CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12282
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:52 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
eureka eureka:
Incredible claims need incredible evidence. The ramifications of this, if it turns out to be accurate are almost unthinkable.

The evidence is pretty scanty yet.


I thought this quote of yours deserved a more appropriate context. :P




ROTFL


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:06 pm
 


ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
eureaka eureaka:
Those who question, at least in the scientific world, are deniers.


No. In the scientific world, those who question are called scientists. In the dark, limited world in which you exist, they are called heretics and unbelievers.


I am afraid that it still has not got through to you. No scientists question other than a handful who either do no research or fake research as Lindzen, Spencer, Baliunas, De Freitas, and a couple more have done. Their "works" have been thoroughly refuted and, in most cases, have failed peer review.

Since all others, all researching scientists who have not been refuted, are in total agreement about AGW and its dangers, and the only disagreements are the scope of the change, then those disagreeing are deniers. What else is someone who denies the science. Would you say, for one example that Rick Perry is not a denier of evolution since he says that Intelligent Design is just as credible? Does that "questioning" make him a credible scientist?

The science is clear.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:12 pm
 


Don't you have some kindling to gather for the burning?

$1:
The science is clear


You've proven, pretty thoroughly, that you really don't understand what science is.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:19 pm
 


You are proving that you have nothing to say of any value.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:26 pm
 


You proved that a while ago. The Church functions on dogma and rhetoric and apparently so do you. You're dismissed.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:44 pm
 


ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
You proved that a while ago. The Church functions on dogma and rhetoric and apparently so do you. You're dismissed.


That is simply silly, Shep. If you think you have some argument make it and, preferably, support it. Zipperfish does and makes good points without having been able to fully research the subject.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21310
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:24 pm
 


eureka eureka:

I am not sure what your position on climate sensitivity is. However, Lindzen is again wrong and, I suspect, deliberately so. I am not aware of any disagreement with the calculation that a doubling of CO2 leads to a sensitivity of 1.? but, with the feedbacks, it is three. I can link many studies on that, or explanations, if you wish. Only Lindzen and Spencer and a couple of others try to dispute that but they have no peer reviewed support.


OK, yet again you are proving my point. I've said--numerous times now--that legitimate climate skeptcis are being ignored. You state, and I quote, "I am not aware of any disagreement..." Yet, for several posts now I have stated that Lindzen disagrees. You see, the reason that you are not aware of any disagreement is simply because anyone who disagrees, in your mind, is simply not credible enough to be recognized. It's a Catch-22. I also find it telling that you do not take issue with the several papers that posit a climate sensitivity well in excess of the IPCC consensus.

The current consensus climate sensitivity is indeed three. But--and again this is a common fallacy in the arguments of the more zealous proponents--you neglect to mention the uncertainty. Which is quite large. I find it odd that anyone would even cosider climate sensitivity a constant myself, which is one of th reason I find many of the studies suspect. If climate sensitivity were constant, life would likely not have evolved on earth.

So even given the current sonsensus estimate of sensitivity, you have not shown Lindzen is wrong. He could well be right, within the bounds of uncertainty.


$1:
By the way, and it is important to note, there is nothing anywhere that discredits Mann.


At this point, you are just being silly I suggest a nice long visit to the "Watt's Up With That?" blog, and you'll see Mann and Hansen being discredited. Watt does a particularly good job, but there are a hundred other blogs that discredit Mann, Hansen and AGW to your heart's content.

$1:
I respect your science credentials. I have none. I think that some of your confusion is due to your remoteness and inability to access things like that video.


A little confusion is a good thing It's the people who aren't confused, the people who are absolutely confident, that worry me more. As Charles Darwin said "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

$1:
Those who question, at least in the scientific world, are deniers.


...what a truly, truly horrible statement.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
 


eureka eureka:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
You proved that a while ago. The Church functions on dogma and rhetoric and apparently so do you. You're dismissed.


That is simply silly, Shep. If you think you have some argument make it and, preferably, support it. Zipperfish does and makes good points without having been able to fully research the subject.

Yet even with zip's diplomacy and reasoned arguments the net results are the same...you plugging your ears and going, 'la la la la la.... my dogma and rhetoric trumps the scientific method...Don't question Mother Church..burn heretic, burn!'

it's unthinking, unquestioning fantatics like you who responsible some of the worst atrocities committed by man...Inquisitions, purges, book burnings, pogroms and holocausts. You won't tolerate dissension and you would eliminate those would ask you to question your own views


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:40 am
 


I have no intention of responding to that S.D. When you descend to the religious fallacy, it proves that you are out of your depth and have nothing at all to contribute.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:16 am
 


eureka eureka:
I have no intention of responding to that S.D. When you descend to the religious fallacy, it proves that you are out of your depth and have nothing at all to contribute.


I think he described your thoughts on this to a T! Close-minded and dismissive of anything that counters your view.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:20 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
eureka eureka:

I am not sure what your position on climate sensitivity is. However, Lindzen is again wrong and, I suspect, deliberately so. I am not aware of any disagreement with the calculation that a doubling of CO2 leads to a sensitivity of 1.? but, with the feedbacks, it is three. I can link many studies on that, or explanations, if you wish. Only Lindzen and Spencer and a couple of others try to dispute that but they have no peer reviewed support.


