Page 16 of 210 FirstFirst ... 61213141516171819202666116 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 5238
  1. #376
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    All the scientists of the academy vote on membership. Try harder to keep up next time.
    That is not what I asked. Did all the scientists in the academy sign the Climate Change report? How many signed the report?

  2. #377
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    All the scientists of the academy vote on membership. Try harder to keep up next time.
    Yep.

    That way they keep the "right type" of religious belief of science in check.

  3. #378
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    All the scientists of the academy vote on membership. Try harder to keep up next time.
    That is not what I asked. Did all the scientists in the academy sign the Climate Change report? How many signed the report?
    His question is valid Fuzzy.

    How manyof the scientists agreed with the conclusion of the report sent to congress?

    100%?

    90%?

    51%?

    Did you figure out who was Speaker of the House, and Senate President in 2008 yet?

  4. #379
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    My argument about using students was not one of corruption but rather incompetence. I can only imagine what someone like you would say if we presented a "science" report written by students that cited 5,587 press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by energy advocacy groups.

    Do you have any evidence of corruption with Dr. Idso's non-profit organization?
    That was not the only argument you made and grad students at least have an undergraduate degree.

    it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how research is done at colleges. Its a collaboration of professors and their grad students. That some of them were credited demonstrates nothing.

    Further it was ONE grad student amongst 800+ authors.

    and you sure like putting up numbers as if its meaningful.

    There were what 13,000 peer reviewed citations and further the attack on the citation is ad hominem. It includes no context of what the citations were or how they were incorrect. Its just a mindless smear.

    13,000 peer reviewed citation is overwhelming. In contrast you have come up with what? 1000? Many of which --like the Callon paper-- conclude that warming is the reality.

    And my point of asking about Idso was to get you to parrot your response, aspie. You OCD is amusing to manipulate though. Remember when you asked me why I asked you to spell it out when it was all on your site? think about it.

  5. #380
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Cheney was the VP in 2008, dumbass. 2009 was Bidens first year in office.

    The Senate was split and the NAS is still an independent agency.

  6. #381
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    That is not what I asked. Did all the scientists in the academy sign the Climate Change report? How many signed the report?
    The NAS president supported it strongly.

    As for the membership? I am not sure but I can guess what the assumption that you want to make is though. I however will not pull numbers out of my ass.

    That is the official position of the Academy. Why don't you all over them too?

  7. #382
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Yep.

    That way they keep the "right type" of religious belief of science in check.
    This was a really intelligent comment. I mean it makes sense that the Academy should find people that don't believe in science......

    You are so mindnumbingly stupid.

  8. #383
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    That is not what I asked. Did all the scientists in the academy sign the Climate Change report? How many signed the report?
    When I said 'all the scientists' from what you quoted that's what i was talking about.

    I realize you like pulling quotes out of context, as evidenced by your list but whatevs.

    I never said all the scientists signed off on it. It seems like that is quite a mischaracterization of how the project was managed.

  9. #384
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    That link says that the gradient is zero. You say its trending cooler. So is the link wrong or are you wrong?

    I mean if you are going to post contradictory things try not doing it in the exact same post.
    You going to address this?

  10. #385
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I have an idea?

    How about you guys show me one NAS scientist that disputed the report.

    Just one.

  11. #386
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    That was not the only argument you made and grad students at least have an undergraduate degree.
    Is the public under the impression that the IPCC report was written by "the world's leading scientists" who all have Ph.Ds or students?

    it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how research is done at colleges. Its a collaboration of professors and their grad students.
    My father is a research scientist at a university, I am more than familiar with how research is done at universities. Research can be done just by a single research scientist.

    That some of them were credited demonstrates nothing.

    Further it was ONE grad student amongst 800+ authors.
    It was not just one and they were lead authors,

    U.N. Hires Grad Students to Author Key Climate Report (Fox News, November 2, 2011)
    The book names nearly half a dozen lead authors involved in the IPCC’s reports over the years who were barely out of college when tapped to author the final word on the effects of climate change:

    * One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master's degree while on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.

