|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2007 : 14:59:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Define "world wide scientific consensus". |
You're the one who claimed that the data in the studies in the Hudson list contradicts the "world wide scientific consensus," so you should be well aware of how it is defined. Otherwise, you're admitting you don't know what you're talking about. |
- 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 - 09/17/2007 : 15:16:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
On another note, calling H. a "childish name caller" is an example of you doing nothing but calling someone a name. If you think name-calling is a bad thing, you should quit doing it.
|
Intentional irony.
|
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 - 09/17/2007 : 15:20:39 [Permalink]
|
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW, yet the term is refused a definition. A powerful statement such as this that is not defined is intentional obfuscation of reality.
|
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 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 15:32:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW, yet the term is refused a definition. A powerful statement such as this that is not defined is intentional obfuscation of reality.
|
What I find amusing is that you would make such a statement knowing that science doesn't deal in "proof." Proof means jack-shit except in mathmatics and whiskey. All science does is follow the evidence and thus far that evidence points in the direction of human-assisted, global warming.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 15:48:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW, yet the term is refused a definition. A powerful statement such as this that is not defined is intentional obfuscation of reality.
|
But we've been over this before in more than one thread. (Indeed, it seems like it comes up in every global warming thread you introduce!) The concept isn't hard, though. If I said there were a world wide scientific consensus that smoking tobacco is harmful to your health, would you disagree with that statement if Phillip-Morris put forward a scientist (or bank-rolled an entire study group) who said otherwise? |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 16:05:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW, yet the term is refused a definition. A powerful statement such as this that is not defined is intentional obfuscation of reality.
|
What I find amusing is that you would make such a statement knowing that science doesn't deal in "proof." Proof means jack-shit except in mathmatics and whiskey. All science does is follow the evidence and thus far that evidence points in the direction of human-assisted, global warming.
|
Semantics?
I know you do understand the point of my statement.
This game could be played with the headline you presented.
| Researchers say Arctic route COULD thaw in next decade |
Then again, it COULD not.
|
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 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 16:49:11 [Permalink]
|
Oh boy! Any time now Jerome is going to start dragging out the dictionary.
You are so predictable, when you are proven to be wrong you start trying to talk in circles and obfsucate the point; you are so transparent that it is pathetic.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 17:39:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW... |
No, it isn't. That's the anti-AGW propaganda working its magic on you, Jerome. Consensus has never been proof of concept. Otherwise, we'd still be purging and bloodletting. Instead, the fact that there is consensus is only provided as disproof of the anti-AGW propaganda that there is a large controversy among working climate scientists - that the "jury is still out" (a typically Republican soundbite). The Hudson List is nothing more than a brazen attempt to resuscitate the flat-lining propaganda machine, by claiming that scientists (not the study data, but the scientists themselves) "doubt" the consensus. It's a lie that you've bought into and have repeated, Jerome. You may not think it's a lie, but it is.
And you're here defending the lie, claiming it is instead true, and more-or-less doing everything your Republican puppet-masters hope you'll do. As proof of my hypothesis, you're here arguing against a "world wide scientific consensus" while at the same time demanding that someone define the term for you again. Thus, we see that either your entire argument is self-refuting (because you don't know what you're arguing against), or you're being purposefully obfuscatory and obtuse, in an exceedingly poor attempt at playing Devil's Advocate.
I'm sure you'd like to claim that you've made no argument, but any idiot can see that's simply untrue, and so any attempt to do so would be a transparent attempt by you to further obfuscate and deny reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 17:59:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
All science does is follow the evidence and thus far that evidence points in the direction of human-assisted, global warming. |
Incidentally filthy that 2002 article is old news. See here. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 18:18:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by filthy
All science does is follow the evidence and thus far that evidence points in the direction of human-assisted, global warming. |
Incidentally filthy that 2002 article is old news. See here.
|
From the article:
| Climate models had projected the passage would eventually open as warming temperatures melted the Arctic sea ice—but no one had predicted it would happen this soon. |
Wow. Sort of makes those who doubt it could even happen look like jackasses, huh?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/17/2007 18:19:53 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 18:32:56 [Permalink]
|
| Meh, Jerome making a fool of himself is nothing new. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 20:41:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by me
...or you're being purposefully obfuscatory and obtuse, in an exceedingly poor attempt at playing Devil's Advocate. |
Thinking about this some more, I can't come up with a single valid reason for the sort of arguments that Jerome has made in this context (that of a small Internet forum, discussing the validity of the AGW consensus), so I can find no evidence that he's playing Devil's Advocate at all. So, strike that "or" clause. I can't think of a decent replacement, though, so all I'm left with is that Jerome really doesn't know what he's arguing against. Not that there's a dearth of evidence for that being the case, I was just trying to present more than one possibility due to my idealized sense of fair play. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 21:02:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW, yet the term is refused a definition. A powerful statement such as this that is not defined is intentional obfuscation of reality.
|
What I find amusing is that you would make such a statement knowing that science doesn't deal in "proof." Proof means jack-shit except in mathmatics and whiskey. All science does is follow the evidence and thus far that evidence points in the direction of human-assisted, global warming.
|
Semantics?
I know you do understand the point of my statement.
This game could be played with the headline you presented.
| Researchers say Arctic route COULD thaw in next decade |
Then again, it COULD not.
|
It was a prediction made from earlier data, and apparently an accurate one. Science does that a lot, and they get it right a lot. Any valid, scientific theory must be able to make predictions, otherwise it is not valid.
The sea ice is shrinking in it's annual area, the polar bears are in deep shit and on their way to extinction, the glaciers too, are shrinking, tundra plants are blooming earlier, species such as armadillos and fire ants have advanced north, and the Russians are claiming North Pole territory for oil drilling. Pretty good signs, if you ask me.
If I were a gamblin' man, and I am, I'd happily lay a small wager on the accuracy of this prediction and the book wouldn't have to give me big odds.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 21:19:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
Oh boy! Any time now Jerome is going to start dragging out the dictionary.
You are so predictable, when you are proven to be wrong you start trying to talk in circles and obfsucate the point; you are so transparent that it is pathetic.
|
Are the meanings of words not relevant?
Obfuscation would be the opposite of defining the meanings of words. Your statements are contradictory.
What is your definition of "WWSC" concerning "MMGW"?
With out an answer your are obfuscating.
Do you know the definition of the term you are defending?
|
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 - 09/17/2007 : 21:22:58 [Permalink]
|
Zero defense of your argument.
You can not even define your argument.
Just more insults, and a link you provided before.
Child.
Do you have the ability to write a response without an insult?
Dodo head.
|
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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Consensus Falling Apart by the Day
