New census on GW (by readers of Scientific American)
-
More than three-fourths (77.7%) say natural processes are causing climate change [^] " 83.6% who agree the IPCC "is a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda."" It took a while, but it seems as if GW has finally turned the final corner and is on its way to dusty death. Now, whats the next enviro cludgel? Ocean Acidification? Biodiversity? Got any other suggesitons? (other than fuck off :laugh: )
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
An online poll... You're considering scientific theories trumped by an online poll. Where have you been the past twenty years? Haven't you realized by now that the opinions of random Internet users are meaningless? I just browsed a GW article on scientificamerican.com, just to see what would happen. I, a random Internet user, was presented with an alternative energy poll sponsored by Shell (The big oil/gas company). That sure is scientific! Hey, if we're going to base global policy on Internet polls, I think we should use this one, which samples a highly technical and logically-minded demographic: Global warming is a ______[^]. Just ignore that 28% of the results are "Manbearpig"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
An online poll... You're considering scientific theories trumped by an online poll. Where have you been the past twenty years? Haven't you realized by now that the opinions of random Internet users are meaningless? I just browsed a GW article on scientificamerican.com, just to see what would happen. I, a random Internet user, was presented with an alternative energy poll sponsored by Shell (The big oil/gas company). That sure is scientific! Hey, if we're going to base global policy on Internet polls, I think we should use this one, which samples a highly technical and logically-minded demographic: Global warming is a ______[^]. Just ignore that 28% of the results are "Manbearpig"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)What is it, do you imagine things in your head, or cant you underatand basic English? Because your bizare responses smak of either delusion or idiocy. Or perhaps there is a third reason why you mistake a poll of readers of a particular journal about current theories for the generation of a new theory.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
What is it, do you imagine things in your head, or cant you underatand basic English? Because your bizare responses smak of either delusion or idiocy. Or perhaps there is a third reason why you mistake a poll of readers of a particular journal about current theories for the generation of a new theory.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Or perhaps there is a third reason why you mistake a poll of readers of a particular journal about current theories for the generation of a new theory.
Work on your reading comprehension. I never said anything about a new theory. I said the results of an online poll of random users is meaningless.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ooohhh, so cheeky! Did you see my other post to you, and dont mention it here, but if you did, not a bad plan eh? ;)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Hmm: not sure: email me if you want to keep it offline. Promise I won't instantly tweet... As I don't have a tweet account and have never been on the site that's an easy one :)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What is it, do you imagine things in your head, or cant you underatand basic English? Because your bizare responses smak of either delusion or idiocy. Or perhaps there is a third reason why you mistake a poll of readers of a particular journal about current theories for the generation of a new theory.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
What is it, do you imagine things in your head, or cant you underatand basic English? Because your bizare responses smak of either delusion or idiocy.
There should be a question mark after 'What is it' and after 'head'. Can't has an apostrophe. The word is 'Understand' not 'Underatand'. 'Bizare' should surely be 'Bizarre'. I have a feeling that 'Smak' should be 'Smack'. Other than that...fine. It appears you are not really in a position to bemoan other's understanding of English.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
Or perhaps there is a third reason why you mistake a poll of readers of a particular journal about current theories for the generation of a new theory.
Work on your reading comprehension. I never said anything about a new theory. I said the results of an online poll of random users is meaningless.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)To quote you: "You're considering scientific theories trumped by an online poll." If you DONT mean that the polls generated theories then dont say so.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
What is it, do you imagine things in your head, or cant you underatand basic English? Because your bizare responses smak of either delusion or idiocy.
There should be a question mark after 'What is it' and after 'head'. Can't has an apostrophe. The word is 'Understand' not 'Underatand'. 'Bizare' should surely be 'Bizarre'. I have a feeling that 'Smak' should be 'Smack'. Other than that...fine. It appears you are not really in a position to bemoan other's understanding of English.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
There should be a question mark after 'What is it' and after 'head'.
Matter of style. A list of questions can be terminated by a question mark.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Can't has an apostrophe.
I dont care.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The word is 'Understand' not 'Underatand'.
Typo.
Dalek Dave wrote:
'Bizare' should surely be 'Bizarre'.
Ditto.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I have a feeling that 'Smak' should be 'Smack'.
Since the word as used here relates to taste, and not hit, I am relying on the Dutch spellng of taste, which is 'smaak'. Given that 'aa' is not common in English, I made it 'a'. Even though this might not be the current correct spelling of the word when used in relaiton to 'taste' I dont care, This spelling is more distinctive than 'smack' and should be adopted post haste. :) --edit-- Memory playing tricks on me, Dutch is 'smak' for taste it just sounds like ist 'smaak'. Anyway, for those who care, 'bon appetite' in Dutch is 'Eet Smakelijk!' 'Eat tasty!'
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:33 AM
-
To quote you: "You're considering scientific theories trumped by an online poll." If you DONT mean that the polls generated theories then dont say so.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Ah, we've got a miscommunication here... I meant "trumped" as in overruled or overridden, like a "trump card" in poker or bridge You're thinking of the phrase "trumped up," meaning "fabricated" EDIT: To clarify (I sometimes forget that English isn't your first language - Take that as a compliment): "You're considering scientific theories trumped by an online poll." --> "You're considering that scientific theories have been overridden by an online poll."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
More than three-fourths (77.7%) say natural processes are causing climate change [^] " 83.6% who agree the IPCC "is a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda."" It took a while, but it seems as if GW has finally turned the final corner and is on its way to dusty death. Now, whats the next enviro cludgel? Ocean Acidification? Biodiversity? Got any other suggesitons? (other than fuck off :laugh: )
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Let's bring back Acid Rain, but this time, instead of Sulphuric Acid caused by high sulphur fuels, we'll go with Carbonic Acid caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere combining with water vapor. It lets the "scientists" who've made their living by panicking about CO2 levels keep their jobs.
-
Ah, we've got a miscommunication here... I meant "trumped" as in overruled or overridden, like a "trump card" in poker or bridge You're thinking of the phrase "trumped up," meaning "fabricated" EDIT: To clarify (I sometimes forget that English isn't your first language - Take that as a compliment): "You're considering scientific theories trumped by an online poll." --> "You're considering that scientific theories have been overridden by an online poll."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)OK, accepted. Anyway, its a poll of readers of new scientist, and since they constitute the thinking person to more or less a reasonable degree their opinions are of note.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
OK, accepted. Anyway, its a poll of readers of new scientist, and since they constitute the thinking person to more or less a reasonable degree their opinions are of note.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
No, as I've said, it's a poll of random internet users. If that poll is anything like the one I was offered, it's in no way limited to their subscribers, so is open to anyone on the Internet, including all of those people who come in from anti-AGW sites and carry strong opinions without much/any scientific knowledge. I wasn't able to see the actual poll data, or explanation of their gathering techniques, as the article you linked doesn't provide a link to the actual poll (Or any links at all). So basically, your entire post here is based on Investors.com's-- Actually, wait... Let me just google this.... Here we go: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25[^] (The poll is at the bottom) 6,979 responses (And 2 people who didn't pick any answers)... Given that this article/poll seems to be linked from every anti-AGW site on the web, how biased do you think those results are, and how many of those responses do you think are actually from Scientific American's normal readers?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
No, as I've said, it's a poll of random internet users. If that poll is anything like the one I was offered, it's in no way limited to their subscribers, so is open to anyone on the Internet, including all of those people who come in from anti-AGW sites and carry strong opinions without much/any scientific knowledge. I wasn't able to see the actual poll data, or explanation of their gathering techniques, as the article you linked doesn't provide a link to the actual poll (Or any links at all). So basically, your entire post here is based on Investors.com's-- Actually, wait... Let me just google this.... Here we go: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25[^] (The poll is at the bottom) 6,979 responses (And 2 people who didn't pick any answers)... Given that this article/poll seems to be linked from every anti-AGW site on the web, how biased do you think those results are, and how many of those responses do you think are actually from Scientific American's normal readers?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Yes, its a poll of readers of Scientific American.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Yes, its a poll of readers of Scientific American.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
its a poll of readers of Scientific American
I have just completed the poll (#6989). I do not read Scientific American.
QED
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
OK, accepted. Anyway, its a poll of readers of new scientist, and since they constitute the thinking person to more or less a reasonable degree their opinions are of note.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
You are British, yes? :~ I thought English was your first language but you just sucked at writing it.
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
-
You are British, yes? :~ I thought English was your first language but you just sucked at writing it.
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
I thought he was Dutch... Or am I mixing people up?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Dalek Dave wrote:
There should be a question mark after 'What is it' and after 'head'.
Matter of style. A list of questions can be terminated by a question mark.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Can't has an apostrophe.
I dont care.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The word is 'Understand' not 'Underatand'.
Typo.
Dalek Dave wrote:
'Bizare' should surely be 'Bizarre'.
Ditto.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I have a feeling that 'Smak' should be 'Smack'.
Since the word as used here relates to taste, and not hit, I am relying on the Dutch spellng of taste, which is 'smaak'. Given that 'aa' is not common in English, I made it 'a'. Even though this might not be the current correct spelling of the word when used in relaiton to 'taste' I dont care, This spelling is more distinctive than 'smack' and should be adopted post haste. :) --edit-- Memory playing tricks on me, Dutch is 'smak' for taste it just sounds like ist 'smaak'. Anyway, for those who care, 'bon appetite' in Dutch is 'Eet Smakelijk!' 'Eat tasty!'
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:33 AM
You can't be fucked to correct your stupid spelling mistakes yet you think we should listen to your arguments?
fat_boy wrote:
I dont care
And thus I don't care about a goddamn thing you have to say. And smaak is laughable. You can't even spell English words correctly and you expect your audience to differentiate between Dutch smaak and English smack?
-
I thought he was Dutch... Or am I mixing people up?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Expat Brit living in the Netherlands, AFAIK. Could be wrong.
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
-
QED
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)So the article lied. OK. So its a poll of anyone who can be bothered to go to the site and complete the quesitonaire. Still, GW is close to dead.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
You can't be fucked to correct your stupid spelling mistakes yet you think we should listen to your arguments?
fat_boy wrote:
I dont care
And thus I don't care about a goddamn thing you have to say. And smaak is laughable. You can't even spell English words correctly and you expect your audience to differentiate between Dutch smaak and English smack?
So when I am typing on line, in a discussion forum, I dont bother with apostrophes. As for using Dutch as a reference for original meanings and spellings of English, it is entirely valid, since it is representetive of the language English evolved from. As is French. If you are interested I could give you a number of examples, which I find quite enlightening. For example, why do we have seek and search? Or give and donate? Or sluce and canal? What does actually mean? And how about delay? Is it necessarially negative in connotation?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville