RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Sicarius -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/27/2007 10:44:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
And that is where he PROVES himself to be an idiot.

The Scientific Method doesn't change from biomedical research to climatology.

There are rigorous standards applied to SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, so to cite anything BUT a Journal is just plain stupid.

He can "Pick Apart" whatever he wants to.

If he wishes to be CREDIBLE, he'll publish a survey of extant literature on the subject in a real journal.

He's EXACTLY as credible as Katie Couric unless he does.


I assume you're very familiar with Katie Couric's commentary, but I doubt you've read what was posted.  If his statements are irrelevant, then both of ours certainly are ... so why are you even bothering to talk about this?  This could be a civil conversation in which intellectuals talk about what people are thinking and exchange ideas.  I don't really see you lending to that at all.

-Sicarius



farglebargle -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/27/2007 10:48:47 PM)

Because the problem with the entire discussion of climate change is people who refuse to confine their discussion to credible scientific publications.

The adults will never be able to discuss this while the children are whining about their POLITICAL AGENDAS, one way or the other.

Crichton bring NOTHING to the discussion, Unlike Pournelle, who is a scientist and simply says that we need to do real research to figure out what's going on FIRST, before we discuss what to do about it ( if anything ) ..

But the braying Jackasses like Crichton will drown out the rational voices.




Sicarius -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/27/2007 10:54:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Because the problem with the entire discussion of climate change is people who refuse to confine their discussion to credible scientific publications.


You know, I find it funny that you're taking this angle.  All that I have done thus far is poke around at the folks who are taking what they hear on television and leaping on the "global warming" bandwagon.  All that I have said in this entire conversation is that I don't have an opinion and that I want to see more evidence.  What the hell do you expect me to cite?  I'm not even arguing a position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
The adults will never be able to discuss this while the children are whining about their POLITICAL AGENDAS, one way or the other.


What's my agenda?  Did I ever say "No!  There is no global warming!  It's a myth!"?  I never said such a thing.  I believe in a few posts I said ... yeah, it very well could be what the rest of you believe.  All I have asserted is that I want to see evidence that I trust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Crichton bring NOTHING to the discussion, Unlike Pournelle, who is a scientist and simply says that we need to do real research to figure out what's going on FIRST, before we discuss what to do about it ( if anything ) ..


You know, it's reassuring to know that Crichton and Pournelle agree on this matter, being that that's ... exactly what Crichton is saying in his speeches.  I guess you'd know that if you read them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
But the braying Jackasses like Crichton will drown out the rational voices.


Just as you have misunderstood what my "voice" is in all of this ... I doubt you have any understanding of what he is saying.

-Sicarius



Lordandmaster -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/27/2007 11:05:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

I don't have an opinion, Lordandmaster, and that's the reason why all of you guys' arguments aren't sticking to me.


Oh, really, you don't have an opinion?  You said this:

quote:

Do you deny that trends of global warming and global cooling have been monitored and studied dating back hundreds of thousands of years, repeating on an approximately 11,500 year cycle as proven through ice core samples from arctic shelves?  One of us is correct and one of us is incorrect.


You can't claim that you're either correct or incorrect and ALSO claim that you don't have an opinion.  But that's what you do; you say one thing, then another thing, and finally try to pretend that everyone's responses to you are moronic because you don't truly believe anything you say.

quote:

You are being emotional.  Your responses are full of quips and unherhanded slants -- "cute" language in which you're coming off as little more than an asshole.  You're not arguing calmly and discussing the facts without any taint of your ideals, which is important in discussions about science.


Right, calling me an asshole is "arguing calmly and discussing the facts."

Who do you think you're kidding?



Sicarius -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/27/2007 11:19:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

I don't have an opinion, Lordandmaster, and that's the reason why all of you guys' arguments aren't sticking to me.


Oh, really, you don't have an opinion?  You said this:

quote:

Do you deny that trends of global warming and global cooling have been monitored and studied dating back hundreds of thousands of years, repeating on an approximately 11,500 year cycle as proven through ice core samples from arctic shelves?  One of us is correct and one of us is incorrect.


You can't claim that you're either correct or incorrect and ALSO claim that you don't have an opinion.  But that's what you do; you say one thing, then another thing, and finally try to pretend that everyone's responses to you are moronic because you don't truly believe anything you say.


Oh, god ... here we go again.  Welcome back, Lordandmaster.  I thought that you were done with this conversation ... ... ... like last time?

I still don't consider that asserting and adopting an opinion as much as representing one for the sake of playing devil's advocate.  I will admit that I understand how you're reading it that way and I concede that perhaps the wording was a poor choice that made it appear as though that is my opinion, but no ... I don't believe that theory is "fact."  I will state for the record that I do think there are a lot of merits surrounding cycles and such, but I don't believe it enough to embrace it fully as "the cause of global warming, case closed."

Edited to add:   I realize I didn't respond to the last point, so I'll do that now.  I don't know how or why you are reading my responses as though I am saying that everyone is a moron.  You have your opinions and you're welcome to them.  What I don't understand is this pervading mentality that if I am not ready to jump on the band wagon of "Global Warming -- yay!" that I am some sort of heretic who should be ridiculed for my "poor education" or that I am "unlearned" or that I don't understand anything about "Science."  I understand a lot about science -- and I understand that skepticism is healthy to pursuing scientific accuracy.  That's the one point that all of you keep screaming that I will admit I do not respect at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
quote:

You are being emotional.  Your responses are full of quips and unherhanded slants -- "cute" language in which you're coming off as little more than an asshole.  You're not arguing calmly and discussing the facts without any taint of your ideals, which is important in discussions about science.


Right, calling me an asshole is "arguing calmly and discussing the facts."

Who do you think you're kidding?


I said you're coming across like one, not that you are one.  I don't know you, Lordandmaster.  I realize that a lot of times the way someone conducts themselves on the internet is not representative of how they act in reality, but I do maintain my position that you are rather incendiary at times.  I stand by my assertion that a lot of times you come across as acting like an asshole.  I personally believe that you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder and I get a strong vibe of superiority complex going on in the way you conduct your arguments.  Maybe I'm off the mark, but that's how I read it.  Sorry if that offends you.

-Sicarius


Edited to add:
 
By the way, why didn't you respond to this part of that post:
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Edited to add: And it follows that all the noise you just made about that supposed 11,000-year cycle was a lot of hot air.

quote:


All that noise?  I'm not the one screaming, Lordandmaster ... it seems that all of you are the only ones getting bent out of shape over this.  Have you ever heard of playing devil's advocate?  There are always counterpoints and controversial arguments.  In the pursuit of science we should ALWAYS be second-guessing ourselves ... checking and rechecking and rechecking everything we think we "know."  Right now the only thing you want me to do is "shut up ... go away.  Go hide in a cave because you don't agree with consensus!  Ha!"  What kind of science is that?  Sounds more like Mother Chrurch to me.  Would you like to burn me at the stake?



Are you conceding that point?

-Sicarius



popeye1250 -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 12:15:50 AM)

The problem with The Church of Global Warming is that it's worse than the Catholic Church.
"Hey! Look over there,...a "NON-BELIEVER!"
"Let's go fuck him up!"
"Yeah, off with his nuts!"
They seem to be hooked on this religion and defend it like Tom Cruise defends whatever that religion he's involved with.
They're just too close-minded and rigid.



farglebargle -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 12:16:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

The problem with The Church of Global Warming is that it's worse than the Catholic Church.
"Hey! Look over there,...a "NON-BELIEVER!"
"Let's go fuck him up!"
"Yeah, off with his nuts!"
They seem to be hooked on this religion and defend it like Tom Cruise defends whatever that religion he's involved with.
They're just too close-minded and rigid.


The Church of NON-Global Warming is just as bad...




