Page 134 of 161 FirstFirst ... 3484124130131132133134135136137138144 ... LastLast
Results 3,326 to 3,350 of 4001
  1. #3326
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    That is not a quote of me using the word implied.
    No it is not.

    Even complete morons know that something can be implied without being explicit.

    You are not a moron.

    I assume you know that things can be implied without being explicit.

    Are you saying you are a moron? I'm confused.
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #3327
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672

    Quote where I stated it was implied.
    No. It makes it my opinion.

    You might think my opinion is incorrect.

    I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.
    I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

    Did I miss something?

    Once again, I want to know how you got to

    "using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

    From what I said.

    Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.
    RandomGuy is offline

  3. #3328
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    So you are going to use semantics as a defense.

    You stated that my statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.
    Quote where I stated this.
    Poptech is offline

  4. #3329
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Remember, it is my contention that people who are skeptical of AGW are, generally speaking, little better intellectually than 9-11 truthers.
    I am well aware you use ad hominem instead of logical arguments. You are also predictable with your smears.
    If you feel it is a smear, then you should be fighting the jackasses giving me that impression, as it is in your interest to fight bad logic and innappropriate uses of science as well.

    Ultimately, we as a species need to figure the issue out quickly, and the fact that skepticism of AGW alarmism seems to be attracting dolts who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag should concern everyone.

    Just as much as I am concerned about the dolts saying things that aren't scientifically supported going off the deep end and saying the world is coming to an end because of AGW.

    Given that you have come in here, guns blazing, and been what I feel less than forthcoming, you aren't changing my impression of skeptics.
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #3330
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that no comedy was implied with his post.
    pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way
    Poptech is offline

  6. #3331
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Quote where I stated this.
    Fer s sake:

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3212

    How many times do I have to post it?
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #3332
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.
    Poptech is offline

  8. #3333
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way
    hu·mor   /ˈhyumər or, often, ˈyu-/ Show Spelled[hyoo-mer or, often, yoo-] Show IPA
    noun
    1. a comic, absurd, or incongruous quality causing amusement: the humor of a situation.
    2. the faculty of perceiving what is amusing or comical: He is completely without humor.


    sar·casm   /ˈsɑrkęzəm/ Show Spelled[sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #3334
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.
    So when you said:

    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


    What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-01-2012 at 12:30 PM. Reason: getting things right.
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #3335
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Don't forget to clarify this for me Darrin. It is important.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0PPPxmQF3

    Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters

    [pictures omitted for brevity]

    It would seem that you are implying there is no AGW, because the people studying it, and believe it to be the case, use a computer that is powered by electricity that ultimately emits greenhouse gases in its generation.

    Is this what you are trying to say?
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #3336
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    You have already demonstrated that you are dishonest by lying about my intentions.
    Is it possible to genuinely believe something that may, in fact, be untruthful, and state that belief plainly, without an intent to lie? Yes or no?
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #3337
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Lunch is over. Adios.
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #3338
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I am not going to sit there and argue as you dance around the meaning of the word left. Lets cut right to the chase.

    Where is one indication that they are communist? Not Canadia... err socialized medicine, not leftist, but communist. You know something that indicates that they support Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism or something that actually is communist.

    Justify putting up the Soviet flag in a picture thats as large as the two paragraphs you wrote, hack.

    Why does the skeptical science list need to include the papers on your list in the context of an arbitrary argument?
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  14. #3339
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...#ixzz1tOLxmL7T

    Nothing to see here. After all, Poptech posted an article in his list that says there is permafrost older than 70,000 years!
    MannyIsGod is offline

  15. #3340
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Cool.

    I hope you learned something from that.

    Will you stop sidestepping the larger argument with terminology?

    Anomaly means "deviation from normal." The proper way to use it in astronomy terms would to use a defining word before it like orbital, eccentrical, mean, gravitational, etc. The first two charts specifically say "sea ice" before anomaly, not seasonal.

    The two chart you replied to was talking about relative changes. Not absolute. The first two charts were not speaking as astronomical anomalies, but the anomaly of numbers.

    The next chart I provided shows there is nothing abnormal about the northern sea ice.

