Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Sceptics conclude Earth has warmedFollow

#1 Oct 21 2011 at 3:33 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
A group of scientists known for their scepticism about climate change has reanalysed two centuries' worth of global temperature records. Their study largely confirms previous ones: it finds strong evidence that Earth is getting hotter.

"The valid issues raised by [climate] sceptics, when addressed fully and in detail, do not significantly change the answer," says lead author Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley. In a testimony to the US Congress earlier this year, Muller questioned whether global temperature records showed a significant warming during the 20th century.

[...]

BEST concludes that land temperatures have risen by 1 °C since the 1950s. This is largely in line with the three existing global temperature records: GISTEMP, maintained by NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's GHCN and HadCRU, kept by the UK Met Office. The 1 °C of warming reflects warming above land masses only, so is not yet a truly global estimate.



The papers have not yet been peer reviewed, but this seems like progress to me. Thoughts?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#2 Oct 21 2011 at 3:51 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
eh earth heats up and cools down all the time, the issue isn't "the world has heated up" it is how much has the human impact really been. Considering we have no records from the previous ice age demonstrating contributing factors, we really have no idea if this is just an ongoing cycle, or if we have in fact increased the speed of the heating/cooling phase.

Pretty naive to think that over the last 200 years we have destroyed a multi million year cycle.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#3 Oct 21 2011 at 4:37 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Eh, it's not just over the past 200 years, though.


I mean, domestication of livestock pretty much ended the last ice age. Y'know, increased methane levels and all that.


I could say it's pretty naive to say we've had no impact at all.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#4 Oct 21 2011 at 4:40 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I could say it's pretty naive to say we've had no impact at all.
Good thing that's not what he said then.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5 Oct 21 2011 at 5:00 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I could say it's pretty naive to say we've had no impact at all.
Good thing that's not what he said then.

I know he didn't. Some people do, though.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#6 Oct 21 2011 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
The importance of this is that two actual scientists who were the beloved pets of the climate-changed deniers have said, "You know what? The other guys are right. We were wrong. Oh well."

The climate-change deniers are going to be following suit aaaaaaaany minute now. Just you watch and wait. Any minute now.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#7 Oct 21 2011 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
rdm wrote:
eh earth heats up and cools down all the time, the issue isn't "the world has heated up" it is how much has the human impact really been.


Nah, the issue is "how much money can we keep making off of oil?" before the public wises up & realizes they're ******** themselves over & future generations.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#8 Oct 21 2011 at 6:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
catwho wrote:
The importance of this is that two actual scientists who were the beloved pets of the climate-changed deniers have said, "You know what? The other guys are right. We were wrong. Oh well."

The climate-change deniers are going to be following suit aaaaaaaany minute now. Just you watch and wait. Any minute now.

You know the response will be they sold out to the man when they realized they couldn't get any funding by denying Obama's human-caused climate change scheme Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#9 Oct 21 2011 at 6:30 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
catwho wrote:
The importance of this is that two actual scientists who were the beloved pets of the climate-changed deniers have said, "You know what? The other guys are right. We were wrong. Oh well."


And this is why Science! Will always win. It is rational and has room to admit error. How long until some right wing nut claims that Jesus is coming back soon so what we do to the earth now doesn't matter.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#10 Oct 21 2011 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
#11 Oct 21 2011 at 6:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,312 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
eh earth heats up and cools down all the time, the issue isn't "the world has heated up" it is how much has the human impact really been. Considering we have no records from the previous ice age demonstrating contributing factors, we really have no idea if this is just an ongoing cycle, or if we have in fact increased the speed of the heating/cooling phase.

Pretty naive to think that over the last 200 years we have destroyed a multi million year cycle.

It's naive to think we could pump billions of gallons of oil out of the ground, add to that a few billion tons of coal, burn it all (inefficiently no less), and NOT have some impact on our planetary environment.






____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#12 Oct 21 2011 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So we can travel to the moon, drive wide-spread species into extinction, reverse the flow of rivers and split the atom but it's "naive" to think we can influence an existing climate cycle into exaggerated results given hundreds of years.

Nice logic, Rush Limbaugh Smiley: dubious

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 7:56am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Oct 21 2011 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
I'd like a winter without three feet of snow.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Oct 21 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'd like a winter without three feet of snow.


You'd like three feet of rain instead?

Seriously though, the people down-river of NY wouldn't mind you all getting less snow, either. I hear annual flooding is just the best.
#15 Oct 21 2011 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Nilatai wrote:
but this seems like progress to me. Thoughts?

Not really. It makes a nice story, but it doesn't matter. The science was settled long ago. All that's left is a battle for public opinion, and this is a kernel in a cornfield.
#16 Oct 21 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Allegory wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
but this seems like progress to me. Thoughts?

Not really. It makes a nice story, but it doesn't matter. The science was settled long ago. All that's left is a battle for public opinion, and this is a kernel in a cornfield.

I was of the opinion that the less "experts" who disagree with the science means less idiots can jump on the controversy band wagon.


Every little helps, and all that.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#17 Oct 21 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
but this seems like progress to me. Thoughts?

Not really. It makes a nice story, but it doesn't matter. The science was settled long ago. All that's left is a battle for public opinion, and this is a kernel in a cornfield.

I was of the opinion that the less "experts" who disagree with the science means less idiots can jump on the controversy band wagon.


Every little helps, and all that.

Doesn't help with the vaccines = autism thing (which ZERO scientists agree with). I think Al's right; the science is there. The only issues are: how MUCH of an impact do humans have, and having people actually believe the facts.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#18 Oct 21 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I'd like a winter without three feet of snow.
You'd like three feet of rain instead?
Yes, since once the rain stops it's easier to move my car and to park. Biggest issue is three feet of falling snow turns into about five feet of piled on the side of the roads packed snow after the snowplows drive by and not having to dig out afterwards would always be a plus.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19 Oct 21 2011 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Every little helps, and all that.

Not that my first name is Debby, but if every day 1 person were to switch sides on this issue then it would take 40,000 years for 5% of America's current population to sway to one side. To put the "little" into perspective.

I need to leave shortly so I can't say all that I want to say, but I find the issue of climate change to be a very interesting and saddening sociological conundrum.
#20 Oct 21 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I'd like a winter without three feet of snow.


You'd like three feet of rain instead?

Seriously though, the people down-river of NY wouldn't mind you all getting less snow, either. I hear annual flooding is just the best.

That's what you get for living in New Jersey. We're just trying to wash it into the ocean.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#21 Oct 21 2011 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,982 posts
Believe me, we wish you success. Just be sure to start with Newark.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Oct 21 2011 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'd like a winter without three feet of snow.


Come out here. It started raining already; should stop sometime in June. Though to be fair, we will have an occasional sun break. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#23 Oct 21 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
Elinda wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
eh earth heats up and cools down all the time, the issue isn't "the world has heated up" it is how much has the human impact really been. Considering we have no records from the previous ice age demonstrating contributing factors, we really have no idea if this is just an ongoing cycle, or if we have in fact increased the speed of the heating/cooling phase.

Pretty naive to think that over the last 200 years we have destroyed a multi million year cycle.

It's naive to think we could pump billions of gallons of oil out of the ground, add to that a few billion tons of coal, burn it all (inefficiently no less), and NOT have some impact on our planetary environment.



That is very true, but we have no concrete evidence of how much we have actually contributed. It is one thing to say we have seen an increase of X degrees since the industrial revolution. But we have no data to compare it to. We have no records of how temperatures fluctuated 500 years ago let alone prior to the onset of the last ice age. We do know that the earth has heated and cooled several times over the ages, but we have no data to reflect on the human contribution to the current cycle other than some 200 years worth of documented facts.

I am not saying that we have had no impact, obviously we have, but to what extent is anyone's guess. We could be responsible for a fraction of the increase, or we could even be slowing the natural cycle down. No one knows for sure because we have no supporting evidence either way. All we know is that the world is warmer then it was 200 years ago. That is it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#24 Oct 21 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
catwho wrote:
The importance of this is that two actual scientists who were the beloved pets of the climate-changed deniers have said, "You know what? The other guys are right. We were wrong. Oh well."


