RE: 0 + 0 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 8:00:17 PM)

Says *you*.




DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 9:01:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Says *you*.



pick any one claim. then when I prove it is incorrect that will establish that they are all untrue.



Tkman117 -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 9:42:14 PM)

I'd very much like to participate with this



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 9:45:44 PM)

Certainly. So long as if you fail to *prove* its untrue, that you agree they are all true.



Tkman117 -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 9:47:26 PM)

Plus do you even know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is large scale, global even. Weather is small scale. No one event, polar vortex, hurricane, heat wave or cold snap can be attributed to climate change. These are weather events. BUT, when you look at the averages over a long period of time, more extreme events get more common, and a WORLD WIDE AVERAGE of yearly temperatures is shown to be increasing over time with proportion to green house gas emissions.

And I agree with Ken, you're using a well known conservative tactic. Cause as much confusion in as many places as possible, make many arguments and controversies in many different places and it blinds people from what's true. Keep onto one topic at a time. You provide one singular argument at a time, we will disprove it and move onto the next crack pot theory.

Ready, set, go.



Tkman117 -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 9:50:17 PM)

And trust me, none of what you claim is true, they're well known climate denier arguments and the rebuttals will be fairly easy to search up.



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 9:51:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Plus do you even know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is large scale, global even. Weather is small scale. No one event, polar vortex, hurricane, heat wave or cold snap can be attributed to climate change. These are weather events. BUT, when you look at the averages over a long period of time, more extreme events get more common, and a WORLD WIDE AVERAGE of yearly temperatures is shown to be increasing over time with proportion to green house gas emissions.

And I agree with Ken, you're using a well known conservative tactic. Cause as much confusion in as many places as possible, make many arguments and controversies in many different places and it blinds people from what's true. Keep onto one topic at a time. You provide one singular argument at a time, we will disprove it and move onto the next crack pot theory.

Ready, set, go.


Son, I've known the difference between weather and climate 30 years before you were born.
I'm not using any *tactic*. I quoted an article. I highlighted interesting points.

If you want to attempt to refute some of these points - have at it. Most of his points I know to be true, a few I don't know one way or the other.

Ready, set.. you go.



DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 9:57:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Certainly. So long as if you fail to *prove* its untrue, that you agree they are all true.

You will simply lie and deny that I proved the author lied.



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:02:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Certainly. So long as if you fail to *prove* its untrue, that you agree they are all true.

nope.

You posted the crap the burden is on you. Now pick one or admit you have no faith in the claims you present.



See, I was willing to play by your rules: I'll concede the whole article on strength of one argument, chosen by me.
You are not. Thereby proving that you know at least some of those claims to be true.

Have a nice day.



DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:05:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Certainly. So long as if you fail to *prove* its untrue, that you agree they are all true.

nope.

You posted the crap the burden is on you. Now pick one or admit you have no faith in the claims you present.



See, I was willing to play by your rules: I'll concede the whole article on strength of one argument, chosen by me.
You are not. Thereby proving that you know at least some of those claims to be true.

Have a nice day.

No. You will simply lie and deny I proved it was a lie.

But I dare you to pick the claim you think is true. Just one single assertion made by the author that you think is true. Surely you believe that at least one is true.



DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:06:41 PM)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:07:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Certainly. So long as if you fail to *prove* its untrue, that you agree they are all true.

nope.

You posted the crap the burden is on you. Now pick one or admit you have no faith in the claims you present.



See, I was willing to play by your rules: I'll concede the whole article on strength of one argument, chosen by me.
You are not. Thereby proving that you know at least some of those claims to be true.

Have a nice day.

No. You will simply lie and deny I proved it was a lie.

But I dare you to pick the claim you think is true. Just one single assertion made by the author that you think is true. Surely you believe that at least one is true.


No, I'm not changing the game to one you want. You proposed the game and then won't live up to it. Its not incumbent on me to give you as many bites at the apple as you want.

It is amusing how much ire you alarmists have over free presses publishing things which disagree with your religion.

I bolded the ones I thought were particularly interesting.

But I must say, I do wonder how one can really characterize a venture with more (journalists + tourists) than scientists as a scientific voyage.

And I do wonder that you don't even JUST ONE BIT that maybe, just maybe the fellow that organized the trip might have a vested interest in global warming - since he had a vested interest via carbonscape in generating false alarm.

And I do wonder that you don't snicker at the irony of them being caught in ice - following the footsteps of mawson -who had an icefree bay.

So, for grins and giggles:

Did the fellow have a conflict of interest Ken? Do you think thats fraudulent, that he started carbonscape?
How about they were following the footsteps of mawson? Do you think thats fraudulent.

How about that mawson had an ice free bay? Is that fraudulent also Ken?