Sicarius -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 12:19:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
The problem with The Church of Global Warming is that it's worse than the Catholic Church.
"Hey! Look over there,...a "NON-BELIEVER!"
"Let's go fuck him up!"
"Yeah, off with his nuts!"
They seem to be hooked on this religion and defend it like Tom Cruise defends whatever that religion he's involved with.
They're just too close-minded and rigid.


Heh.  Yeah, that's definitely how I'm feeling given a lot of the bitter responses that have been flying this way.  God forbid I actually did represent a controversial counter-argument ... I think some people might be looking to have me assassinated if I did.

-Sicarius



farglebargle -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 12:20:56 AM)

If it's not peer-reviewed data, it's just propaganda for a political agenda.






popeye1250 -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 12:26:51 AM)

Well, it's just like drugs.
It seems that when people get involved in this "global warming syndrome" it's like heroin and they want more and more!
I wonder if they have interventions for this?



Sicarius -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 12:27:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
If it's not peer-reviewed data, it's just propaganda for a political agenda.


I guess you can take that approach if you want to.  I'm not saying it's some sort of "earth shattering data," though.  I believe all I said was that I felt it was a concise and well-written point that actually emphasizes the importance of peer-reviewed data as opposed to "pal-reviewed" data ... or in many circumstances, data that isn't even reviewed at all.  He's particularly critical of some of the IPCC reports and specifically the data that is being used by various governments to promote a solitary political agenda ... you may not like the man, farglebargle, but I can't help but think that you'd actually agree with a lot of the points he's making on account of what I have seen of your posts in other places.

Also, I am curious ... you commented on the "Church of Non-Global Warming."  Is that what you consider me to be a part of?  I'm genuinely asking, because I don't think that I am.  If the "global warming" crowd is correct, I actually hope that they manage to win over the skeptics sooner rather than later because of how much could possibly be at stake.  That doesn't mean that I am going to subscribe to their mentality, however, simply on account of projections being forecasted a hundred years from now.  As I said once before, we don't even trust a meteorologist's predicitions about the weather a few hours from now ... I don't understand the notion that climatologists who plug a bunch of variables into a computer and run a "simulation" pass their information along as "irrefutable data" when it is, at best, a guess.

-Sicarius



seeksfemslave -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 12:59:03 AM)

With regard to only peer reviewed data  being valid, I have read that many reputable journals simply will not even consider publishing articles that criticise the idea that global warming is man made
As has been said the inaccuracy of medium term weather predictions should give pause for thought.

A few hundred years ago, not sure of exact dates, grapes were grown outdoors in a warm UK climate.
then
some time later the River Thames froze over lol
or vice versa, it matters not because both events did happen within quite short time periods.

Viewed as a machine climate is just too big and too energetic to be affected by anything humans can do.Deforestation excepted.Like an ant juggling with a cricket or a baseball. Just my OPINION lol



farglebargle -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 1:05:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
If it's not peer-reviewed data, it's just propaganda for a political agenda.

He's particularly critical of some of the IPCC reports.


Then where is HIS DATA opposing it? He's just another braying jackass, who likes the free travel, hotel rooms, limo transportation, meals, groupies, etc that the lecture circuit provides.




farglebargle -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 1:10:39 AM)

quote:

As I said once before, we don't even trust a meteorologist's predicitions about the weather a few hours from now ... I don't understand the notion that climatologists who plug a bunch of variables into a computer and run a "simulation" pass their information along as "irrefutable data" when it is, at best, a guess.


Meteorology is not Climatology, although both are branches of Atmospheric Physics.

I am unsure if drawing any parallels between them is wise.

Why would you put the word "simulation" in quotes.

How about the notion that Climatologists develop MODELS of climate behavior.

And that to test those models, computer simulation of those models can sometimes provide insights into the models, their weaknesses, ways to fine tune it, if it needs to be scrapped, etc.

But do not make the newbie mistake of confusing the computer simulation of a Model, to that Model itself.

And I challenge you to provide a cite to EVEN ONE climatologist writing in a peer-reviewed journal which supports your propagandistic notion that ANY data is considered "irrefutable".

