NationStates Jolt Archive

Plus, we've only been studying mercury for a few hundred years. How can we be sure if it's good or bad? This is all a plot by business-hating hippies.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=4A71E49F6BDA0C9B7642F39F1AA1F567

Hm, what's with the hyperbole? I have yet to hear somebody claim any of those things. o.O

Plus, we've only been studying mercury for a few hundred years. How can we be sure if it's good or bad? This is all a plot by business-hating hippies.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=4A71E49F6BDA0C9B7642F39F1AA1F567

Lead's also natural. So is radioactive Uranium. The sun's UV rays are also natural and they can kill you via cancer. Therefore, the "natural=good" argument is dead.

The mercury makes the fish taste better.

Lead's also natural. So is radioactive Uranium. The sun's UV rays are also natural and they can kill you via cancer. Therefore, the "natural=good" argument is dead.
But was anybody actually making that argument in the first place?

Lead's also natural. So is radioactive Uranium. The sun's UV rays are also natural and they can kill you via cancer. Therefore, the "natural=good" argument is dead.
Lead acetate is a good calorie free sweetener. Uranium is only barely radioactive, and UV rays give you that nice, dark, George Hamilton tan.

I remember hearing on the BBC about some illegal mercury mines where the workers (being illegal) can't complain about there un-healthy conditions which oddly explains the areas unusually high domestic violence rates

Though I can’t find the article so it could be bullshit by the BBC

But was anybody actually making that argument in the first place?

Maybe I was being too clever. I was using stereotypical Global Warming skeptic's arguments in the context of mercury pollution to show how silly the "Well, if it can occur naturally, then it always occurs naturally" argument is.

For example, people drop dead naturally every day. Does that mean murder doesn't exist? Of course not. So the existence of natural climate cycles does not mean that all climate changes are natural.

Also the "We haven't studied it long enough," argument sucks too.

Mercury is a horrible heavy metal contaminant. I don't see what you are getting at. Is someone saying that it is good to flap it about?

Mercury is a horrible heavy metal contaminant. I don't see what you are getting at. Is someone saying that it is good to flap it about?

You failed satire class, didn't you?

Maybe I was being too clever. I was using stereotypical Global Warming skeptic's arguments in the context of mercury pollution to show how silly the "Well, if it can occur naturally, then it always occurs naturally" argument is.

For example, people drop dead naturally every day. Does that mean murder doesn't exist? Of course not. So the existence of natural climate cycles does not mean that all climate changes are natural.

Also the "We haven't studied it long enough," argument sucks too.
Oh-kay... :p Yeah, I don't even feel stupid for not making the connection to global warming from your OP, I think that existed mainly in your head because you knew what you were thinking about. I can certainly see your point though, now that I know why you put it like that.
You really threw me there for a moment, I didn't remember you as one for needless hyperbole. :p

You failed satire class, didn't you?

I went to a real school. They didn't have that.

Passed logic tho'.

I went to a real school. They didn't have that.

Passed logic tho'.

I was the only person in my logic class to get an A.

I was the only person in my logic class to get an A.

Where did you go? University of Inapposite Analogy?

I don't see why people complain about mercury when there are other things out there that cause much more death and destruction on a regular basis, like water. The number of deaths and injuries associated with water are far more numerous than those associated with mercury, and these are considered acceptable losses, considering the benefit water has for society.

Why should mercury be treated differently?

You failed satire class, didn't you?

Either everyone else reading your thread failed satire class or you did. Sometimes it isnt the entire rest of the world that hasnt got a clue.

Either everyone else reading your thread failed satire class or you did. Sometimes it isnt the entire rest of the world that hasnt got a clue.

You'd have a point if everyone failed to get it, but it's obvious some did, in fact, get where I was going with this (Avika and Drunk Commies, for example.)

So enjoy your spot at the back of the class.

Where did you go? University of Inapposite Analogy?

No, I went to Getafreakingsenseofhumor U.

No, I went to Getafreakingsenseofhumor U.

I don't find the possiblity of catastophic climate change funny. I'm glad you do.

I don't find the possiblity of catastophic climate change funny. I'm glad you do.

Slow down. Take a deep breath. I DO NOT find climate change to be funny. I find the weak arguments regularly trotted out to try to refute it to be funny...actually I find them pathetic, but if I didn't laugh, I'd cry.

Slow down. Take a deep breath. I DO NOT find climate change to be funny. I find the weak arguments regularly trotted out to try to refute it to be funny...actually I find them pathetic, but if I didn't laugh, I'd cry.

Well alright then. I just think that we should be better than crap analogies. That's their gig, not ours. Once you start doing this, you weaken the case.'k.

We should be above that, and explain the evidence for our specific case. Not appeal to emotion.

Maybe I was being too clever. I was using stereotypical Global Warming skeptic's arguments in the context of mercury pollution to show how silly the "Well, if it can occur naturally, then it always occurs naturally" argument is.
I've yet to see anyone state that.

And the "we haven't studied it long enough" argument is absolutely correct. We *haven't* studied it long enough to be able to separate the normal climatic changes from those that humans create.

I've yet to see anyone state that.

Oh please. It's used in EVERY argument against global warming. "Did cavemen cause the end of the ice age? huh?" and variations on that theme.

And the "we haven't studied it long enough" argument is absolutely correct. We *haven't* studied it long enough to be able to separate the normal climatic changes from those that humans create.

Says you. The fact is that time after time scientific models, created by different people using different methods cannot account for ALL of the current warming trend using natural causes only. Additionally, when the estimated amount man is contributing is added tot he models, IT FITS PERFECTLY time and time and time again. It has nothing to do with "how long" we've studied the climate. How long one has studied something is not a valid argument against a person's findings. Find a heretofore overlooked natural cause for the current warming trend that fits perfectly and you've finally disproved anthropogenic forcing of the climate. Unfortunately, not one person has successfully suggested such a cause.

TIME IS IMMATERIAL...unless you can prove that the laws of physics change over time...

On the subject of Mercury: its extreemly nasty. bonds to cirten enzymes that contain sulpher (or sulfer). it causes nurological dammage(the mad hatter was mad due to mercury poisoning. mercury nitrate was used in the manufacture of felt for hats). Take Matima bay for example if you want evedence that mercury is toxic.

addittionally.

the danger from mercury fumes (as produced by melting down contaminated scap) is greater that the risk of consuming the same quaintiy of metalic mercury. i think. It's toxicity varies according to oxidation state.

mercury(i) less toxic than mercury(ii) because it is less soluble

credit: nature's building blocks

Lead acetate is a good calorie free sweetener. Uranium is only barely radioactive, and UV rays give you that nice, dark, George Hamilton tan.

Lead acetate was a popular sweetener in the households of such distinguished Roman emperors as Caligula, Elagabalus, and Domitian. They used it all the time, and look how they turned out.

You'd have a point if everyone failed to get it, but it's obvious some did, in fact, get where I was going with this (Avika and Drunk Commies, for example.)

So enjoy your spot at the back of the class.


Maybe...just maybe...you are a wee bit defensive about your inability to get your point accross and thus the antics. Instead of intimating that others should be able to tell whatever it is you are failing to adequately communicate you should quit weeping about others and focus upon learning how to say what you mean. Get a sense of humor and lose your inappropriate sense of superiority and maybe you'll become almost readable and practically tolerable. Otherwise you will remain smarmy and misunderstood and probably hurt whatever little cause you are crusading for at the moment. In this case the anti-global warming crusade.

On the subject of Mercury: its extreemly nasty. bonds to cirten enzymes that contain sulpher (or sulfer). it causes nurological dammage(the mad hatter was mad due to mercury poisoning. mercury nitrate was used in the manufacture of felt for hats). Take Matima bay for example if you want evedence that mercury is toxic.

Please read the thread before posting. No one has seriously argued against the toxicity of mercury. The thread was intended as a metaphore for the inane anti-global warming arguments.

Thank you.

Please read the thread before posting. No one has seriously argued against the toxicity of mercury. The thread was intended as a metaphore for the inane anti-global warming arguments.

Thank you.

Quick question Gymoor.
I've argued against global warming in a thread or two with you ONLY because you couldn't find anyone to argue against you. And even I believe in global warming, and that humans are largely at fault (although I believe that urban heat islands are just as bad as CO2, etc).

Is there anyone actually arguing against you in this thread? I don't want to paw through it all.

Says you. The fact is that time after time scientific models, created by different people using different methods cannot account for ALL of the current warming trend using natural causes only. Additionally, when the estimated amount man is contributing is added tot he models, IT FITS PERFECTLY time and time and time again. It has nothing to do with "how long" we've studied the climate. How long one has studied something is not a valid argument against a person's findings. Find a heretofore overlooked natural cause for the current warming trend that fits perfectly and you've finally disproved anthropogenic forcing of the climate. Unfortunately, not one person has successfully suggested such a cause.

TIME IS IMMATERIAL...unless you can prove that the laws of physics change over time...

Unfortunately, time is not immaterial when you are talking about changes in state over time, which is what global warming is. For instance, if the state-change you are looking at turns out to be cyclic, you must observe for at least one full cycle before this can be accurately determined. This is very relevant; some of the cycles of various phenomena on earth appear to be cyclic, but we have not yet determined the lengths of those cycles or what they really do.

Global warming appears to be following our predictions. To ignore it would be folly. But do not pretend all the data is in.

Sorry. i just get carried away with chemisty.

I have no dbout that the current state of the climate is in part attributable to human activity. However i must poin out that the earths climate has varied greatly over the past 4 billion years.

Oh please. It's used in EVERY argument against global warming.
No, it is not.


Says you.
And says the people who are studying it who aren't fearmongering.

We simply don't have enough to say what percentage we cause. No, the models do not in any way, shape, or form, say what percentage we cause. Anyone who says they do is a liar.

Oh please. It's used in EVERY argument against global warming. "Did cavemen cause the end of the ice age? huh?" and variations on that theme.

just because it's used all the time doesn't mean that it's ever used. obviously.

Quick question Gymoor.
I've argued against global warming in a thread or two with you ONLY because you couldn't find anyone to argue against you. And even I believe in global warming, and that humans are largely at fault (although I believe that urban heat islands are just as bad as CO2, etc).

Is there anyone actually arguing against you in this thread? I don't want to paw through it all.


Indeed there are DK.

And you're right that urban heat islands, deforestation, CO2, particulates, draining of waterlands, etc., all contribute to climate change.

just because it's used all the time doesn't mean that it's ever used. obviously.
No, just because it's not used all the time means it must be used all the time. Which is just doubleplus ungood.

No, it is not.

I invite you to read every global warming thread ever posted in this forum.

And says the people who are studying it who aren't fearmongering.

Such as? Can you name names? Specific studies? I'm not saying we should end study, of course, there's always more to find out. The evidence, though, is extremely solid...unless one is on an Oil Company's payroll...

Anyway, go to realclimate and Scientific American end educate yourself.

We simply don't have enough to say what percentage we cause. No, the models do not in any way, shape, or form, say what percentage we cause. Anyone who says they do is a liar.

How do you come by this conclusion? Anyway, the natural causes, as I've said, do not add up. Find a heretofore unaccounted for natural cause and you'll earn millions from the Oil companies. Good luck.

One other little nugget of info regarding mercury: there've been no mercury-related deaths in the US from eating fish since sometime in the 1960s.

The fish in which mercury is most common also contain high concebtrations of compunds that immobilise it

I invite you to read every global warming thread ever posted in this forum.
I invite you to look up the concept of the error of choosing your samples incorrectly.


Such as?
Dr. Richard Lindzen.


Can you name names? Specific studies? I'm not saying we should end study, of course, there's always more to find out. The evidence, though, is extremely solid...unless one is on an Oil Company's payroll...
Poisoning the well fallacy.


Anyway, go to realclimate and Scientific American end educate yourself.
I have. They don't support your claim.


How do you come by this conclusion?
By the fact that there's nothing which demonstrates what percentage effect humans have.

Look, I realize that you probably operate under the misconception that anyone who disagrees with you believes that global warming is an utter myth, but that's not true. You'd do well to get rid of your hatred and actually objectively look at the research, rather than believing the hysterical bullshit. Yes, global warming is real. No, humans aren't the big bugaboo the fearmongers want us to be. And no, cars aren't the big evil that Al Gore believes.

See through the hype to the reality. That's all I ask.

One other little nugget of info regarding mercury: there've been no mercury-related deaths in the US from eating fish since sometime in the 1960s.

Source? Anyway, I'm less concerned about death than I am about mental/behavioral impairment due to mercury poisoning.

Source? Anyway, I'm less concerned about death than I am about mental/behavioral impairment due to mercury poisoning.

Don't worry. once its been diagnosed there are several treatments that are verry effective. The'll proberply stop you dieing but you may still be left with permanant brain dammage. proberbly best avoided from the off.

Source?
Oh, no publication you've ever heard of. A little, tiny one, really. The New England Journal of Medicine. 350:945-947, Feb 26, 2004

Maybe I was being too clever. I was using stereotypical Global Warming skeptic's arguments in the context of mercury pollution to show how silly the "Well, if it can occur naturally, then it always occurs naturally" argument is.

For example, people drop dead naturally every day. Does that mean murder doesn't exist? Of course not. So the existence of natural climate cycles does not mean that all climate changes are natural.

Also the "We haven't studied it long enough," argument sucks too.


Are you saying homosexuals don't occur naturally?:p

Plus, we've only been studying mercury for a few hundred years. How can we be sure if it's good or bad? This is all a plot by business-hating hippies.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=4A71E49F6BDA0C9B7642F39F1AA1F567


Ya its so safe it poisoned (her filings) my aunt and gave her the one of the highest record levels of mercury in a living person in Europe.

I invite you to look up the concept of the error of choosing your samples incorrectly.

Find me a global warming thread without someone using the "it's happened in the past naturally so it must be natural!" argument and you win a cookie.


Dr. Richard Lindzen.

A hack who KNOWS he's a hack.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222

Firstly, it is clear that Lindzen only signs up to the first point of the basic 'consensus' as outlined here previously, that the planet has indeed warmed significantly over the 20th century. While he accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have increased due to human activities, and that this should warm the planet, he does not accept that it is necessarily an important component in the 20th century rise. His preferred option (by process of elimination) appears to be intrinsic variability, but he provides no support for this contention.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200605260009

On the May 24 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck appeared to question studies showing that global temperatures increased by 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century by falsely claiming that annual temperatures in the United States have remained "pretty much flat." Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, who appeared with Beck on the program, agreed, stating "Well, yes, as far as we can tell." In fact, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has documented a rise in temperatures in the United States comparable to the global increase.

Lindzen doesn't even seem able to process BASIC DATA that might weaken his position. So much for your expert.

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


Poisoning the well fallacy.

I'm sorry, but when the ONLY proponents of a particular point of view are bought and paid for by Oil companies and allied concerns, it raises questions. Motive can be used in criminal investigations without the specter of poorly applied charges of logical fallacies being tossed at it.


I have. They don't support your claim.

You have to read A LOT

By the fact that there's nothing which demonstrates what percentage effect humans have.

That's a silly statement. What you should say, if you're being honest, is that "there's nothing I've read yet that demonstrates what percentage effect humans have." At which point, I would urge you to read more.


Look, I realize that you probably operate under the misconception that anyone who disagrees with you believes that global warming is an utter myth, but that's not true. You'd do well to get rid of your hatred and actually objectively look at the research, rather than believing the hysterical bullshit.

I have. The research is exhaustive and very solid, while the arguments against are scant, repetitive and repeatedly addressed directly without ANY impact upon the stubborn skeptics. The global warming proponents' argument constantly evolves and refines itself, while those who argue against leave their arguments in stasis. I would suggest that perhaps it is YOUR objectivity that is in question.

Yes, global warming is real. No, humans aren't the big bugaboo the fearmongers want us to be. And no, cars aren't the big evil that Al Gore believes.

See through the hype to the reality. That's all I ask.

I suggest you read and read and read some more. Also, hype is usually a devoted ad campaign used to build up enthusiasm where none should be warranted. Hype is the only reason there is any debate about global warming. Without the HUGE sums of money lavished on those few "scientists" who buck the overwhelming consensus of those who acknowledge global warming, only "flat Earth" types would deny global warming and man's acceleration thereof.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa012&articleID=000F22D3-EBEF-14C0-AB7083414B7F4945

Find me a global warming thread
What did I tell you about sample size error?


A hack who KNOWS he's a hack.
So says the fearmongers.


I'm sorry, but when the ONLY proponents of a particular point of view are bought and paid for by Oil companies
Poisoning the well fallacy.


You have to read A LOT
I have. Nothing supports your claim.


That's a silly statement. What you should say, if you're being honest, is that "there's nothing I've read yet that demonstrates what percentage effect humans have." At which point, I would urge you to read more.
At which point, I tell you that I have and that I know you're just fearmongering.

I suggest you read some more and stop buying into the hype.

And here, just to make it easy, a collection of Sci Am articles regarding global warming.

http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cfm?QT=Q&SCC=Q&Q=global+warming&x=0&y=0

What did I tell you about sample size error?

Back it up, chump. Respond to my challenge and humble me.

So says the fearmongers.

Hmmm, repetitive and unevolving argument. Just like a global warming skeptic.

Poisoning the well fallacy.

Misapplied. You'd be right if my ONLY argument against those like Lindzen was that they are owned by Big Oil. But as I show failings in their statements AND a pattern of lobbying interestes, it makes for a compelling argument. But hey, you know what they say about a little knowledge...

I have. Nothing supports your claim.
Now that's just stupid. I even linked relevant articles to make it easy for you.

At which point, I tell you that I have and that I know you're just fearmongering.

You apparently know very little.

I suggest you read some more and stop buying into the hype.

Unevolving and repetitive arguments that don't respond directly to the data supplied. Yup. you're a global warming skeptic all right.

Back it up, chump.
No, you have to back it up, chump. You're creating a small sample size just to try to make a flawed point. You have to widen your sample size.

Or don't you know what the fuck a sample size error is?
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html


Hmmm, repetitive and unevolving argument.
Just like the fearmongers who doom-and-gloom that the sky is falling. Hell, none of their models can account for the fact that most of the Antarctic is COOLING! And don't even get me started on the "hockey stick" graph which, in true MiniTruth manner, has removed all traces of the Little Ice Age about 1,000 years ago.



Misapplied.
No, it's correctly applied.


You'd be right if my ONLY argument against those like Lindzen was that they are owned by Big Oil.
You had another argument? Where? All you gave was "Oh, he's owned by Big Oil" (as if the size of a company is relevant anyway).


But as I show failings in their statements AND a pattern of lobbying interestes, it makes for a compelling argument.
And where did you show that, O Ye Of Little Knowledge?


Now that's just stupid. I even linked relevant articles to make it easy for you.
No, you linked doom-and-gloomers.


You apparently know very little.
No, I know much. I know that there's no precise percentage of the warming that is attributable to humans.


Unevolving and repetitive arguments that don't respond directly to the data supplied.
What data? All you supplied was doom-and-gloom with no data.

And yes, you're a doom-and-gloom fearmonger alright. Anyone who disagrees with you believes that global warming is a myth, right?

Fucking holy crusaders.

Maybe I was being too clever. I was using stereotypical Global Warming skeptic's arguments in the context of mercury pollution to show how silly the "Well, if it can occur naturally, then it always occurs naturally" argument is.

For example, people drop dead naturally every day. Does that mean murder doesn't exist? Of course not. So the existence of natural climate cycles does not mean that all climate changes are natural.

Also the "We haven't studied it long enough," argument sucks too.

Silly satirist. Don't you know that bullshit anti-environment arguments, such as "antartica was once a tropical location, so Florida will be just fine if submerged beneath the water that comes from a defrosted antartic," are only bullshit until a right winger presents them.

They go through a special defecesation process in which arguments are put into a centrifuge and spun until they come out resembling logic. The process is overseen by a highly trained scientismist known as a "spin-doctor." If you're wondering how an abstract concept can be placed in lab equipment, well then you just lack conservative imagination. They put actual right-wingers who espouse these arguments into the centrifuges, therefore the argument must be in there somewhere. Then not only are they willing to embrace that argument when they come out, but almost any other.

I've yet to see anyone state that.

And the "we haven't studied it long enough" argument is absolutely correct. We *haven't* studied it long enough to be able to separate the normal climatic changes from those that humans create.

This is a bullshit argument. It's like saying "there may be a giant meteor heading towards Earth, but we'd determined that no part of this collision is attributable to human causes, so we really shouldn't worry about doing anything about it." I'm not saying that global warming = meteor strike, just that the logical fallacy implicit in the arguments is similar.

No, you have to back it up, chump. You're creating a small sample size just to try to make a flawed point. You have to widen your sample size.

Every thread ever started in this forum is too small a sample size?



Or don't you know what the fuck a sample size error is?
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

Testy testy.



Just like the fearmongers who doom-and-gloom that the sky is falling. Hell, none of their models can account for the fact that most of the Antarctic is COOLING!

No, just none that YOU'VE perused. Local cooling is immaterial anyway, since if the Antarctic is colling and yet the net trend is to warming, that means that the REST of the world is warming faster than the average including The antarctic indicates. By the way, pert of the antarctic cooling is due to the ozone hole, allowing greater interaction between the upper and lower atmospheres.

And don't even get me started on the "hockey stick" graph which, in true MiniTruth manner, has removed all traces of the Little Ice Age about 1,000 years ago.

Perhaps, using incomplete data. Then again, the "hockey stick" is but a mere drop in the ocean of the proof. Remove it ompletely and utterly and the case is not weakened one bit. You really have NO concept of the sheer amount of data involved. Furthermore, if one does a search on "global warming" and "hockey stick" one will find a multitude of skeptics attacking the rather old and simplistic study that created the graph. But then an amazing thing happens. One also finds a multitude of varied and comprehensive articles REBUTTING the skeptics. ANd then...the skeptics utterly fail to respond in kind. They merely fall back on repeating THEIR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. Not addressing the specifics but merely continuing to attack 20 year old science as if it were moder day theory. Pathetic.


No, it's correctly applied.
You had another argument? Where? All you gave was "Oh, he's owned by Big Oil" (as if the size of a company is relevant anyway).

That's all I did? Really? Man, your reading skills are lacking. See the specific articles I linked critical of the ARGUMENTS of Lindzen. Go on. Try not to move your lips too much as you reread.

And where did you show that, O Ye Of Little Knowledge?

Linked articles of peer reviewed journals.

No, you linked doom-and-gloomers.


And you accuse me of using logical fallacies? Hmmmm?


No, I know much. I know that there's no precise percentage of the warming that is attributable to humans.

Be intellectually honest. There's none that YOU CURRENTLY KNOW of.

Also, it depends on your definition of "precise". Precise enough to know that the equation does not add up unless you add the estimated contribution of humanity? You betcha.

What data? All you supplied was doom-and-gloom with no data.

Repetitive use of the same logical fallacy. Just actually read what I linked. Real Climate and Sci Am provide lots of raw data with a minimum of digging.

And yes, you're a doom-and-gloom fearmonger alright.

And again. Name calling with no factual support whatsoever.

Anyone who disagrees with you believes that global warming is a myth, right?

Fucking holy crusaders.

A) where did I say that?

B) More name calling.

So let me respond in kind. Your attempts at argument are feeble, unoriginal and pathetic. The ONLY authority you cite is Lindzen who has been SHOWN to misrepresent data AND to be in the pocket of Big Oil. He's a hack because his work is hackish, NOT because he's in the pocket of Big Oil. Being in the pocket of Big Oil makes his MOTIVES suspect...which would be fine, if his research held up.

This is a bullshit argument.
Wrong.

No, you have to back it up, chump. You're creating a small sample size just to try to make a flawed point. You have to widen your sample size.

Every thread ever started in this forum is too small a sample size? Really? I thought maybe you were arguing that my sample size is too expansive.

Or don't you know what the fuck a sample size error is?
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

Testy testy. I love it when someone siezes on half-understood principles to try to make their case...and fails. Especially when they only apply them to the arguments of others and not their own.


Just like the fearmongers who doom-and-gloom that the sky is falling. Hell, none of their models can account for the fact that most of the Antarctic is COOLING!

No, just none that YOU'VE perused. Local cooling is immaterial anyway, since if the Antarctic is cooling and yet the net trend is to warming, that means that the REST of the world is warming faster than the average including The Antarctic indicates. By the way, part of the Antarctic cooling is due to the ozone hole, allowing greater interaction between the upper and lower atmospheres. But you'd know that if you actually READ scientific articles instead of the spoon-fed talking points you parrot.

And don't even get me started on the "hockey stick" graph which, in true MiniTruth manner, has removed all traces of the Little Ice Age about 1,000 years ago.

Perhaps, using incomplete data. Then again, the "hockey stick" is but a mere drop in the ocean of the proof. Remove it ompletely and utterly and the case is not weakened one bit. You really have NO concept of the sheer amount of data involved. Furthermore, if one does a search on "global warming" and "hockey stick" one will find a multitude of skeptics attacking the rather old and simplistic study that created the graph. But then an amazing thing happens. One also finds a multitude of varied and comprehensive articles REBUTTING the skeptics. ANd then...the skeptics utterly fail to respond in kind. They merely fall back on repeating THEIR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. Not addressing the specifics but merely continuing to attack 20 year old science as if it were moder day theory. Pathetic.


No, it's correctly applied.
You had another argument? Where? All you gave was "Oh, he's owned by Big Oil" (as if the size of a company is relevant anyway).

That's all I did? Really? Man, your reading skills are lacking. See the specific articles I linked critical of the ARGUMENTS of Lindzen. Go on. Try not to move your lips too much as you reread.

And where did you show that, O Ye Of Little Knowledge?

Linked articles of peer reviewed journals.

No, you linked doom-and-gloomers.


And you accuse me of using logical fallacies? Hmmmm?


No, I know much. I know that there's no precise percentage of the warming that is attributable to humans.

Be intellectually honest. There's none that YOU CURRENTLY KNOW of.

Also, it depends on your definition of "precise". Precise enough to know that the equation does not add up unless you add the estimated contribution of humanity? You betcha.

What data? All you supplied was doom-and-gloom with no data.

Repetitive use of the same logical fallacy. Just actually read what I linked. Real Climate and Sci Am provide lots of raw data with a minimum of digging.

And yes, you're a doom-and-gloom fearmonger alright.

And again. Name calling with no factual support whatsoever.

Anyone who disagrees with you believes that global warming is a myth, right?

Fucking holy crusaders.

A) where did I say that?

B) More name calling.

So let me respond in kind. Your attempts at argument are feeble, unoriginal and pathetic. The ONLY authority you cite is Lindzen who has been SHOWN to misrepresent data AND to be in the pocket of Big Oil. He's a hack because his work is hackish, NOT because he's in the pocket of Big Oil. Being in the pocket of Big Oil makes his MOTIVES suspect...which would be fine, if his research held up.

Every thread ever started in this forum is too small a sample size?
Yes, because we're not talking about just this board, dearie-dear. We're talking about EVERY ARGUMENT ANYWHERE.

So your sample size is woefully, pitifully small.


Testy testy.
As opposed to you calling me a chump? Pot. Kettle. Black.


No, just none that YOU'VE perused.
No, none that exist.


Local cooling is immaterial anyway,
Handwaving away problems, I see.


since if the Antarctic is colling and yet the net trend is to warming, that means that the REST of the world is warming faster than the average including The antarctic indicates. By the way, pert of the antarctic cooling is due to the ozone hole, allowing greater interaction between the upper and lower atmospheres.
And the evidence for that is....? Oh that's right: you don't have any.


Perhaps, using incomplete data.
Incomplete data? The hockey stick graph says the Little Ice Age never happened! And if you feed random numbers into the formula, you get a hocket stick. It's just like the "bible code" nonsense.


Then again, the "hockey stick" is but a mere drop in the ocean of the proof.
One which says something didn't happen that did happen!


Remove it ompletely and utterly and the case is not weakened one bit. You really have NO concept of the sheer amount of data involved.
Oh but I do. You're still on your little myth that anyone who doesn't believe you automatically must think global warming is a myth. Well kill that noise right now. I know it happens, but I don't think that humans play as big a part as you fearmongers want everyone to believe, nor do I think that it's quite as large a warming trend as you fearmongers want. In fact, satellite data shows a cooling trend in the upper atmosphere of .7C/decade for the last 3 decades.

Now then, would you like to cut the hysteria and fearmongering? If not, I'll just dismiss you curtly, as I do with 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theorists.


That's all I did?
Yes, that's all you did. Because that's all your articles contain.


Be intellectually honest. There's none that YOU CURRENTLY KNOW of.
I am being intellectually honest. There are none that exist. Anyone who says differently is a lying fearmonger.


Also, it depends on your definition of "precise".
No it doesn't.

Repetitive use of the same logical fallacy.
None from me.


And again. Name calling with no factual support whatsoever.
Pot. Kettle. Black.


A) where did I say that?
It's evident in your posts.


B) More name calling.
Nope.

Your poisoning the well fallacy has been snipped. Try not to commit it for the 4th time.

Yes, because we're not talking about just this board, dearie-dear. We're talking about EVERY ARGUMENT ANYWHERE.

So your sample size is woefully, pitifully small.

Dude, if you want to read every argument ever written, you go ahead.


As opposed to you calling me a chump? Pot. Kettle. Black.


Repetitive. Boring. Hypocritical.


No, none that exist.

Denial.


Handwaving away problems, I see.

To hard to understand? Let's make it simple.

Earth = Warming. Much of Antarctic = Cooling. Earth minus Antarctic = More Warming in habitable regions that the overall average indicates. That's not handwaving.

And the evidence for that is....? Oh that's right: you don't have any.

Pathetic. I give you one of the reasons for Antarctic cooling (which you said did not exist.) and then YOU just want to handwave it away. Just look it up.


Incomplete data? The hockey stick graph says the Little Ice Age never happened! And if you feed random numbers into the formula, you get a hocket stick. It's just like the "bible code" nonsense.

Fine. Fuck the hockey stick. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. It's out of date and irrelevant anyway.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114

So let’s assume for argument’s sake that Mann, Bradley and Hughes made some terrible mistake in their statistical analysis, so we need to discard their results altogether. This wouldn’t change our picture of the last millennium (or anything else) very much: independent groups, with different analysis methods, have arrived at similar results for the last millennium. The details differ (mostly within the uncertainty bounds given by Mann et al, so the difference is not significant), but all published reconstructions share the same basic features: they show relatively warm medieval times, a cooling by a few tenths of a degree Celsius after that, and a rapid warming since the 19th Century. Even without Mann et al, we’d still be stuck with a “hockey stick” type of curve – quite boring.


One which says something didn't happen that did happen!

You're just making stuff up now.

Oh but I do. You're still on your little myth that anyone who doesn't believe you automatically must think global warming is a myth. Well kill that noise right now. I know it happens, but I don't think that humans play as big a part as you fearmongers want everyone to believe, nor do I think that it's quite as large a warming trend as you fearmongers want. In fact, satellite data shows a cooling trend in the upper atmosphere of .7C/decade for the last 3 decades.

Setting aside that your data there is out of date (visit NASA's website,) upper atmosphere cooling CAN be an indication that the lower atmosphere is retaining more heat, keeping as much from leaking out to the upper atmosphere. Also NASA has a fine article connecting Antarctic cooliong to the Ozone hole.


Now then, would you like to cut the hysteria and fearmongering? If not, I'll just dismiss you curtly, as I do with 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theorists.


Name calling.


Yes, that's all you did. Because that's all your articles contain.

Name calling



I am being intellectually honest. There are none that exist. Anyone who says differently is a lying fearmonger.

Wow, just...wow. Are you going to stick your tongue out next?

No it doesn't.

you're not even trying

None from me.

Hahahahahaha!

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Said the black hole to the charcoal briquette


It's evident in your posts.

To you maybe.



Your poisoning the well fallacy has been snipped. Try not to commit it for the 4th time.

Okay, I see. You think you're funny. Misapplying a half-understood and informal logical fallacy repeatedly is funny to you as you apply ad hominems (fearmongerer) willy nilly.

Try to work on your act. It's wearing thinner than Kate Moss under a steamroller.

Poisoning the well:

You suck, therefore your argument is false.

Calling it like it is:

Your argument is false, therefore you suck ass, chump.

This is a bullshit argument.

Wrong.
Quite correct. You got me. I should have said "that was a bullshit argument." Afterall, the statement "this is a bullshit argument" refers only to the self-same statement. And without reference to anything else within the statement it isn't making an argument, therefore can't be any kind of argument, bullshit or otherwise.

But if you mean that it's not bullshit to say that we shouldn't do anything about global warming just because some of it is naturally occuring, even though plagues and forest fires are naturally occuring and we try pretty hard to fight those, then I'll need a little more than a one word assertion with no support.

Quite correct. You got me. I should have said "that was a bullshit argument." Afterall, the statement "this is a bullshit argument" refers only to the self-same statement. And without reference to anything else within the statement it isn't making an argument, therefore can't be any kind of argument, bullshit or otherwise.

But if you mean that it's not bullshit to say that we shouldn't do anything about global warming just because some of it is naturally occuring, even though plagues and forest fires are naturally occuring and we try pretty hard to fight those, then I'll need a little more than a one word assertion with no support.
RIGHT.

Mad Hatter's disease, anyone?

Poisoning the well:

You suck, therefore your argument is false.

Calling it like it is:

Your argument is false, therefore you suck ass, chump.
WRONG!

That's the general ad hominem fallacy. Poisoning the well is a very specific variant on it which questions a person's motives or why they are doing something.

"You can't believe him--he works for Big Oil"

That is poisoning the well.

Dude, if you want to read every argument ever written, you go ahead.
You're the one who made the claim.


Repetitive. Boring. Hypocritical.
So you can't stand to have your precious belief questioned. Gotcha.


Denial.
So you can't stand to have your precious belief questioned. Gotcha.


To hard to understand?
For you, yes.



Pathetic. I give you one of the reasons for Antarctic cooling (which you said did not exist.)
You didn't give me any reasons for it. You just ignored it.


Fine. Fuck the hockey stick. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. It's out of date
Out of date? 3 weeks is out of date? What the fuck?


You're just making stuff up now.
I never do.


Setting aside that your data there is out of date (visit NASA's website,)
I have. My data is fine.

Now please, in the future, try not to think that anyone who disagrees with you believes that global warming is a myth. I can tell from your posts that you do, in fact, believe that. I've been trying to get you to not believe that anymore. But, in true fundy fashion, you just won't get out of your rut. Fine.

Quite correct.
I know, especially since you had no valid reason to call it a bullshit argument. After all, while the data does show a warming trend, there isn't enough evidence yet to determine precisely how much of an impact humanity has had in causing the warming (which of course means that I don't deny that global warming is happening. Feel free to ignore that, though.)

You're the one who made the claim.

and you've yet to even attempt to refute it.



So you can't stand to have your precious belief questioned. Gotcha.

Question away...just try to back it up with something.



So you can't stand to have your precious belief questioned. Gotcha.

Repetitive and unevolving argument. As I said.



For you, yes.

Oh, your rapier wit doth pierce me.


You didn't give me any reasons for it. You just ignored it.

Now you've just revealed yourself as a stupid troll. Go back, read what I said. I gave you a solid reason.

Out of date? 3 weeks is out of date? What the fuck?

Recently NASA stated that improved satellite imaging allowed it to better distinguish temperature variances between the upper and lower atmosphere.

I never do.

Whatever, troll. This has become tiresome. Come back when you actually want an intelligent conversation. Denying what I plainly stated is feeble and pathetic and you're only embarrassing yourself.

I have. My data is fine.

No, it is not. I've refuted specific statements you've made and backed them up with actual, relevant citations. Meanwhile, you persist in pretending that such does not exist. That makes you a deluded fool and useless to discuss anything with

Now please, in the future, try not to think that anyone who disagrees with you believes that global warming is a myth.

I've never said that. Please try to adress what I say, rather than what you imagine.

I can tell from your posts that you do, in fact, believe that.

Inferr what you like. It's your fantasy world.

I've been trying to get you to not believe that anymore. But, in true fundy fashion, you just won't get out of your rut. Fine.

I've exposed you as a (probably intentionally) weak debater with an inability to process new information. The rut is yours, my friend. Go back. Read what I've said and notice that I have not ignored any points you attempted to make. I've addressed them, whereupon you have intentionally (probably with malice, but that's just an inference,) ignored my assertions and dismissd my citations (of which you've brought none to the party.)

Now go away troll. Let the adults talk.

Are we declaring war on Mercury? We can't even land troops.

and you've yet to even attempt to refute it.
I am under no obligation to disprove the unproven, dearie-dear.


Question away...just try to back it up with something.
I have.


Repetitive and unevolving argument.
Just like the doom-and-gloomers.


Oh, your rapier wit doth pierce me.
Your gross inability to understand English has pierced you more.


Now you've just revealed yourself as a stupid troll. Go back, read what I said. I gave you a solid reason.
You most certainly did not. You're acting like a fundy now.


Recently NASA stated that improved satellite imaging allowed it to better distinguish temperature variances between the upper and lower atmosphere.
If you could be so kind, I would like a link to that, please.


Whatever, troll.
You're the one acting like a fundy.



No, it is not. I've refuted specific statements you've made and backed them up with actual, relevant citations.
No, you've just provided hysteria and fear-mongering citations.


I've never said that.
You've all but written it. Look at how you're treating me--just for questioning something that not all the data is in on, you're acting as if I'm some heretic for daring to question your precious view.

That's fucked up. That's the fundy way.


I've exposed you as a (probably intentionally) weak debater with an inability to process new information.
Except you've exposed yourself as a hysteria and fear-monger who hates to have this special view questioned.

Now educate yourself, fundy.

Entended drivel.

You're not even good at this. Go ahead and call NASA and Sci Am "fundy fearmongerers". It makes you look even sillier than you already do.

Go ahead, keep digging yourself in even deeper.

Again, I've provided plenty of citations, you've provided nothing except name calling and misapplied "logical fallacies" that you clearly do not understand.

Anyway, this is useless. You're not even amusing in you self-delusion. Go find someone else to troll.

TIME IS IMMATERIAL...unless you can prove that the laws of physics change over time...

The speed of light was marginally faster closely following the Big Bang.

Want to argue, you'll have to tear apart scientific models based on the fact that a predictive model can never PROVE anything.

In which case your 'evidence' for global warning is also bunk.

Have fun.

You're not even good at this.
Good at what? At pointing out fearmongering? I did that already.

Now please--stop being such a fundy.

I can't believe that anybody could think that man is more powerful than nature. There is no way that man could ever put out more Co2 than is put out by volcanic eruptions etc. all the time. The earth and sun both go through warm cycles and cool cycles. It was only 25 years ago that we were being told that a new ice age was coming by the same "authorities" that are now ringing hands about global warming. 15 years ago I did a science report for elementary school where my newpaper article claimed that New York city would be flooded by global warming and uninhabitable by 2005. Give me a break. Global warming is a sick joke by environmental nuts at the hyprocrit algore who should go back to hunting manbearpig.

Global warming and cooling is natural, its gonna happen and it WILL happen. In any case the next ice age will probably be less because of all the greenhouse gases that trap heat in and make it harder to form glaciers.

MAybe because people who hang out with mercury and have brain problems have abnormally high levels of mercury in their body. MErcury is cool though.

I know, especially since you had no valid reason to call it a bullshit argument. After all, while the data does show a warming trend, there isn't enough evidence yet to determine precisely how much of an impact humanity has had in causing the warming (which of course means that I don't deny that global warming is happening. Feel free to ignore that, though.)

I explained that what makes it bullshit is that even if your thesis is true (that humans might not contribute considerably to Global Warming,) the position that it is being used to justify (that efforts to lower carbon emissions may be futile, and therefore should not be undertaken) is not actually supported by it.

That's why I went on to say that it is tantamount to saying that because we would not be the cause of a meteor strike, that we shouldn't do anything about one should the possibility arise. Global warming is a threat no matter the cause, and we should do something about it.

The above is what makes your argument bullshit. What makes it simply wrong is the fact that it's widely agreed among scientists that not only is global warming happening, but it's largely attributable to humans. But I wasn't addressing that point. That's why it was stupid of you to respond with only the word "wrong," and even dumber of you to go on to say that what you were disagreeing with was my previously non-existent contention that global warming is all our fault. If you thought that, you should have said why. If it was all you were going to say, it would have been better if you hadn't bothered. A one word argument is pretty useless.

And BTW, leaving in a set-up while editing out the punchline is pretty low. Only Bill O'Reilly engages in it regularly. That approach to debate highlights your own sense of selective attentiveness to facts that lets you believe that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that humans are a major cause of global warming. There never will be enough evidence if you keep ignoring anything beyond the threshold of what it would take to convince you.

I can't believe that anybody could think that man is more powerful than nature. There is no way that man could ever put out more Co2 than is put out by volcanic eruptions etc. all the time. The earth and sun both go through warm cycles and cool cycles. It was only 25 years ago that we were being told that a new ice age was coming by the same "authorities" that are now ringing hands about global warming. 15 years ago I did a science report for elementary school where my newpaper article claimed that New York city would be flooded by global warming and uninhabitable by 2005. Give me a break. Global warming is a sick joke by environmental nuts at the hyprocrit algore who should go back to hunting manbearpig.

I know! It's almost as crazy as all those loonies who think that we can wipe out a species of animal, or combat a disease! The whole thing is just a scam cooked up by scientists trying to convince people that objective reality holds some sort of answer that holds up in the face of wishful thinking and loyalty to authority figures. Sure there are all sorts of articles in academic journals that "prove" global warming is a reality. But there's a science fiction novel that proves that it's a hoax.

I explained that what makes it bullshit is that even if your thesis is true (that humans might not contribute considerably to Global Warming,) the position that it is being used to justify (that efforts to lower carbon emissions may be futile, and therefore should not be undertaken) is not actually supported by it.
Since that is not my position, you have not explained why my position is bullshit.

Try again. This time: don't do the fundy-think of "Oh, anyone who disagrees must think that efforts should not be undertaken". I already excoriated Gymoor for such fundy-thought.

Good at what? At pointing out fearmongering? I did that already.

Now please--stop being such a fundy.

Name one fearmongering thing I've said. Quote me where I told anyone to panic or that the end is nigh?

Hey, Mr. (can't understand) Logical Fallacies, look up strawman.

I can't believe that anybody could think that man is more powerful than nature. There is no way that man could ever put out more Co2 than is put out by volcanic eruptions etc. all the time. The earth and sun both go through warm cycles and cool cycles. It was only 25 years ago that we were being told that a new ice age was coming by the same "authorities" that are now ringing hands about global warming. 15 years ago I did a science report for elementary school where my newpaper article claimed that New York city would be flooded by global warming and uninhabitable by 2005. Give me a break. Global warming is a sick joke by environmental nuts at the hyprocrit algore who should go back to hunting manbearpig.

So, Barry, if Global Cooling was such a universally held theory 25 years ago, perhaps you could cite the articles/research to back that up?

You won't be able to, because the meme that "scientists thought we were headed for an Ice Age!!" is a weak fucking lie spread by those who spend boatloads of money desperately trying to undermine the evironmentalists' meggage.

It was ONE article by Newsweek that documented ONE MAN's theory which was NOT ACCEPTED by the scientific community.

And even so, that ONE MAN's theory did hold a kernel of truth, because he based his theory partially on Global Dimming due to particulates/aerosols released into the atmosphere and the natural cycles that produce natural Ice Ages.

You will not find a SINGLE peer reviewd journal that proposed man made global cooling.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. You won't be able to.

Now, are you willing to quit lying? Please?

There is no way that man could ever put out more Co2 than is put out by volcanic eruptions etc. all the time.

and there certainly isn't a way that we could measure such things, so any measurements to the contrary are certainly lies.


come on, admit it, you are totally someone's sock puppet.

Name one fearmongering thing I've said.
That scientists who disagree with you are in bed with Big Oil. That's fearmongering as well.

Now as I said before, I accept the fact that global warming is happening, and that humans play a part in it. I do not in any way, shape, or form dispute that--despite what you fundies might like to believe. What I do dispute is the doom-and-gloom fearmongers who say that humans are the cause of most of the climate changes of the last few centuries. We don't know that! We know we do have an impact, but the extent is still unknown precisely. This is not to be taken that we shouldn't do more research or that we shouldn't try to limit what damage we might do. Unfortunately, fundies such as yourself go off the deep end, tending to believe that anyone who disagrees with you wants all research terminated and that we do nothing. That in no way reflects my position to any degree of accuracy.

I will say that natural happenstances can and do damage more than humans could hope to in such a short period of time--and for anyone to disagree with that is just honestly blinded by their own beliefs. As an example, humans have not been able to replicate on their own (that is, outside of computer modelling of the events) the extreme climatic shift which took place after the eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815 (with 2 major eruptions of other volcanoes happening during the previous 3 years), creating the next year what is termed "The Year Without A Summer". Lake and river ice formed in Pennsylvania in July! Pretty extreme in such a short timeframe, wouldn't you say?

Again, this is not to say that we shouldn't try to limit the damage we do and/or attempt to correct what damage we have done. I know I need to keep repeating that for you fundies. Limiting the damage we do now will help for the future--and I'm all for that. I have to keep telling you fundies that or else you'll forget.

So what do you have to say now?

So, Barry, if Global Cooling was such a universally held theory 25 years ago, perhaps you could cite the articles/research to back that up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century

You were saying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century

You were saying?

Thank you for proving my point.

You did actually read the article, right?


Some highlights:

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend was not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example:[7]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.

A history of the discovery of global warming states that: While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way. [8].

The 1970 "Study of Critical Environmental Problems" [11] reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling".

Maybe I was being too clever. I was using stereotypical Global Warming skeptic's arguments in the context of mercury pollution to show how silly the "Well, if it can occur naturally, then it always occurs naturally" argument is.

For example, people drop dead naturally every day. Does that mean murder doesn't exist? Of course not. So the existence of natural climate cycles does not mean that all climate changes are natural.

Also the "We haven't studied it long enough," argument sucks too.

Don't forget that Lewis Carroll exaggerated the Manic-Depressive Hatter and that Japanese Fishing Village Babies are natural contortionists.

Thank you for proving my point.
I didn't.


You did actually read the article, right?
Yes.

I notice that you haven't responded to my other post. You know--the one where I explain to you for about the fifteenth fucking time that I acknowlege that global warming exists, but that we don't know exactly how much humans cause, and that shouldn't be taken to mean that we shouldn't do anything. Remember that?

Does it cause you a problem that I don't fit into your preconceived mold?

ah, mercury...sweetest of transition metals...

or do you mean the planet? I did a Science report on that planet once. It's a really boring planet, actually, so I don't think it's anything to worry about.

I didn't.

Yes, in fact, you did. The article clearly showed that there was no "Global Cooling" consensus and that the press published articles without the caveats of the scientific community.

Yes.

Obviously not.

I notice that you haven't responded to my other post. You know--the one where I explain to you for about the fifteenth fucking time that I acknowlege that global warming exists, but that we don't know exactly how much humans cause, and that shouldn't be taken to mean that we shouldn't do anything. Remember that?

What's to respond about? DO you want a cookie?

Does it cause you a problem that I don't fit into your preconceived mold?

No, it bothers me that you are blind to citations, you don't support your assertions and that you throw the term "logical fallacy" around without understanding and that you constantly use ad hominems, posioning the well and strawmen while bitching and moaning about what you percieve to be the sins of others.

Yes, in fact, you did.
No, in fact, I didn't.


What's to respond about?
The fact that it must make you uncomfortable that I don't fit your preconceived mold.



No, it bothers me that you are blind to citations,
*laughs*


you don't support your assertions
Pot. Kettle. Black.


and that you throw the term "logical fallacy" around without understanding
So says the person who didn't know what the poisoning the well fallacy is.

Now please, fundy, what about me scares you so much? Is it that I don't fit your preconceived notions? That I don't go off half-cocked and say "t3h sky 1z f4lling!!!!!111oneoneone"? I'd really like to know. I think my position is quite reasonable.

No, in fact, I didn't.

Reminds me of a Monrty Python sketch.

The fact that it must make you uncomfortable that I don't fit your preconceived mold.

Another unwarranted inferrence.

*laughs*



Pot. Kettle. Black.

Compare my citations to yours. Case closed.


So says the person who didn't know what the poisoning the well fallacy is.

That's funny, because you STILL don't know what it is.

Now please, fundy, what about me scares you so much?

Your confusing fear with feeling pity for you.

Is it that I don't fit your preconceived notions? That I don't go off half-cocked and say "t3h sky 1z f4lling!!!!!111oneoneone"? I'd really like to know. I think my position is quite reasonable.

Can you quote where I said the sky is falling or that we're all going to die? Do you really have to keep making shit up?

That scientists who disagree with you are in bed with Big Oil. That's fearmongering as well.

Find me a group of scientists IN RELEVANT FIELDS CURRENTLY who are global warming skeptics who AREN'T being heavily funded by big oil/energy.

Have fun.

Also, it depends on your definition of "precise". Precise enough to know that the equation does not add up unless you add the estimated contribution of humanity? You betcha.

Waitwaitwaitwait.

THINK about what you are saying.

'The equation doesn't add up unless you add the ESTIMATED contribution of humanity'?

So they had a formula all set up, that was giving inexact results... and then decided to throw in an estimate to see if it would fix things. And you, being oh so knowledgable about statistics and psychology, don't see what's wrong with this?

"Hmm, I thought I had $100 in my wallet, but now I find I only have $50. If I estimate that someone stole $50 from me, I can prove that I had $100! OMG SOMEONE STOLE MY MONEY!"

Go read up on the studies of how expectations effect results (psychology experiments - one of the fun ones involved sending two batches of genetically identical rats to two different labs - one lab was told that the rats had been bred for intelligence and would run a standard maze quicker than average, the other was told to expect the rats to run the maze slower. Results came back - non-trivial results saying that one lot ran faster and the other lot ran slower. Te scientists hadn't fudged anything intentionally - but expecting a certain result caused them to read data differently, effecting the final result).

If the scientists handling your data knew about what number they needed to make the formula work, then any 'estimated' human contribution is utterly suspect.

And just to throw a wrench in the works - who pays the scientists YOU'RE quoting? You do realise that MANY enviornmental groups fund universities and individual scientists, correct? And you do realise that many research scientists working in the study of the enviornment rely wholly on grants from pro-Global Warming lobbies?

If people only report what those who pay them want them to, then we can't trust ANY of the figures out there, period - everyone is paid by someone, and NO ONE pays for something they aren't invested in.

If you can assume that 'Big Oil' desperately wants to suppress this, you can't get all angsty when people suspect that 'Big GW' want to hype it up into a ridiculously over-dramatised propaganda machine. You want us the be sceptics, but only of one side. That doesn't cut it with some of us.

But if you mean that it's not bullshit to say that we shouldn't do anything about global warming just because some of it is naturally occuring, even though plagues and forest fires are naturally occuring and we try pretty hard to fight those, then I'll need a little more than a one word assertion with no support.

Fighting forest fires is actually what caused a lot of old growth forests which RELIED HEAVILY on said forest fires, to be scorched to the point where nothing could regrow in the area without artificial intervention (people had to go out and plant new trees)

By fighting forest fires to 'protect' nature, we managed to utterly fuck over entire ecosystems - without small fires to clear out old growth, there ceased to be any significant new growth, which left many hundreds of species without habitats or food.

Had we actually paid any attention to REALITY instead of being all "ZOMG FIRE BAD MUST STOP!" we would have realised that naturally occuring fires are good for most forests - many trees actually rely on them to release seeds (which makes sense, because fires clear land for the next generation to grow).

And let's not kid ourselves - the majority of forest fires are fought because idiot people have moved out into the wilderness and aren't willing to deal with the consequences, not because forest fires are ACTAULLY a bad thing.

Same with plagues - we only fight them because we are inherintly selfish, not because 'nature' will be effected if we don't.

But hmm, interesting that you brought up forest fires int his topic. Let's see... natural event that the micro-climates have evolved to tolerate... humans not having (or bothering to collect) the actual facts, just assuming that change = bad. Eventual result of attempts to fix and prevent natural event? Complete and utter unmitigated fuck up - destruction of natural habitats, hundreds of species lost. Years later seen as a huge joke by most people. Hmm.

Waitwaitwaitwait.

THINK about what you are saying.

'The equation doesn't add up unless you add the ESTIMATED contribution of humanity'?

So they had a formula all set up, that was giving inexact results... and then decided to throw in an estimate to see if it would fix things. And you, being oh so knowledgable about statistics and psychology, don't see what's wrong with this?

No, I don't. Climate scientists systematically added together all the natural forcing that could be shown to exist, and it failed to account for the climate change we are experiencing. When they added in the amount their equations suggested man would add, it fit perfectly. It's not like they drew a number out of a hat.

If you want to disprove what they have put together, you just have to show a natural cause tha takes the place of the calculated contributions of man.


"Hmm, I thought I had $100 in my wallet, but now I find I only have $50. If I estimate that someone stole $50 from me, I can prove that I had $100! OMG SOMEONE STOLE MY MONEY!"

Bad analogy. It more like: "I had $100. After adding up my expenses meticulously, I find I am $50 short. Now I've gotten evidence that my roommate suddenly came into $50. I inspect my wallet and find my roommate's fingerprints on it and a hair of his left in the fold. I ask him about it and he accuses me of hating capitalism. Then he hires a PR firm to tell people that he couldn't have possibly stolen my $50."

Go read up on the studies of how expectations effect results (psychology experiments - one of the fun ones involved sending two batches of genetically identical rats to two different labs - one lab was told that the rats had been bred for intelligence and would run a standard maze quicker than average, the other was told to expect the rats to run the maze slower. Results came back - non-trivial results saying that one lot ran faster and the other lot ran slower. Te scientists hadn't fudged anything intentionally - but expecting a certain result caused them to read data differently, effecting the final result).

Prove that the overwhelming consensus of climatologists all expected an outcome fo global warming. You can't because there an many many of them who have recently "changed sides" due to overwhelming evidence.

If the scientists handling your data knew about what number they needed to make the formula work, then any 'estimated' human contribution is utterly suspect.

Which is why research is subject to peer review. When disparate people from all parts of the world come up with the same result, the case is strengthened. You're acting as if the overwhelming consensus of climatologists are idiots and that the holy grail of science -- proving another scientist wrong -- doesn't exist.

And just to throw a wrench in the works - who pays the scientists YOU'RE quoting? You do realise that MANY enviornmental groups fund universities and individual scientists, correct? And you do realise that many research scientists working in the study of the enviornment rely wholly on grants from pro-Global Warming lobbies?

Also governments of dozens of countries, insurance companies who want to see if climate change might hurt their business, and universities from all over the world. The funding for climatologists is diverse and widespread. Are you saying that NASA is in the pocket of pro-Global Warming groups?

If people only report what those who pay them want them to, then we can't trust ANY of the figures out there, period - everyone is paid by someone, and NO ONE pays for something they aren't invested in.

Which is why you depend on data. The data is extremely strong. WHich you'd know if you actually were interested in the suject instead of listening to the tiny fraction who remain on one side.

If you can assume that 'Big Oil' desperately wants to suppress this, you can't get all angsty when people suspect that 'Big GW' want to hype it up into a ridiculously over-dramatised propaganda machine. You want us the be sceptics, but only of one side. That doesn't cut it with some of us.

No, I want you to look at the data and I want you to have intellectual curiosity AND I want you to realize that a single special interest is on one side, whereas the other side is diverse.

Fighting forest fires is actually what caused a lot of old growth forests which RELIED HEAVILY on said forest fires, to be scorched to the point where nothing could regrow in the area without artificial intervention (people had to go out and plant new trees)

By fighting forest fires to 'protect' nature, we managed to utterly fuck over entire ecosystems - without small fires to clear out old growth, there ceased to be any significant new growth, which left many hundreds of species without habitats or food.

Which is why we should have listened to environmentalists and ecologists instead of hysterical homeowners who built their houses in an area prone to forest fires.

Had we actually paid any attention to REALITY instead of being all "ZOMG FIRE BAD MUST STOP!" we would have realised that naturally occuring fires are good for most forests - many trees actually rely on them to release seeds (which makes sense, because fires clear land for the next generation to grow).

Good thing biologists, botanists, ecologists and environmentalists were listened to...oh, wait, they weren't

And let's not kid ourselves - the majority of forest fires are fought because idiot people have moved out into the wilderness and aren't willing to deal with the consequences, not because forest fires are ACTAULLY a bad thing.

Same with plagues - we only fight them because we are inherintly selfish, not because 'nature' will be effected if we don't.

But hmm, interesting that you brought up forest fires int his topic. Let's see... natural event that the micro-climates have evolved to tolerate... humans not having (or bothering to collect) the actual facts, just assuming that change = bad. Eventual result of attempts to fix and prevent natural event? Complete and utter unmitigated fuck up - destruction of natural habitats, hundreds of species lost. Years later seen as a huge joke by most people. Hmm.

Yup, I guess people should have listened to the scientists instead of real estate agents.