Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 15 hours
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: d33p]
    #7765752 - 12/16/07 02:16 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)



Edited by xFrockx (12/16/07 02:17 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 15 hours
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7765779 - 12/16/07 02:21 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

I'm not arguing for Kyoto zappa, I don't think its a good treaty either. What I was bringing into question was Singer's bias. Now that I also found a very reputable source that debunks his actual findings I can hardly justify wasting any more time debating this garbage.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 15 hours
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7765794 - 12/16/07 02:24 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

This is kind of funny, essentially what has happened, is that Singer's SEPP blog put up their big title saying that temperatures haven't changed and whatnot, citing their peer reviewed article that is only about model discrepancies, not only that but those discrepancies are distorted and over exaggerated by Singer and his colleagues. This was a complete waste of my time, I could have told you this once I knew he was funded by Exxon, but nooooo...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7765863 - 12/16/07 02:46 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
Its been debunked here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/#more-509

Looks like this one is over.




Was that so hard? Worth getting banned over?


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 15 hours
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: d33p]
    #7765869 - 12/16/07 02:48 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

So you tell me to kill myself with a dull instrument because I thought your claims were bullshit... which I have proven that they were... and all of a sudden I took the low road in calling you an asshole. Wow. Just wow.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7765873 - 12/16/07 02:50 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
This is kind of funny, essentially what has happened, is that Singer's SEPP blog put up their big title saying that temperatures haven't changed and whatnot, citing their peer reviewed article that is only about model discrepancies, not only that but those discrepancies are distorted and over exaggerated by Singer and his colleagues. This was a complete waste of my time, I could have told you this once I knew he was funded by Exxon, but nooooo...




It would help your cause to read the stuff you're talking about and not make inaccurate statements. Just a suggestion.

edit: bolding for the slow people


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Edited by d33p (12/16/07 02:58 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 15 hours
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: d33p]
    #7765885 - 12/16/07 02:54 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

You inferred your entire arguement from a sensational claim from a blog, and then mocked me when I proved you were completely full of shit. I'll take advice from those qualified to give it, thanks though bud.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7765887 - 12/16/07 02:54 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
So you tell me to kill myself with a dull instrument because I thought your claims were bullshit... which I have proven that they were... and all of a sudden I took the low road in calling you an asshole. Wow. Just wow.




Where did I make a claim? SS7 asked for a report in a peer-reviewed journal that was against the "consensus" and I provided one. But you just completely disregarded the report became of one of the authors affiliations. For that, yeah, I guess you could kill yourself with a dull instrument.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7765899 - 12/16/07 02:56 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
You inferred your entire arguement from a sensational claim from a blog, and then mocked me when I proved you were completely full of shit. I'll take advice from those qualified to give it, thanks though bud.




Is it fun beating a straw man with a stick? looks like it


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 15 hours
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: d33p]
    #7765900 - 12/16/07 02:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

You are missing the point, the link I posed shows that the "peer revied evidence" doesn't point to the conclusion you are using it for AT ALL.

This is the part of the argument where you either admit you are wrong or produce more evidence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7765922 - 12/16/07 03:01 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

I looked at your climate science link and find it odd that they dispute the data used to call the models utility into question (Douglas and Singer) while it is the exact same data that is used to run the models.
At any rate the conclusion of your link says this:

Quote:

To be sure, this isn't a demonstration that the tropical trends in the model simulations or the data are perfectly matched - there remain multiple issues with moist convection parameterisations, the Madden-Julian oscillation, ENSO, the 'double ITCZ' problem, biases, drifts etc. Nor does it show that RAOBCORE v1.4 is necessarily better than v1.2. But it is a demonstration that there is no clear model-data discrepancy in tropical tropospheric trends once you take the systematic uncertainties in data and models seriously.




Douglas and Singer don't have to prove beyond a statistical certainty that the models are wrong. The modelers have to prove beyond a statistical certainty that their models accurately predict. THAT is what science is and that is quite clearly what they have failed to do, by their own admission.

I keep pointing this out but nobody ever touches it: There is a lot more money in the alarmism industry than there is forthcoming from Exxon. Al Gore has made more money from this stuff than Exxon Mobil ever contributed to any of these guys. A shitload more money, and he's just one guy.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7765957 - 12/16/07 03:10 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
You are missing the point, the link I posed shows that the "peer revied evidence" doesn't point to the conclusion you are using it for AT ALL.

This is the part of the argument where you either admit you are wrong or produce more evidence.




The models which the report found discrepancies in are used to support the consensus. If models are flawed, then the conclusions drawn from them are as well. Realclimate and you agree apparently. The site you linked to claims that due to bad formulas and not allowing for a reasonable range of uncertainty in models, an incorrect conclusion of model-data discrepancy was formed.

Very few reports in peer reviewed journals support, much less mention, man's contribution to a climate change crisis. That doesn't stop the authors of those reports and numerous others to draw eye catching conclusions about the "consensus" similar to Singer's.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 15 hours
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7765971 - 12/16/07 03:14 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

What model begins as a perfect representation of anything? The climatologists who designed them are constantly working on them to improve them, so in no way are the suggesting that the models are "correct." No, you see, the models have been tested, and until this point they have been shown to be accurate. The point of science is that when someone comes up with evidence contradicting a theory, the theory is either modified or discarded, but things don't start off perfect, nor can we ever expect them to. The article is not saying that the models are perfect, far from it, it is saying that the problems brought up by Douglass et al. are not significant enough to discard the models.

Science is a work in progress, and the link showed that Singer's group made no progress, and could not even successfully invalidate progress that has already been made. I'm not even going to bother touching the fact that they infer that "C02 is not a pollutant" from their limited results.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 15 hours
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: d33p]
    #7765987 - 12/16/07 03:16 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

"Very few reports in peer reviewed journals support, much less mention, man's contribution to a climate change crisis."

Woah, woah there:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+climate+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 69,700 for anthropogenic climate change. (0.12 seconds)

Of course models are flawed, so what? The important thing is to what degree they are flawed. No model can be perfect. Show me some evidence that the models are flawed so much that they cannot accurately make a prediction.


Edited by xFrockx (12/16/07 03:18 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7766057 - 12/16/07 03:36 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
What model begins as a perfect representation of anything?



None, which is why they are not science
Quote:




The climatologists who designed them are constantly working on them to improve them, so in no way are the suggesting that the models are "correct." No, you see, the models have been tested, and until this point they have been shown to be accurate.



No, they have not. In order to have been shown to be accurate they would have to have passed an at least 95% statistical validity test and more than once, replicability being a crucial element of scientific validity. This clearly hasn't happened. These models are all wonderful and hopefully someday useful but to ascribe the level of confidence in them that the community of suckers has is just wrong. There is zero reason to make deleterious changes to anybody's behavior based on the total speculation that is these models.
Quote:



The point of science is that when someone comes up with evidence contradicting a theory, the theory is either modified or discarded, but things don't start off perfect, nor can we ever expect them to. The article is not saying that the models are perfect, far from it, it is saying that the problems brought up by Douglass et al. are not significant enough to discard the models.




No, I think you have it exactly backwards. I am not advocating discarding the models or denying the potential utility of accurate modelling. What I do deny is that these models have been proven accurate. They have not. By a long shot.
Quote:



Science is a work in progress, and the link showed that Singer's group made no progress, and could not even successfully invalidate progress that has already been made. I'm not even going to bother touching the fact that they infer that "C02 is not a pollutant" from their limited results.




CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It is not intrinsically a pollutant. Without that "pollutant" there would be no plants. It is measured in parts per million. Toxic levels of CO2 are grossly higher than these concentration (It's the dosage that makes the poison). The dubious assertion being made is that CO2 causes the temperature to rise. Several historical studies indicate that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. The causality arrow may well run in the opposite direction, i.e. that increase in temp causes elevated CO2 levels. Or they may be largely unrelated causally and both result from some other activity. It is ludicrous to make large scale economic disaster on such weak evidence. Further, there is plenty of chatter that we couldn't do a fucking thing about it anyway, even if we wanted to, short of cutting human population down drastically and giving up our steaks and dairy (Methane is a much more deleterious gas than CO2)


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: xFrockx]
    #7766062 - 12/16/07 03:39 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
"Very few reports in peer reviewed journals support, much less mention, man's contribution to a climate change crisis."

