Page 43 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3338394041424344454647485393 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 860 of 2209
  1. #841  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Is this really the most significant point you can make in this discussion?
    No. Read my post again. The most significant point I made about Blaze's post was that he implied that Clooney made false and misleading statements, yet he provided zero evidence of that.

    Please answer this question. I know what Blaze and cellmatrix think. I'd like to know what you think. Do you think it's okay to lie to promote your politics?


    Do you think the Bush administration claims global warming is no concern (or doesn't really exist at all) because they are sooooo careful about interpretation of scientific results, or because they are so close to the oil industry?
    How about, they believe the claims are exaggerated?
  2. #842  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Then why did you lie?
    Lol, he just keeps it up.



    Here, here, Lookie over here, ohhh..

    I am the great and powerfull OZ.

    Pay no attention to what is behind the curtain!!!!


    Depends on what the definition of the word is is. Hopefully clulup you are begginning to see why this has gone on for 800 posts.
  3. #843  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Wait until you hear the line on "standard" verus "non-standard" datamining he uses to defend the President's database with all our phone numbers in it. That one is a classic.
    Another lie. It was you who posted repeatedly about your imaginary concept of "non-standard" data mining. I've corrected you before, yet you keep repeating this lie.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=235
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=241
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=255
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=275
  4. #844  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Another lie. It was you who posted repeatedly about your imaginary concept of "non-standard" data mining. I've corrected you before, yet you keep repeating this lie.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=235
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=241
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=255
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=275
    Oh, god. I think I got him started on the non-standard datamining again. Here we go. Crap! sorry board. lol
  5. #845  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Yes. You say it's okay to put out misleading statements
    Putting more words in my mouth, Samkim?

    In other words, I do not think the Science article and the Presidential Commissions report are misleading, so that makes me a liar, dishonest, immoral etc.
  6. #846  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Putting more words in my mouth, Samkim?

    In other words, I do not think the Science article and the Presidential Commissions report are misleading, so that makes me a liar, dishonest, immoral etc.
    <sarcasm>

    Well it's your dishonesty. You tell me. Which time were you lying? Were you lying before? Or are you lying now? Huh? Huh? Huh?

    By the way, I think the driver of the bus that ran over SamKim's toe was a redhead. A readhead darn it!! Don't misquote me again!

    </sarcasm>
  7. #847  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Putting more words in my mouth, Samkim?

    In other words, I do not think the Science article and the Presidential Commissions report are misleading, so that makes me a liar, dishonest, immoral etc.
    You said you were okay with "biased" and "political" statements that were "overstepping." Your words.

    And you've conveniently changed your position about the articles.
  8. #848  
  9. #849  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You said you were okay with "biased" and "political" statements that were "overstepping." Your words.

    And you've conveniently changed your position about the articles.
    After initially showing sympathy to your view on it, I thought about it some more and concluded that the article is actually OK.

    Now that makes me a liar, dishonest, immoral?
  10. #850  
    Ok, great. It is settled. Everybody here except SamKim is an Immoral, dishonest, liar.

    Now how about a talk about global climate change?

    BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

    Naomi Oreskes
    American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

    Of the 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change", there were exactly zero that disagred with the consensus opinion (human modification of climate).

    Yet if you listen to the Exxon Lobby this administration has put in charge, you would think that there is a heated debate raging in the scientific community.

    There is not.

    The debate is between the Exxon Lobby's Bush administration and the scientific community, and the topic of the debate is why the Exxon lobby is acting like there is a debate.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 07/03/2006 at 02:50 PM.
  11. #851  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Ok, great. It is settled. Everybody here except SamKim is an Immoral, dishonest, liar.

    Now how about a talk about global climate change?

    BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

    Naomi Oreskes
    American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

    Of the 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change", there were exactly zero that disagred with the consensus opinion (human modification of climate).
    Actually this is the article which Samkim and I have been discussing for the last several thread pages. Mainly it is the conclusion:

    "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

    I feel that the bolded areas make is quite clear that the author is not trying to tell us that human induced global warming is a fact. Samkim feels that the underlined areas do show that the author is implying it is a fact. This is a major dispute which we obviously have not resolved. So I guess it is up to everyone else to decide for themselves.
  12. #852  
    It is not a scientific fact, it is the scientific consensus.

    SamKim is splitting hairs to avoid the substance of the matter at hand.

    As usual.
  13. #853  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    After initially showing sympathy to your view on it, I thought about it some more and concluded that the article is actually OK.

