DSF: Here...let me spell it out for you. You've admitted that you're completely unqualified to evaluate the science. You have chosen to place your trust in the complete accuracy of current scientific consensus (i.e. IIPC)...that mankind's carbon emissions have a tremendous effect on our climate. Somehow...you equate consensus with fact. This is fine by me...to each his own.
However, you don't stop there...instead of being content in your state of willful ignorance on current issues of scientific debate, you somehow suddenly feel imminently qualified on the subject matter...enough so as to criticize those that don't agree with certain critical aspects of the assumptions made in developing IIPC's 'consensus' opinion. This is a huge disconnect that you have somehow rationalized. You may want to rethink this.
How can you render any opinion on this subject when you admittedly know nothing about it? If you want to believe that the IIPC consensus opinion is fact...then by all means do so. But don't come here and criticize those that have valid reasons to question the IIPC's conclusions. You've made up your mind and that's fine...but please spare us your nonsensical bleating when you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're bleating about.
Ah, Now I see. But here's the problem. You want to criticize me but yet you claim that the world is flat. So you see, right off the bat you're going to lose this argument.
And look at our names. Who would know more about science, a Doc Savage Fan or a Moonbeam. I don't even know who Doc Savage is, but everybody knows that what moonbeams. So again I'm in the majority and you lose. My teeth are doubtlessly whiter too as measured on a spectrograph so my
is much more winning.
And as for you ridiculous claim that all the heat from the earth is hiding in caves, there's no evidence to support it.
So you haven't a chance when you argue with me when I argue for you and you just make me laugh when you try to do it to me.
When and if you ever get to first base come and see me.
However, you don't stop there...instead of being content in your state of willful ignorance on current issues of scientific debate, you somehow suddenly feel imminently qualified on the subject matter...enough so as to criticize those that don't agree with certain critical aspects of the assumptions made in developing IIPC's 'consensus' opinion. This is a huge disconnect that you have somehow rationalized. You may want to rethink this.
How can you render any opinion on this subject when you admittedly know nothing about it? If you want to believe that the IIPC consensus opinion is fact...then by all means do so. But don't come here and criticize those that have valid reasons to question the IIPC's conclusions. You've made up your mind and that's fine...but please spare us your nonsensical bleating when you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're bleating about.
Ah, Now I see. But here's the problem. You want to criticize me but yet you claim that the world is flat. So you see, right off the bat you're going to lose this argument.
And look at our names. Who would know more about science, a Doc Savage Fan or a Moonbeam. I don't even know who Doc Savage is, but everybody knows that what moonbeams. So again I'm in the majority and you lose. My teeth are doubtlessly whiter too as measured on a spectrograph so my
is much more winning.And as for you ridiculous claim that all the heat from the earth is hiding in caves, there's no evidence to support it.
So you haven't a chance when you argue with me when I argue for you and you just make me laugh when you try to do it to me.
When and if you ever get to first base come and see me.
Science truth does not rest on "opinion", "faith", "minority", "majority", etc. But on demonstration.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Your retreat into inanity is counterproductive to discussion and I chose not to play your childish game. Believe what you want to believe and disregard the rest...no skin off my back.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DSF: Here...let me spell it out for you. You've admitted that you're completely unqualified to evaluate the science. You have chosen to place your trust in the complete accuracy of current scientific consensus (i.e. IIPC)...that mankind's carbon emissions have a tremendous effect on our climate. Somehow...you equate consensus with fact. This is fine by me...to each his own.
However, you don't stop there...instead of being content in your state of willful ignorance on current issues of scientific debate, you somehow suddenly feel imminently qualified on the subject matter...enough so as to criticize those that don't agree with certain critical aspects of the assumptions made in developing IIPC's 'consensus' opinion. This is a huge disconnect that you have somehow rationalized. You may want to rethink this.
How can you render any opinion on this subject when you admittedly know nothing about it? If you want to believe that the IIPC consensus opinion is fact...then by all means do so. But don't come here and criticize those that have valid reasons to question the IIPC's conclusions. You've made up your mind and that's fine...but please spare us your nonsensical bleating when you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're bleating about.
Ah, Now I see. But here's the problem. You want to criticize me but yet you claim that the world is flat. So you see, right off the bat you're going to lose this argument.
And look at our names. Who would know more about science, a Doc Savage Fan or a Moonbeam. I don't even know who Doc Savage is, but everybody knows that what moonbeams. So again I'm in the majority and you lose. My teeth are doubtlessly whiter too as measured on a spectrograph so my
And as for you ridiculous claim that all the heat from the earth is hiding in caves, there's no evidence to support it.
So you haven't a chance when you argue with me when I argue for you and you just make me laugh when you try to do it to me.
When and if you ever get to first base come and see me.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Remember when H. W. Bush used cap and trade to remove the threat of acid rain by applying this concept to sulfur dioxide emissions? Yeah that was cool. Now remember when that caused a giant collapse of our energy industry like conservatives claimed would happen? Nope I don't either.
Science is what scientists say it is. Scientific consensus is arrived at by what scientists agree on as the most convincing demonstrations. What we call science it the cumulative knowledge scientists agree on as knowledge and evidence. Science is a methodology and a result, but it is the result that represents the body of scientific knowledge and that is what I refer to as science.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Your retreat into inanity is counterproductive to discussion and I chose not to play your childish game. Believe what you want to believe and disregard the rest...no skin off my back.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DSF: Here...let me spell it out for you. You've admitted that you're completely unqualified to evaluate the science. You have chosen to place your trust in the complete accuracy of current scientific consensus (i.e. IIPC)...that mankind's carbon emissions have a tremendous effect on our climate. Somehow...you equate consensus with fact. This is fine by me...to each his own.
However, you don't stop there...instead of being content in your state of willful ignorance on current issues of scientific debate, you somehow suddenly feel imminently qualified on the subject matter...enough so as to criticize those that don't agree with certain critical aspects of the assumptions made in developing IIPC's 'consensus' opinion. This is a huge disconnect that you have somehow rationalized. You may want to rethink this.
How can you render any opinion on this subject when you admittedly know nothing about it? If you want to believe that the IIPC consensus opinion is fact...then by all means do so. But don't come here and criticize those that have valid reasons to question the IIPC's conclusions. You've made up your mind and that's fine...but please spare us your nonsensical bleating when you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're bleating about.
Ah, Now I see. But here's the problem. You want to criticize me but yet you claim that the world is flat. So you see, right off the bat you're going to lose this argument.
And look at our names. Who would know more about science, a Doc Savage Fan or a Moonbeam. I don't even know who Doc Savage is, but everybody knows that what moonbeams. So again I'm in the majority and you lose. My teeth are doubtlessly whiter too as measured on a spectrograph so my
And as for you ridiculous claim that all the heat from the earth is hiding in caves, there's no evidence to support it.
So you haven't a chance when you argue with me when I argue for you and you just make me laugh when you try to do it to me.
When and if you ever get to first base come and see me.
That so called retreat into insanity was simply mirroring back to you how you think. It's you identifying it as insane. I would just say you don't know how to logically think. You need to stop putting your interpretation of my words in your mouth and listen harder and think more.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Agree. The only difference between us appears to be your apparent acceptance of scientific consensus as scientific fact. FYI, there's legitimate scientific concerns regarding the IPCC consensus opinion that are currently being studied. I'm confident that science and truth will prevail in the end....and would have it no other way.
DSF: Here...let me spell it out for you. You've admitted that you're completely unqualified to evaluate the science.
M: That's right, I have a very scientific mind and know my limitations.
DSF: You have chosen to place your trust in the complete accuracy of current scientific consensus (i.e. IIPC)...that mankind's carbon emissions have a tremendous effect on our climate. Somehow...you equate consensus with fact. This is fine by me...to each his own.
