Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Yes, you are very good at dismissing things aren't you, but your do accept any garbage that agrees with your denialist mind set.
Wotts up with that?
And who is the one using petty words such as "denialist" which is an obvious attempt at trying to liken someone who questions your establishment as a Nazi denier? Seriously, you were the one who use a position of old information to claim something when it was already shown to be garbage.
That is all you have, is accusations, which is why you live in the past and refuse to accept anything that shows such accusations to be garbage.
What next Mr. Wizard, going to show us some graphs from 2007 ice melt and pass it off as the present. You guys are really pathetic.
Says the guy who gets in a pissing matches over the number of math classes he had.
Well considering the discussion was about the specifics of objection to certain elements within the research, AND the fact that the poster arrogantly attempted to push their weight with their degree in attempt to demand authority, I thought it only relevant to point out that their degree only had a couple of semesters of mathematics and physics at all.
When you start a pissing match of authority according to education, don't you think it relevant to pull out the measuring stick? You go ahead and explain to us all here how a contention of mathematics and physics is better served by someone with sophomore level of education in the topics of contention?
I mean, how stupid do you have to be to pull that crap? A couple semesters of physics and calculus and they think they can pull the "I am an authority".
That is the entire problem with these idiots in the field. They fudge the math and think simply saying "I am a specialist in my field" that all of a sudden in invalidates the last several hundred years of mathematics and physics study. Might as well say you got your degree from a gumball machine.
So step on down there child, it seems you have gotten too big for your britches.
Heh, I'm going to ask my husband, who is a computer programmer, to teach the climate change unit for me this quarter. I mean, with all of those math classes, surely he's an instant expert!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Well considering the discussion was about the specifics of objection to certain elements within the research, AND the fact that the poster arrogantly attempted to push their weight with their degree in attempt to demand authority, I thought it only relevant to point out that their degree only had a couple of semesters of mathematics and physics at all.
When you start a pissing match of authority according to education, don't you think it relevant to pull out the measuring stick? You go ahead and explain to us all here how a contention of mathematics and physics is better served by someone with sophomore level of education in the topics of contention?
I mean, how stupid do you have to be to pull that crap? A couple semesters of physics and calculus and they think they can pull the "I am an authority".
That is the entire problem with these idiots in the field. They fudge the math and think simply saying "I am a specialist in my field" that all of a sudden in invalidates the last several hundred years of mathematics and physics study. Might as well say you got your degree from a gumball machine.
So step on down there child, it seems you have gotten too big for your britches.
And you are being quite dishonest about the incident with BEST, even Curry was upset at the trick Muller pulled with Anthony. Tsk tsk!
As for the Heartland institute issue, well... the fact that you even attempt to promote that garbage of a position makes you completely obvious to the dedication of your so called discipline.
why not produce the rest of the story for the issues you bring up? Hmm? Don't want to hear the people you are attacking defend themselves? No... I mean, like "real science" (tm) with the "real science" your field applies these days, proper review of your claims would be... well... "unscientific" now wouldn't it?
At first I thought you were simply a hard AGW supporter, willing to deal with the science and a bit grumpy about the politics and the like being introduced here. Now, it is obvious you retain the title of yet another lackey for the cause. Seriously, it is insulting how you use the above as a position. Down right typical of your cabal, but from a group that thinks the "cause" is more important than the science, well... it isn't a surprise.
You wonder why I respond to you with fallacies? (I can admit when I do, can you?), it is because you really don't deserve an honest response because you don't offer honest arguments.
My field? My field is not climatology. I have stated this multiple times. I am a chemical oceanographer. Maybe somewhat in the broad sense but not the same, and certainly not in my specialty. The fact that you insist upon painting me as such explains a lot.
If you are defending the Heartland Institute you have no business being in a debate science in anyway. Have some tiny bit of integrity.
I don't care about "stories" I care about the science. Heartland Institute literally pays people to be climate change deniers. Therefore anyone on their payroll is literally without credibility because they are paid to have a specific opinion.
I have no cause. The science of climate change is not a cause any more than the science of gravity is. Go ahead ask me my opinion of any policy and I will give it, I suspect it would not be what you have attempted to pigeon hole me as.
Regardless of anything any of the deniers have posted there are three facts which are undeniable.
1. The climate is changing.
2. Greenhouse gases, such as, but not limited to CO2, can change the climate.
3. Human activities have caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than ever before.
Those are verifiable. Claiming otherwise makes you a liar.
And still, after 16 pages of people trying to show they have more of some vague "authority" to declaim on Climate Change....
....still not one of them (or anyone else) has published a single study proving a link between man's activities and Global Whatever.
That doesn't stop them from insisting the Govt should assume vastly more power and start spending $trillions more on "solutions" we don't have on "fixing" the climate despite there being NO reason to think any of their "fixes" woudl work.
**40 YEARS** of caterwauling from the Global Whatever fanatics, and still no proof that man did anything to change the climate, or can do anything to change it back.
It's a record of futility unlikely to be matched... except by the same leftists trying the same thing even more.
Regardless of anything any of the deniers have posted there are three facts which are undeniable.
1. The climate is changing.
2. Greenhouse gases, such as, but not limited to CO2, can change the climate.
3. Human activities have caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than ever before.
Those are verifiable. Claiming otherwise makes you a liar.
Hey, let me try that!
1.) The climate is changing.
2.) Greenhouse gasses such as but not limited to CO2, can change the climate.
3.) lkb0714 running her mouth on silly and incomplete comparisons, has caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than ever before.
CONCLUSION: Global Whatever is lkb0714's fault! PAY UP, lkb0714!!! YOU can and should assume the full cost of "fixing" the problems with our climate, since I have "proven" (by your standards) that you made it happen in the first place!
Hey, that's great! Now I can make silly and incomplete comparisons too, in ways that lkb0714 seems to think are legitimate enough to pin the blame for Global Whatever, on man! Or woman in this case.
And remember, claiming otherwise makes you a liar.
(Always a hoot to see these Global Whatever fanatics falling all over themselves, making the same mistakes in thread after thread no matter how many times they are refuted. See //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...l#post23215353 for other examples.)
Heh, I'm going to ask my husband, who is a computer programmer, to teach the climate change unit for me this quarter. I mean, with all of those math classes, surely he's an instant expert!
Math is math, unless... you are suggesting that math somehow "changes" when it is applied to different degrees? That is certainly what some climate scientists attempt to suggest by their applications of principals unknown to it.
Ask your husband that question and see if he doesn't nod to you to avoid dealing with your idiocy, or actually explain to you that math doesn't change, the subjects do.
Well considering the discussion was about the specifics of objection to certain elements within the research, AND the fact that the poster arrogantly attempted to push their weight with their degree in attempt to demand authority, I thought it only relevant to point out that their degree only had a couple of semesters of mathematics and physics at all.
Now this is a lie. I only stated my degree in RESPONSE to your attempt to through your weight around with a "hard science degree". Sort of makes you a hypocrite doesn't it. Also ruins your credibility.
And since you bring it up AGAIN, let me be very clear. I had four semesters of calc (including diff eq and multi) and one of linear algebra, 5 semesters of physics and that is just for my undergraduate degree.
Quote:
When you start a pissing match of authority according to education, don't you think it relevant to pull out the measuring stick? You go ahead and explain to us all here how a contention of mathematics and physics is better served by someone with sophomore level of education in the topics of contention?
You really should go back and re-read YOUR posts.
And I do not have a sophomore level of education in math of physics. Nice try.
Quote:
I mean, how stupid do you have to be to pull that crap? A couple semesters of physics and calculus and they think they can pull the "I am an authority".
A couple? Maybe you don't know what that word means. We have established that you are not so good with definitions.
Quote:
That is the entire problem with these idiots in the field. They fudge the math and think simply saying "I am a specialist in my field" that all of a sudden in invalidates the last several hundred years of mathematics and physics study. Might as well say you got your degree from a gumball machine.
OMG you were a computer science major. Get over yourself. I doubt you took fluid mechanics, and really how far past linear did you go as an undergrad?
And I am NOT a climatologist, I never claimed to be one. I am an oceanographer as I have stated multiple times. I have a strong background in climatology but I am not an expert. What I am is far more of an expert than someone with a computer science degree is.
Quote:
So step on down there child, it seems you have gotten too big for your britches.
Again, you brought up the degree issue, not I. You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder with regards to degrees.
1.) The climate is changing.
2.) Greenhouse gasses such as but not limited to CO2, can change the climate.
3.) lkb0714 running her mouth on silly and incomplete comparisons, has caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than ever before.
CONCLUSION: Global Whatever is lkb0714's fault! PAY UP, lkb0714!!! YOU can and should assume the full cost of "fixing" the problems with our climate, since I have "proven" (by your standards) that you made it happen in the first place!
Where did I make a conclusion? Where did I assign blame? Where did I say anything SHOULD be fixed let alone COULD be?
Seriously do you just make things up?
Quote:
Hey, that's great! Now I can make silly and incomplete comparisons too, in ways that lkb0714 seems to think are legitimate enough to pin the blame for Global Whatever, on man! Or woman in this case.
Geez, you really do have zero integrity. I drew no conclusions.
And remember, claiming otherwise makes you a liar.
Quote:
(Always a hoot to see these Global Whatever fanatics falling all over themselves, making the same mistakes in thread after thread no matter how many times they are refuted. See //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...l#post23215353 for other examples.)
I have never commented on another thread with regards to climate change. More stuff you have made up.
Little Acorn, you cannot refute anything I said, so you moved the goal posts and threw in a red herring.
Logical fallacies are what people resort to when they cannot refute actual evidence. As you have shown, again and again.
You inability to understand science is proven by the fact you think you proved gravitational theory in a single high school lab exercise.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