    Why do you sidestep the point I am making about the southern sea ice being greater than normal for any particular day of the year? That the southern ice isn't dealing with soot like the norther ice is. If the ice was truly melting because of CO2m and temperature, then we should see a similar response with the southern sea ice.

    You constantly insult me when it is you who either don't understand what point I am making. Or... maybe you do understand it, and have no valid response, so you resort to the sidestepping.

    Are you capable of a proper response to my point?

    I know you don't think must of me, but I'll bet PopTech is really being less and less impressed with you now.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  16. #3341
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    [1]No.
    My understanding of evolution and ecology is that species are generally best adapted for the conditions they exist in for any length of time. Based on this, "catastrophically impacting" that ecosystem would change the conditions of that ecosystem drastically enough that it is beyond a reasonable expectation that no species in any given ecosystem would be deliterously affected. As you yourself state, there is "no such information is available for all species".
    This is incorrect, as the words "catastrophic" and "harmful" are subjective. One can consider a forest fire "catastrophic" while it is actually beneficial to the health of the forest and the species within.

    [2]Yes.
    It is possible to believe anything, no matter how foolish and silly. There are people who believe that there exists, essentially, magic men in the sky who watch them masturbate and care about that, and that libertarian ideals would make for good government. It is always possible to believe things and later to be proven wrong.
    Your qualification has nothing to do with the question.

    [3]Yes, it is quite possible that species can adapt to rapid changes. This is especially true of fast living organisms, and the odds go down with longer lifespans and reproductive cycles, to my understanding, as well as for immobile things like trees.
    Good.

    [4]No.
    Given the large number of species globally, the chances of "all species" adapting to fast changes in environment is not possible, in any reasonable scenario. As you yourself point out, some will die. That is evolution.
    This is incorrect, I did not ask about the "chances" but if it was possible. How "fast" the current rate of change is subjective. All I pointed out was that when a species fails to adapt that can be considered evolution, I did not say they would not adapt to the current rate of change.

    [5]Yes,
    Given the difficulties involved in measuring past rates of change, it is possible that it is entirely usual.
    Good.

    We have established,

    1. Those that believe the current rate of change to be catastrophic or harmful could be wrong.

    2. Species could adapt to rapid rates of change.

    3. The current rate of change may not be unusual.
    Poptech is offline

  17. #3342
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    So basically you are accusing me of something, then being a punk ass and not backing it up.

    I will say again:

    you.

    I try very hard to be civil, and although I am not always successful, in this case, don't think your comment merits such.
    I have no desire to look back for such a trivial thing I have pointed out again and again. You ask PopTech if an opinion is a lie. Yes, it is, when you don't frame it as opinion, and then frame a premise incorrect as a result.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  18. #3343
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Good.

    We have established,

    1. Those that believe the current rate of change to be catastrophic or harmful could be wrong.

    2. Species could adapt to rapid rates of change.

    3. The current rate of change may not be unusual.
    I wish I was as good at calling these guys out as you are.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  19. #3344
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    "just like it is possible"

    Are all theories equally valid?
    So long as they are falsifiable and tested using the scientific method.

    Your statement seems to imply this.

    For example:

    It is possible that pink unicorns use their magic to make my socks.
    It is possible that humans, made, or caused my socks to be made.

    Can it be said that the second is possible, "just like it is possible" that the first is the actual truth?
    These are both hypothesis, however the existence of pink unicorns and magic have both been rejected by science. While there is extensive empirical evidence of humans making socks. So the only valid theory would be the second.

    If all theories aren't equally valid, how do we distinguish between what is more probable?
    Based on falsifiability, observations and experiments.

    Do we ask people who are more likely to be correct about those theories?
    If you can determine who these are.
    Poptech is offline

  20. #3345
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Based on falsifiability, observations and experiments.
    I have stated to these people several times that proper scientists try to disprove their own ideas before calling them valid, that these AGW alarmists appear not to. They tell me falsifiability is not a part of science.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-01-2012 at 03:36 PM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  21. #3346
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    So when you said:

    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.

