Page 69 of 161 FirstFirst ... 195965666768697071727379119 ... LastLast
Results 1,701 to 1,725 of 4001
  1. #1701
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,690
    This certainly helps "the cause".

    Just so I understand this correctly: Scientists from other disciplines are allowed to throw their weight behind the "consensus", but their bona fides are called into question if they are skeptics? The whole thing is very cult-like.
    No, you do not understand correctly. I ain't gonna re-explain it to you either.

    If you can't figure out, tough.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-31-2011 at 09:07 AM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #1702
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,690
    I'll bet Darrin has the same thoughts I do.

    Thank God for Global Warming or it would really be cold!
    Meh, you are both simply being troll s.

    "That can't be cold because AGW theory says that there can't be cold spells".

    Fallacy: Straw Man
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of Straw Man
    The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


    Person A has position X.
    Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
    Person B attacks position Y.
    Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

    -----------------------------

    Climate scientists (Person A) claim that current warming trends are being heavily driven by human activity. (Position X)
    Wild Cobra (Person A) says that climate scientists claim there can't be cold spells due to global warming(Position Y).
    Wild Cobra (Person B) says that is the silliest thing he has heard, because here is a news story about a cold front.(Attacking position Y)
    Since it still gets cold warming trends can't be heavily driven by human activity. (X is flawed, because Y is wrong)

    ------------------------------------------------------

    I know you are simply trolling or trying to make a joke, but given what I say in the OP, making that joke by using previously debunked flawed logic simply proves my point, yet again, about the "denier" movement.

    QED
    RandomGuy is offline

  3. #1703
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Meh, you are both simply being troll s.

    "That can't be cold because AGW theory says that there can't be cold spells".

    Fallacy: Straw Man

    Obviously, when I post an article about a "cold spell", I am being a troll . Human beings have only been on this planet for a nanosecond in a geologic sense, and have been taking temperature measurements for an even shorter period. Is is only natural that we are going to see "historic" records broken, both hot and cold.
    DarrinS is offline

  4. #1704
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Here's a climate scientist and former IPCC lead author. I agree with him 100%.

    DarrinS is offline

  5. #1705
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,520
    "Human beings have only been on this planet for a nanosecond in a geologic sense"

    We serious people are only worried about the current and near (anthropocentric) futures (10s or 100s of years). FYI, the planet was humanly inhabitable, and we don't want to bring on a recurrence.

    The mini-IceAge a few 100 years ago was a horrible human disaster for a MUCH SMALLER population. (heard this morning: 51 Indian babies per minute, 7B humans is official achieved today)
    boutons_deux is offline

  6. #1706
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,830
    Here's a climate scientist and former IPCC lead author. I agree with him 100%.

    Of course you do. He concludes what your religious and politial beliefs want you to believe so you coopt your brain completely to what eh says. Thats why intelligent people have no respect for you beyond using you because you arent good for anything else.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  7. #1707
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Of course you do. He concludes what your religious and politial beliefs want you to believe so you coopt your brain completely to what eh says. Thats why intelligent people have no respect for you beyond using you because you arent good for anything else.

    Point me to the paper that proves CO2 caused the 1 degree increase and I'll change my mind.

    EDIT> More specifically, human emitted CO2 .
    DarrinS is offline

  8. #1708
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479


    Oh no, Darrin doesn't agree! What are we to do when such a bastion of critical thinking and objectivity can't seem to come to the conclusion most scientists and peer reviewed science has?

    Oh noesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!
    MannyIsGod is offline

  9. #1709
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,690
    Here's a climate scientist and former IPCC lead author. I agree with him 100%.

    As an aside, I thought it rather funny that the media types doing the interview put up the caption "Scientist says evidence doesn't indicate global warming", when the guy was actually saying "there is warming" at the exact same time.

    Some other things Dr. Christie has said for context:

    In a 2003 interview with National Public Radio about the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said he is "a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels". He added, though, that "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quan ies of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[9]

    In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get." [11]

    In a 2007 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see." [12]

    In a 2007 ruling in a trial relating to automobile emission regulation in Vermont, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William K. Sessions mistakenly wrote, "Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations." [13] What Christy said in his testimony was, "You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with." and "You saw me pause a long time because — this was six years ago. And the question was about what I thought six years ago." [14]

    In 2009 written testimony to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, he wrote: "From my analysis, the actions being considered to 'stop global warming' will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming." [15]
    -----------------

    He is probably one of the few legitimate, non-hack skeptics of the IPCC reports, which is why he is the darling of the "denier" movement.