Strange, that's not what I read in that article at all. It looked a lot more like them saying that "on the question of whether the globe has actually even heated up in the last couple centuries, we agree that the evidence shows that it likely has", followed up with "But this doesn't affect in any way the question of what degree human activity has had to do with that temperature change". Or did you miss that part?

Very few ACC skeptics argue the issue of whether the earth has gotten warmer over the last couple centuries. They argue about how much of that is caused by man, and whether the proposed solutions are worth doing much less necessary. The question of verifying whether the earth actually has gotten warmer is relevant to the whole issue, but while important for those arguing *for* dramatic action to save the earth from man's harmful actions, it's not important at all for those on the other side of the issue.


If this were a legal battle, one side just established standing for the case to even move forward. I suppose you could call this a victory for the pro-ACC side because it prevents their case from being tossed out right off the bat, but it's far far far from proving their case.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 1:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Oct 21 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
I wouldn't even go that far.

My take on it is simply put: the heat islands caused by cities wasn't a significant source of error for temperature trends detected in previous studies.

Really that work would have been done by a grad student if climate science wasn't so politically charged. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#26 Oct 21 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I wouldn't even go that far.

My take on it is simply put: the heat islands caused by cities wasn't a significant source of error for temperature trends detected in previous studies.

Really that work would have been done by a grad student if climate science wasn't so politically charged. Smiley: rolleyes

According to that brilliant, classic piece of work that is SyFy's Category 7, the urban heat islands are enough to destabilize the mesosphere and cause -100C air to come crashing down to the surface, triggering cyclones that rival the Great Red Spot. But, on the plus side, these heat columns can be dispersed in mere minutes by turning off the power grid, thus instantaneously defeating the killer storm.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#27 Oct 21 2011 at 5:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
this isn't going to be a HAARP thread is it?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#28 Oct 21 2011 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
this isn't going to be a HAARP thread is it?

Oooh it is now!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#29 Oct 21 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
That is very true, but we have no concrete evidence of how much we have actually contributed.

We totally do. There is an international scientific consensus that we're significantly responsible for the current climate change.

The primary problem is that scientists are very good at doing science but not very good at marketing. However, the 8 out of the 10 largest companies in the world whose revenues streams are directly tied to oil do happen to be very good at marketing.
#30 Oct 21 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Allegory wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
That is very true, but we have no concrete evidence of how much we have actually contributed.

We totally do. There is an international scientific consensus that we're significantly responsible for the current climate change.


Science is not done by a show of hands at a convention. This is honestly one of the most irritating statements people make in this debate. That somehow because a few hundred scientists one time at one convention (held specifically by political forces for the purpose of raising awareness of the very assumption in question btw), signed a piece of paper, that this means that the science is "done" and we should never question it or examine it, or look at it again.

That's not science.

Quote:
The primary problem is that scientists are very good at doing science but not very good at marketing. However, the 8 out of the 10 largest companies in the world whose revenues streams are directly tied to oil do happen to be very good at marketing.


Political movements are very good at marketing too.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 4:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Oct 21 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
Science is not done by a show of hands at a convention.
I remember you didn't have any objection to science being done through iPetitions.com.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Oct 21 2011 at 5:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Science is not done by a show of hands at a convention.
I remember you didn't have any objection to science being done through iPetitions.com.



I think you're confusing "science" with "showing that you can get a scientific consensus for any side of an argument if you want to". You honestly didn't get that the point of that was to show that such forms of "consensus" *aren't* real science and shouldn't be taken as such? Um... Wow. Boy did you fail that one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Oct 21 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
Boy did you fail that one.
Just pointing out that you were strangely quiet over that particular survey. Get flustered if you want or not.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Oct 21 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Science is not done by a show of hands at a convention. This is honestly one of the most irritating statements people make in this debate. That somehow because a few hundred scientists one time at one convention (held specifically by political forces for the purpose of raising awareness of the very assumption in question btw), signed a piece of paper, that this means that the science is "done" and we should never question it or examine it, or look at it again.