    * Another lead author in 1994 earned his master's only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.

    * An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 -- despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.

    * Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old -- six years prior to completing his PhD.

    Laframboise claims in the book that “neither [Klein's] youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts.”

    Klein confirmed in an email to FoxNews.com that he had not yet turned 25 when he was selected to author a portion of the report that would shape the world's climate policy.

    “I am happy to leave it to others to reflect on the fact that I was 24 when I was lead author of an IPCC chapter for the first time, and that it was two years after I did a three-month work placement at Greenpeace,” Dr. Klein wrote.
    There were what 13,000 peer reviewed citations and further the attack on the citation is ad hominem. It includes no context of what the citations were or how they were incorrect. Its just a mindless smear.
    You support the use of grey literature to reach scientific conclusions?

    13,000 peer reviewed citation is overwhelming. In contrast you have come up with what? 1000? Many of which --like the Callon paper-- conclude that warming is the reality.
    Yes only over a 1000 so far much more to come. The Caillon paper is used only for the specific quote that supports skeptic arguments that CO2 lags temperature changes.

    And my point of asking about Idso was to get you to parrot your response.
    Drug addict, then you failed.

  12. #387
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Cheney was the VP in 2008, dumbass. 2009 was Bidens first year in office.

    The Senate was split and the NAS is still an independent agency.
    You're right about Cheny, but the democrats had control in both houses.

    Pelosi was Speaker, and Byrd was Senate Pres. pro tem, which is what I meant to ask. Sorry I made a mistake.

    However, the fact is, you said the democrats did not control congress in 2008.

    They did, but your ego doesn't allow you to admit a mistake.

    Now, do you know who is Commander in Chief of the generals calling for fighting AGW? Any idea what happens to a general who doesn't follow his CinC's agenda?

  13. #388
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I have an idea?

    How about you guys show me one NAS scientist that disputed the report.

    Just one.
    Why would one risk losing his job?

  14. #389
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I got you to repeat the same exact thing. How is that failure?

    You started off with the exact same canned 'corruption' argument. it was nice to compare and contrast with your argument that the IPCC was politically influenced.

    So you show 4 out of 800?

    And gray is just a term of ridicule. There are still 13000 works that were peer reviewed.

    For your Callon piece it specifically talks about how their data demonstrated the CO2 feedback mechanism.

    Its very akin to you failing to neglect that the girl you accused of maiming people was not only found not guilty but won a civil suit against the state. Or pulling 'All the scientists' out of my post talking about how they elected members.

  15. #390
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Why would one risk losing his job?
    So then you cannot find any?

    Can you describe to me the process for removing a NAS member? Do you even know?

  16. #391
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You're right about Cheny, but the democrats had control in both houses.

    Pelosi was Speaker, and Byrd was Senate Pres. pro tem, which is what I meant to ask. Sorry I made a mistake.

    However, the fact is, you said the democrats did not control congress in 2008.

    They did, but your ego doesn't allow you to admit a mistake.

    Now, do you know who is Commander in Chief of the generals calling for fighting AGW? Any idea what happens to a general who doesn't follow his CinC's agenda?
    The Senate was 49-49.

    The DoD policy started long before 2009. But can you show me where the Obama ordering the policy was reported or is this another one of your 'I suppose' moments?

  17. #392
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    For your Callon piece it specifically talks about how their data demonstrated the CO2 feedback mechanism.
    I don't remember the paper by name, reading it again, I had the wrong paper in mind.

    Sorry, been up all night.

    I was thinking of the paper that you presented that concluded CO2 lagged temperature. Their methodology was idiotic.

  18. #393
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I don't remember the paper by name, reading it again, I had the wrong paper in mind.

    Sorry, been up all night.

    I was thinking of the paper that you presented that concluded CO2 lagged temperature. Their methodology was idiotic.
    I was talking to aspie.

    Also you have put forth the 'CO2 lags by 800 years' argument yourself. They are idiotic yet you cite them. That's nice.

    I never presented any paper in the last few days but the one talking about ocean ph. You are once again demonstrating stupidity.

  19. #394
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    The Senate was 49-49.
    And the vote gave power to the democrats.
    The DoD policy started long before 2009. But can you show me where the Obama ordering the policy was reported or is this another one of your 'I suppose' moments?
    Only because of the scientific consensus, and Obama does not need to order . The generals know better than to cross their leader, and he has the power to replace them.

    Ever been in the military?

  20. #395
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    That link says that the gradient is zero. You say its trending cooler. So is the link wrong or are you wrong?

    I mean if you are going to post contradictory things try not doing it in the exact same post.
    Aspie, in debate, in debate when you drop something that means you concede the point.

    So we can conclude that you are a full of sophist that will say anything that supports what you want to conclude even if it directly contradicts the very next thing you say.

    Bravo!

  21. #396
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    And the vote gave power to the democrats.

    Only because of the scientific consensus, and Obama does not need to order . The generals know better than to cross their leader, and he has the power to replace them.

    Ever been in the military?
    What vote? cheney voted in case of a tie, dumbass.

    My family has a long West Point military tradition, and obviously this is another one of your 'suppose' moments.

  22. #397
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I got you to repeat the same exact thing. How is that failure?

    You started off with the exact same canned 'corruption' argument. it was nice to compare and contrast with your argument that the IPCC was politically influenced.
    I didn't, my original reply included a link and quote. Thus you failed. The IPCC is politically influenced, it is called the, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    So you show 4 out of 800?
    What?

    And gray is just a term of ridicule. There are still 13000 works that were peer reviewed.
    That grey literature represents 30% of the "science" in the report. Are you claiming that 30% of the IPCC report was not peer-reviewed?

    For your Callon piece it specifically talks about how their data demonstrated the CO2 feedback mechanism.
    Is that what is quoted?

    Its very akin to you failing to neglect that the girl you accused of maiming people was not only found not guilty but won a civil suit against the state. Or pulling 'All the scientists' out of my post talking about how they elected members.
    You already stated this lie. Please quote where I named any such girl. I did not pull that out of your post, I used it to ask a different but relevant question.

  23. #398
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    What vote? cheney voted in case of a tie, dumbass.
    49 republicans and 49 democrats. The two independent voted democrat. It was not 50/50.

    As for you beloved NAS:

    The National Academy of Blacklists

  24. #399
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    4 non PhDs out of 800 authors.

    You parroted the same argument just because it wasn't verbatim doesn't mean it wasn't the same thing.

    I was being sarcastic and it was not meant to imply all do, rather that FuzzyLumpkins does not have a good defense for why they would be carrying around a pipebomb unless it was for a eco-terrorist plot. The fact that they blew themselves up instead of hurting an innocent person is just dumb luck.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3584

    And you cannot go back and edit that one out, aspie. You are a real s bag.

    their defense was good enough for both criminal and civil court as they won both cases. At least you took it down from your site.

    As for what was quoted: what part of context do you not understand. I say this paper supports skepticism but ignore the part where it demonstrates how the lag is demonstrative of the CO2 feedback cycle.

  25. #400
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Also you have put forth the 'CO2 lags by 800 years' argument yourself. They are idiotic yet you cite them. That's nice.
    Yes, I did. Numerous studies have different numbers, but they are in the hundreds of years.
    I never presented any paper in the last few days but the one talking about ocean ph. You are once again demonstrating stupidity.
    It was well over a few days ago. I'm talking about the one that concluded temperature lagged CO2. Maybe I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure you introduced it. Maybe it was Random or Manny.

    You like consensus...

    One paper says temperature lags CO2, when so many others say the opposite.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 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
  •