    Now that makes me a liar, dishonest, immoral?
    No, the part when you stated approval of biased and political statements does. You haven't withdrawn that support yet.

    As for the article, you now believe that anthropogenic global warming is proven fact? Lol, I don't really think you believe that. You've shown enough signs of intelligence that you can't believe that's true. At this point, it looks like that's just the most convenient way out of this contradictory position you've placed yourself in.
  14. #854  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I feel that the bolded areas make is quite clear that the author is not trying to tell us that human induced global warming is a fact. Samkim feels that the underlined areas do show that the author is implying it is a fact. This is a major dispute which we obviously have not resolved. So I guess it is up to everyone else to decide for themselves.
    No, YOU quoted this text to show that the authors were implying that it was fact.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=814
  15. #855  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    It is not a scientific fact, it is the scientific consensus.
    That's what I've been saying.
  16. #856  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    No, the part when you stated approval of biased and political statements does. You haven't withdrawn that support yet.
    Putting more words in my mouth again? Please quote where I said that (and I am not talking about your prolonged interpretation of what you think I said).

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    As for the article, you now believe that anthropogenic global warming is proven fact? Lol, I don't really think you believe that.
    Putting more words in my mouth again Samkim? The article does not state human global warming is a fact, and neither do I.

    Look at the conclusions of the article that I list yet another time. Look at the bolded areas, do you actually think the author is trying to say human global warmining is a proven fact?

    "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."
  17. #857  
    Quote Originally Posted by SamKim
    That's what I've been saying.
    Great, Seems like all of us are in agreement on some things.

    1.) The scientific consensus is that global warming is real, and that it is caused by us.

    2.) There is little or no disagreement with that consensus in the scientific community. (zero out of 928 among the sample that disagred with the consensus opinion)

    Now match that up to the more than 50% of American's that believe there is no consensus in the scientific community, the Bush administration's appointment of an actual Exxon lobbyist to oversee and modify global warming research, and the administration's constant perpetuation of the idea that there is no consensus, and refusal to act, and what do we have?

    <-- Hint. See the photo of W holding hands with Prince Bandar.
  18. #858  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    No, YOU quoted this text to show that the authors were implying that it was fact.
    You are yet another time putting words into my mouth. The only fact claimed here is that the President's Scientific Commission AND Clulup both take man's contribution to global warming seriously and you don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Um.... Samkim, this is first paragraph of the abstract of the May 2006 executive summary report for President Bush of the scientific commission that he appointed to study global warming.

    "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
    near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
    challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-
    induced global warming.
    Specifically, surface data showed substantial
    global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
    data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
    discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
    radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
    have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies"

    Here is another excerpt:

    "Studies to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change in space and time show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system"

    http://climatescience.gov/Library/sa...al-execsum.pdf

    I guess clulup and President Bush's scientific commission both don't know what they are talking about, and only you do?
  19. #859  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Putting more words in my mouth again? Please quote where I said that (and I am not talking about your prolonged interpretation of what you think I said).
    Nope. Just taking what you said.

    Here you go:
    If the editors of Science magazine, and the scientists appointed by President Bush to study the problem of global climate change for four years do not have a problem with using the word reality in the context of man-made global warming, it really makes no difference to me what words you think are correct. But at any rate, I do admire your persistence and your determination.
    This was after you agreed that it was wrong to use the term "reality."

    I believe in the recommendations of our scientific community, and not in your semantical arguments. If that is biased or if that is political, then so be it.
    You keep wanting to take shelter in scientists' statements, but the key difference is that you've admitted that those statements were wrong, but you still approved of them. You're okay with biased and political statements from scientists.


    Putting more words in my mouth again Samkim? The article does not state human global warming is a fact, and neither do I.

    Look at the conclusions of the article that I list yet another time. Look at the bolded areas, do you actually think the author is trying to say human global warmining is a proven fact?
    Nope. I didn't claim it. You did. Or at least you implied it very, very strongly. Here's your post where you introduced the federal report.
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=814

    I had said: "You've said that anthropogenic global warming is "reality," which implies fact. This is not supported by that statement, nor by science."

    You replied: "I guess clulup and President Bush's scientific commission both don't know what they are talking about, and only you do?"

    You used that report's use of the word "reality" to claim that I was wrong that science does not say that anthropogenic global warming is fact. The history professor's article uses the word "reality" the same way.


    You've falsely accused me of putting words in your mouth three times. That's three more lies.
  20. #860  
    I officially have a headache. For the love of god CellMatrix, stop enabling him. lol

Posting Permissions