That's not science

It is, however,one **** of a strawman.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Oct 21 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
Quote:
We totally do. There is an international scientific consensus that we're significantly responsible for the current climate change.


Please provide me a 200 year sample of weather statistics from some 65 million years ago. Also please provide one every 20 millions years (45, 25, 5) I would also like a source with accurate climate readings from the years 12000 BC 10000BC 8000BC, 100AD, 1100AD, 1491 AD.

If you can show to me that humans have altered the global cycle to a drastic degree ill buy into global warming loony talk. We may have had an impact, but like so has every other dominate species (maybe not to the extent we have). If you have to ask questions about what about before we kept records, then you can't really proove anything.

Nearly every global warming spiel cites after a few hundred years of records we have found the temperature has increased, we think we did something to it, so ya Global Warming. The earth has been around for billions of years, we have no idea how it functions, and it is naive to think we do.

(unless you are a religious nutbar and believe it all poofed into existance 10,000 years ago.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#36 Oct 21 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Science is not done by a show of hands at a convention. This is honestly one of the most irritating statements people make in this debate. That somehow because a few hundred scientists one time at one convention (held specifically by political forces for the purpose of raising awareness of the very assumption in question btw), signed a piece of paper, that this means that the science is "done" and we should never question it or examine it, or look at it again.

That's not science

It is, however,one **** of a strawman.


Only if I were arguing that they are wrong because they got a few hundred scientists to form said consensus. I don't argue that (and have never argued that). I argue only that said consensus does not make them right. It's a subtle, but very significant difference.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Oct 21 2011 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Boy did you fail that one.
Just pointing out that you were strangely quiet over that particular survey. Get flustered if you want or not.


Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about. If you're talking about the anti-ACC folks creating an online petition and getting 30,000 "scientists" (we can quibble over what qualifies one if you want) to generate their own consensus, in order to counter the consensus of the 300 or so "scientists" at the IPCC convention which is often used to attempt to shut down debate on the issue, then I seem to recall we've had several threads in which the topic came up. So I'm not sure what you mean by "strangely silent".

I've talked about it at length in the past. And I've never argued that this "proved" that ACC was false. It only proved that not everyone agreed with the ACC consensus (which shouldn't have been in doubt anyway), but more importantly that just creating a consensus doesn't actually make you right. It disproves the argument that a consensus is proof of anything other than that you gathered some people together and called their agreement a "consensus" (ie: Pretty much meaningless).


If you're talking about something else, then you'll have to elaborate cause I'm drawing a blank.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 6:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Oct 21 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
So I'm not sure what you mean by "strangely silent".
Do those words have different meanings in your bubble? Or does that particular combination of words somehow confuse you? Would abnormally quiet suit you better? Astonishingly restrained? Exceptionally nonvocal? Unnaturally wordless?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Oct 21 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about. If you're talking about the anti-ACC folks creating an online petition and getting 30,000 "scientists" (we can quibble over what qualifies one if you want)....bunch of crap expanding on redundant argument.




why do you argue over redundant points all the time. The simple fact is they are basing their opinions on a fraction of a % of the worlds history. That in itself makes this whole idea of Global Warming kind of washy, while yes in the small controlled subtext it appears we have increased the temperature of the planet, in reality we have no idea if this is a naturally recurring cycle or if we in fact did cause it.

The validity of scientist is meaningless, they could all be scientist the cold hard facts are we only have a limited data supply to apply to a system that has been functioning for billions of years. (and this holds true even if we kept records since the dawn of man)

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 9:17pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 9:18pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#40 Oct 21 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Only if I were arguing that they are wrong because they got a few hundred scientists to form said consensus. I don't argue that (and have never argued that). I argue only that said consensus does not make them right. It's a subtle, but very significant difference.

Yeah, I see you don't know what a strawman is. Which is kind of ironic but, hey, there ya go.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Oct 21 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So I'm not sure what you mean by "strangely silent".
Do those words have different meanings in your bubble? Or does that particular combination of words somehow confuse you? Would abnormally quiet suit you better? Astonishingly restrained? Exceptionally nonvocal? Unnaturally wordless?


I know what the words mean, I'm just not sure if you mean the same thing when you use them. As far as I know, said petition was not mentioned earlier in this thread, nor has it come up in a thread topic for a year or more (again, that I'm aware of). So how the **** can I be "strangely silent" about it? I can get the "silent" part because I certainly haven't talked about it in a long time. But I don't get the "strangely" part, since there's nothing strange about me not talking about something that hasn't come up in conversation at all for like a year or two (well, the last time we had a big ACC debate anyway).


Why do you think it's strange that I didn't bring up something no one else brought up either?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Oct 21 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Only if I were arguing that they are wrong because they got a few hundred scientists to form said consensus. I don't argue that (and have never argued that). I argue only that said consensus does not make them right. It's a subtle, but very significant difference.

Yeah, I see you don't know what a strawman is. Which is kind of ironic but, hey, there ya go.


Geez Joph. That's weak sauce even for you. Must be Friday. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Oct 21 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
I may be wrong but I believe that certain methodologies, like analyzing ice core samples and fossilized tree rings, can give fairly accurate pictures of the climate (including things like atmospheric composition) for thousands of years.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#44 Oct 21 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Geez Joph. That's weak sauce even for you. Must be Friday. Smiley: rolleyes

Yeah, that was one way of trying to avoid admitting your love of the strawman argument and inability to even understand it Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Oct 21 2011 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So I'm not sure what you mean by "strangely silent".
Do those words have different meanings in your bubble? Or does that particular combination of words somehow confuse you? Would abnormally quiet suit you better? Astonishingly restrained? Exceptionally nonvocal? Unnaturally wordless?
I know what the words mean, I'm just not sure if you mean the same thing when you use them.
Strangely silent. It doesn't change meanings when spoken by different people. Bizarrely quiet? Startlingly curbed? Peculiarly taciturn?

But, watching you twist in the wind is fun for only so long, so I'll spell it out for you. Roughly three months ago, a similar topic was brought up that was essentially "HAY, ALL THESE SCIENTISTS (debatable qualifications, as they may have been) SIGNED A PETITION SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS FAAAAAKE SO IT MUST BE TRUE!" which you made no effort to make the same claim you make in this thread. The "science is not done by a show of hands at a convention" claim should, after all, be accurate for both. What they're actually saying is irrelevant, since that isn't the point. Just the method to come to the conclusion.

I simply found that strange. Irregular. Unusual. Weird. *****. Bizarre. Anomalous. Atypical.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 10:19pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Oct 21 2011 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Please provide me

Why would anyone waste their time doing that? Are you really so delusional as to think you have the qualifications to define the standards of evidence required to prove or disprove ACC?
#47 Oct 21 2011 at 9:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
Do you or do you not have a source of information from prior to even 10,000 years ago. Yes or No. If you think our insignificant existence over the duration of time this planet has existed has had any serious effect you are delusional, this planet has endured intense heat and cold. As much as people do not want to hear it, when this planet is done with us it will get rid of us, and there is nothing we can do about it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#48 Oct 21 2011 at 10:32 PM Rating: Excellent
@lolgaxe. I'm pretty sure that Gbaji actually posted about that petition way before the thread you're referring to. IIRC, good times were had as people basically completely ripped it apart. He backtracked pretty **** quick.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 11:32pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#49 Oct 21 2011 at 10:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Do you or do you not have a source of information from prior to even 10,000 years ago.

Like I said, it'd be a waste of time to make the effort. I do think it's funny that you're so ill-informed you've never heard of sediment or ice cores.
#50 Oct 21 2011 at 10:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
If you think our insignificant existence over the duration of time this planet has existed has had any serious effect you are delusional, this planet has endured intense heat and cold.

Yeah, the idea isn't "Oh, no! What if the planet disintegrates!?", it's "Shit, we're influencing the climate enough to seriously disrupt and endanger both the current ecosystems and our own way of life."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Oct 21 2011 at 10:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
@lolgaxe. I'm pretty sure that Gbaji actually posted about that petition way before the thread you're referring to.

Epik lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CST
Bijou, Elinda, Anonymous Guests (29)