Woah, woah there:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+climate+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 69,700 for anthropogenic climate change. (0.12 seconds)

Of course models are flawed, so what? The important thing is to what degree they are flawed. No model can be perfect. Show me some evidence that the models are flawed so much that they cannot accurately make a prediction.




1. bold
2. Did you just seriously offer a google search as evidence?
3. Show me some evidence that the models are not flawed such that they can accurately make a prediction. Realclimate acknowledges that one must allow for a considerable degree of uncertainty in the model. One should not be quick to judge the cause of particular trends within systems consisting of many variables in flux.

I'm not convinced by either side. Most importantly, flawed models should not be used to support important policy decisions.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Edited by d33p (12/16/07 04:07 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7766651 - 12/16/07 06:13 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:

I keep pointing this out but nobody ever touches it:  There is a lot more money in the alarmism industry than there is forthcoming from Exxon.  Al Gore has made more money from this stuff than Exxon Mobil ever contributed to any of these guys.  A shitload more money, and he's just one guy.




Al Gore, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday said

"Ignoring Climate Crisis Akin to Appeasing Hitler" :crazy2:


You know the moonbats have lost the argument when they reference Hitler.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7766660 - 12/16/07 06:15 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
At what point are you global warming acolytes going to realize that being a Chicken Little is a highly lucrative enterprise?  Books sell, movies sell, TV shows sell, research funds are allocated, etc.  But only if they spout some alarmist message.  It is far greater money than the contribution Exxon gives to any group.  Al Gore is lauded for lying.  Skeptics are banned.  Add that to the usual gang that wants to redistribute wealth (ALL of the UN, apparently) and the argument that it is all about the Benjamins and thus suspect falls rather more squarely on the heads of the alarmist.  Alarmism is far more lucrative than research grants from Exxon.



Right.  So every national and international body of science is part of a vast conspiracy to scare the shit out of the people.  :rolleyes:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: Silversoul]
    #7768227 - 12/17/07 02:15 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

> Right. So every national and international body of science is part of a vast conspiracy to scare the shit out of the people. :rolleyes:

Yes, in a sense.  Not some "vast conspiracy" as you put it, but they are all caught up in the hysteria.  Science is no longer in control of the science of weather; it has been hijacked by politics and special interest groups.  When scientists with dissenting research are not allowed to attend symposiums on the subject, you know there is a problem.  It actually has a lot of parallels to science in the war on drugs.  Look at how much bogus research goes on to "prove" that drugs are bad.  When politics gets her dirty hands on science, the science becomes political rather than impartial, and loses almost all validity.  Rather than looking at research supporting global warming from a "is it true or not" standpoint, look at it from a "who benefits" standpoint.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: Seuss]
    #7768646 - 12/17/07 09:25 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rather than looking at research supporting global warming from a "is it true or not" standpoint, look at it from a "who benefits" standpoint.



Um...I believe that's what a lot of the people on my side of the argument are doing. I'm the one trying to give you guys the benefit of the doubt in thinking that some scientists on your side aren't just in the pocket of big oil.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Oil, Climate, and Terrorism EchoVortex 1,073 2 09/06/02 06:13 AM
by EchoVortex
* Bush's speech to the UN LordMorham 1,573 12 09/17/02 09:31 AM
by MortMtroN
* 'Evidence' linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics Autonomous 1,328 8 12/02/04 12:26 PM
by Autonomous
* Stephen Harper's Neo-Conservatism lonestar2004 1,050 5 07/09/06 10:05 AM
by Luddite
* UN on trial and Bush is the judge carbonhoots 722 3 03/04/03 09:48 PM
by Ellis Dee
* Bush to ask UN to help support postwar Iraq...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
RonoS 8,249 136 09/26/03 01:38 PM
by silversoul7
* Saddam: Stop punishing your people Ellis Dee 476 1 09/24/02 09:55 AM
by Rono
* How Can We Best Avoid/Stop Terrorism? (a reaction to the new Bin Laden tape)
( 1 2 3 all )
Twirling 3,099 56 11/02/04 01:57 AM
by zahudulallah

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,797 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.