|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2007 : 18:58:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
| The science contradicts the MMGW theory. This is the point. |
I have said it before and I will say it again Jerome, you are either a complete moron, a troll or possibly both. I can see no other explanation for your inexplicably annoying refusal to coherently discuss this topic.
|
When did you start to discuss this topic?
|
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
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2007 : 19:17:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
I challenge you to quote any scientist (or anyone here) saying that the consensus is "proof of MMGW." |
Here is lots of people using "world wide consensus" as proof/evidence of MMGW. |
You failed to meet the challenge. You also failed to respond to any of my previous questions and points. If you're going to continue to avoid discussion of the subject that you brought up, that's fine, but you'll have to stop criticizing others for going off-topic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 05:09:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
Originally posted by Jerome
The science contradicts the MMGW theory. This is the point. |
I have said it before and I will say it again Jerome, you are either a complete moron, a troll or possibly both. I can see no other explanation for your inexplicably annoying refusal to coherently discuss this topic. |
When did you start to discuss this topic? |
Thanks for making my point.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 23:00:34 [Permalink]
|
In a resounding final blow that highlights the pseudoscience of another such denier study, that by Schulte, it's been rejected for publication in a science journal: Schulte's Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be
20 Sep 07
[Thank to whoever submitted this link to Fark.com and thanks to all of you voting for this story on Digg.com. The mainstream media won't cover it so I appreciate all those who are taking a moment and helping spread the word!]
The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.
It is "not what was of interest to me" and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said (in email correspondence reproduced in full at the end of this post). |
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
emsby
Skeptic Friend
76 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 09:45:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by emsby
Hi Jerome - I'm sort of new here, but I've been lurking for a while and I've been following this thread as it has developed. I'm confused by your OP. You referenced "new scientific data." What new data? It seems that the study you are referring to simply took data that already existed and re-interpreted it to mean what these people wanted it to mean. The article states that not "all of" these scientists are "global warming skeptics." What does that mean, exactly? How many of them are? And how did the ones who aren't "global warming skeptics" interpret the data? Because the article seems to get very tricksy with how it says things... It certainly isn't very clear about exactly what this data is and what methods they've used to make their conclusions. They just sort of... say it and declare it to be true. I find it rather hard to believe that this "PR" company has successfully re-interpreted the data that many scientists interpreted another way.
And I have to say that it's awfully dishonest and creepy of you to quote H. Humbert out of context just for the sake of being snarky. That's not very polite of you.
Just my two cents.
|
Welcome, and thanks for your thoughts.
I am a bit of a pariah around here. Not that I do not understand your point; but my snarkiness is consistently eclipsed by vitriol. It is something of a comfortable relationship for both sides.
This talk has been occurring over the course of several months. I presented at the beginning the fact that the "world wide scientific consensus" consists of 30 scientists and 300 governmental officials. Surely you see this as politics and not science with a 10 to 1 governmental influence. This is evidenced from the IPCC documents and the words of one of the 30 scientist involved in the "consensus".
This topic was just another example of science that does not conform to the "WWSC" about "MMGW".
|
Hey there... sorry I took so long to respond.
But you didn't really address any of my questions. What I'm specifically asking you is... How did these people come to the conclusion that the original data was incorrectly interpreted? I didn't see anything in the article indicated the methods used to re-interpret this data. Yes, the original studies were peer reviewed, but this new analysis wasn't and that's the point the other poster was trying to make... and that's why I think it's awfully rude and dishonest of you to take his words out of context and use them as your signature, since you're clearly misinterpreting. |
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 10:18:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by emsby
Hey there... sorry I took so long to respond.
But you didn't really address any of my questions. What I'm specifically asking you is... How did these people come to the conclusion that the original data was incorrectly interpreted? I didn't see anything in the article indicated the methods used to re-interpret this data. Yes, the original studies were peer reviewed, but this new analysis wasn't and that's the point the other poster was trying to make... and that's why I think it's awfully rude and dishonest of you to take his words out of context and use them as your signature, since you're clearly misinterpreting. |
Oh wow-- thanks to your post I finally bothered to go and see what Jerome's sig was all about. And you're right-- if there were a more dishonest use of a quote, I don't know of one! |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 10:30:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
That news should have gone over here. Not that it matters much.
|
Sorry about that. So many fake "studies," so few brain cells left.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
emsby
Skeptic Friend
76 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 10:37:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
...if there were a more dishonest use of a quote, I don't know of one! |
Charles Darwin beat a puppy comes pretty close.
|
But, but, but... I'm sure you realize that if Darwin did beat a puppy, that means evolution is false!! |
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 10:52:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by emsby
...I'm sure you realize that ... evolution is false!! |
Hey, be careful now. You'll get yourself all sorts of hyper-religious buddies.
 |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
emsby
Skeptic Friend
76 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 11:04:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by emsby
...I'm sure you realize that ... evolution is false!! |
Hey, be careful now. You'll get yourself all sorts of hyper-religious buddies.
|
Hey man, as a newb, I'll take what I can get... even if I have to be mis-quoted to get it!!  |
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 11:43:29 [Permalink]
|
| I've added a choice Jerome quote to my sig to show how he's against the free operation of science. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/21/2007 11:44:46 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2007 : 12:47:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I've added a choice Jerome quote to my sig to show how he's against the free operation of science.
|
I'd forgotten about that one! 
Government(s) cannot be involved in peer review simply because they, being scientific cretins, are not even close to being peer with even an undergrad, biology student.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 12:48:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I've added a choice Jerome quote to my sig to show how he's against the free operation of science.
|
If I had but one quote to choose, I think I'd go with:
| The words are written and apparent on my monitor. --Jerome just before being revealed as a liar. |
I still don't know how Jerome expects that one to go away all all by itself. Like you said, it isn't as if Jerome admitted to being a dupe of his own bias or, more importantly, apologized to anyone here for his insults and accusations of "denial."
As far as the quote from me he is currently using out of context, I only wish that he'd provide a link to the original. I stand by what I said, and every day he keeps it as his signature is another day of Jerome flaunting his ignorance.
|
"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 09/21/2007 12:57:55 |
|
|
 |
|
Consensus Falling Apart by the Day