OK, yet again you are proving my point. I've said--numerous times now--that legitimate climate skeptcis are being ignored. You state, and I quote, "I am not aware of any disagreement..." Yet, for several posts now I have stated that Lindzen disagrees. You see, the reason that you are not aware of any disagreement is simply because anyone who disagrees, in your mind, is simply not credible enough to be recognized. It's a Catch-22. I also find it telling that you do not take issue with the several papers that posit a climate sensitivity well in excess of the IPCC consensus.

The current consensus climate sensitivity is indeed three. But--and again this is a common fallacy in the arguments of the more zealous proponents--you neglect to mention the uncertainty. Which is quite large. I find it odd that anyone would even cosider climate sensitivity a constant myself, which is one of th reason I find many of the studies suspect. If climate sensitivity were constant, life would likely not have evolved on earth.

So even given the current sonsensus estimate of sensitivity, you have not shown Lindzen is wrong. He could well be right, within the bounds of uncertainty.


$1:
By the way, and it is important to note, there is nothing anywhere that discredits Mann.


At this point, you are just being silly I suggest a nice long visit to the "Watt's Up With That?" blog, and you'll see Mann and Hansen being discredited. Watt does a particularly good job, but there are a hundred other blogs that discredit Mann, Hansen and AGW to your heart's content.

$1:
I respect your science credentials. I have none. I think that some of your confusion is due to your remoteness and inability to access things like that video.


A little confusion is a good thing It's the people who aren't confused, the people who are absolutely confident, that worry me more. As Charles Darwin said "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

$1:
Those who question, at least in the scientific world, are deniers.


...what a truly, truly horrible statement.



You might like to look at this for a thorough debunking of Lindzen's flawed analysis of climate sensitivity. You will also find reference to the consensus that it is 3 and a link to the papers that show that. There is uncertainty but it is far less than you seem to think and 3C is a pretty accurate figure since there is little disagreement and then only for small degrees.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen ... tivity.htm

You will see from this that I do take note of those who disagree. I also question why they disagree and what is their logic or support. I spend a great deal of time on reading the materials.

There is no disagreement that is not the product of those whose financial interests are at stake. With the rare exception of Dyson and a few like him. Curiously, they all seem to be "emeritus" and have been out of the lop for a long time.

I take exception to your "horrible" statement. When all the science says that AGW within climate change is real and is happening and there is no contradictory evidence, what else is a scientist who claims that it is not happening? He is a denier. I could, btw, post some of the comments by actual scientists who are less forgiving of the frauds in their professions than I am.

Members of the public who agree with the deniers are also deniers but there is some excise for them. It is a psychological problem. Lay people without the training or analytical skills have to overcome the beliefs of thousands of years and accept the latest science. It took time for the theory of evolution to gain acceptance and there are still those who deny that. Most of us would not hesitate to call then deniers.. It will take time for climate change, too. Most people don't want to believe.

Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time in this.

I an surprised that you would recommend visiting Watt's Blog. A Weather presenter with no more credentials than the majority of the population. Not even a degree in meteorology to give some credence to his "charlatanism," Several years later we are still waiting for his promised paper proving that measuring stations in the US are distorting the record (It has been shown that they do, very slightly, but in the opposite direction to Watts claim).

Watts and the mystery man Goddard who finally embarrassed Watts with his fakery. Essenbach who has been shown over and over again to be falsifying his data.

No scientists contribute to Watts. His site is replete with fraud and lies.

I repeat that Mann has never been discredited, and neither has Hansen. All those hundreds of Blogs you say do so, are simply denial blogs with no scientific credibility. There is not one. Every paper of Mann - and his co-authors, who seem to escape some of the denial wrath - has been peer reviewed, accepted, and confirmed in other studies. As with Hansen.

There has never bee any debunking of either and disagreements are only in degree.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21310
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:21 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
But maybe it's just because I'm more worried about the fish.


42


Zing!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:22 am
 


2Cdo 2Cdo:
eureka eureka:
I have no intention of responding to that S.D. When you descend to the religious fallacy, it proves that you are out of your depth and have nothing at all to contribute.


I think he described your thoughts on this to a T! Close-minded and dismissive of anything that counters your view.


I would give you the same challenge. Make some argument and we can see who is close (sic) minded.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:26 am
 


They aren't his 2 Cdo, he's just regurgitating gospel/propoganda. Thinkers come up with ideas or question existing ones. It's the fanatics like him that go into the ghettos and schools to cleanse them on their master's orders.


it seems par for the course that the old fool points out your improper use of a hyphen while he continues to make multiple spelling and grammatical errors himself. Watch it... now he's going to claim to be an acclaimed grammarian .


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:34 am
 


ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
They aren't his 2 Cdo, he's just regurgitating gospel/propoganda. Thinkers come up with ideas or question existing ones. It's the fanatics like him that go into the ghettos and schools to cleanse them on their master's orders.


R=UP




As fanatical as any religous extremist!


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.