    Funny thing about his testimony to Congress:
    The non-economist speculating on the effects on "the economy" from limiting GHG emissions.

    The same guy who rails against the "alarmism" in the IPCC report ends up buying into the alarmism of the "deniers".

    That particular alarmism on the part of the deniers about the catastrophic negative effects on the economy from limiting GHG is something any of you hacks has yet to back up with anything approaching evidence.
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #1710
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    As an aside, I thought it rather funny that the media types doing the interview put up the caption "Scientist says evidence doesn't indicate global warming", when the guy was actually saying "there is warming" at the exact same time.

    When the media says "global warming", they are talking about the anthropogenic variety. But you already knew that.
    DarrinS is offline

  11. #1711
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,690
    When the media says "global warming", they are talking about the anthropogenic variety. But you already knew that.
    Indeed. That is one of the ways in which reporter's shorthand can lead to people getting the wrong impression about the science involved.

    It is the kind of thing that makes the politically motivated hacks of the denier movement seem far more credible than they should be to the casual observer.
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #1712
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Its always funny to watch Darrin agree with a scientist who comes out and says what Darrin wants to hear instead of taking time to research things objectively and come to a conclusion. It doesn't matter that there are way more equally qualified scientists disputing much of what Christy says because Darrin is going to cherry pick his champions based on WHAT they say not the actual data.

    Textbook conformation bias.

    Of course, Darrin is free to explain to him what makes Christy's research and opinions based on said research better than the thousands of opinions from qualified researchers.
    Last edited by MannyIsGod; 10-31-2011 at 10:38 AM.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  13. #1713
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Its always funny to watch Darrin agree with a scientist who comes out and says what Darrin wants to hear instead of taking time to research things objectively and come to a conclusion. It doesn't matter that there are way more equally qualified scientists disputing much of what Christy says because Darrin is going to cherry pick his champions based on WHAT they say not the actual data.

    Textbook conformation bias.

    Actually, I don't care that this guy is a "climate scientist". Just used it to illustrate the fact that not all climate scientists agree.

    I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that human greenhouse emissions are the primary cause of the 1 degree temp. increase.
    DarrinS is offline

  14. #1714
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Actually, I don't care that this guy is a "climate scientist". Just used it to illustrate the fact that not all climate scientists agree.

    I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that human greenhouse emissions are the primary cause of the 1 degree temp. increase.
    Oh, wow. Not all climate scientists agree. Next you're going to prove taht water is wet and the sky is blue.

    I can indicate that I can walk on water but that doesn't make it anymore true. You've been presented with a ton of research and you dismiss it out of hand and you regularly move goalposts and erect stupid straw men that are obvious. That may work with the idiots you encounter on a daily basis but when you're actually speaking to people with more than one brain cell they're going to see through your bull rather quickly, Darrin.

    You may believe in your own mind that you've got an open mind and that the case merely hasn't been made but that belief only exists in your mind.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  15. #1715
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Oh, wow. Not all climate scientists agree. Next you're going to prove taht water is wet and the sky is blue.

    I can indicate that I can walk on water but that doesn't make it anymore true. You've been presented with a ton of research and you dismiss it out of hand and you regularly move goalposts and erect stupid straw men that are obvious. That may work with the idiots you encounter on a daily basis but when you're actually speaking to people with more than one brain cell they're going to see through your bull rather quickly, Darrin.

    You may believe in your own mind that you've got an open mind and that the case merely hasn't been made but that belief only exists in your mind.

    I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that human greenhouse emissions are the primary cause of the 1 degree temp. increase.
    That's Ok. I didn't think you could.
    DarrinS is offline

  16. #1716
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Basically, Darrin your arguments usually come in one of the following flavors:
    1) There's no warming!

    2) Humans aren't causing the warming:

    3) Humans aren't causing MOST of the warming

    4) The warming isn't significant

    The lack of consistency in your arguments themselves are pretty damning. If you actually had a reason to believe the theory had no basis in reality you wouldn't feel the need to flip flop back and forth looking for the most convenient argument of the moment. The fact that your arguments themselves are at odds with each other is the best part.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  17. #1717
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    That's Ok. I didn't think you could.


    Oh noessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. What will I ever do, Darrin. Oh noesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  18. #1718
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Basically, Darrin your arguments usually come in one of the following flavors:
    1) There's no warming!

    2) Humans aren't causing the warming:

    3) Humans aren't causing MOST of the warming

    4) The warming isn't significant

    The lack of consistency in your arguments themselves are pretty damning. If you actually had a reason to believe the theory had no basis in reality you wouldn't feel the need to flip flop back and forth looking for the most convenient argument of the moment. The fact that your arguments themselves are at odds with each other is the best part.

    From your list, I don't believe (1) at all.

    (2) and (3) I don't know and I don't think anyone does.

    I do believe (4).
    DarrinS is offline

  19. #1719
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    So then you merely quote you don't believe in order to make an argument! Yet another reason to take you seriously!
    MannyIsGod is offline

  20. #1720
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,830
    So then you merely quote you don't believe in order to make an argument! Yet another reason to take you seriously!
    As if you ever thought he thought for himself. All of those arguments essentially boil down to "reasons why we can continue to burn fossil fuels with impunity." He sucks the oil baron . Its just what he does.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  21. #1721
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,690
    Actually, I don't care that this guy is a "climate scientist". Just used it to illustrate the fact that not all climate scientists agree.

    I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that human greenhouse emissions are the primary cause of the 1 degree temp. increase.
    Actually, I don't care that this guy is a "evolutionary biologist". Just used it to illustrate the fact that not all biologists agree.

    I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that humans evolved from common ancestors as snails.
    "deniers" like to wrap themselves in the cloak of legitimate skepticism and the give and take of legitimate scientific debate.

    What sets them apart from legitimate skeptics is that they move goalposts and won't admit to anybody, least of all themselves, that no amount of evidence possible would suffice.

    Sometimes you have to act before you have perfect information. The captain of the anic didn't have to know where every single iceberg was to know that he probably should have changed course.
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #1722
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,830
    "deniers" like to wrap themselves in the cloak of legitimate skepticism and the give and take of legitimate scientific debate.

    What sets them apart from legitimate skeptics is that they move goalposts and won't admit to anybody, least of all themselves, that no amount of evidence possible would suffice.

    Sometimes you have to act before you have perfect information. The captain of the anic didn't have to know where every single iceberg was to know that he probably should have changed course.
    It goes beyond that too. There is an economic cost to warming beyond the money that oil makes. Now that other corporate interests such as insurance have a stake in keeping warming down now that their claims are going up and similar cir stances were going to see other corporate interests feeding the GOP demographic different .

    He is religious. He believes that Mary actually did not have sex and other nonsense and the christian tradition within this country has worked to marginalize science since this country was founded. He was taught to take on faith. Perhaps now that other corporate mouthpieces will change their tune he and his community will too because they trust the corporate but they do not trust the scientist. Corporations want people that will believe whatever you tellt hem. Scientists don't.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  23. #1723
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    It goes beyond that too. There is an economic cost to warming beyond the money that oil makes. Now that other corporate interests such as insurance have a stake in keeping warming down now that their claims are going up and similar cir stances were going to see other corporate interests feeding the GOP demographic different .

    He is religious. He believes that Mary actually did not have sex and other nonsense and the christian tradition within this country has worked to marginalize science since this country was founded. He was taught to take on faith. Perhaps now that other corporate mouthpieces will change their tune he and his community will too because they trust the corporate but they do not trust the scientist. Corporations want people that will believe whatever you tellt hem. Scientists don't.

    You are the new boutons. Congrats.
    DarrinS is offline

  24. #1724
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    From your list, I don't believe (1) at all.

    (2) and (3) I don't know and I don't think anyone does.

    I do believe (4).
    http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...85&postcount=3

    You could learn a thing or two from boutons. At least he's consistent and KNOWS what he believes. You on the other hand...
    MannyIsGod is offline

  25. #1725
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    You are the new boutons. Congrats.
    http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...9&postcount=21

    LOL

    You're such a windbag.
    MannyIsGod is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 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
  •