I am not Gollum nor do I hold any such analogous position towards my work. It makes no sense.
PT = completely and totally logically dismantled.
I am not Gollum nor do I hold any such analogous position towards my work. It makes no sense.
Who denies the climate changes?
Be careful, only they're allowed to be pedantic about the subject.
I always understood the debate to be over how much or, even if, mankind has any appreciable affect on global climate. But, there have been more than a couple of pages, probably in this thread, where the argument got silly and sidetracked over what, exactly, was being debated.
No one denies the climate is changing. If they said so, I'm fairly certain it was in the context of arguing a point in the AGCC debate. That is why I'm now very careful about including AGCC in every post on the subject.
Dr Spenser
intelligent design
University of Alabama
credentials
inability to answer
Aspergers
List
Denier
Yeah you never obsess over things....
Oh wait...
Not in the least.
PT fancies himself a Michael Burry
No, you didn't really. You demonstrated no reasonable defintion of the term, nor did you match anything I have ever said to that reasonable definition.
You just waved your bloody arms like a looney and said "yes I did".
It's like talking to the shop keeper who sold a dead parrot to Mr. Cleese...
----------------------------------
Randomguy enters the forum.
Randomguy: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(PopTech does not respond.)
Randomguy: 'Ello, Miss?
PopTech: What do you mean "miss"?
Randomguy: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
PopTech: We're irretuably closin' for lunch.
Randomguy: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this claim what I saw you make not half an hour ago from this very forum.
PopTech: Oh yes, the, uh, the claim about your logical fallacy?...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Randomguy: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's stupid, that's what's wrong with it!
PopTech: No, no, 'e's uh,...it's right, ‘cuase I said it was.
Randomguy: Look, matey, I know a stupid claim when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
PopTech: No no it's not stupid, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable claim, the Ad Populum, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage![/indent]
Randomguy: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone stupid.
PopTech: Nononono, no, no! it's right!
Randomguy: All right then, if it’s right, I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Polly Ad Poppulum! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...
(PopTech hits the quote button)
PopTech: There, it moved!
Randomguy: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the quote button!
PopTech: I never!!
Randomguy: Yes, you did!
PopTech: I never, never irrefutably did anything...[/indent]
Randomguy: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Takes claim out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Randomguy: Now that's what I call a stupid argument.
PopTech: No, no.....No, it's stunned!
Randomguy: STUNNED?!?
PopTech: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Ad Populums stun easily, major.
Randomguy: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That claim is definitely moron, and when I read it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
PopTech: Well, it's...it’s, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Randomguy: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?
PopTech: The Ad Populum prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable claim, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!
Randomguy: Look, I took the liberty of examining that claim when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its post in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
PopTech: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that claim to my computer screen, it would have nuzzled up to those pixels, bent 'em apart with its stupidity and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Randomguy: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this claim wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
PopTech: No no! it's pining!
Randomguy: it's not pinin'! it's s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet its’ maker! its a stiff! Bereft of intelligence, its rests in peace! It is so stupid it burns my brains! If you hadn't nailed 'im to your monitor 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS A STUPID CLAIM!!
(pause)
PopTech: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, I’m right out of claims that aren’t stupid.
Randomguy: I see. I see, I get the picture.
PopTech: I got a creationist scientist.
(pause)
Randomguy: Pray, does it believe in evolution?
PopTech: Nnnnot really.
Randomguy: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
PopTech: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-25-2012 at 10:09 PM.
I would not want to take your precious list from you.
By all means defend away.
I don't know. Who does?
I have seen Yonivore and Darrin claim that climate scientists seem to think that. I can probably find the links to their posts if you want.
Your question doesn't really make any sense.
You ok?
You are wise to change the subject.
[snark redacted-- posting while tired and grumpy will do that, argh]
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-26-2012 at 03:32 PM.
Answering a question, with a question.Originally Posted by RandomGuy
If a scientist expresses a belief that a non-scientific theory has the same credibility as a scientific one, does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?
Extra weasel points.
It makes a difference any time you wish to multiply or divide.
That's good.
I would ask who did such a fine photoshop job, but Fuzzy's so paranoid, it's probably real!
I have never seen them say they deny climate change, nor do I.
It's this chronic lying you guys do that pisses us off. You paint us a lunatics when we are skeptics.
Random...
Do you now understand my point about the CO2 and ocean thing yet?
I gave it one more attempt to answer your question, now you're silent.
Did I waste my time?
Not when you are taking a difference which is the whole point of the graph. If you build a system such that it take measurements in kelvin and you feed it celsius readings instead it will up unless of course you are taking the difference of two measurements.
We are not even feeding back into systems, the graph is a plot of difference in temperature for both kelvin and celsius. You are doing this again:
You learned something and you are trying to apply it it to anything you can but it doesn't apply here.
You wasted your time using simple solubility charts again, yes.
There have been studies on this. MiG has mocked you with them for quite some time. They actually take into account relative salinity, chlorophyll amounts, thermal layers etc in their analysis.
Your Dr. EZ-bake napkin math does not trump their work.
Whats interesting is that what you are describing here is at the heart of the feedback cycle. Its why they call it a feedback. You increase temperature and more CO2 is released which is the feedback and that in turn increases temperate etc.
As for your 'equilibrium' the ocean is not a lab. You cannot keep it as a closed controlled system. You keep talking about the exact same we have been making fun of you about for years. You act all indignant when MiG and others just blow you off but like this is why.
It's the exact same bull AGAIN.
Changeing the argument huh. Think back about when i originally brought up kelvin.
You are assuming the worse in people. You really should stop that. I'll bet you have no friends. I find it really stupid on your part that you are attempting there is no place for kelvin.
Sorry , you can't dismiss real chemistry that easily. The surface temperatures of the oceans are warmer at the places they source and sink both. There is no way you can accurately argue that this does not increase the sourcing and decrease the sinking. To do show proves you don't understand this at all.
We can argue about the value of the flux, but the fact remains. Sinking and sourcing do change with the surface temperature of the water.
Oh I am sure that you have brought it up before. You have been aching to bring up linear systems ever since I mocked you about it last year. I don't care about all of your other shenanigans. I am referring to you talking about it in reference to the graph.
I am not saying that there is no place for kelvin measurements. I am just saying that we aren't talking about super symmetry or astrophysics. If you want to start a crusade to have the world convert to kelvin, I could even get behind that. It would help make the world more intuitive in terms of its vernacular.
I am not assuming the worst in people. I am talking about you. I guess you could say that I am assuming the worst in you but I say its just me having watched how you operate for years now.
I realize you would just love to be a guy like Sherwood Idso or the like testing hypothesis to disprove AGW to confirm your bias but you do not even do that. Its "I suppose this" or "I bet if this were true" or some supposition based on an obnoxious oversimplification like your ocean as solubility chart equilibrium talk.
As for the last, I don't treat everyone like you. I don't suffer fools.
That Bert quote has a purpose. What you are doing here is fixating on a single aspect so you can understand it.
As I said, there have been several studies on this topic and they discuss all the factors not just the one. They don't conclude what you would like though so you just stick with the simplification.
This is not new hat for you.
I know that I am derisive of you but I do empathize to a certain extent. I know that it upsets you when people just blow you off. No one likes that. That is why I am trying to tell you why they blow you off.
MiG has not only read but has extensively studied the studies that I am referring to. when you come at him with this simplification, its not compelling whatsoever.
RG actually tries to humor you. The man has an immense amount of patience with you and all he says when you come out with your half-baked ideas is that you should try to prove them through experiment. You just stick with the simplification and supposition so we make fun of you. Well he doesn't. Mostly.
You should try a different approach. If you really want to convince us, you are not doing a very good job of it. That should be quite evident. More of the same is not working.
Get some new material.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)