U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2012, 02:09 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,274,227 times
Reputation: 2584
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
It isn't supposed to be the main driver, water vapor is the main driver, but we can't control the hydrologic cycle. CO2 through laboratory tests and direct and indirect measurements has been shown to be a contributer. The thing is add we are adding more CO2 to the environment than naturally is emitted. There is no denying we are adding more CO2 than naturally emitted.

Which tests, please cite me some of these experiments.


I say again, significance and its contribution. The problem is that you are either claiming it is significant or that its small part is the "tipping point" to the system. Can you provide any evidence to support either supposition?



Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
The models aren't coming up a "bust" (interesting word choice), the models are falling short of their projections of a rapidly rising temperatures but are still rising. That's the beauty of science, now we are trying to understand why that occurred which is looking like it has to do with the El/La Nino cycles and solar irradiance.
Falling short? *chuckle*

They are nowhere near their projections. Which are you speaking of though? The IPCC models are so far off that you can compare their success rate with that of a blind man throwing darts. And those temps actually are now within the statistical means of being within natural variability (this is according to their own models). Go ahead though, please cite some of these models for us. One request though, please provide them dated before the observational changes. I have no interest in evaluating a model to which has been "adjusted" after the fact (and yes, they do that), so be a good chap and provide all of the data and methodology they used so we can be sure. Whats that? You can't even get that through a legitimate FOIA request. Shucks, isn't that just too bad?

So, now you are trying to understand elements to which may have a large contribution into the process, but... well... they were accounted for... and well.. we are still rising... the hypothesis is true... *chuckle* sound more like a position of faith from that of a reliogous argument than that of a scientist. A scientist doesn't make excuses why their hypotheiss fails, they revel in it as it is a step towards understanding. The outcome ie... the assumption of the hypothesis is irrelevant to the ultimate process of science. You however keep arguing from your specified position. Sorry, but there is NOTHING scientific about that. Its like a beaten wife defending their abusing husband. What you are displaying to us here is... nothing... short... of PURE bias to a position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
They are more than guesses and you should know that, you just continue to keep twisting words. Let me ask you this, do you accept our geological record? We can't directly observing billions of years of history, but we use natural laws and indirect observations to piece together the world's history. We can't directly observing macroevolution, but we can use our knowledge to deduce it. You are just selling science short on what it can understand.
Deducing without enough validated facts leaves you with a bunch of assumptions driving the limited facts you have in any direction you choose.

Keep in mind that even with known laws of physics, we run into problems due to their limitations in understanding and these laws have been tested empirically and consistently with a very strong record of support, yet... add in a few new revelations due to our technology and understanding and it sets it right on its head.

So, taking that understanding, you are going to try and convince us that in a system extremely complex as it is, and with so much of it a mystery to those researching it, that with a magic equation of unknowns, you can use statistical means to establish validity. Please... go get a degree in math and then come back and waste my time with your garbage. /sheesh






Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
No one is saying that evolution or AGW is 100% happening and can't be proven otherwise. If you ask Hansen if there's absolutely no way, not even a 0.00000000001% that AGW isn't happening, do you think he is going to say yes?
Hansen is a nutball activist who will say whatever he has to say to achieve is self interested goal. His work is garbage (and has been show numerous times) and his conflict of interests is so vast that you even using him as evidence of anything is beyond absurd.

You see... this is the beauty of science. We don't have to take the assumption or word of a wacko as he is required to establish his position through a proper process. Hansen can only exist in politics and starry eyed worshipers of his ideal as his work is shown to be garbage over and over, which... btw is why the little turd never wants to release his data and methodology.

As to your main point though, this is why supposition is not validation as it can be used as a means to push an ideal while avoiding dealing with its actuality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2012, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile
14,244 posts, read 11,203,354 times
Reputation: 12933
That's interesting, there must have been a lot of technology during the last ice age to cause that climate change. It is rather amusing how the liberals try to eradicate religion using science, yet go against anything scientific when it comes to their policies. Time and time again, human influenced global warming is proved to be wrong and the it is NATURAL, yet they stick behind their views so they can find more ways to tax us and control the way we live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,777 posts, read 3,837,372 times
Reputation: 4155
We Have Met The Enemy The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined. (1) The types of hazardous wastes used by the military include pesticides and defoliants like Agent Orange. It includes solvents, petroleum, perchlorate (a component of rocket fuel) lead and mercury. And most ominously, depleted uranium.


The Ultimate Crime
As human rights attorney Karen Parker explains, the use of depleted uranium is illegal in four ways: It fails the territorial test because it can't be contained on the battlefield. The impact of depleted uranium continues to be felt after the battle is over. It is illegal because it causes inhumane death and injury. Depleted uranium irreparably damages the environment. For all these reasons, the use of depleted uranium is in violation of the Geneva Convention and constitutes a war crime. (18)
Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier

The extensive global operations of the US military (wars, interventions, and secret operations on over one thousand bases around the world and six thousand facilities in the United States) are not counted against US greenhouse gas limits. Sara Flounders writes, “By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.”
2. US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet | Project Censored
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:00 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
5,205 posts, read 2,249,390 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post

Which tests, please cite me some of these experiments.
Experiments

There's even some skeptic sites thrown in there for your further reading.

Or again I can link your Watts Up With That where you they concur that...
Quote:
The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.
Point is do your own work. However, it's obvious that if Jesus Christ was tapping dancing naked in front of you with all the evidence you so desire you would still be doubtful. Hell, let's just be honest, you don't even have an open mind towards the issue. Can you even be honest about your own bias? Have you even once said that you were open to the idea of AGW?

Quote:
I say again, significance and its contribution. The problem is that you are either claiming it is significant or that its small part is the "tipping point" to the system. Can you provide any evidence to support either supposition?
It's gets real old constantly having to explain your own "evidence" to you when you try and show me how incorrect AGW. Plus the whole time issue and the whole it's clear you can't be convinced otherwise.




Quote:
Falling short? *chuckle*

They are nowhere near their projections. Which are you speaking of though? The IPCC models are so far off that you can compare their success rate with that of a blind man throwing darts. And those temps actually are now within the statistical means of being within natural variability (this is according to their own models). Go ahead though, please cite some of these models for us. One request though, please provide them dated before the observational changes. I have no interest in evaluating a model to which has been "adjusted" after the fact (and yes, they do that), so be a good chap and provide all of the data and methodology they used so we can be sure. Whats that? You can't even get that through a legitimate FOIA request. Shucks, isn't that just too bad?
Quote:
So, now you are trying to understand elements to which may have a large contribution into the process, but... well... they were accounted for... and well.. we are still rising... the hypothesis is true... *chuckle* sound more like a position of faith from that of a reliogous argument than that of a scientist.
You can keep on with your little "chuckles". It's pretty amusing since you were whining earlier about fallacies and appeal to emotions. I myself chuckled when I read your response.

Quote:
A scientist doesn't make excuses why their hypotheiss fails, they revel in it as it is a step towards understanding. The outcome ie... the assumption of the hypothesis is irrelevant to the ultimate process of science. You however keep arguing from your specified position. Sorry, but there is NOTHING scientific about that. Its like a beaten wife defending their abusing husband.
That's a pretty subjective version. Are you sure you're not confusing excuses with explanations?

Quote:
What you are displaying to us here is... nothing... short... of PURE bias to a position. [/color]
If I have any bias towards the issue, it's that I have constantly contended that man's actions can negatively affect the planet. I have constantly contended that AGW or not, we need to better use our resources.

Now this bias you speak of pales in comparison to your own bias. How conservative are you? Are you afraid to lose your conservative street cred? Where have you ever said you were open to the idea? Please show me how you aren't bias.

Quote:
Deducing without enough validated facts leaves you with a bunch of assumptions driving the limited facts you have in any direction you choose.

Keep in mind that even with known laws of physics, we run into problems due to their limitations in understanding and these laws have been tested empirically and consistently with a very strong record of support, yet... add in a few new revelations due to our technology and understanding and it sets it right on its head.

So, taking that understanding, you are going to try and convince us that in a system extremely complex as it is, and with so much of it a mystery to those researching it, that with a magic equation of unknowns, you can use statistical means to establish validity. Please... go get a degree in math and then come back and waste my time with your garbage. /sheesh
So is that the long way of deflecting my question? Do you or do you not accept the geologic record? It's a simple yes or no, and I'll even allow you a sentence or two for explanation.

Quote:
Hansen is a nutball activist who will say whatever he has to say to achieve is self interested goal. His work is garbage (and has been show numerous times) and his conflict of interests is so vast that you even using him as evidence of anything is beyond absurd.

You see... this is the beauty of science. We don't have to take the assumption or word of a wacko as he is required to establish his position through a proper process. Hansen can only exist in politics and starry eyed worshipers of his ideal as his work is shown to be garbage over and over, which... btw is why the little turd never wants to release his data and methodology.

As to your main point though, this is why supposition is not validation as it can be used as a means to push an ideal while avoiding dealing with its actuality.
Again another simple yes or no question and you couldn't help yourself and put down a climate scientist. Oh my, your bias you is just oozing out. You make it too easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 06:41 AM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,274,227 times
Reputation: 2584
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Experiments

There's even some skeptic sites thrown in there for your further reading.
Sorry, you made the claim, I asked you for some evidence, you refused. You are evading.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Or again I can link your Watts Up With That where you they concur that...
How are forcings relevant to the hypothesis of AGW? Answer that question and then you will understand the absurdity of the inference you make.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Point is do your own work. However, it's obvious that if Jesus Christ was tapping dancing naked in front of you with all the evidence you so desire you would still be doubtful. Hell, let's just be honest, you don't even have an open mind towards the issue. Can you even be honest about your own bias? Have you even once said that you were open to the idea of AGW?
You are evading. You go on about all this "evidence", yet you make no means to even support such a claim. Now you are trying to make up excuses as to why you shouldn't have to provide this support.

Again, provide some support please.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
It's gets real old constantly having to explain your own "evidence" to you when you try and show me how incorrect AGW. Plus the whole time issue and the whole it's clear you can't be convinced otherwise.
You haven't explained anything, you haven't provided anything. Even the Watts article you quoted does not support the conclusion you make. Now you are back stepping because you can't provide support for your position and dismissing my questions.







Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
You can keep on with your little "chuckles". It's pretty amusing since you were whining earlier about fallacies and appeal to emotions. I myself chuckled when I read your response.
Evasion, answer to the flaws in your position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
That's a pretty subjective version. Are you sure you're not confusing excuses with explanations?
Evasion, answer to the lacking in your argument.





Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
If I have any bias towards the issue, it's that I have constantly contended that man's actions can negatively affect the planet. I have constantly contended that AGW or not, we need to better use our resources.
That is the bias. You contend such, and you are motivated to that position. It is driven by the motive you mention. You have an investment to a given conclusion and your pursuit is focused on achieving that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Now this bias you speak of pales in comparison to your own bias. How conservative are you? Are you afraid to lose your conservative street cred? Where have you ever said you were open to the idea? Please show me how you aren't bias.
Not once in our discussions have I brought up political affiliation. You however have done so numerous times and continue to make accusations of intent and motive based on such. Odd that you are the only one discussing politics, but yet I am the one who is driven by it? More of "modern science" you are practicing I see, that "make wild assumptions" and conclude as you desire.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
So is that the long way of deflecting my question? Do you or do you not accept the geologic record? It's a simple yes or no, and I'll even allow you a sentence or two for explanation.
Deflecting? You were taking the discussion off topic. There is no need to discuss other fields or positions, we have all we need with this field and the relevance to scientific process. You keep wanting to push the topic into other fields and I have no idea why. My answer was relevant to the point of the discussion concerning your argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Again another simple yes or no question and you couldn't help yourself and put down a climate scientist. Oh my, your bias you is just oozing out. You make it too easy.
Yes, I am familiar with your requirement for answering pigeon hole questions. They follow the format of "Either I am right, or you are wrong... which one is it?". Pointless "either/or" fallacies.

Hansen is relevant because of the issue. He is an activist who has been caught several times of taking liberty with the data and methods to pursue an outcome. He has been arrested numerous times for his political activism. If you think his actions are ethical and proper for a scientist, then it is clear you are of the position that anything and everything is acceptable to achieve a conclusion and this explains why you find nothing wrong with the methods used to promote AGW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 06:52 AM
 
3,204 posts, read 1,795,225 times
Reputation: 1014
I think every American that believes should sign a Pledge to Global Warming, much like "True love Waits".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 11:18 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,588 posts, read 3,443,777 times
Reputation: 4055
ANOTHER thread by joebaldknobber, trying to pretend the issue is Global Warming instead of MAN-CAUSED Global Warming?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 11:23 AM
 
40,871 posts, read 42,235,999 times
Reputation: 12252
I beleive we are in a warm earth cycle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 01:09 PM
 
30 posts, read 17,656 times
Reputation: 19
Obesity is science; but nobody in America is concerned about having a bad existence due to eating to much fast food.

Obesity causes colon cancer.

90 degree weather makes you sweat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top