    What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?
    A hypothetical exercise.
    Poptech is offline

  22. #3347
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I am not going to sit there and argue as you dance around the meaning of the word left. Lets cut right to the chase.
    I didn't dance around anything. I supported my use of the phrase, "extreme-left".

    Where is one indication that they are communist? Not Canadia... err socialized medicine, not leftist, but communist. You know something that indicates that they support Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism or something that actually is communist.
    It is the flag of the U.S.S.R. which represents socialism - "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".

    Justify putting up the Soviet flag in a picture thats as large as the two paragraphs you wrote, hack.
    It is a standard image size used in articles on the site. Did you not read this the first time I stated this, FuzzyDumbkins?

    Why does the skeptical science list need to include the papers on your list in the context of an arbitrary argument?
    Otherwise they are cherry picking. There are hundreds of papers on the list that are explicit in their skepticism of ACC/AGW Alarm and they are not included on the list.
    Poptech is offline

  23. #3348
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Is it possible to genuinely believe something that may, in fact, be untruthful, and state that belief plainly, without an intent to lie? Yes or no?
    pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way

    You are avoiding these questions,
    Is the only intent of my list to provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs? Yes or No?

    Am I lying about this intent? Yes or No?


    Lets see if you can answer without making excuses.
    Poptech is offline

  24. #3349
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Cool.

    I hope you learned something from that.

    Will you stop sidestepping the larger argument with terminology?

    Anomaly means "deviation from normal." The proper way to use it in astronomy terms would to use a defining word before it like orbital, eccentrical, mean, gravitational, etc. The first two charts specifically say "sea ice" before anomaly, not seasonal.

    The two chart you replied to was talking about relative changes. Not absolute. The first two charts were not speaking as astronomical anomalies, but the anomaly of numbers.

    The next chart I provided shows there is nothing abnormal about the northern sea ice.

    Why do you sidestep the point I am making about the southern sea ice being greater than normal for any particular day of the year? That the southern ice isn't dealing with soot like the norther ice is. If the ice was truly melting because of CO2m and temperature, then we should see a similar response with the southern sea ice.

    You constantly insult me when it is you who either don't understand what point I am making. Or... maybe you do understand it, and have no valid response, so you resort to the sidestepping.

    Are you capable of a proper response to my point?

    I know you don't think must of me, but I'll bet PopTech is really being less and less impressed with you now.


    PS I don't think much of Poptech. Couldn't care much less what he/she thinks of me.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  25. #3350
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I didn't dance around anything. I supported my use of the phrase, "extreme-left".


    It is the flag of the U.S.S.R. which represents socialism - "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".


    It is a standard image size used in articles on the site. Did you not read this the first time I stated this, FuzzyDumbkins?


    Otherwise they are cherry picking. There are hundreds of papers on the list that are explicit in their skepticism of ACC/AGW Alarm and they are not included on the list.
    It also says Republic as does North Korea. Your premise is stupid. The Soviets were a totalitarian state. Harping on their label as if its meaningful is fun and all I guess.

    You dance around semantics at your convenience as an excuse when you have an audience. Equating socialized medicine which is pretty much the policy of all of our NATO allies with the soviets. Equating behavior of noted conservatives like Ted Roosevelt the most famous trust buster of all with the Soviets was a nice touch too.

    Equating very and extreme. Equating anything not laissez faire capitalsim with communists and extremists.

    Pseudo-political theory in place of political reality as if the GOP evangelicals could ever jive with American civil libertarians.

    And lol at the 'standard' size of pictures. Picture books are meant for children; they use big pictures too. As if your label makes any difference. Its still as big as the article you posted.

    Otherwise they are cherrypicking? Cherry picking from what set? Your set? So your list is the standard by which all skeptics should be judged? Exactly what are your scientific credentials?

    You know whats an example of a set? A submitted scientific paper. when you choose particular data and ignore the context of the paper, thats cherry picking. Making a list and then trying to unilaterally hold everyone to that standard as if it should be canon is fun and all but it posits about nothing.

    Labeling your list of articles a set that all lists of skeptic's works is fun and all but it just smacks of egomania as does coming to Spur's sites message board so you can argue a post I made more than a month ago.

    Your a hack; its transparent Mr. Laissez Faire.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •