climate science.

    Fuzzy fails.
    DarrinS is offline

  9. #3009
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    It's that fuzzy logic.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  10. #3010
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    For the last time, and I truly mean it this time, your comments about the insurance industry were not germane to the conversation in which I was engaged.

    It was irrelevant. I didn't even read the comments.

    Your comments about the insurance industry said absolutely nothing about whether or not the media and the White House misrepresented or exaggerated what was said in the report in question.

    Let go, man.
    Ok. So what are you thoughts on the fact that the insurance industry is accounting for global warming in their cost of service?
    Th'Pusher is offline

  11. #3011
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Ok. So what are you thoughts on the fact that the insurance industry is accounting for global warming in their cost of service?

    Maybe they are using it as a good excuse to raise premiums. I'm sure their losses for property damage from hurricanes have increased over the years, but that has a lot to do with increased amount of coastal development.
    DarrinS is offline

  12. #3012
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Oh no you don't get to asssert



    as valid. Then claim ask:

    Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?
    And that means that your little flowchart remains true. its not my burden to justify climate in 3 easy steps. Its your or the authors. You fail to meet the burden to prove your asertion i do not have to offer a counterplan. Sorry thats just not how argumentation works.

    You are disingenuous as a matter of course.

    You have comment on the Obama jobs comparison?
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  13. #3013
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Maybe they are using it as a good excuse to raise premiums. I'm sure their losses for property damage from hurricanes have increased over the years, but that has a lot to do with increased amount of coastal development.
    All insurers in all 50 states have to present their claims and actuarial data to the state in which they want to do business. Rates are determined on a per capita basis. they cannot just raise rates without justifying it to the insurance committee.

    They have also sent people before congress to plead their case about GW and human cause being attributable to their actions. I guess they are all lying.

    In FL they are pulling out of the HO market and not just raising premiums.

    But hey you have climate in 3 easy steps.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  14. #3014
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431


    I was reading Darrin's post until it came up with a 15 year temp record. Same old , different day.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  15. #3015
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    All insurers in all 50 states have to present their claims and actuarial data to the state in which they want to do business. Rates are determined on a per capita basis. they cannot just raise rates without justifying it to the insurance committee.

    They have also sent people before congress to plead their case about GW and human cause being attributable to their actions. I guess they are all lying.
    Companies never lie to make money. Companies never adopt a position in order to make money. They only ever base their decisions on what the science actually says.

    In FL they are pulling out of the HO market and not just raising premiums.
    I wouldn't insure homes in Florida either. I saw Homestead after Hurricane Andrew.

    But hey you have climate in 3 easy steps.
    Well, they wouldn't exactly say, "Hey, we don't believe this stuff but, damn, it makes such a good excuse to raise rates and exit losing markets in Florida that it's worth buying into the theory as a way to do just that."

    No, you just could just act like the buy the science and set about adjusting your industry in a way consistent with your public assertions.
    Yonivore is offline

  16. #3016
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117


    I was reading Darrin's post until it came up with a 15 year temp record. Same old , different day.
    And how is that unlike the stuff you provide?

    Do you want to gain some of our confidence of your viewpoint on this topic? If so, then please find something that is reasonable. Something that takes into account the items a layperson like myself can discredit them for. I don't think I ask for too much. Show me something that takes proper account of solar and BC forcing, and still makes the claims that CO2 is as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  17. #3017
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Companies never lie to make money. Companies never adopt a position in order to make money. They only ever base their decisions on what the science actually says.


    I wouldn't insure homes in Florida either. I saw Homestead after Hurricane Andrew.


    Well, they wouldn't exactly say, "Hey, we don't believe this stuff but, damn, it makes such a good excuse to raise rates and exit losing markets in Florida that it's worth buying into the theory as a way to do just that."

    No, you just could just act like the buy the science and set about adjusting your industry in a way consistent with your public assertions.
    Are you even going to address the oversight of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation?

    Here is there mission statement:

    Mission Statement

    To ensure that insurance companies licensed to do business in Florida are financially viable, operating within the laws and regulations governing the insurance industry; and offering insurance policy products at fair and adequate rates which do not unfairly discriminate against the buying public.
    http://www.floir.com/Office/MissionStatement.aspx

    Its actually big deal within the industry and the rank and file of employees know this. So they are all stupid? All the scientists are liars. The insurance industry and all their regulating bodies in each of the 50 states are either co-opted. inept or lying.

    Why can you not use this exact same logic about the energy lobby?

    What do CONFIRMATION BIAS mean?

    You need to stop talking about finding people that you can trust because you're full of .
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  18. #3018
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    And how is that unlike the stuff you provide?

    Do you want to gain some of our confidence of your viewpoint on this topic? If so, then please find something that is reasonable. Something that takes into account the items a layperson like myself can discredit them for. I don't think I ask for too much. Show me something that takes proper account of solar and BC forcing, and still makes the claims that CO2 is as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed.
    Can't talk now, too busy proving tropospheric combustion and the great flood for publication.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  19. #3019
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Can't talk now, too busy proving tropospheric combustion and the great flood for publication.
    Well, good luck with the troposphere. Spinning your wheels. It ain't happening.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  20. #3020
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Well, good luck with the troposphere. Spinning your wheels. It ain't happening.
    But, if it is, that means Manny has actually put a stop to all the AGCC nonsense by finding a more immediate existential threat over which to worry and about which it may be too late to do anything about.

    Go Manny!
    Yonivore is offline

  21. #3021
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    But, if it is, that means Manny has actually put a stop to all the AGCC nonsense by finding a more immediate existential threat over which to worry and about which it may be too late to do anything about.

    Go Manny!
    Does that mean we should support his efforts?

    I'd just be happy if someone can provide a study that has proper assessments of solar and black carbon included.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  22. #3022
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
    Well, RandomGuy? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?
    As written, no.

    Blanket denials on complex subjects are stupid.

    That said, let's be fair, and not focus on the nitpicky details. Re-word it a bit:

    What they doubt is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is quite possibly greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously doubting that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
    That is quite reasonable.

    It is fine to have some doubts and some skepticism to claims of catastrophe.

    What I doubt is the catastrophe — I argue that the theory of strong negative economic feedback from limiting CO2 emissions is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of economic damage we will see from reducing our emissions of CO2.
    Well, Yonivore? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?
    RandomGuy is offline

  23. #3023
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672


    I was reading Darrin's post until it came up with a 15 year temp record. Same old , different day.
    Try this shorthand:
    RandomGuy is offline

  24. #3024
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Well, good luck with the troposphere. Spinning your wheels. It ain't happening.
    You're right its the exosphere! No, its the thermosphere!
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  25. #3025
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    I will be citing the Bible in this work. They did some great work about the great flood in there.
    MannyIsGod is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •