|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2007 : 09:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Please keep in mind that i do not dispute the data, I dispute the conclusions drawn.
Surley you would all agree that if the conclusion are draw by those with something to gain one should be skeptical of those conclusions.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 11:05:20 [Permalink]
|
There really is very little point in continuing this conversation.
Jerome already has it all figured out, so I'm not sure why he decided to start a thread about this.
Obviously we are just stupid, because we don't understand that peer review and comment by governments is the same thing.
Obviously we are to stupid to see that the IPCC report doesn't make a clear case (via the radiative forcing data and argument) for a human contribution to global warming.
Obviously we are to stupid to see that the new conclusions for the rate of warming are different from the ones made 15-20 years ago, which means that the scientists are just full of shit.
Obviously we are to stupid to understand that the IPCC report does NOT indicate any wide scientific consensus, because the 1250+ climate scientists who authored the report were really just lab techs contributing data, and the 2500+ expert scientific reviewers were just government agents.
Obviously we are to stupid to understand that "very high confidence" and "very likely", despite the clear definition of those terms provided within the report, really mean nothing, because those terms are vague and unscientific.
Obviously we are to stupid to realize that one respected scientist who wanted his name off the section of the report dealing with the "mitigation of climate change" means that the whole report, including the physical science basis and data, is flawed.
Golly gee Jerome, we sure are glad you came along straighten us out on this whole global warming tax scam. What would we have done without you to open our eyes for us?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 11:21:06 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
Surley you would all agree that if the conclusion are draw by those with something to gain one should be skeptical of those conclusions. |
If my aunt had wheels, she would be a wagon…
The conclusion is what the consensus of scientists who are experts on climate agree on.
Honestly, since governments are not all in agreement with the scientific conclusion of the report, for various reasons, but for the dissenters it's mostly economical reasons, how can you deduce that the world governments guided the scientific conclusions?
Were talking about a lot of governments here. Some of those governments best able to foot the funding for research are also those governments that do not like the summaries conclusion. And we are talking about a lot of scientists here who are in agreement with the conclusions of the summary. If the scientists bowed to governmental pressure, which governments pressure would they have bowed to and why? Frankly, your premise makes no sense.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 11:22:36 [Permalink]
|
Dude -- instead of your sarcasim why not have a shot at talking about the points.
Dude--the the majority of what you posted was your "make believe" as to what i think.(putting insults in my mouth as if i implied them is wrong)
I was under the presumtion that this forum was for skeptics.
What is the point of this forum if talking about current events based on current and historical data is thought of in these terms " There really is very little point in continuing this conversation".
I am confused---Is this forum just a place to backslap each other and attack outsiders?
It seems after my point is conceded someone counter attacks with an insult; is this the common way things are done here?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 11:27:59 [Permalink]
|
| It seems after my point is conceded someone counter attacks with an insult |
What point have you conceded? As far as I can tell you have refused to acknowledge any error on your part.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 11:28:22 [Permalink]
|
"The conclusion is what the consensus of scientists who are experts on climate agree on."
Kil--How can this be so if the conclusions a drawn up after the experts are out of the equation?
8.governmnet review
9.approval of report by ipcc
10.publication of report
According to the IPCC the experts are not part of the last 2 steps of the prosess to get to publication.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 11:31:00 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
Please keep in mind that i do not dispute the data, I dispute the conclusions drawn. |
On what basis do you dispute the conclusions?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 11:36:42 [Permalink]
|
Dude---When the point I was making was conceded by the opposing posters.
Dude our talk has; at this point, only gotten us to where we all agree that the governments try to and do influence the conclusions of science reports.
I also beleive that we all agree the governmnetal drawn conclusions should be looked at with skeptical eyes.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 11:41:14 [Permalink]
|
Kil----Thanks for the great segway into a new talk!
I have some family coming over now and i must leave the computer.
I look forward to this talk.
Maybe i will post after a couple of beers so as to give you guys a chance.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 12:03:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave are you implying that the "final wording"(which is what we are talking of)did not "change" from step 4 (peer review) untill step 10 publication? |
I have no evidence that any government was involved in revising the final wording. I do have evidence that governments wanted to revise the wording, but no evidence that they were successful.
You're the one who's claiming that governments had a hand in writing the final version of the report. Where is your evidence that they were able to change it?
And why are you so focused on the politics, instead of the science? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 12:07:02 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
"The conclusion is what the consensus of scientists who are experts on climate agree on."
Kil--How can this be so if the conclusions a drawn up after the experts are out of the equation? |
I have an idea. Find me some of the scientists who's studies were used in the summary who are in disagreement with its conclusion. So far, you have one and his dissent had to do with the third report.
Otherwise, all you are doing is handwaving.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 13:56:34 [Permalink]
|
Dude---When the point I was making was conceded by the opposing posters.
|
I'm not sure what you are smoking, because you have been wrong on every point youu have tried to make, and no one has conceded you anything.
Step out of that little anti-reality bubble you live in.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 14:40:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude--- It seems as if every post you have written has an insult.
Thanks for the input.
Kil---You know that nor you or I have the resources to ask each of the contibutors if they agree with the conclusions. I am sure you also know that it takes fortitude to disent.
Dave---No evidence is not proof of fact(as a skeptic you know that).
In fact we have the documentation from the ipcc that states that the final report went past a governmental review and then ipcc approval prior to being published.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 14:47:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Maybe i will post after a couple of beers so as to give you guys a chance.
|
(emphasis mine)
You, sir, is a very funny guy. Have you ever considered a career as a comedian?
You haven't given us a chance, in the sense that we do not understand you. Because, while you're using English words, you're not speaking the same language as the rest of us.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 14:51:51 [Permalink]
|
Lets talk data from the ipcc report:
Sea level rise chart compares 1961-1993 40 years to 1993-2003 10 years
do you see any problem with this?
Why would "they" decide to compare a 10 year time frame to a 42 year time frame?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
