GW - One for Fatboy
-
Wow the univoter didn't even try to discredit the quotes as unqualified or attack the listed scientist as being in the pocket of "big oil".
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
-
Some of this[^] may be old news, but I liked many of the comments. Sample: Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. The full Senate report will be published in 24 hours.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
they will feel deceived by science and scientists
This is one of the real problems. How do we deflate the AGW bubble without science being irreparably damaged? The only way os for scientists who dont buy the whole story to stand up and and say so. As for the UN, well who givesa fuck anyway. Its a toothless waste of taxpayers money and known to be a joke anyway.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Wow the univoter
Karl, Fisitcufs, or Carson, never bother arguing any more. They havent got the stomach for a public debate they know they will loose.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Karl, Fisitcufs, or Carson, never bother arguing any more. They havent got the stomach for a public debate they know they will loose.
Lose against a clueless buffoon who can't even spell, let alone discuss climate change with even a semblance of intelligence. Not likely. Trolls just get boring eventually.
John Carson
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
they will feel deceived by science and scientists
This is one of the real problems. How do we deflate the AGW bubble without science being irreparably damaged? The only way os for scientists who dont buy the whole story to stand up and and say so. As for the UN, well who givesa fuck anyway. Its a toothless waste of taxpayers money and known to be a joke anyway.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I think science suffers damage when a theory eventually get presented as fact without the benefit of proof to the exclusion of competing theories, which are openly ridiculed. Sounds kind of like a religion doesn't it? “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
fat_boy wrote:
Karl, Fisitcufs, or Carson, never bother arguing any more. They havent got the stomach for a public debate they know they will loose.
Lose against a clueless buffoon who can't even spell, let alone discuss climate change with even a semblance of intelligence. Not likely. Trolls just get boring eventually.
John Carson
And here we go as usual. When the debate is lost revert to ad-hominem attacks. Classic AGW believer tactics. So Carson, ready to debate? Lets start with temperature and CO2 correlation. 1940 to 1975 CO2 goes up, temp goes down. If CO2 is driving the climate how come? Clearly there is something else more powerfull at play. So, what is this more powerfull effect, or group of effects? Second question, in what proportion do all these influences act? This isnt a new question. The IPCC itself states that some 4/5ths of factors affecting climate have, to quote, a "Very low level of scientific understanding".
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
And here we go as usual. When the debate is lost revert to ad-hominem attacks. Classic AGW believer tactics. So Carson, ready to debate? Lets start with temperature and CO2 correlation. 1940 to 1975 CO2 goes up, temp goes down. If CO2 is driving the climate how come? Clearly there is something else more powerfull at play. So, what is this more powerfull effect, or group of effects? Second question, in what proportion do all these influences act? This isnt a new question. The IPCC itself states that some 4/5ths of factors affecting climate have, to quote, a "Very low level of scientific understanding".
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
And thats it, just insult after insult. You really do have nothing do you? Face reality Carson, CO2 never has driven temperature and isnt driving it now. Any warming it does add will be beneficial because we are in a long term cooling trend and its benefits to crop production are well known. The real reason CO2 has been demonised is because of a political desire to limit industry, wealth, and consumption.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
And thats it, just insult after insult. You really do have nothing do you? Face reality Carson, CO2 never has driven temperature and isnt driving it now. Any warming it does add will be beneficial because we are in a long term cooling trend and its benefits to crop production are well known. The real reason CO2 has been demonised is because of a political desire to limit industry, wealth, and consumption.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The real reason CO2 has been demonised is because of a political desire to limit industry, wealth, and consumption
I don't know if you have read Fallen Angels by Larry Niven and Pournelle or not. If not you might like it since its future consists of a world that did everything it could to combat global warming even though the evidence favored global cooling - even after the glaciers started moving south. The entire novel is on line[^] courtesy of Baen Books.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Wow the univoter
Karl, Fisitcufs, or Carson, never bother arguing any more. They havent got the stomach for a public debate they know they will loose.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Says the guy who outright refuses to read or acknowledge the primary articles he "criticizes." :rolleyes: Seriously, you're so far removed from any semblance of actual scientific discourse that it's barely worth acknowledging your existence - heck, you yourself seem to consider your opinions so utterly irrelevant that you troll here instead of making a blog like all the other more committed pseudoscientific losers with an axe to grind. It's "lose," BTW. Edit: And, it's not really your fault that you don't really get it - after all, you were (IIRC) raised by chiropractors, which is at heart a profoundly anti-scientific discipline. So I sympathize.
- F
-
Says the guy who outright refuses to read or acknowledge the primary articles he "criticizes." :rolleyes: Seriously, you're so far removed from any semblance of actual scientific discourse that it's barely worth acknowledging your existence - heck, you yourself seem to consider your opinions so utterly irrelevant that you troll here instead of making a blog like all the other more committed pseudoscientific losers with an axe to grind. It's "lose," BTW. Edit: And, it's not really your fault that you don't really get it - after all, you were (IIRC) raised by chiropractors, which is at heart a profoundly anti-scientific discipline. So I sympathize.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Says the guy who outright refuses to read or acknowledge the primary articles he "criticizes."
If you mean the IPCC I quote them quite often, particularly the graph that states that 4/5ths (or thereabouts) of climatee science has a "Very low level of understanding".
Fisticuffs wrote:
yourself seem to consider your opinions so utterly irrelevant
My opinions dont matter jack shit. What I do enjoy is taking the piss out of such an obviously huge pile of shit like AGW mania in all its current forms.
Fisticuffs wrote:
instead of making a blog like all the other more committed pseudoscientific losers with an axe to grind.
Yo see, even if I did make a blog you would still be totally biassed agaisnt me so your critisicm of me in this respect is invalid since you just wish I didnt post on the SB. Tough. If you dont like it then you go somewhere else.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's "lose," BTW.
Bet you enjoyed that eh? One of the problems about living in a foregn country. Eventually your native land, and its language become foreign in turn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
after all, you were (IIRC) raised by chiropractors, which is at heart a profoundly anti-scientific discipline
Odd. Alternative fuel good, alternative medcine not. Normally these go hand in hand. Anyway, you are wrong. Chiropractic is more effective on back problems than traditional medcine. Osteopaths are also good. Edit: It was origionally spelt 'leosan' by the way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Says the guy who outright refuses to read or acknowledge the primary articles he "criticizes."
If you mean the IPCC I quote them quite often, particularly the graph that states that 4/5ths (or thereabouts) of climatee science has a "Very low level of understanding".
Fisticuffs wrote:
yourself seem to consider your opinions so utterly irrelevant
My opinions dont matter jack shit. What I do enjoy is taking the piss out of such an obviously huge pile of shit like AGW mania in all its current forms.
Fisticuffs wrote:
instead of making a blog like all the other more committed pseudoscientific losers with an axe to grind.
Yo see, even if I did make a blog you would still be totally biassed agaisnt me so your critisicm of me in this respect is invalid since you just wish I didnt post on the SB. Tough. If you dont like it then you go somewhere else.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's "lose," BTW.
Bet you enjoyed that eh? One of the problems about living in a foregn country. Eventually your native land, and its language become foreign in turn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
after all, you were (IIRC) raised by chiropractors, which is at heart a profoundly anti-scientific discipline
Odd. Alternative fuel good, alternative medcine not. Normally these go hand in hand. Anyway, you are wrong. Chiropractic is more effective on back problems than traditional medcine. Osteopaths are also good. Edit: It was origionally spelt 'leosan' by the way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Chiropractic is more effective on back problems than traditional medcine.
No, by most decent meta-reviews, it's as statistically effective as anything else for lower back pain - which itself isn't particularly notable, because no modality is particularly effective at treating lower back pain. Secondly, if chiropractors restricted their business to treating lower back pain, there ostensibly wouldn't be a problem. However, most are mixers and will do some combination of: subscribing to a form of subluxation theory, claiming to treat headaches, allergies, end-organ dysfunction, perform cervical manipulations on children, use dangerous or ineffective devices, offer anti-vaccination advice. By and large, they're quacks. Osteopaths are even worse (spinal fluid manipulation? utter horseshit.) Anyway, sorry it took me so long to respond to this.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
Chiropractic is more effective on back problems than traditional medcine.
No, by most decent meta-reviews, it's as statistically effective as anything else for lower back pain - which itself isn't particularly notable, because no modality is particularly effective at treating lower back pain. Secondly, if chiropractors restricted their business to treating lower back pain, there ostensibly wouldn't be a problem. However, most are mixers and will do some combination of: subscribing to a form of subluxation theory, claiming to treat headaches, allergies, end-organ dysfunction, perform cervical manipulations on children, use dangerous or ineffective devices, offer anti-vaccination advice. By and large, they're quacks. Osteopaths are even worse (spinal fluid manipulation? utter horseshit.) Anyway, sorry it took me so long to respond to this.
- F
There are quacks in any field of medcine, and you are right, any alternative medcine will atrract them of course. However, I can categorically state that my back is a llot better for treatment by a particular Osteopath I used in Leuven, or by treatment by my brother in law who is a chiropractor.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription