Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Reply To Thread

Consensus on Global Warming?Follow

QuoteReply
#102 May 21 2008 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The scientists who say that it's true are ones actually in related fields who are publishing papers about it. Not random names on a mail-in petition including people who are dead and complete joke names. Sh*t, out of ten random names, I found a so-called PhD who was someone submitting the name of a school as a scientist. Maybe I just got real lucky to find the one joke name out of 31,000 but I kind of doubt it.



Wonderful Joph. Now apply the same criteria to the scientists involved in the IPCC's consensus regarding global warming. How many of those have PhDs? How many of those PhDs work in relevant fields?


I'm simply asking that you judge both by the same criteria. If you reject this consensus on some grounds, you should also reject the IPCC consensus on the same grounds, or at least assess it in the same way. I seem to recall the last several times we debated this, that the basic argument was that since a whole bunch of scientists said Global Warming was true, it must be true...

Quote:
When I mention scientific concensus, I'm referring to people actively in the fields related to climatology and anthropogenic climate change who have published studies and works regarding it.


And how many of those people were amount the 3k or so the IPCC used to generate their consensus? That's all I'm asking Joph. Judge both sides by the same criteria...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#103 May 21 2008 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592779250175
View User Forum
Scholar
***
1,991 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Azazel, Immortal Lion wrote:
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel also states that Global Warming is the biggest scam in history
A brief look at Coleman's biography doesn't suggest that he has any more formal education in climatology than your typical small-town weather bunny who reads whatever the National Weather Service puts on the wire. Can you detail his credentials?


I must admit, I found none, and posts on others forums saying they are not all the impressive. But anyways, where is Al Gore's credentials? I think being the founder of one of the biggest weather services is better than Al Gore's nothing.

Mindel wrote:
First, he never claimed to have invented the Internet. The quotation was: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." He was referring to helping create a legislative and regulatory environment that fostered the expansion and growth of the Internet.


I think I missed the point...


Edit: Maybe it's just because I am a young uneducated *****...

Edited, May 21st 2008 7:38pm by Azazel
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#104 May 21 2008 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I read they can make ethanol out of sugar, which is in much greater supply and cheaper.

They can. It's pretty neat, actually. They use the fibrous parts of sugar canine that don't contain much sugar for heat to process the parts that do into ethanol.

Corn based ethanol is a ******* joke.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#105 May 21 2008 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592779250175
View User Forum
Scholar
***
1,991 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I read they can make ethanol out of sugar, which is in much greater supply and cheaper.

They can. It's pretty neat, actually. They use the fibrous parts of sugar canine that don't contain much sugar for heat to process the parts that do into ethanol.

Corn based ethanol is a @#%^ing joke.


Is the sugar based ethanol a lot better then corn based? Maybe even closer/better to petrol?

Because that sounds ******* awesome.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#106 May 21 2008 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I'm simply asking that you judge both by the same criteria.

Ok. One has no credibility and no research. One has credibility and thousands of pages of research.

Game over.

Or did you mean you wanted to *equivocate* them and pretend they're two similar groups? If that's the case we should let 3 year olds weigh in. After all three year olds are human beings, just as the scientists are.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#107 May 21 2008 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Is the sugar based ethanol a lot better then corn based? Maybe even closer/better to petrol?

No, it's pretty much the same end product, it just takes less energy to produce. Brazil's been doing the sugar cane ethanol thing for years. I believe (I'm too lazy to check) they have a fair amount of cars that run on 100% ethanol over there now. Last I remember they were at mandatory 20/80 ethanol/gas for all cars.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#108 May 21 2008 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I'm simply asking that you judge both by the same criteria.

Ok. One has no credibility and no research. One has credibility and thousands of pages of research.


No. Judge by the same criteria. What percentage of the scientists used to create the consensus about global warming by the IPCC are the in same fields you and Joph said were important? What percentage of them had PhDs?

That's it. I'm not asking your opinion on other papers produced elsewhere. I'm simply asking you to judge the consensus by the same criteria you're judging this one. Otherwise, I can only conclude that a consensus is "good" if you agree with it, and "bad" if you don't.

Which kinda makes it meaningless, right?


The last time we debated this, I produced a number of arguments that poke holes in many of the components of the global warming theory. When I did this, instead of anyone arguing against me, you all pointed to the fact that a whole bunch of scientists all said the theory was true, so that made any argument null and void.


Just answer the question. What about the 3kish scientists on the IPCC who said global warming is true is "better" then the 31k who say it isn't?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#109 May 21 2008 at 5:09 PM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

No. Judge by the same criteria. What percentage of the scientists used to create the consensus about global warming by the IPCC are the in same fields you and Joph said were important? What percentage of them had PhDs?

Hi. We're not playing this game. Try posting some non ******** thing instead of "challenging" people to refute your ******** guesses when you're proven wrong.

You tell me, moron. What is the percentage? I know of course, but it's not my job to continue to offer facts for you to hand waive and make terrible criticisms of.

If you have *absolutely any* valid critique of the consensus, offer it.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#110 May 21 2008 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The last time we debated this, I produced a number of arguments that poke holes in many of the components of the global warming theory. When I did this, instead of anyone arguing against me, you all pointed to the fact that a whole bunch of scientists all said the theory was true, so that made any argument null and void.

No, you didn't.

What did happen was that Joph refuted all of your "hole poking" with actual peer reviewed research almost instantly and I made fun of you.

You know, pretty much every third thread on the Asylum.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#111 May 21 2008 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And how many of those people were amount the 3k or so the IPCC used to generate their consensus? That's all I'm asking Joph. Judge both sides by the same criteria...
I honestly don't care. If 2,500 of them were beet farmers, there'd still be 500 people with actual climatology degrees and experience in the field working off of the wealth of published studies supporting ACC and the unanimous support of the major climatology related scientific organizations throughout the world. I don't say "OMG 3,000 PEOPLE!!!!", I point to the domination of the debate by studies which support ACC and the dearth of studies refuting the idea.

You, on the other hand, used your petition to argue about consensus. This is the list you chose to make your argument with. You made sure to let us know, by God, that these were scientists! Just for giggles, here's the first PhD listed for the first 10 letters of the alphabet:

Earl Aagaard - Biologist with Southern Adventist University
Dirk Den Baars - Unknown. All I could find was that he was a Japanese POW in WWII.
Fernando Cadena - Civil Engineer with New Mexico State U.
Hugo da Silva - Unknown. I think a mechanical engineer
Joseph Jackson Eachus - Unknown although in 1977 he was on a patent for a data entry touch device
Michael William Fabian - Unknown although in 1960 he wrote an article on fish mortality due to crustaceans
Steven Alexander Gaal - Mathmatics professor at North Dakota U.
Gottfried Haacke - Unknown although in 1972 he was involved in a patent for LCD watch faces
Michael John Iatropoulos - Pathologist, New York Medical College
Robert Jacko - Professor of Civil Engineering at Purdue

Not a single person involved in climatology among them. Not even tangentially. That's not a problem I have when I pull up study after study after study supporting the theory.

Edited, May 21st 2008 8:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#112 May 21 2008 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
[quote=gbaji]The last time we debated this, I produced a number of arguments that poke holes in many of the components of the global warming theory. When I did this, instead of anyone arguing against me, you all pointed to the fact that a whole bunch of scientists all said the theory was true, so that made any argument null and ********************** You linked to a memo by Senator Inhofe and I linked from actual studies and reports to refute the major points in the memo. I never once just fell back on "A buncha guys say it's true!!"

Your post is #2, mine starts at #10
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#113 May 21 2008 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


Your post is #2, mine starts at #10

Man, my memories good. I was dead on!

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#114 May 21 2008 at 5:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Azazel, Immortal Lion wrote:
I must admit, I found none, and posts on others forums saying they are not all the impressive. But anyways, where is Al Gore's credentials? I think being the founder of one of the biggest weather services is better than Al Gore's nothing.
Al Gore doesn't have any credentials beyond being a smart guy who is obviously passionate about this topic. But I don't listen to Al Gore because he's Al Gore*. Al Gore is giving his message while standing on the shoulders of giants, men who actually did the research to back up the message that Al Gore is expressing.


*Really, although I saw his film, I don't much listen to Al Gore at all. But I admire the amount of awareness he's raised on the issue.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#115 May 21 2008 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
No, it's pretty much the same end product, it just takes less energy to produce. Brazil's been doing the sugar cane ethanol thing for years. I believe (I'm too lazy to check) they have a fair amount of cars that run on 100% ethanol over there now. Last I remember they were at mandatory 20/80 ethanol/gas for all cars.
Luckily, we place heavy tarrifs on Brazillian imported ethanol to ensure that it's not any cheaper than the much more expensive corn ethanol we make. All hail the corn lobby!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#116 May 21 2008 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592779250175
View User Forum
Scholar
***
1,991 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Azazel, Immortal Lion wrote:
I must admit, I found none, and posts on others forums saying they are not all the impressive. But anyways, where is Al Gore's credentials? I think being the founder of one of the biggest weather services is better than Al Gore's nothing.
Al Gore doesn't have any credentials beyond being a smart guy who is obviously passionate about this topic. But I don't listen to Al Gore because he's Al Gore*. Al Gore is giving his message while standing on the shoulders of giants, men who actually did the research to back up the message that Al Gore is expressing.


*Really, although I saw his film, I don't much listen to Al Gore at all. But I admire the amount of awareness he's raised on the issue.


Instead of arguing about who has the credentials and who doesn't, why don't we get to know the facts about Global Warming? Now, I might just not understand this, but I assume that you and the rest of you posters (besides gbaji) and most other earthlings think Global Warming is being sped up by humans, is this right?

If so, why are the polar ice caps on Mars melting? We have no known evidence (Unless hidden by the Government) of other lifeforms on Mars that could be harming the ice caps on Mars. We also know that there were warming periods in older times such as the Dark Ages. Maybe it's just a cyclical process?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#117 May 21 2008 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
MDenham
View User Forum
Silent But Deadly
*****
19,999 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Erm, back in the 80s, or early 90s, I read a book called "Chaos" or "Chaos Theory". Unfortunately it's in storage, and googling it has turned up dozens of similarly named books, and I'm not sure which one it is, and who the author is.
I suspect it's this one, by James Gleick, as that seems to be the one everyone and their goddamn mother has read. Smiley: grin
____________________________
SUPER BANNED FOR FAILING TO POST 20K IN A TIMELY MANNER
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#118 May 21 2008 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Maybe it's just a cyclical process?

Sure. It is. That's not the same as humans having no impact on it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#119 May 21 2008 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You, on the other hand, used your petition to argue about consensus.


Yes. To argue that consensus is irrelevant in science. Which is the *exact* argument I made when we debated this last time and everyone argued that since X number of scientists working for the IPCC said that Global Warming was true, that this ended any debate on the subject.

Get it yet?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#120 May 21 2008 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
TirithRR
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
I personally don't think that it's being sped up by humans. I'm definitely no expert on the matter, but I have seen the graphs on temperature vs. time, and carbon levels vs the same time. There is a spike in the carbon, but the temperature spike isn't any higher than the previous.

I think of it like forest fires. Most of the time they are natural, and the only bad thing about them is because humans are there. Nature doesn't care about the fire, it can grow back or adapt. Humans don't like them because they don't like their world changing.

Humans want everything around them to stay the same. Extinction is bad, even if people aren't the cause, climate change is bad, even if people aren't the cause. Humans are the end to evolution.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#121 May 21 2008 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. To argue that consensus is irrelevant in science.
It's not, as a whole. It is when the pool of consensus is made up of people whose scientific opinions have zero merit.
Quote:
Which is the *exact* argument I made when we debated this last time and everyone argued that since X number of scientists working for the IPCC said that Global Warming was true, that this ended any debate on the subject.
I didn't make that argument. I stated above what my argument regarding consensus is based on.
Quote:
Get it yet?
That you're comparing hundreds of published studies and the opinions of major scientific instutitions directly involved in climate research to a mail-in petition signed by an ichthyologist, a civil engineer and a guy who patented a digital watch face?

Yeah, I got it.

Edited, May 21st 2008 8:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#122 May 21 2008 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. And Smash? For the record, when I said that you didn't read the article, maybe I should have said "You didn't understand the article"...

Quote:
Robinson explained that the purpose of OISM’s petition project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.



Notice he does not say that the purpose is to prove whether or not global warming theories are true. If you'd read the whole thing, you might have understood why I linked the article...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#123 May 21 2008 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I personally don't think that it's being sped up by humans. I'm definitely no expert on the matter, but I have seen the graphs on temperature vs. time, and carbon levels vs the same time. There is a spike in the carbon, but the temperature spike isn't any higher than the previous.

This seems to be largely because we generate enough opaque pollution to block out a signifigant portion of sunlight, slowing the warming consequences of the carbon increase.

So as long as we keep that up, we'll be in good shape.

Coal powered cars FTW!



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#124 May 21 2008 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. To argue that consensus is irrelevant in science.
It's not, as a whole. It is when the pool of consensus is made up of people whose scientific opinions have zero merit.


Ok. Then show me that the people who's scientific opinions made up the IPCC consensus have merit. Do you know what percentage of them have degrees in relevant fields Joph? If you don't, then why haven't you questioned their consensus just as you immediately questioned this one?



Quote:
That you're comparing hundreds of published studies and the opinions of major scientific instutitions directly involved in climate research to a mail-in petition signed by an ichthyologist, a civil engineer and a guy who patented a digital watch face?


No. I'm comparing these scientists to the scientists involved in the IPCC consensus Joph. I'll ask again. What percentage of those scientists actually work in a relevant field? Do you know the answer?


Edited, May 21st 2008 7:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#125 May 21 2008 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
TirithRR
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I personally don't think that it's being sped up by humans. I'm definitely no expert on the matter, but I have seen the graphs on temperature vs. time, and carbon levels vs the same time. There is a spike in the carbon, but the temperature spike isn't any higher than the previous.

This seems to be largely because we generate enough opaque pollution to block out a signifigant portion of sunlight, slowing the warming consequences of the carbon increase.

So as long as we keep that up, we'll be in good shape.

Coal powered cars FTW!





Win Win. Our polution is both causing and fixing the issue. Let's move on to the next issue.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#126 May 21 2008 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Smasharoo
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Notice he does not say that the purpose is to prove whether or not global warming theories are true. If you'd read the whole thing, you might have understood why I linked the article...

You thought it was an actual refutation of the consensus, because you're that stupid and desperate that you read Newsmax.

Everyone understands why you linked the article.

Serious question, now. Do you actually know anyone that this **** works on? All I can think of is Pee Wee Herman saying "I meant to do that!"

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 189 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (189)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC