New census on GW (by readers of Scientific American)
-
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
-
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)Nee, ik ben niet van het nederlands. Actually I am English. Sorry to dissapoint you! :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
-
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:
Whats wrong with what I just wrote? (apostrophes excepted of course, which I cant be arsed to use on line) If you are interested I will tell you why I have so little respect for the English language, and why, although I used to be a pedant, I no longer really care how its used.
"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
-
Whats wrong with what I just wrote? (apostrophes excepted of course, which I cant be arsed to use on line) If you are interested I will tell you why I have so little respect for the English language, and why, although I used to be a pedant, I no longer really care how its used.
"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
In general, spelling, spacing, and punctuation.
fat_boy wrote:
If you are interested I will tell you why I have so little respect for the English language, and why, although I used to be a pedant, I no longer really care how its used.
Go ahead, I'm interested.
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:
-
In general, spelling, spacing, and punctuation.
fat_boy wrote:
If you are interested I will tell you why I have so little respect for the English language, and why, although I used to be a pedant, I no longer really care how its used.
Go ahead, I'm interested.
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:
English is a very young language. Really only about 500 years old. It evolved from a combinaiton of late old english (like old saxon, of which Fris (Frisland, north of holland) is also a derrivative. Dutch has many similarities though to English, even though it is less close than Fris) and Norman French (with some notable influences of old Norse, spoken in Yorkshire) Unlike modern French and Dutch (both of which I know) there is no central body that determines the useage of the language. Instead it is governned by its use, and thus by the millions of people world wide who use English. As such it is an immensely flexible, colourful language. And very open to change. Of all kinds. It always has been. For example, Shake spere created somethign like 2000 words. He hacked the language up in its usage too: 'That bastardly rogue' for example. Bastard was never an adjective. But it worked. It gave immense colour to his work. In all diplomatic,religous, legal, and scientific circles other languages were used. Latin and French notably. Later, much later, people started to think of English as a propper language and started to try to tart it up. Principly by applying latin rules, which is like trying to fit a pig into a three piece suit. And such utter crap as the 'dont split the infinitive' was born. As for spelling, its always evolved. So, is it econimie as it used to be, or economy as it is today, and what will it be tomorrow? Fox, Vixen, Knife, Knives, Sheep, Sheep, all thes inconsistencies come from mixing various languages. Why not Schap? Its sheep in Dutch. Deer? Well in Dutch, Dier is any animal, not just the Bambi sort. Iy youw, and 't house illegal English? Its not in the dictionary but its widely used in Birmingham and Yorkshire respectively. In Dutch its Jou and 't huis. Clearly the presence of these ofrm in English has its roots in the dialect of old saxon used in these parts. We might have evolved English and focused it on the East Midlands accent (thats what queens English really is) but that invalidates all other accents. SO, since I learnt French and Dutch, I am far less picky about what English is. I had my eyes opened as to its true provenance.
"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 C
-
English is a very young language. Really only about 500 years old. It evolved from a combinaiton of late old english (like old saxon, of which Fris (Frisland, north of holland) is also a derrivative. Dutch has many similarities though to English, even though it is less close than Fris) and Norman French (with some notable influences of old Norse, spoken in Yorkshire) Unlike modern French and Dutch (both of which I know) there is no central body that determines the useage of the language. Instead it is governned by its use, and thus by the millions of people world wide who use English. As such it is an immensely flexible, colourful language. And very open to change. Of all kinds. It always has been. For example, Shake spere created somethign like 2000 words. He hacked the language up in its usage too: 'That bastardly rogue' for example. Bastard was never an adjective. But it worked. It gave immense colour to his work. In all diplomatic,religous, legal, and scientific circles other languages were used. Latin and French notably. Later, much later, people started to think of English as a propper language and started to try to tart it up. Principly by applying latin rules, which is like trying to fit a pig into a three piece suit. And such utter crap as the 'dont split the infinitive' was born. As for spelling, its always evolved. So, is it econimie as it used to be, or economy as it is today, and what will it be tomorrow? Fox, Vixen, Knife, Knives, Sheep, Sheep, all thes inconsistencies come from mixing various languages. Why not Schap? Its sheep in Dutch. Deer? Well in Dutch, Dier is any animal, not just the Bambi sort. Iy youw, and 't house illegal English? Its not in the dictionary but its widely used in Birmingham and Yorkshire respectively. In Dutch its Jou and 't huis. Clearly the presence of these ofrm in English has its roots in the dialect of old saxon used in these parts. We might have evolved English and focused it on the East Midlands accent (thats what queens English really is) but that invalidates all other accents. SO, since I learnt French and Dutch, I am far less picky about what English is. I had my eyes opened as to its true provenance.
"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 C
Thanks man, that was a good write up :thumbsup: (apart from the spelling horrors ;P ) You sound like somebody who likes languages, I really like that in a man. You also sound like somebody who would immensely enjoy Bill Bryson. If you haven't read it already, check out Made in America. It was mentioned by somebody on CP (Pete, perhaps) and I read it in a few weeks' time a couple of months back. It was thoroughly entertaining; I've now lent it to my gf and she likes it too. I strongly recommend you check it out, I have an inkling you will like it very much.
Cheers, विक्रम (Have gone past my troika - 4 CCCs!) "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
-
Thanks man, that was a good write up :thumbsup: (apart from the spelling horrors ;P ) You sound like somebody who likes languages, I really like that in a man. You also sound like somebody who would immensely enjoy Bill Bryson. If you haven't read it already, check out Made in America. It was mentioned by somebody on CP (Pete, perhaps) and I read it in a few weeks' time a couple of months back. It was thoroughly entertaining; I've now lent it to my gf and she likes it too. I strongly recommend you check it out, I have an inkling you will like it very much.
Cheers, विक्रम (Have gone past my troika - 4 CCCs!) "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
I have read a few of Brysons boooks, they are easy reading and entertaining. Mother Tongue was very good for a few chapters, so I will look out for Made in America. And yes, languages, and particularly how they are related, are fascinating, because they indicate the movement of people over the centuries, and how culture develops. And of course how we should never think of ourselves, our culture, and our language as isolated or distinct. We arent. We are very much related.
"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