Oh I cant be bothered anymore
-
* You oversimplify[^] the theory * You ignore[^] anything that doesn't support your position * You claim to be some kind of expert while having only a rudimentary understanding * You claim opinions[^] to be "facts," but only when they align with your point of view * You refuse to learn when someone ACTUALLY experienced tries to teach you (Not referring to myself) * You continuously attempt to redefine[^] the position of your opponents (And even the language itself) And you wonder why your opinions fall on deaf ears...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Even when I hand it to you on a plate you dont get it. You fail to notice the discrepency between the actual report and what is stated in the media outlets. You failed to note interesting facts in the report itself that actually limit its impact. You failed to notice ambiguity in the report itself amd you failed to notice unsubstantiated statements. You see, this is why I dont get how AGWers can be so sure when they fail to notice some quite obvious flaws in scientific material published in supoport of AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Even when I hand it to you on a plate you dont get it. You fail to notice the discrepency between the actual report and what is stated in the media outlets. You failed to note interesting facts in the report itself that actually limit its impact. You failed to notice ambiguity in the report itself amd you failed to notice unsubstantiated statements. You see, this is why I dont get how AGWers can be so sure when they fail to notice some quite obvious flaws in scientific material published in supoport of AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
The paper isnt complicated at all. It just makes a few statements, and a few contradictions. However if you want to know what the level of understanding of climate science is in general take a look at this: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html[^] Its not spectacular is it? There are so many unknowns that I find it surprising that the IPCC can state so confidently that CO2 is the cause of the recent warming period. Anyway, there is no need to take such a closed box stance on this and assume that we are all ignorant and those in climate science are not. Clearly they are also ingorant too of what it is that drives climate.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
What little I know of climatology suggests that it's not in the slightest bit simple. For you to suggest both that it is simpler than I know it to be and show greater confidence in your conclusions suggests to me that you lie further to the left on the Dunning-Kruger chart than I do.
-
* You oversimplify[^] the theory * You ignore[^] anything that doesn't support your position * You claim to be some kind of expert while having only a rudimentary understanding * You claim opinions[^] to be "facts," but only when they align with your point of view * You refuse to learn when someone ACTUALLY experienced tries to teach you (Not referring to myself) * You continuously attempt to redefine[^] the position of your opponents (And even the language itself) And you wonder why your opinions fall on deaf ears...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
You oversimplify[^] the theory
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: And you dont think the theory that CO2 is the major player in climate a simplification? Everything about alarmist AGW science is simplified! The true scientific understanding of factors affectig climate is very low. The IPCC states this. I have linked to this many times, yet they confidently, simplistically, state that CO2 is the big baddy ignoring solar, cosmic, cloud, water vapour, aerosols etc etc etc. GO look at the damned IPCC info again, please. blah blah blah. Usual personal attcks used when people can no longer argue with the facts. Pathethetic Ian. You have all the intelligence,, debating skills, and understanding of a true AGW believer.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
You fail to notice the discrepency between the actual report and what is stated in the media outlets.
You should see what the media does with respect to reporting health issues. It's abysmal.
- F
Yeah, its crap. No sooner has a scientist voiced some concern over a particular food type for example and the media has turned it into a scare story. One thing that really pisses me off about the whole GW thing is the way the media has behaved, constantly, and probably intentionally, misquoting scientific sources. Like this one. The source says that northern hemisphere sea ice is decreasing, yet the media story states sea ice is decreasing. What also pisses me off is the way the AGW scientists dont seem to object to this loosesness with the truth. If they slammed down on the press for this kind of thing I would have a lot more respect for their integrity.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
:) Hmm, depends how much bile and vitriol I can accumulate over the nect few days. ;) Actually, and I mean this, when I discuss GW with other people, ie not not on CP, they actually understand what I am saying and see the validity of it. I dont know if forums are bad at communicaiton, or whether the annonyminity allows people to behave in ways they wouldnt personally, but I am gettig sick of the abuse people hurl at me just because I have an opinion and want to discuss it with others.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What little I know of climatology suggests that it's not in the slightest bit simple. For you to suggest both that it is simpler than I know it to be and show greater confidence in your conclusions suggests to me that you lie further to the left on the Dunning-Kruger chart than I do.
James L. Thomson wrote:
What little I know of climatology suggests that it's not in the slightest bit simple
I quite agree. The climate system would appear to be immensely complex, and poorly understood, see my IPCC link. But, beyond what happens in the system if it can be shown that the system doesnt respond the way a theory predicts then that theory is largely wrong. This is the very basics of science. So we havent seen the temperature response to CO2 that was predicted, which implies the theory of AGW is either wrong, or its effect overstated. Its that simple.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Yes. Will you now join me in my holy scientific war on religion? Just for the lulz of course ;) It is best fought here in the backroom. I'm not sure why.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Will you now join me in my holy scientific war on religion? Just for the lulz of course
Perhaps this image will be useful? :) http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png[^]
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