I call Bullshit!




Sicarius -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 2:49:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Meteorology is not Climatology, although both are branches of Atmospheric Physics.  I am unsure if drawing any parallels between them is wise.


Every field of science has parallels ... or at least, should.  Regardless, the fact of the matter is that climatology wants to definitively assert with the benefit of a limited understanding what events will transpire in a hundred years.  With the exception of astrophysics, I cannot think of a single scientific field that makes projections of that scope and length, and certainly not involving systems that are so overwhelmingly complex as the atmospheric conditions of our planet.  I am skeptical of any sort of "prediction," merely on principle.  While I believe that we should strive to be able to predict what events will transpire in our future and stem from our actions, I don't believe we're there ... yet.  Furthermore, within my example of astrophysics, that community is constantly ripping itself apart with healthy debate being that the matters they are discussing have not become politicized agendas.  The climatologists could benefit greatly from such a separation ... and that is the single, solitary thing that I am advocating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Why would you put the word "simulation" in quotes.


In a lot of these situations, the details of the variables being plugged into these computers from models to run simulations are poorly understood or never publicized for general scrutiny / review.  I'm not saying that that's true across the board, but it most definitely true in some situations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
How about the notion that Climatologists develop MODELS of climate behavior.

And that to test those models, computer simulation of those models can sometimes provide insights into the models, their weaknesses, ways to fine tune it, if it needs to be scrapped, etc.

But do not make the newbie mistake of confusing the computer simulation of a Model, to that Model itself.


I don't.  However, I do believe that when all of this is being conducted under a single roof, you're setting up an environment that is prone to undecetable bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
And I challenge you to provide a cite to EVEN ONE climatologist writing in a peer-reviewed journal which supports your propagandistic notion that ANY data is considered "irrefutable".

I call Bullshit!


You pointed out very hastily how I placed "simulations" in quotes, but it seems you failed to realize that I did the same with "irrefutable data."  This is a general observation based upon the mentality of people who militantly defend this ideal as though they were nothing more than politically-minded zealots.  A very large number of people in the scientific community are guilty of invoking "witch hunts" on anyone who dares lift a hand in protest of the almighty "global warming."

-Sicarius



farglebargle -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 3:03:38 AM)

quote:

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that climatology wants to definitively assert with the benefit of a limited understanding what events will transpire in a hundred years.


I call bullshit. PROVE your allegation. Show me ONE CLIMATOLOGIST in any reputable journal making the claim that they wish to DEFINITIVELY assert ANYTHING!

"Science" and "Definitive Assertions" are incompatible, and I suspect you're not getting your information about this from any Scientific source, but rather the popular media, and your own misconceptions about how Science works.




Sicarius -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 4:24:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
I call bullshit. PROVE your allegation. Show me ONE CLIMATOLOGIST in any reputable journal making the claim that they wish to DEFINITIVELY assert ANYTHING!

"Science" and "Definitive Assertions" are incompatible, and I suspect you're not getting your information about this from any Scientific source, but rather the popular media, and your own misconceptions about how Science works.


You sure are very selective in what you respond to, farglebargle ... and curiously quiet on everything else.  I suspect that cherry-picking the portions of a post that you respond to affords the luxury of ensuring that you never actually have to represent your own opinions, though, rather than sling an endless series of short-winded allegations ... with CAPS, no less!  For emphasis, or are you screaming?

My understanding of how Science works is exactly why I am critical of the fiasco that has overtaken the field of climatology, farglebargle.  Whether it is the media or politics, the part of my point that you fail to realize is that these things have become hopelessly embedded in the field of climatology.  Everything is so politically motivated that I would not go anywhere near that field with a ten foot pole.  My true passions are in other vastly different domains of Science which I consider to be untainted by the political arena and media fanaticism.

You yourself have railed endlessly against this "popular media" interpretation of Science, and what you have failed once again to understand from my statements is that at the end of the day, I am agreeing with you.  The ultimate pursuit of any Science is to be able to grow in our understanding of the world.  With understanding comes foresight.  Just as the meteorologist seeks to be able to look at data and predict as definitively as possible whether it's going to rain tomorrow, as the astrophysicist yearns to understand what fate lies in store for the universe, the climatologist desires to know what the future will hold for this planet.  We all want to know where we're going, farglebargle ... I don't understand why you take such overwhelming issue with my statement, unless you're intentionally over-reading it.  I also went on to say in my statement that we should yearn to produce dependable models that stand up to the tests of history ... but that I am not convinced that we are there yet.  This entire point was made in order to explain the reasons behind my skepticism.

-Sicarius



curiousexplorer -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 5:02:53 AM)

"If he doesn't have any peer-reviewed publications, then he's a COMMENTATOR, not a researcher.
Why would anyone pay heed to a COMMENTATOR in a Scientific discussion?"

The claim was not whether he was a researcher or commentator, the claim was he was not a scientist. A claim that was easily refuted.
Yes he is a commentator, and what he is mostly commenting on is human behaviour and scientific standards. Two areas he would be at the very least familiar with due to his studies and qualifications.

"And that is where he PROVES himself to be an idiot.
The Scientific Method doesn't change from biomedical research to climatology."

That is in fact what he is saying. That the same standards need to be applied. This is not something that has ever happened in regards to human influenced climate change.

"The adults will never be able to discuss this while the children are whining about their POLITICAL AGENDAS, one way or the other.
Crichton bring NOTHING to the discussion"

What political agendas? Crichton is talking about scientific standards, not politics. And he brings a very important point to the discussion, one which is overlooked far too often. And the adults will never be able to discuss it while this issue continues to be overlooked.

"Unlike Pournelle, who is a scientist and simply says that we need to do real research to figure out what's going on FIRST, before we discuss what to do about it ( if anything ) .. "

I'm not sure what you point is, as that seemed to be the main concern of Crichton?

"I understand a lot about science -- and I understand that skepticism is healthy to pursuing scientific accuracy."

It's not just healthy, it's essential. Especially in regards to ones own thoughts. To easily people are led by what they want to find instead of finding what is there.

"The Church of NON-Global Warming is just as bad... "

LOL, except one is following a belief without evidence, just like a church, and the other is requiring evidence, the exact opposite of a church.

On the subject of scientific accuracey and climate change, here is an interesting quote from 1998.

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits....Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart 1998, Canada's Minister of the Environment as quoted by the Calgary Herald

or this

"The issue of the 'greenhouse effect' has assumed a peculiar life of its own.
Politicians, government officials, and various policy specialists cling with remarkable tenacity to the notion that this is a proven and intolerable danger about which there is scientific unanimity.
At the same time, one has no difficulty hearing the muttering in the corridors of any meteorology department that this is an issue that has gotten out of hand, that the claims are insupportable, that the models are inadequate, and the data contradictory." Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT), May 1989

Now these are old quotes, but they show the problems have been there all the time, and they still exist today.



gothicdiva -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 5:12:56 AM)

I'm going to make this short and sweet....why should we believe the theory of "global warming?" A surprising new opponent...Two words...AL GORE. Check out his new and thought-provoking documentary on Showtime and on DVD called, "An Inconvenient Truth." Surely, Melissa Etheridge would not have provided the theme song for something that she didn't believe in. *wink*

For those of you who REALLY might be interested, the website link is www.climatecrisis.net.

M. Diva



Sicarius -> RE: The Best "Outing" of Global Warming I have ever read! (5/28/2007 5:29:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gothicdiva

I'm going to make this short and sweet....why should we believe the theory of "global warming?" A surprising new opponent...Two words...AL GORE. Check out his new and thought-provoking documentary on Showtime and on DVD called, "An Inconvenient Truth." Surely, Melissa Etheridge would not have provided the theme song for something that she didn't believe in. *wink*

For those of you who REALLY might be interested, the website link is www.climatecrisis.net.

M. Diva


*Chuckles*

Well, I see you already found the thread.

-Sicarius



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875