|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2007 : 14:57:33 [Permalink]
|
Mabuse----Sorry but this is amusing .
"You, sir, is a very funny guy."
You insulted my grammer whilst using improper grammer.
|
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 : 15:00:12 [Permalink]
|
Dude--- It seems as if every post you have written has an insult.
Thanks for the input.
|
Because you refuse to concede points that you are clearly wrong on. You have been demonstrated to be in error a dozen times in this thread, yet you just keep on going.
Get over yourself, go back to the first page, and concede that you are wrong about the scientific consensus concerning global warming and its anthropogenic causes.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:03:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Mabuse----Sorry but this is amusing .
"You, sir, is a very funny guy."
You insulted my grammer whilst using improper grammer.
|
He wasn't insulting your grammar. He was being facetious in suggesting that you don't understand the meaning of the word "chance" since it's clear that SFN isn't the group in need of one. (And BTW, English isn't Mab's first language...) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:14:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave---No evidence is not proof of fact(as a skeptic you know that). |
Right: you've got no evidence for your claims, yet you assert that you're correct. You're not a skeptic. Q.E.D.| 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. |
And that somehow proves that some unknown government was able to change the conclusions of the report? You still have not been able to make your case that "review" equals "editorial mandate."
And you still can't get past the politics, can you? Nor can you acknowledge points made by others here (instead, you just change the subject). Classic contrarianism on your part. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:16:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
First it is claimed that government involvement in the review process does not alter the conclutions.
Now you admit that the science does not always agree with the goverments conclutions. Hence the disagreements between the science and govermnetal agents.
Please you can not have it both ways.
How can one hold both these statments true?
Maybe you contend that the science always wins the arguement with the governments that are funding the science?
|
Since you later say this was a reply to my comments, not Kil's, I'll reply.
I wrote nothing self-contradictory; I only contradicted you.
Science does indeed ultimately win, as it relies upon the peer review process, which is independent of politics. The political pressure that was applied to the scientists to predict less danger from warming was unsuccessful. (You refuse to acknowledge I even made that point, though it was my main one, in bold letters!) Science doesn't and didn't cave in. My hypothetical point was that even if the scientists had caved in, the report would have been less alarming.
Your repeated mis-characterization of anything people tell you is dishonest and seems deliberate. Just state your political views and stop lying about science.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/13/2007 15:22:58 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:29:55 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
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. |
Oh good grief…
The Union of Concerned Scientists is pissed off that the Bush administration has tried to downplay the findings in the GW report.
You think a scientist would sit by if he thought his research was being misused? That would be news. And just like the fellow you found, those guys could be found too if they exist.
You are indulging in baseless speculation supported by nothing to prop up a conspiracy theory that lacks any supporting evidence.
|
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 : 15:44:38 [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 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:57:46 [Permalink]
|
Kil---Scientist are just men like you or I.
Most men can be compromised.
|
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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 16:46:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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 do "they" say about it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 16:47:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil---Scientist are just men like you or I.
Most men can be compromised. |
Which isn't evidence that anyone has compromised their scientific integrity. Do you have evidence, or are you just willing to delve into meaningless speculation? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 18:09:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave you repiled to a question with a question.
Why would the data be hidden in a chart that compares 42years to 10 years?
Is it possible that the data is being hidden or are the scientist not very good?
I am open for another resonable explaination.
|
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 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 18:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, posting a topic with an imflammatory title such as "IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX" without much to support such a statement is ridiculous. Add to that the fact that you appear to be the opposite of well-read on the subject leads me to wonder who filled your head with such nonsense. If you are going to begin a topic with such an outrageous title you should be prepared to back it up with something substantial.
It's a shame that I stumbled upon this topic so late in the game that it's already devolved into name calling. What a brave man Jerome is to single handedly attempt to destroy science. Good luck with that.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 19:01:26 [Permalink]
|
| JEROME DA GNOME, what kind of `"scam" relies on 'global warming' subterfuge to "tax" that which isn't even conceded by the PTB to begin with? |
| Edited by - Hondo on 05/13/2007 19:05:48 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 19:02:02 [Permalink]
|
Atomic---I have read the ipcc data .
"you appear to be the opposite of well-read on the subject "
Apparently appearances can be decieving.
Atomic are you trying to turn this post twords name calling?
Atomic you have not responded to any questions pertaining to the data supplied by the ipcc.
If we are to have a conversation you must coverse.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 19:07:46 [Permalink]
|
| Answer my question |
|
|
 |
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