Tkman117 -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:08:11 PM)

Well considering that the source you cited from holds a conservative bias. Which is stated on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics, I'd hardly call your source reliable. With that being said

According to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25519059, its hardly a setback at all, as in this article you can see that these scientists are still at work despite their predicament. Also, according to this scientific paper, which also has references to further information http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/devernalA/Kinnard_et_al_nature_2011.pdf. This paper describes, with supporting data, that decreasing summer sea ice is consistent with anthropological climate change. I know this will hardly convince you, but the data is there for those to see and explore on their own merit. And here are several further scientific papers written by a variety of researchers and professors for the enjoyment of yours truly and others.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL029703/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034007/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016406/abstract

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3C2648%3AROSITT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL031138/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3C1691%3AHASIRT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL031972/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20590.short

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/28.short

And I ask again, what makes you an expert in how all these researchers are wrong? They live and breathe this science. If they weren't sure of these trends, they wouldn't be doing legitimate papers on it.




Tkman117 -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:16:23 PM)

If a doctor said you had leukaemia and had the charts to prove it, and your friend who you trust greatly tells you that you don't have leukaemia and fabricates false arguments against the doctor's results, who would you side with? I'd honestly like to hear an answer to this question.



Tkman117 -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:20:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

How about that mawson had an ice free bay?


Good god man, that is WEATHER!!! Not CLIMATE!!! For a man who claims to know the difference between climate and weather you're making yourself look sorely mistaken >.<



Tkman117 -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:21:58 PM)

HERE: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

This perfectly explains the difference between the two. Please don't make juvenile claims that mistake climate and weather unless you read this first.



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:46:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


According to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25519059:


Page not found. Sterling start.

quote:


http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/devernalA/Kinnard_et_al_nature_2011.pdf.This paper describes, with supporting data, that decreasing summer sea ice is consistent with anthropological climate change


Now your second link (also broken) but I happen to be familiar with kinnard.

Ice melting, in the summer, is consistent with anthropological climate change. Snicker.
Do you even understand what he's saying?

IF the world was getting warmer- it would be expected that the ice would melt. Yeah. Thats real rocket science there. Which has *nothing* to do with proving AGW. Ice has been melting in polar summers for thousands of years.

Kinnard work was done in 2011. And it discussed the Arctic. So IF we were discussing arctic sea ice I would point out that the study is two years out of date and the last two years have brought about 50% more arctic ice. But since we're not... the study is bootless.

Next source: Arctic ice again (you know - north pole. Puffins. We're talking about south pole. Penguins). 2007.
Next source: Same 2006.
Next source: Same...


quote:


And I ask again, what makes you an expert in how all these researchers are wrong? They live and breathe this science. If they weren't sure of these trends, they wouldn't be doing legitimate papers on it.


And if their science was legitimate the amount of ice wouldn't have made predictions that the arctic ice would be gone completely in 2013. How embarassing.

Once again, they got it :wrong:.

Look man - go look at oh, say, Mahoney 2006. You will see the arctic air temp got 12 degrees colder between 1934 and 1968 or so. From 68 to 2006 it has gotten about 15 degrees warmer.

The point is: the "arctic" climate exhibits variability. No one claims global warming started in 68 - and yet the arctic grew warmer. And if you can't explain why it got colder from 34 to 68 - you don't understand the variability of temperatures in the arctic.

For you to prove that AGW is true (ie., that global warming is occuring AND its caused by CO2) it isn't enough to prove that temperatures are warmer.

You must prove that temperatures are warmer than natural variation AND that its caused by CO2.

I have no problem acknowledging that sea ice varies. And that temperature varies. The burden that alarmists haven't met is
a). proving it is the catastrophe proclaimed (at .0075 degrees per year that seems a bit alarmist, don't you think?)
b) proving that is caused by CO2 - not some other process
c) proving that its not normal variability.





















Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:51:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

How about that mawson had an ice free bay?


Good god man, that is WEATHER!!! Not CLIMATE!!! For a man who claims to know the difference between climate and weather you're making yourself look sorely mistaken >.<


Would you please learn to read? Is there anywhere that I said the place being ice free was an example of climate?

Of COURSE not.

DomKen was saying every point was false. So I am bringing up points known to be true. The expedition had an announced purpose of following mawsons path.

I am making that point that this "research" vessel is engaged in alarmist propaganda - not science.
What they hoped to do is follow mawsons trail and say how much warmer things were now - and trumpet it as proof of global warming.

When, of course, the only thing they could prove was *weather*.

So, as I said - NOT science, not research. But thanks for making my point for me.




Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/12/2014 10:56:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

If a doctor said you had leukaemia and had the charts to prove it, and your friend who you trust greatly tells you that you don't have leukaemia and fabricates false arguments against the doctor's results, who would you side with? I'd honestly like to hear an answer to this question.


Well it seems ridiculous - but since you asked I'll oblige.

You said your 'friend' fabricated false evidence. Since you know its false, it isn't really evidence is it.

Now if my friend presented evidence, if my friend was an oncologist, I would research the evidence and then go for a second opinion.

If my friend were a lay person, I would probably discuss the evidence with the doctor - and go for a second opinion.

I'm not sure why you found this interesting...



DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (1/13/2014 2:40:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
How about that mawson had an ice free bay? Is that fraudulent also Ken?

It is a misrepresentation and you know it because you run away from it like a scalded dog above. So you know the author misrepresented facts. End of the line and you thought it was your best point.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02