ClimateGate

I mentioned it previously. Perhaps if you read my posts properly instead of pulling off this ridicilous puppet crusade against me you might have came across 'random nibblets to spout their unsupported nonsense'.

 

Right so what exactly gives you the right to stereotype specific kinds of posters? This is sounding more like blind prejudice against anyone who doesn't support your point of view, and less like you trying to point out the errors in his comment.

 

Oh now you are just being a tadhat. Look, I even pointed out the error in his 'argument' in the quote I provided: 'random nibblets to spout their unsupported nonsense'

 

Okay, so I guess when ever i disagree with your opinions I'll insult you first then tell you why I disagree? That sound okay with you?

 

First you condemn me for ripping into someone for his opinion even though it was not stated as an opinion then you try to shift the burden of proof on me when I was never supposed to have it in the first place and then you try another heureka argument on me again making an assertion which is shown inaccurate (at best) in the post right above you. Yes, you are being a tadhat. And if you are being a tadhat for a longer period of time I am going to get annoyed and I will actually call you tadhat. Your actions create feedback, get over it.

 

Okay well your being a dipstick and this isn't your first attempt at it. You make threads surrounding topics that are hot button, and don't expect people to make posts like the one 0311 made. Regardless of the fact its happened in just about every single thread you've made. You've also acted like a dipstick in every one of them, and yet you still persist in being annoyed by it?

So you choose to not show respect to other members and act like an even bigger dipstick . Then get annoyed when people treat you like a dipstick, and start giving reasons behind why its appropriate to act like that. When in truth its never appropriate and if you continue posting like that your going to find everyone on this forum becoming hostile towards anything you say. Regardless of what it is.

 

Jshep, your point is good and stuff. One question though: 'dipstick' ?

...

 

"You make threads surrounding topics that are hot button"
And that is bad because...? Would you rather have more topics like 'what is your favourite car colour'? Well you can always go to Space Junk for that and keep out of The Lounge if it is too heavy for you to stomach it.
"Regardless of the fact its happened in just about every single thread you've made. You've also acted like a dipstick in every one of them"
That is a blatant lie. Are you really going to lie your way out of this? Well then screw you sir.

 

Means someones being stupid or ignorant. Makes no sense I know but to me anyways i dont see how "nibblet" and "tadhat." are any more relevant.

Also, to higgs. I dont mind a debate, but I do mind it when you bash someone for posting an opinion. I mean you act like its something that rarely happens. Comments like 0311's should be expected, and yet you always are freaking out about them like its a rare occurrence. I don't see how anything 0311 has said gave you the right to be disrespectful to him.

 

No Jshep, stop. Just be quiet. You are no longer worth my time arguing with - you maliciously lied. Instead of calling you a liar among other things you just proved yourself to be I am just going you to shut up. I know I will.

 

Well if we are going to play that game then I guess I'll start providing proof to my claims and dissecting your posts and threads. I'll have some nice material shortly seeing as how there's plenty of evidence to support my statement.

 

Now back on the topic of global warming here is a transcript of a speech I find to be quite interesting and relevant I would interested to know what others think.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

P.S. Your guys argument ends now, if you don't want to disscuss the speech that's fine but if you continue the argument there could be consequences.

 

So I skimmed through it. Am I right to assume that the speech is just a list of cases when 'the science and politics combine'?
If not please correct me because I really can't read the entire speech right now.
If yes: This unfortunately does happen and it can be very harmful. However I do not think the situation is as bad as it is being described there. This is why I advocate healthy skepticism. Almost every day I read in the news that some scientist calculated that all people here and here are going to be dead within 5 years and there will be a rain of fire and what not. But you have to realise that it's not just us who are skeptical of scientists doom predictions. It is other scientists as well. There is a great suspicion going in the scientific circles usually reaching far beyond what an ordinary man would do.
This is where I disagree with his speech. He says scientific consensus is not scientific. Well... no not really, BUT it is still useful. It is a valuable tool to stop the solitary scientists who make it to the press with their doom predictions from leading the entire scientific community off its tracks. Let's face it. Purely from pragmatic point of view there is no way you can check every single claim that every single scientist make. But if a scientific consensus is made meaning that majority of the relevant scientist agree we can filter most of the rubbish polluted by politics out of science and keep the reasonably good stuff in.
And again I remind everyone that global warming - the fact that earth is warming up - is a fact and a scientific consensus. It is not the case of one or couple of rogue scientists trying to prove their political opinions right. There is also a scientific consensus that man does contribute to the change in climate. However as far as I know the uniformity breaks down when it comes to telling how much do we actually affect it and this is where a person with at least some intellectual honesty (which I would like to call myself) have to admit that you cannot confidently derive your own conclusions based on what scientists tell you as there is so much disagreement over it. So this is why I stay away from debates concerning this part of the Global Warming model.
This is where I will stop my rant. It is getting late and my thoughts are running rampart. Please excuse my lack of... proper english language, not much of it left in my brain at this hour.

 

I think its more about how science is becoming the "Evil Catholic Church." of america.

 

There is more to it than that Higgs, that's really just him warming up. He also has some other good speeches on the topic of global warming but I think this one is the most interesting.

 

Are you refering to the topic of ACOG scopes with the religious ref numbers? Keep in mind that topic was called "US weapons 'covered' in bible ref" Yeah that's out of context all right.
If you fall into the group that complains about that sort of thing, then yeah I would think you are a sissy.

As for the Global Warming scam, I suggest you research both sides rather than the one you prefer.
You are too caught up in the fact that the earth overall is getting warmer that you don't pay attention to how it;s really affecting the weather.

We have already discovered evidence in ice sheets that proves the CO2 levels were once 10x the ammount they are now. Care to explain that one? And if you dont know what I'm talking about you clearly don't bother to look into both sides of the argument.

I have no reason to provide you evidence, if you want to save power and be green knock yourself out, I have no intention to stop you, you have a computer, you can use google and you can therefore locate the exact information I have.

Yeah sure it's getting a hell of a lot hotter in some places, it's also started snowing in others. But the media never talks about this, if it's not warmer or dry they don't show it. And back to my argument about the ice, the Western part is melting at a rapid rate, but the eastern side is cooling, you are going to tell me that the Australian research teams are liars now or "unscientific"?

I guess it's just a small coincidence the US could pull in over 640 billion if they start carbon taxing people...

 

What the **** does that mean you twit? See anyone can call people names for no reason therefore you do have no right to wail on 0311 for having an opinion against yours.

But you are a selfrighteous twit who should grow up. Okay?
And WTF does that mean?

Edit:didn't see the whole end the argument thing btw sorry.

 

I for one do not take the graph that illustrates the incline of global temperature as scientific fact. How do you know that a significant amount of research and observation has been done to call the graph fact? Clearly, as 0311 has been saying, and many others have been discussing, certain parts of the earth are getting warmer, and other parts are getting colder... arguing the graph isn't entirely correct. Maybe these are just natural weather patterns the earth goes through hmm? I doubt the activities of human beings can catastrophically affect the earth's climate. It was observed that a volcano which exploded produced more CO2 in a day then humans have in 100 years. Even then, earth has apparently survived many catastrophes like asteroid impacts. I think those who believe that human activity is causing global warming clearly underestimate the vitality and vastness of the earth. It is important to keep our environment clean ofcoarse, but humans affecting the earth so astonishingly sounds rediculous to me.

If anyone wants to put their faith into a handful of scientists who could be wrong by saying that this graph is fact then be my guess. Look at history though, we once believed the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and we were all made up of tiny solid dots... no such things as scientific fact, only scientific theory... things that were proven "facts" have now been replaced by a new consensual "fact".

By the way higgs boson, change your tampon before jumping into discussions please... THANKS!

 

"arguing the graph isn't entirely correct." No it is the graph of the average global temperature. It does not matter if some places are getting colder or not. It is a global warming. The global temperatures are rising.

 

That graph cannot be taken into full consideration as actual fact, neither can the opposite. History has shown that somethings we once regarded as fact has been disregarded and replaced by a new "fact". Whether it true or not, do you believe that human activity is to blame? I am interested in your opinion.