Turn out the global warming lights, the party is over
-
Though I'm a little bored with GW, I don't think a story is completely invalidated just because it's linked on the Drudge site.
Or the Huffington for that matter.
WSS
-
If they were linking to valid scientific studies debunking or improving on global warming science you might have a point. But they're not. They're linking to editorials.
Science is only debunked by other science. It's not debunked by Charles Krauthammer.
-
I never once said a poll was an accurate definate sentiment result.
I have always said it's an INDICATOR that the opposite claims by you libs
are not true.
Was it you, Heck, or Shep that was so "frightened" about Bush and the Patriot Act?
And global warming?
That, I don't remember. But truth is, it's pretty weird to YOU to call ME "mindlessly partisan"....
please, can I quote you on that? LOL !
You want the real message? You can't HANDLE the real message.
But here it is anyways: "You're wrong"
-
Cal, I apologize once more for even bothering, but you still don't get it. Online polls do not prove or disprove any claim, or indicate that something is or isn't true. They're useless.
And yes, you did try and use them to support your arguments. Everyone remembers. And then you still didn't get it, and tried it again later. And judging by what you just wrote, you still don't get it.
And it's okay.
-
And Steve, I would agree with you. It does get a bit boring. Because it's the same nonsense over and over again. Most every denier trots out the same 4-5 different "arguments", as if they're all working from the same playbook. Because they are.
I mean, did you know the Earth's climate has changed naturally over time? That Newsweek ran a cover in the 70s about global cooling? That CO2 can't be a pollutant because plants like it? That some scientist used the word "trick" in an email? Hockey stick graph, Al Gore's house, blah, blah, blah.
You can only bat all this crap down so many times. Someone else just pops up and presents it all over again, as if it suddenly started making sense. It's like whack-a-mole.
-
Heck,
Please try to stop being a twit, okay?
There is a difference between using a poll AS A FREAKIN INDICATOR, and thinking that any poll is the end
all last truth on any issue.
You nitwillies used to use poll and after poll, like Bush's popularity poll, to buoy up your lib opinions.
Now, of course, you go all wimped out and don't like Obamao's popularity polls, and you don't like...
most polls on the Dems in office.
That's the trademark of a loser. Political expediency is the liberal/progressive/emotional whacko name of the game.
Polls are indicators. I have said that more than short list of occasions. But polls with only 678 voters used to get you
libs all gaga in the past.
Odd that you don't see your own hypocrisy. You claim to always "see" it in everyone else. Very odd. Be very afraid, Heck,
of your own simpletonness. Yes, I made that word up just for you. @@
-
Thank you, Heck, for the whack a mole analogy.
It seems you are starting to be a tiny bit self aware after all.
Now, if you will USE this awareness, and stop using Bush blaming to
excuse your precious ObaMao and Pelosi et all, of all mistakes, miscues,
and really dangerous directions our country is going in, and the damage they are doing doing to our country and our freedoms...
you could actually add some intelligent conversation in leauge with the rest of us to this board.
-
Cal, you still don't get the difference between citing a scientific poll and citing an internet poll. You prove it with every post. It's stunning and unsurprising all at once.
Cal, what's the major difference between a scientific poll and an internet poll?
-
The lack of prohibiting outside influences, bias.
Who cares? I said any poll I ever used is AN INDICATOR.
IN-DI-CA-TOR.
INDICATOR.
Not scientific no-doubt-about-it fact.
INDICATOR.
Do you know what an "indicator" is?
Nope. You kept quiet for years while your Sheppie and co. boys used
all sorts of opinion polls vs Bush.
You were happy with that? You never complained one time, I believe.
That's eight years of the Bush admin and opinion polls out your'alls' wazoo.
But NOW? Internet polls bad. Any poll that sides with your opinions, good and scientific.
Fool. When you say "EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU'RE WRONG, CAL"
Then I post a poll where 93% of respondents agree with ME, don't you understand, Heck,
that that is A FREAKIN SOMEBEECH INDICATOR that you are full of cameldung?
IT MEANS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT IS AN INTERNET POLL/NOT A SCIENTIFIC POLL, that IT STILL
CAN INDICATE AN OPINION IS VALID, AND LEGIT MEANING CAN STILL BE GLEANED FROM IT.
Good God, man, stop your childish quibbling over the definition of terms you bring out of the closet.
Show me one time in the last several years where I said that an internet poll was scientific.
You can't, you little wimpy molly-lolly creampuff !
-
Here, Heck, read this and
man up for just once since I ever read one of your childishly pouty and ignorant posts:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...ear-record.html
The .... manmade ......global .......warming .......party .......is......SO FREAKIN.....over.
-
Cal... again. Not a scientific paper.
-
I don't care. "Scientific papers" didn't matter during eight years of frantic whining over being "frightened" during the Bush admin.
Science lies to, when the $$$$$$$$$ are on the line for man made global warming. Climategate.
-
What does "being frightened during the Bush admin" have to do with science and scientific accuracy?
You're citing dailymail and drudge report as your sources for human influence on climate change. You can continue to do so, but no one will take you seriously because this isn't something that has a simple answer, it needs to be drawn from the conclusions of thousands of experiments.
If you want us to take you seriously, start giving us peer-reviewed, published papers that claim humans aren't causing climate change. It's not that hard. Here is one, for example, that deniers claim has debunked global warming.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
I've only eyed through it, but the claim that was made was that if this was true (which it very well may be), the current rate of global change meant that ocean temperatures wouldn't raise by a full degree Celsius until 2100.
A simple ctrl+F through the paper, and you'll find that it isn't there. A renowned physicist claims to have done the math, so I'm pretty trusting that he is correct in this assumption, but really it's beside the point. This is one man's interpretation of another study's interpretation of how the world works. Science is a game of inches, and you aren't going to find a single breakthrough paper that proves it either way. Any headline that tells you otherwise is full of shit, but I see it when hearing about papers on other topics such as AIDS, and someone disproving Einstein's theory of relativity. I seriously read a headline that a cure for AIDS is on the way, or that Einstein's theory is disproved this month. Well guess what, it's sensationalist bullshit because when you read the actual paper, you find out that they've been able to stop one strain of HIV, but it's still mutating too quickly for us to keep up. And with Einstein's stuff. There were a ton of holes in his areas, and the world of physics has been getting clearer (or muddier, maybe, we really don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes) ever since he's been around.
The point is, with science, majority rules. And while it's true that some people have been held back by this... See the following article...
http://www.cracked.com/article_18822_5-fam...their-time.html
It's not something that's going to change. I won't start believing it until I see the majority of papers on the topic being released debunking the theory of man made climate change.
I could very well be wrong, but the majority of science out there supports that man is having an impact on the climate, and the people who end up being on lists like that are diamonds in the rough. Personally, I think a more pressing issue is ocean acidification.
-
Cal, you clearly don't understand this. Still. And yet you are certain that you do. Just like everything else we talk about.
Why should we imagine this to be different?
-
And Steve, I would agree with you. It does get a bit boring. Because it's the same nonsense over and over again. Most every denier trots out the same 4-5 different "arguments", as if they're all working from the same playbook. Because they are.
I mean, did you know the Earth's climate has changed naturally over time? That Newsweek ran a cover in the 70s about global cooling? That CO2 can't be a pollutant because plants like it? That some scientist used the word "trick" in an email? Hockey stick graph, Al Gore's house, blah, blah, blah.
You can only bat all this crap down so many times. Someone else just pops up and presents it all over again, as if it suddenly started making sense. It's like whack-a-mole.
And Steve, I would agree with you. It does get a bit boring. Because it's the same nonsense over and over again. Most every denier trots out the same 4-5 different "arguments", as if they're all working from the same playbook. Because they are.
I mean, did you know the Earth's climate has changed naturally over time? That Newsweek ran a cover in the 70s about global cooling? That CO2 can't be a pollutant because plants like it? That some scientist used the word "trick" in an email? Hockey stick graph, Al Gore's house, blah, blah, blah.
You can only bat all this crap down so many times. Someone else just pops up and presents it all over again, as if it suddenly started making sense. It's like whack-a-mole.
Well it's certainly whacking something.
But in any ongoing argument we tend to keep repeating the same points.
I'm still a skeptic as to the prophesied disaster, the proposals to avert that armageddon and the chances of getting that solution off the ground even if I did think it'd save humanity.
It ggets to be a little like arguing with a guy who says we're going to hell if we don't repent now.
But I'd think even you might admit that the committed GW crowd might have picked a better frontman than Al Gore.
WSS
-
Oh, baloney, Vapor. we hashed this out a long time ago.
Scientific this vs scientific that, and it never changed anyone's minds.
In fact, one of the MAIN reasons for the libs' adherence to worshipping the "man-made global warming false god"
....was Algore's documentary/movie, With phoney clips of icebergs in it. Was that "scientific paper" ?????
LOL, ROF,L. You had to have been there. It was hilarious. We could go through all that again, but,
I'll pass. " The only real scientists are the ones who agree with us" .... LOL.
-
Cal, it's not baloney. It's science. And I don't know what Al Gore's inconvenient truth did, except for raise awareness about the problem. I haven't seen it. I think his Nobel prize is a joke. I'm talking about science. Not a movie.
" The only real scientists are the ones who agree with us"
And that sounds like your point of view.
-
Al Gore raised awareness much in the same manner that Orson Welles raised awareness on the dangers of extraterrestrial attack.
WSS
-
Always back to Al Gore. Jesus.
"It ggets to be a little like arguing with a guy who says we're going to hell if we don't repent now."
No, it's not like that at all. Mounds of scientific evidence and faith-based religious fundamentalism are nothing like each other.
I would certainly agree that it's next to pointless to argue with partisans who don't accept the science, and then claim to know what the real scientific answers are. That mostly pointless, other than to point out how ridiculous a position that is.
It's also not that interesting to argue with you about it, since your position on pretty much everything is only giving a shit about showing off how little you give a shit. If this were the 60s, I can't imagine you'd have been for civil rights. If it were the 20s, you probably wouldn't have lifted a finger to help women vote. The only thing that seems to upset you is people who identify problems with the status quo.
In this case, you're mad about people who want to do something about pollution. You just throw up your hands. This is your "position."
Awesome.
-
I could not give two shits about what Al Gore says on the matter. The dude claimed he invented the internet. I do, however, trust scientific papers on the topic. I could post a whole bunch of them that I struggle to understand the implications of. The problem is with people that they sensationalize science and twist it to get their point of view on a subject across. It's maddening.
Here is an article on expert credibility in climate change
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/...187107.abstract
Click the full text pdf to read the whole thing.
Read it.
Then read this,
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/...of-climate.html
This article includes a critique of what the study lacked, including comments by one of the papers authors. I am not pimping this paper as the be-all end-all to the conversation on climate change, I'm just saying that it is the most objective view that exists on the topic. There does exist some disparity, as described by the article, but Cal, I'm inclined to believe the side that's putting out more evidence. If you want me to believe that climate change isn't happening, then get your ass out in the field and go find a project that gives evidence of the contrary, because there are a shit ton of people that are working their asses off and saying it is.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login