M: Rubbish if I have. I have chosen to think that the current scientific consensus on global warming is the opinion favored by most who are qualified to have an opinion and I am going to assume that that is the current scientific consensus because it is. Scientific knowledge is determined by what most scientists call the best science to date and I'm going with that. You are a fanatic who holds a contrary opinion to the majority why you have no reasons why. It is simply what you want to believe. You do not have a steel trap scientific mind like me. You are emotional and therefore irrational. You hear the science you want to hear. I hear what the majority thinks whether I like it or not.
DSF: However, you don't stop there...instead of being content in your state of willful ignorance on current issues of scientific debate, you somehow suddenly feel imminently qualified on the subject matter...enough so as to criticize those that don't agree with certain critical aspects of the assumptions made in developing IIPC's 'consensus' opinion. This is a huge disconnect that you have somehow rationalized. You may want to rethink this.
M: I can't rethink delusions you have in your head. Your characterization of me is a construct of your own brain and does not have a thing to do with me. I am a projection of your delusional thinking. I do none of what you suggest. When you see me you see your emotions. You, in fact are willfully ignorant of what I have been saying. I have no intention to become a global warming scientist, any more than I am going to become an expert on evolution so I can defend the world against Creationists. I am not going to read the Bible to debate nuts who knock on my door. I am interested in all such matters but I know I will never be a real expert. I am not going to do Newtonian mechanics to drive to the store. I am perfectly happy to take the consensus word of the experts. You are the willfully ignorant of what they say. You have needs and I don't. I am a nobody. I believe scientists in the field know a lot more than me. I am not a conceited idiot that heeds minority opinions because I'm at war with my mother. I'm just a dumb fuck curious about stuff.
DSF: How can you render any opinion on this subject when you admittedly know nothing about it? If you want to believe that the IIPC consensus opinion is fact...then by all means do so.
M: Again, I don't think it's fact, I think it's the best opinion science has right now.
DSF: But don't come here and criticize those that have valid reasons to question the IIPC's conclusions.
M: You don't have any valid reasons. Reasons out there that you like better than the majority opinion appeal to your ignorance. You are swayed by emotions.
DSF: You've made up your mind and that's fine...but please spare us your nonsensical bleating when you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're bleating about.
M: You are doing all the bleating my friend. You are a fanatic who is pissed that I won't share in your delusions and prefer to go with the current opinion of the majority of best minds on the subject, like anybody with two ounces of common sense would do.
M: That's right, I have a very scientific mind and know my limitations.
DSF: You have chosen to place your trust in the complete accuracy of current scientific consensus (i.e. IIPC)...that mankind's carbon emissions have a tremendous effect on our climate. Somehow...you equate consensus with fact. This is fine by me...to each his own.
M: Rubbish if I have. I have chosen to think that the current scientific consensus on global warming is the opinion favored by most who are qualified to have an opinion and I am going to assume that that is the current scientific consensus because it is. Scientific knowledge is determined by what most scientists call the best science to date and I'm going with that. You are a fanatic who holds a contrary opinion to the majority why you have no reasons why. It is simply what you want to believe. You do not have a steel trap scientific mind like me. You are emotional and therefore irrational. You hear the science you want to hear. I hear what the majority thinks whether I like it or not.
DSF: However, you don't stop there...instead of being content in your state of willful ignorance on current issues of scientific debate, you somehow suddenly feel imminently qualified on the subject matter...enough so as to criticize those that don't agree with certain critical aspects of the assumptions made in developing IIPC's 'consensus' opinion. This is a huge disconnect that you have somehow rationalized. You may want to rethink this.
M: I can't rethink delusions you have in your head. Your characterization of me is a construct of your own brain and does not have a thing to do with me. I am a projection of your delusional thinking. I do none of what you suggest. When you see me you see your emotions. You, in fact are willfully ignorant of what I have been saying. I have no intention to become a global warming scientist, any more than I am going to become an expert on evolution so I can defend the world against Creationists. I am not going to read the Bible to debate nuts who knock on my door. I am interested in all such matters but I know I will never be a real expert. I am not going to do Newtonian mechanics to drive to the store. I am perfectly happy to take the consensus word of the experts. You are the willfully ignorant of what they say. You have needs and I don't. I am a nobody. I believe scientists in the field know a lot more than me. I am not a conceited idiot that heeds minority opinions because I'm at war with my mother. I'm just a dumb fuck curious about stuff.
DSF: How can you render any opinion on this subject when you admittedly know nothing about it? If you want to believe that the IIPC consensus opinion is fact...then by all means do so.
M: Again, I don't think it's fact, I think it's the best opinion science has right now.
DSF: But don't come here and criticize those that have valid reasons to question the IIPC's conclusions.
M: You don't have any valid reasons. Reasons out there that you like better than the majority opinion appeal to your ignorance. You are swayed by emotions.
DSF: You've made up your mind and that's fine...but please spare us your nonsensical bleating when you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're bleating about.
M: You are doing all the bleating my friend. You are a fanatic who is pissed that I won't share in your delusions and prefer to go with the current opinion of the majority of best minds on the subject, like anybody with two ounces of common sense would do.
DSF: Agree. The only difference between us appears to be your apparent acceptance of scientific consensus as scientific fact.
M: I hope we've now got this out of the way. Science is a work in progress. There are no final facts, only best guess hypotheses and carefully limited laws.
M: I hope we've now got this out of the way. Science is a work in progress. There are no final facts, only best guess hypotheses and carefully limited laws.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
FYI?the word I used was "inanity" not "insanity"?perhaps you're simply mirroring back to yourself how you think. Can you not see the folly in your little games?
MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,125
- 792
- 126
What do you call that besides blind faith?
And don't pretend you know me or my position on the issue. You're trying to lump me in with some group of "deniers." That's the whole problem. Not everyone agrees fully with both sides.
People have become so entrenched in choosing sides that an open scientific debate is almost impossible. I want both sides to stop with the name-calling and accusations. I want more open-mindedness from both sides. Each has valid points that are ignored by the other.
But most of all, I want people to stay quiet if they have nothing constructive to add. It's hard enough to sift through all the noise as it is.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
In terms of daily weather predictions, our models are quite accurate, the problem is that to make a super accurate prediction takes more computer power than the world has to allocate. So I might know a great deal about present conditions on 8/11/2009, but if I want to make a super accurate prediction of the weather on 8/12/2009, I might have to wait until 8/13/09 to get those predicted results. And of course by then, we will already know what the weather was on 8/12. And if the prediction and results match almost perfectly, we cease questioning the model.
Scientists have an opposite problem with our long term global climate models, because they clearly have some flaws. Because almost all such climate models we have come up with thus far, predict far more global warming at the lower latitudes, and far less global warming at the poles than we actually observe in the real world. And even if we understand almost perfectly how each of the various inputs to global warming climate models behave in a lab by themselves, we clearly do not understand how they interact with each other. And it becomes increasing evident how little we know about deep Ocean currents.
And while it may be within the science tradition to debate with global warming skeptics who can arm themselves with some evidence, I think its fair to say, the global scientific consensus is increasingly tipping towards the alarmist side on global warming, especially given the degree of global melting.
And its not rare but typical, we have to act on the best scientific data at the time, even though its not perfect now.
But we have plenty of very good data, stretching back for hundreds of years, and other good date, maybe not as complete stretching back for hundreds of thousands of years and even longer,and when and if a global warming cooling model can be developed that almost perfectly accounts for real world results, most scientific questions will be answered.
But can we afford to wait until then when global ice is melting so fast? Ice melting that will certainly raise sea levels greatly.
Scientists have an opposite problem with our long term global climate models, because they clearly have some flaws. Because almost all such climate models we have come up with thus far, predict far more global warming at the lower latitudes, and far less global warming at the poles than we actually observe in the real world. And even if we understand almost perfectly how each of the various inputs to global warming climate models behave in a lab by themselves, we clearly do not understand how they interact with each other. And it becomes increasing evident how little we know about deep Ocean currents.
And while it may be within the science tradition to debate with global warming skeptics who can arm themselves with some evidence, I think its fair to say, the global scientific consensus is increasingly tipping towards the alarmist side on global warming, especially given the degree of global melting.
And its not rare but typical, we have to act on the best scientific data at the time, even though its not perfect now.
But we have plenty of very good data, stretching back for hundreds of years, and other good date, maybe not as complete stretching back for hundreds of thousands of years and even longer,and when and if a global warming cooling model can be developed that almost perfectly accounts for real world results, most scientific questions will be answered.
But can we afford to wait until then when global ice is melting so fast? Ice melting that will certainly raise sea levels greatly.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
I can't quite see how this fits into the topic, unless you are implying tobacco smoke is a contributing factor to anthropogenic climate change.
As to your preference of smoking products - while I do think Kools are a much better refreshment than Marlboros, you should definitely try Balkan Sobranies in the classic white tin. Unfiltered, of course, for a greater robustness and a purer joy.
Still, even these classics may not provide the same experience as you might have experienced if you had indulged 20 years ago when Yenidje varietals were a greater part of the blend.
MrPickins: What do you call that besides blind faith?
Mo: Sensible faith of course. I am a believer in science and I think the proof of the value of science is all around you.
Mr: And don't pretend you know me or my position on the issue. You're trying to lump me in with some group of "deniers." That's the whole problem. Not everyone agrees fully with both sides.
Mo: Who cares who doesn't agree and to what extent? There is a scientific consensus and that's good enough for me.
Mr. People have become so entrenched in choosing sides that an open scientific debate is almost impossible. Science is not about name calling and accusations want both sides to stop with the name-calling and accusations. I want more open-mindedness from both sides. Each has valid points that are ignored by the other.
Mo: Bull Shit. Our little debate here means nothing nor do debates by non-experts elsewhere. The only debate that matters is the one going on in science and that one has a consensus opinion. It the best science right now can produce. Name calling and accusations are not a part of science. That's why you go with the consensus. It weeds out that possibility to the best degree humans have so far have knowingly achieved. It is our modern religion and I am a person of faith.
But most of all, I want people to stay quiet if they have nothing constructive to add. It's hard enough to sift through all the noise as it is.
[/quote]
Mo: Sensible faith of course. I am a believer in science and I think the proof of the value of science is all around you.
Mr: And don't pretend you know me or my position on the issue. You're trying to lump me in with some group of "deniers." That's the whole problem. Not everyone agrees fully with both sides.
Mo: Who cares who doesn't agree and to what extent? There is a scientific consensus and that's good enough for me.
Mr. People have become so entrenched in choosing sides that an open scientific debate is almost impossible. Science is not about name calling and accusations want both sides to stop with the name-calling and accusations. I want more open-mindedness from both sides. Each has valid points that are ignored by the other.
Mo: Bull Shit. Our little debate here means nothing nor do debates by non-experts elsewhere. The only debate that matters is the one going on in science and that one has a consensus opinion. It the best science right now can produce. Name calling and accusations are not a part of science. That's why you go with the consensus. It weeds out that possibility to the best degree humans have so far have knowingly achieved. It is our modern religion and I am a person of faith.
But most of all, I want people to stay quiet if they have nothing constructive to add. It's hard enough to sift through all the noise as it is.
[/quote]
Are you accusing me of being lisdexic? And asking me to see the folly of my games is folly. You just bleat. Define the games I play so we can see them. Don't you ever tire of your little poo poo flings?
Moonbeam plays games, neener neener. Jesus, grow up.
Ad Hominem, Consensus, the altar of peer review, politics, righteousness - forget all that. Show me a competent alpha-level test of 0.05 that returns a significant fixed effect from a model that makes sense and can be validated.
Cut the crap.
Cut the crap.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter