Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Reply To Thread

Something happenedFollow

#252 Feb 21 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
They do so because most people spend the least amount of effort thinking about their own positions possible.
Heh, of course. It has nothing to do with your predictability and complete inane bias that people are tired of, it's everyone else just being lazy!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#253 Feb 21 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
I spent a decent amount of effort trying to discuss issues with Gbaji before I gave up. Not as much as joph perhaps, but I certainly didn't give up because I don't spend time examining my own positions.

Edited, Feb 21st 2012 9:20pm 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
#254 Feb 21 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They do so because most people spend the least amount of effort thinking about their own positions possible.
Heh, of course. It has nothing to do with your predictability and complete inane bias that people are tired of, it's everyone else just being lazy!


Everyone is not "most people". And the motivation isn't about laziness. You're the one who keeps wanting to use that context, not me. It's more about a fear that an examination of ones own positions might result in a realization that they are wrong (or at least not as absolutely correct as once thought). Never underestimate the degrees to which people will go to avoid self examination.

And before you toss the projected "that's what you do!" response, I'm the one who is more than willing to write extensively about my positions and defend them against all who disagree. Whether you agree or disagree with my positions themselves, I'm certainly not avoiding examination of my own positions. Can you really say the same?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#255 Feb 21 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Whether you agree or disagree with my positions themselves, I'm certainly not avoiding examination of my own positions. Can you really say the same?
Sure I can, but unlike you I'd actually be telling the truth. Smiley: smile
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#256 Feb 21 2012 at 9:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I spent a decent amount of effort trying to discuss issues with Gbaji before I gave up. Not as much as joph perhaps, but I certainly didn't give up because I don't spend time examining my own positions.


I think your mistake is assuming that after discussing an issue with me (or anyone for that matter), that if I don't adopt your position on the issue then the discussion was useless. If your objective is to get me to change my position, then you are going to be frustrated. If your objective is to clarify your own positions and attempt to argue why they're better than my own, then you should not require that I adopt them. I've long since accepted that you can very very rarely actually get people to change their minds about something. You can, however, perhaps influence third parties who are witnessing the discussion but who have not yet made up their minds.


I think that "giving up" isn't going to accomplish that very well. Don't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#257 Feb 21 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whether you agree or disagree with my positions themselves, I'm certainly not avoiding examination of my own positions. Can you really say the same?
Sure I can, but unlike you I'd actually be telling the truth. Smiley: smile


Ah... Just the sort of response I'd expect!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#258 Feb 21 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whether you agree or disagree with my positions themselves, I'm certainly not avoiding examination of my own positions. Can you really say the same?
Sure I can, but unlike you I'd actually be telling the truth. Smiley: smile
Ah... Just the sort of response I'd expect!
Of course, because you're always right and everything else in the universe is wrong. Duh.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#259 Feb 21 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Of course, because you're always right and everything else in the universe is wrong. Duh.


Not "everything else". Just you. Smiley: clown
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#260 Feb 21 2012 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Of course, because you're always right and everything else in the universe is wrong. Duh.
Not "everything else". Just you. Smiley: clown
It's true because you said so. Like about everything else.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#261 Feb 21 2012 at 10:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Of course, because you're always right and everything else in the universe is wrong. Duh.
Not "everything else". Just you. Smiley: clown
It's true because you said so. Like about everything else.


We don't make things true or not true. They are, or are not, all by themselves. All we do is see (or fail to see) the truths that already exist.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#262 Feb 21 2012 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Of course, because you're always right and everything else in the universe is wrong. Duh.
Not "everything else". Just you. Smiley: clown
It's true because you said so. Like about everything else.
We don't make things true or not true. They are, or are not, all by themselves. All we do is see (or fail to see) the truths that already exist.
Right. You see the truth, and everyone else in existence that doesn't agree with you fails to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#263 Feb 22 2012 at 12:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
None of which has a **** thing to do with the "effect of human activity on that temperature change, nor the models used to create temperature projections based on CO2 levels in the future".

It's honestly funny as **** that you apparently can't see this. Read what I wrote. Respond to that, not the strawman. Hell. I even told you that was a strawman before you posted this. Yet you did it *again*. Amazing!


I never said anything about the linked research proving CO2 prediction models were accurate, you've moved the goal posts there. I said that the Koch Bros. funded research proved the way the data was collected that is used in said models is accurate. Ya know, 'cause after climate gate you science-denialists were all up in arms about how the data was fudged, or collected incorrectly, etc.

Fact is, you can't prove the models will be accurate until enough time passes to prove them right or wrong. In the interim, we KNOW the temperature is increasing & that man has a definite impact on that. Curbing CO2 emissions now WILL help in the future- that's a fact.

From NASA:
Screenshot


Decreasing CO2 output WILL help slow down the rising temperature, also a fact. It may already be too late, but I'd rather we try to do something about it now rather than continue **** future generations. Unfortunatly, there's a lot of people who make money off of things that contribute to CO2 outputs whom have NO interest in the future, but only in making as much money as possible NOW.

Gbaji wrote:
Come back when you have some data which shows that global temperatures have increased over the last decade in a way which matches the projections made by the IPCC which were used to call for major reductions of human produced CO2 emissions. As I have already explained several times, it's those political recommendations which are the most problematic. If a bunch of scientists want to sit off in a corner somewhere making wild speculations about what the global climate might do in the future, no one really cares. It's when politicians grab the most wild of those speculations, declare them to be absolute truth, scare the public with them, and then use that fear to embark on some massive political agenda that a bunch of us start to have a problem.


First off, the IPCC has never done it's own research, data collecting, or predictions. Instead, scientists from around the world VOLUNTARILY contribute to writing & reviewing the reports. Then, they take the best information available, & have to make predictions based on a "best case" scenario (one where we reduce emissions) & a "worse case" scenario (Business As Usual- No reductions/MORE CO2). It is debatable how much reducing emissions will effect the environment, it is NOT debatable that continuing on the BAU (Business As Usual) route will lead to ever increasing temperatures.

Gbaji wrote:

Show that they were correct about that. Because that's what I care about. If those dire predictions aren't coming true, then aren't we done here? No need for draconian reductions of CO2, right? So why are we talking about this at all?


Again, the IPCC tends to do a best & worse case scenario. But the fact is, IPCC predictions are actually on the conservative side. Hell, the 2006 report that **** off the neo-cons doesn't even factor in the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra- and there's WAY more of it happening than we even thought. The "hockey stick" graph that was criticized by Sen. James Inhofe (When he famously called Global Warming a hoax), was investigated by the National Academy of Sciences after an inquiry requested by Congress and found that while there were some statistical failings, [/i]these had little effect on the graph, which was generally correct. The graph has been validated by more than 12 reconstructions producing broadly similar results.[/i]

Fact- Global Warming is Real
Fact- Even the denialists are having a harder & harder time proving the data is wrong
Fact- We can do something about it
FACT- IPCC estimates are CONSERVATIVE.

Quote:
On 1 February 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.[84] The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection.


Quote:
Another example of scientific research which suggests that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually understated them is a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001." This may have been due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate


All quotes from the IPCC wiki.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 5:06am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#264 Feb 22 2012 at 5:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
gbaji wrote:
more than willing to write extensively about my positions and defend them

Please, for the love of god, haven't we been through enough??

NO MORE WORDS.
#265 Feb 22 2012 at 7:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I think your mistake is assuming that after discussing an issue with me (or anyone for that matter), that if I don't adopt your position on the issue then the discussion was useless.
yeah, I wasn't making that mistake, nor do I think that. It must be comforting for you to think that though.
____________________________
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
#266 Feb 22 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Your disagreeing with him just proves how correct he is, Xsarus.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#267 Feb 22 2012 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot
.
____________________________
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
#268 Feb 22 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
None of which has a **** thing to do with the "effect of human activity on that temperature change, nor the models used to create temperature projections based on CO2 levels in the future".

It's honestly funny as **** that you apparently can't see this. Read what I wrote. Respond to that, not the strawman. Hell. I even told you that was a strawman before you posted this. Yet you did it *again*. Amazing!


I never said anything about the linked research proving CO2 prediction models were accurate, you've moved the goal posts there.


No. You're attempting to move them. I have consistently stated that the IPCC predictions used to justify draconian legislative action were wrong. You're the one who keeps inserting the whole "But global temperatures did increase over the last century" bit. And every time you or someone else does that, I will respond by pointing out that that doesn't make the IPCC predictions for the future correct. Because that is the question. Not what temperatures have done in the past, but what they will do in the future, and what effect that will have on the climate, and to what degree CO2 emissions may play a role in any of this.

I'm looking at the legislative proposals and asking "are these necessary or helpful?" I don't care about anything other than that.

Quote:
I said that the Koch Bros. funded research proved the way the data was collected that is used in said models is accurate.


Sure. A point I have never disputed and most folks opposed to the political actions being proposed to fight global warming have never disputed. So... grats?

Quote:
Ya know, 'cause after climate gate you science-denialists were all up in arms about how the data was fudged, or collected incorrectly, etc.


Not collected incorrectly, but analyzed incorrectly. There's a difference between the process of collecting historical data, and the process of using that data to make projections for the future. Please tell me you get this? Because if you don't, then there's no hope for you having any meaningful understanding of this topic. The question is and has always been whether the IPCC projections for future climate change are accurate, and whether their political recommendations are either needed or helpful.


That is the issue. That's the whole issue. Everything else is side issues.

Quote:
Fact is, you can't prove the models will be accurate until enough time passes to prove them right or wrong. In the interim, we KNOW the temperature is increasing & that man has a definite impact on that. Curbing CO2 emissions now WILL help in the future- that's a fact.


No. That's not a fact. That's a guess. And a questionable one at that. What we do know is that there will be a massive economic effect from the sorts of proposed actions being pushed. What we also know is that most of those proposed actions don't even actually reduce global levels of CO2 emissions at all. Therefore, we can conclude that the political folks are using the science to push an agenda that has little to do with environmentalism and a whole lot to do with socio-economic policy in the first world.


What's so amazing is that it's not even about the climate science at all. Answer this question: What happens to global CO2 emissions of the US passes a strict cap and trade law for CO2? Think carefully and completely about the answer. It's not what you might think.

Quote:
Decreasing CO2 output WILL help slow down the rising temperature, also a fact.


No. It's not. You keep labeling things as facts, which are really just conjecture. Correlation is not causation, right?



Quote:
First off, the IPCC has never done it's own research, data collecting, or predictions. Instead, scientists from around the world VOLUNTARILY contribute to writing & reviewing the reports.


I know this. They are a politically oriented organization which selectively compiles scientific papers in the relevant fields and then uses them to create political proposals for the international community to use. They have a peer review process which is backwards and designed to squelch dissent rather than allow all opinions to be heard. They are absolutely not a scientific organization, yet their recommendations are labeled as "science" by their supporters (loudly and often).



I'm not going to go point/counterpoint on this one, but suffice it to say that the IPCC doubling down on the lack of confirmation of their earlier predictions by creating yet more predictions which claim that things are "even worse that we originally thought" doesn't really impress me. It's yet more BS manipulation of the science. Do we need to go through yet another whole decade where temperatures do not rise as they predicted before enough people will realize that they were wrong that folks like you will stop clinging to this myth?

Why do you suppose that over the last decade the language and direction has shifted from "global warming' (global temperatures will continue to rise unchecked if we don't reduce CO2 emissions), to "climate change" (temperature may not change much, but the climate will change anyway, so we should really reduce those CO2 emissions anyway). They did that because the temperatures were not increasing as predicted. They're hedging their bets. But the only common feature in all of this is a drive to push for legislation to reduce CO2 emissions in first world nations.


It's a political agenda in search of a justification, and it always has been. This is no different than what they tried to do with the Kyoto Accords. Same deal. It's an industrial shell game, designed to hurt first world economies, grow third world economies, and ironically actually increase global pollution along the way. It it not, and has never been about the environment. The environment is used as an excuse for a purely socio-economic agenda.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#269 Feb 23 2012 at 12:55 AM Rating: Good
Before I continue down this road; WHAT prediction did the IPCC make about future temperature increases that was "incorrect'? I'm aware that they didn't include factors such as greenhouse gas emissions from thawing tundra (which is a direct result of climate change), so the only thing I'm finding that is "incorrect" is that their predictions are on the LOW end.

Cite Please.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2012 1:56am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#270 Feb 23 2012 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Cite Please.

"Well, now, I know this is just a blog but..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, paulsol, Samira, Smasharoo, TirithRR, Yodabunny, Anonymous Guests (44)