Page 32 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2227282930313233343536374282 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 2209
  1. #621  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Happy Birthday, justbrown!

    While you're spreading p,l&j - spread some oxygen canisters around while you're at it! Lot's of our brethren here have been inhaling greenhouse gases for so long they don't know what real air is like
    freedom hater
  2. #622  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    freedom hater
    shhhhh! you'll be calling me tree-hugging environmentalist next!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  3. #623  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    That's certainly not what I meant.
    blah blah blah ...
    sorry samkim - you're just recycling the same old tired argument that essentially boils down to this: "we should hold our collective breath and disbelieve what the scientists (especially the atmospheric scientists) are saying because they are not absolutely right a 100% of the time."

    everything you've said is just a variation of this theme. You cast doubt on the entire field of global climate modeling because it does not (and cannot) take into account every minor variable - or because it does not have accurate and detailed data recordings for the past one million years.(jeez, where were the skeptics like yourself when our Administration was making the case about WMDs in Iraq???)

    All I can say is that you have a very half-baked view of science - and that is the typical partisan stereotype used to discount the scientific findings.

    rather than make vague generalizations - perhaps you could actually quote some of the real scientific debates about the climate models to make your points.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  4. #624  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    "we should hold our collective breath and disbelieve what the scientists (especially the atmospheric scientists) are saying because they are not absolutely right a 100% of the time."
    There is one way to be 100% sure.

    Make an official proclomation and stick to it. If someone disproves your doctrine, make a camp fire out of him.
  5.    #625  
    You wear your American hatred on your shoulders - sort of obvious!

    Regard the Swiss Guard, great history/tradition, but who cares. You're a typical Euro, a bit soft with the feelings.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Whenever I quote a fact you don't like about the US, you accuse me of hating the US. That's usually also when some of you start mentioning totally off topic stuff like the Swiss Guard. As always, this indicates lack of valid on topic arguments.
  6. #626  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    You wear your American hatred on your shoulders - sort of obvious!

    Regard the Swiss Guard, great history/tradition, but who cares. You're a typical Euro, a bit soft with the feelings.
    I think you are a little "over the top." There is a big difference between criticising us and hating us. If hatred is "obvious" to you, I suggest you are little sensitive.
  7. #627  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    sorry samkim - you're just recycling the same old tired argument that essentially boils down to this: "we should hold our collective breath and disbelieve what the scientists (especially the atmospheric scientists) are saying because they are not absolutely right a 100% of the time."
    Nope. I wouldn't agree with that statement. Didn't say it. Didn't imply it. Didn't mean it.

    You're again pretending I have an extreme position instead of responding to what I actually said. If you want to "boil down" my position, it's that we should be honest when we talk about climate science. Do you at least agree on that?


    everything you've said is just a variation of this theme. You cast doubt on the entire field of global climate modeling because it does not (and cannot) take into account every minor variable - or because it does not have accurate and detailed data recordings for the past one million years.(jeez, where were the skeptics like yourself when our Administration was making the case about WMDs in Iraq???)
    I don't question "the entire field of global climate modeling." Again, you're pretending my position is extreme.

    I made a very specific statement about data inputs and the long-range forecasts. Climate science and climate modeling are significantly broader than what I discussed.

    And neither the radiation of the Sun nor the thermal output of the Earth are "minor variables." Plus, you're pretending my argument is extremely unreasonable by isolating the point that we don't have accurate data from one million years ago, and pretending I didn't ask for data from 500 years ago or a forecast for 50 to 100 years forward.


    All I can say is that you have a very half-baked view of science - and that is the typical partisan stereotype used to discount the scientific findings.
    We agree about how science works. Instead of responding to my actual post, you're back to insults. It's clear that your earlier apology was insincere.

    Here's a reminder of what you said previously:
    Of course, I do not expect a rational or scientific data-driven argument from anyone here - instead I can expect to see quotations from worthless blogs, non-peer-reviewed "reports" from partisan thinktanks or media organizations, while simultaneously engaging in ad hominem attacks on the scientific establishment.
    rather than make vague generalizations - perhaps you could actually quote some of the real scientific debates about the climate models to make your points.
    I was very specific:
    1. Data on solar output. 1m years ago. 500 years ago. 50 to 100 years forward.
    2. Data on Earth's thermal output. 1m years ago. 500 years ago. 50 to 100 years forward.
    3. Long-term climate model that has been proven to be accurate.


    As for quoting "some of the real scientific debates about the climate models," I'm not a lawyer or a debate team captain assigned to advocate one side of the issue. I'm not going to defend the arguments you pretend I made.



    And I asked you about an earlier post where you said you had a "doctorate in science and engineering," but you didn't respond. Are you saying you have a single degree that spans two separate fields?
  8. #628  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    You wear your American hatred on your shoulders - sort of obvious!
    Samkim claimed less greenhouse gas emissions mean bad economy. To this, I responded with a graph from the US EPA showing Switzerland has only one third of the US per capita greenhouse gas emissions, and added "As you can see, the per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the US are more than three times the amount of Switzerland. Yet we have the higher per capita GDP, our unemployment rate is lower, our life expectancy is much higher, our infant mortality rate is lower, everybody has health insurance, etc."

    I did this to show that an economy can do well despite low greenhouse gas emissions.

    All I did was quote well established, undisputed facts about the two economies. Does it show hatred of the US when I dare to mention that we have lower infant mortality rates or higher life expectancy, and some other statistical facts?

    That's what you seem to believe - a simple comparison of statistical values is "hatred" for you. I guess this says more about you than about me.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9.    #629  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I think you are a little "over the top." There is a big difference between criticising us and hating us. If hatred is "obvious" to you, I suggest you are little sensitive.
    Then you haven't followed multiple threads with Culup's American views. It doesn't come across as criticizing it comes across as Euro-American envy and hatred. Not looking for a topic on Culup, let this be the last comment on it.
  10. #630  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Then you haven't followed multiple threads with Culup's American views. It doesn't come across as criticizing it comes across as Euro-American envy and hatred. Not looking for a topic on Culup, let this be the last comment on it.
    Face the facts and reply to my post above if you can, or stop the baseless blah about hatred...

    You could say something like "I just know you hate the US, why else would you mention facts which don't fit to my world-view?"
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11.    #631  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Face the facts and reply to my post above if you can, or stop the baseless blah about hatred...

    You could say something like "I just know you hate the US, why else would you mention facts which don't fit to my world-view?"
    I'd rather stick to the topic at hand, Global Warming. Start a new thread on yourself if you like.
  12. #632  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I'd rather stick to the topic at hand, Global Warming. Start a new thread on yourself if you like.
    It's not about me, it's about you and your baseless (as shown above) accusations. I guess I also wouldn't have anything reasonable to reply in your situation, looks like a lost case for you.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #633  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Then you haven't followed multiple threads with Culup's American views. It doesn't come across as criticizing it comes across as Euro-American envy and hatred. Not looking for a topic on Culup, let this be the last comment on it.
    I would just like to say that (#####) is hatefull, and that is final. Next topic.

    Meanwhile, take a look at my sig.
  14. #634  
    And I asked you about an earlier post where you said you had a "doctorate in science and engineering," but you didn't respond. Are you saying you have a single degree that spans two separate fields?
    yes, I have a degree in biochemical engineering - which involved both the school of biomedical sciences and the school of mathematics & engineering.

    And perhaps I can try (one more time!) to explain my frustration with your line of reasoning - and why I call it a "half-baked view" of science. Let me instead give you an analogy in the field of criminal investigation. If I'm a detective investigating a murder and I help prosecute a suspect in court - then I would need to provide evidence regarding the means, motive, opportunity, intent, action and so on. Even if I didn't have an eye-witness, I would still be able to use forensic data, alibis (or lack thereof) etc. to place the suspect at the scene and time of the crime. However, you, as the defense attorney object to my evidence as incomplete because I cannot account for every single second of the suspect's movements during the entire time in question, or that I cannot give a extremely detailed account of every single step or action the suspect made at the scene of the crime, and therefore the case should be thrown out for "lack of evidence". Obviously, if our courts held us to such high standards we would never be able to prosecute any criminals!

    What you're asking for in the climate sciences is very similar to the scenario above - trying to cast doubt on the climate models because of data that is missing from one million years ago! Just as a criminal investigator is able to recreate what happened at the scene of the crime (even without the luxury of having multiple corroborating witnesses or multiple video cameras at different angles) so can climate scientists try and model what the climatic conditions have been in the past and what trends can be expected in the future in spite of not having every single data point.

    In any case all the questions that you have raised are relevant only to steady-state climate models. The real concern is about global climate shifts which are not part of a "natural cycle" - and the current data seem to indicate that we may be poised for one.

    Instead of focusing on the validity or minutae of climate models, how about just facing the facts - we have real data (and not models!) in front of us that clearly show a drastic climb in global temperatures during the past hundred years and the biggest upward spike of greenhouse gases in 650,000 years.

    I do not need a climate model to tell me that something is out of whack - it's obvious that something is changing on a global scale and that we should be concerned.

    And my original challenge still stands - I do not expect to see anyone here on TC refute these facts (i.e. current measurements regarding global warming and increase in greenhouse gases) with any sort of rational or scientific data-driven arguments. I'm still waiting ....
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  15. #635  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    And my original challenge still stands - I do not expect to see anyone here on TC refute these facts (i.e. current measurements regarding global warming and increase in greenhouse gases) with any sort of rational or scientific data-driven arguments. I'm still waiting ....
    Well, Advance The Man posted some from Exxon. Literally. Lol.
  16. #636  
    "Carbondioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life."

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    These new ads are HIllarious!

    edited to add: And no, they're not SNL spoofs though would likely be taken as one if aired during SNL.

    edited again to add: I know, SNL suks.
    Last edited by daThomas; 05/23/2006 at 11:45 AM.
  17. #637  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    And perhaps I can try (one more time!) to explain my frustration with your line of reasoning - and why I call it a "half-baked view" of science. Let me instead give you an analogy in the field of criminal investigation. If I'm a detective investigating a murder and I help prosecute a suspect in court - then I would need to provide evidence regarding the means, motive, opportunity, intent, action and so on. Even if I didn't have an eye-witness, I would still be able to use forensic data, alibis (or lack thereof) etc. to place the suspect at the scene and time of the crime. However, you, as the defense attorney object to my evidence as incomplete because I cannot account for every single second of the suspect's movements during the entire time in question, or that I cannot give a extremely detailed account of every single step or action the suspect made at the scene of the crime, and therefore the case should be thrown out for "lack of evidence". Obviously, if our courts held us to such high standards we would never be able to prosecute any criminals!
    I don't think you're capable of having a discussion without distorting my position.

    1. I've never said that we should do nothing about global warming. So in your analogy, I'm not asking for the case to be "thrown out."

    2. I'm asking that long-term climate models be tested to be proven accurate. So in your analogy, I'm asking that your forensic technique be tested to be proven accurate. Some types of evidence (e.g., DNA testing, fingerprinting) have been tested many times, and we have a high degree of confidence in them, even though they can sometimes fail. If you're introducing a new type of forensic technique, then I'm going to ask that it meet the same standards of evidence we've always had.

    What you're asking for in the climate sciences is very similar to the scenario above - trying to cast doubt on the climate models because of data that is missing from one million years ago! Just as a criminal investigator is able to recreate what happened at the scene of the crime (even without the luxury of having multiple corroborating witnesses or multiple video cameras at different angles) so can climate scientists try and model what the climatic conditions have been in the past and what trends can be expected in the future in spite of not having every single data point.
    Another distortion. The missing data isn't just from a million years ago. It's from a few hundred years ago as well.

    With solar radiation, data from more than a few decades ago is based mostly on the poor proxy of sunspot activity. We know the sun's output varies, but there's no way of knowing how much it has varied in the past [Edited to add: prior to the sunspot data] and how much it factored into climate changes on Earth. Since there's no way of knowing, we have to assume the impact was zero.

    Our knowledge of heat flow from the Earth's core is even less. We know it's complex, that it varies by location and time. As I understand it, the data is spotty, and there's no consensus model.


    In any case all the questions that you have raised are relevant only to steady-state climate models. The real concern is about global climate shifts which are not part of a "natural cycle" - and the current data seem to indicate that we may be poised for one.
    Predictions of how much an increase in CO2 will increase temperatures are based on observed and estimated data from what you call the "steady-state climate model." So it's all relevant.

    Instead of focusing on the validity or minutae of climate models, how about just facing the facts - we have real data (and not models!) in front of us that clearly show a drastic climb in global temperatures during the past hundred years and the biggest upward spike of greenhouse gases in 650,000 years.
    I don't dispute known data.


    I do not need a climate model to tell me that something is out of whack - it's obvious that something is changing on a global scale and that we should be concerned.
    I think this statement reveals a lot. I'd like to be careful about trusting your instincts.

    And my original challenge still stands - I do not expect to see anyone here on TC refute these facts (i.e. current measurements regarding global warming and increase in greenhouse gases) with any sort of rational or scientific data-driven arguments. I'm still waiting ....
    I agree with you on this.
    Last edited by samkim; 05/23/2006 at 06:19 PM.
  18. #638  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Samkim claimed less greenhouse gas emissions mean bad economy. To this, I responded with a graph from the US EPA showing Switzerland has only one third of the US per capita greenhouse gas emissions, and added "As you can see, the per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the US are more than three times the amount of Switzerland. Yet we have the higher per capita GDP, our unemployment rate is lower, our life expectancy is much higher, our infant mortality rate is lower, everybody has health insurance, etc."

    I did this to show that an economy can do well despite low greenhouse gas emissions.

    All I did was quote well established, undisputed facts about the two economies. Does it show hatred of the US when I dare to mention that we have lower infant mortality rates or higher life expectancy, and some other statistical facts?

    That's what you seem to believe - a simple comparison of statistical values is "hatred" for you. I guess this says more about you than about me.
    To be clear, my position is that restrictions on greenhouse gases will hurt the economy, and the fact that there are countries with lower emissions and healthy economies isn't very meaningful because we won't be able to match their use of nuclear power or their geography. The consequence of restrictions will be regulations that require significant investment by industry.

    As for the other matter, there's clearly some animosity between you and Advance, and I don't want to get in the middle of that. I took your comments about the Swiss having a lower homicide rate and an apparently higher GDP per capita despite women shopping as more of a friendly jingoistic poke than anything hateful; and I responded in kind.
  19. #639  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "Carbondioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life."

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    These new ads are HIllarious!

    edited to add: And no, they're not SNL spoofs though would likely be taken as one if aired during SNL.

    edited again to add: I know, SNL suks.
    They seem assume some people will fall for this. It's scary to think they may be right. Can people really be made that ignorant?

    Some people call it the plague. We call it Yersinia pestis enjoying life.
    Some people call it a flood. We call it the cycle of water.
    Some people call it an explosion. We call it molecules flying through the air joyously.
    Some people call it amputation. We call it weight loss. It's cool. You should have it, too.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #640  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    They seem assume some people will fall for this. It's scary to think they may be right. Can people really be made that ignorant?
    I think people are ignorant BY CHOICE on this issue. Just look at all the reasonably intelligent people on this board who want to nay-say the issue.

Posting Permissions