MLD Woody Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 10 posts Cal? Really? ugh.... maybe after the 4th If we're lucky Chris will help out since he has no holiday today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 you're right, I don't trust government. It baffles me how anyone could. its strange you think scientist are some kind of separate species like they're incapable of being corrupted, or being shamed into groupthink. I'm not anti-science, I'm anti-human in the sense I don't believe humans are naturally or commonly virtuous and honest: I see scientist as humans Throughout history scientist have been so sure of something only to be found embarrassingly wrong later. That matters. there are layers of questions to ask in regards to MMGW to understand the issue in its entirety. One of which is The credibility of these scientist. The credibility of the politicians pushing this agenda is another one. You have a problem there. The evidence isn't direct for the common educated man to see. There is proof of falsifying research. Where is the law being proposed to end square foot requirements on housing? Where is it? Instead, to slow energy consumption, the proposal is a larger energy tax. Why? Because square foot requirements mean higher home values which means more tax dollars for the local community. More gubermint. Where are the pro-liberty solutions being proposed to this? Is it not strange that solutions like that don't line up[ with govt lovers so are not discussed? You have a credibility problem. gender/race/ It doesn't but leftist are beginning to tie everything to climate change/. It's hurting the credibility of the subject. The last part is just self-view reassurance. the modern world wasn't built byelite liberals. that's a bit Retarded, bro. happy july 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 10 posts Cal? Really? ugh.... maybe after the 4th If we're lucky Chris will help out since he has no holiday today Exactly, I don't have a free day today, I have work to do! I may get a chance to look at a couple. Also, 11 posts. I have them collated here - feel free to go through them at your leisure. Some look to be already-discredited which should be a nice easy start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 It seems that the people who are suspicious of scientists (thx to right wing "news") don't understand the concepts of the scientific method and peer review. Yes, scientists are human, but unlike non-scientists they are trained from the beginning to minimize the influence of their own biases on the results of their own experiments. The peer review process further checks that. Given that the organizations that support MMGW span the globe and those scientists that deny it mostly originate in the USA, the MMGW deniers must believe in some vast conspiracy in which dozens of nations have all collectively agreed to force the scientists that live in their countries to produce experiments that all support MMGW. The truth is nobody can come up with an experiment that effectively debunks MMGW so the right wing is clutching at straws with these notions of a globe-wide conspiracy and bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 That's nice. Trouble is, Hansen's supervisor at NASA? Says Hansen was a political activist who embarrassed NASA with his stuff. Obviously you didn't read any of the posts I made yesterday. Scientists are human beings, and they want to have $$$ coming in for studies. When their money is coming from the UN, or Obamao's regime, etc.... it's been shown that evidence that didn't support mmgw was censored. The Lord whatshisname got kicked out of the UN for presenting studies that contradicted their golden goose. Climateemailgate was scientists talking about implementing their bias. Scientists are demanding their names be taken off some pro-mmgw studies. Tree ring. Hockey stick. Admissions by certain UN officials that redistribution of the nations wealth, is depending on mmgw.... Scientists who dispute the mmgw, or at least the outrageous and proven fallacy, of the mmgw alarmism, also span the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 Ugh... Throw shit at the wall, hope it sticks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 It seems that the people who are suspicious of scientists (thx to right wing "news") don't understand the concepts of the scientific method and peer review. Yes, scientists are human, but unlike non-scientists they are trained from the beginning to minimize the influence of their own biases on the results of their own experiments. The peer review process further checks that. Given that the organizations that support MMGW span the globe and those scientists that deny it mostly originate in the USA, the MMGW deniers must believe in some vast conspiracy in which dozens of nations have all collectively agreed to force the scientists that live in their countries to produce experiments that all support MMGW. The truth is nobody can come up with an experiment that effectively debunks MMGW so the right wing is clutching at straws with these notions of a globe-wide conspiracy and bias. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 Exactly, I don't have a free day today, I have work to do! I may get a chance to look at a couple. Also, 11 posts. I have them collated here - feel free to go through them at your leisure. Some look to be already-discredited which should be a nice easy start. I Googled a few and saw that as well. I'll let you start us off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 That's nice. Trouble is, Hansen's supervisor at NASA? Says Hansen was a political activist who embarrassed NASA with his stuff. Obviously you didn't read any of the posts I made yesterday. Scientists are human beings, and they want to have $$$ coming in for studies. When their money is coming from the UN, or Obamao's regime, etc.... it's been shown that evidence that didn't support mmgw was censored. The Lord whatshisname got kicked out of the UN for presenting studies that contradicted their golden goose. Climateemailgate was scientists talking about implementing their bias. Scientists are demanding their names be taken off some pro-mmgw studies. Tree ring. Hockey stick. Admissions by certain UN officials that redistribution of the nations wealth, is depending on mmgw.... Scientists who dispute the mmgw, or at least the outrageous and proven fallacy, of the mmgw alarmism, also span the globe. But Cal, I did read them. As I've done in the past, I could debunk them, but to what end? You are not a person in search of evidence with which to establish an opinion. You are in search of evidence to support your established opinion. Therefore it is pointless to expend the effort responding to the things you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 But Cal, I did read them. As I've done in the past, I could debunk them, but to what end? You are not a person in search of evidence with which to establish an opinion. You are in search of evidence to support your established opinion. Therefore it is pointless to expend the effort responding to the things you posted. Os, feel free to check out the 'Cal's points about global warming' thread and have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 It seems that the people who are suspicious of scientists (thx to right wing "news") don't understand the concepts of the scientific method and peer review. Yes, scientists are human, but unlike non-scientists they are trained from the beginning to minimize the influence of their own biases on the results of their own experiments. The peer review process further checks that. Given that the organizations that support MMGW span the globe and those scientists that deny it mostly originate in the USA, the MMGW deniers must believe in some vast conspiracy in which dozens of nations have all collectively agreed to force the scientists that live in their countries to produce experiments that all support MMGW. The truth is nobody can come up with an experiment that effectively debunks MMGW so the right wing is clutching at straws with these notions of a globe-wide conspiracy and bias. so scientist train themselves to not be human? my god. they have to make a living, do you not understand the concept of food, shelter, medicine? THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON MMGW ALARMIST. I can't handle the level of Retardation. I can't. 1. Man Made global warming is impossible. it is. its a Retarded concept. we are not gods, we are creative monkeys using whats on the planet. 2. corruption has been proven; your post is telling me the world is flat, mr science., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 How is it impossible? Please, back up the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 How is it impossible? Also, you say the burden of proof is on the "alarmists". Alright. The vast majority of all respected scientific organizations across the globe are in agreement. There is a consensus among actual experts in the field. Sounds pretty legitimate to me. They have already proven their case in the eyes of the scientific method. Just because those that make it a political issue and listen to right wing rhetoric only aren't convinced, doesn't mean nothing should be done. The public is stupid and gullible. You're acting like some scientists just decided that climate change was a thing then some giant liberal govt conspiracy happened. THAT is Retarded. There have been countless studies, data has been collected, articles have been peer reviewed and the scientific method has provided this result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 think of this as a trial. there is a murder (global warming) and a person holding the gun (humans) what do prosecutors need? motive. cause of action. when you say global warming is man made, you are saying man created, started,.. when it did not. humans have innovated to survive. the motive is survival. that is where global warming is CREATED, MADE, STARTED. the first domino is evolution. adapt or die. it's like putting a bowl of water in a room with a dog and blaming him for drinking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 YOU HAVE A CREDIBILITY ISSUE. do you not understand that? Alarmist have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar numerous times. That matters. Scientist cant disprove creationism but they mock it. the burden of proof is on those who believe in creationism. Same thing here. it's just a damn theory. There is NOT a consensus among actual experts in the field, there is a PR campaign paid for by government. the public is stupid and gullible? no shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 There is a consensus among experts in the field Do you understand that a scientific theory is different than a regular theory, right? No one can disprove god. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution and none for creationism. If you actually want to argue as a young earth creationist now you've lost all credibility here. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in your first post. You're just saying words and capitalizing some. Are you saying its not our fault because of evolution? Or something? Why exactly does this mean we should do nothing about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 so scientist train themselves to not be human? my god. they have to make a living, do you not understand the concept of food, shelter, medicine? THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON MMGW ALARMIST. I can't handle the level of Retardation. I can't. 1. Man Made global warming is impossible. it is. its a Retarded concept. we are not gods, we are creative monkeys using whats on the planet. 2. corruption has been proven; your post is telling me the world is flat, mr science., You may will outdo Cal with his reading comprehension failures. I said scientists are human, and they train themselves to keep their own biases from influencing the results of an experiment. Deliberately misunderstanding what I said and then putting your own confusion on display for all to see only makes you look Retarded, not me. The nice thing about the science world is you can make a living without sacrificing the scientific method or your own integrity. A scientist who fudges data can kiss his career good bye because nobody will publish his research. So the idea that thousands of scientists would put their careers on the line by conspiring to fudge the data to support MMGW is, to use your language once again, Retarded. As I pointed out to Cal many times, the existence of corrupt people who exploit MMGW for financial gain has no bearing on whether or not MMGW is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 As I pointed out to Cal many times, the existence of corrupt people who exploit MMGW for financial gain has no bearing on whether or not MMGW is real. No it does not. But it does go a long way to explain hysteria. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 As I pointed out to Cal many times, the existence of corrupt people who exploit MMGW for financial gain has no bearing on whether or not MMGW is real. Os ***************************** Yet, you turn around and use one tea party or church billboard to slam the entire group. Like I've told you many times, you libs change your stances any time you can gain advantage - in any discussion, and for any political reason. You mmgw'mers have a huge credibility problem. You can whine, and keep claiming this "consensus" like it is a mandate to prove that the polar ice caps completely melted last year. But it doesn't work. Nobody is buying it, All you can do is have Chris cherry pick one post of links, turn it into a new thread, and start your bogus claims all over again. Have a nice day ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 People that know what they're talking are buying it Random people that have no scientific experience and that are just blindly following a political party may or may not buy it. Those people should not matter when it comes to a scientific issue. Sadly though it ia their votes that determine if anything gets done. You claim those that believe man made climate change is real have a credibility problem? So the vast majority of climate scientists and damn near every respected scientific org in the world have a credibility problem? It sounds like you are just sticking your head in the sand because your political party tells you to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 As I pointed out to Cal many times, the existence of corrupt people who exploit MMGW for financial gain has no bearing on whether or not MMGW is real. Os ***************************** Yet, you turn around and use one tea party or church billboard to slam the entire group. Like I've told you many times, you libs change your stances any time you can gain advantage - in any discussion, and for any political reason. You mmgw'mers have a huge credibility problem. You can whine, and keep claiming this "consensus" like it is a mandate to prove that the polar ice caps completely melted last year. But it doesn't work. Nobody is buying it, All you can do is have Chris cherry pick one post of links, turn it into a new thread, and start your bogus claims all over again. Have a nice day ! This is just proof you don't pay attention. I never used any church billboard to slam anyone. It seems you have trouble differentiating between Woody, Chris and myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 "you" is a collective term reference the three liberal whigs and the big, bad wolf of polar ice caps flooding all the continents last year. oops. didn't happen. Hardyharhar. No carbon tax for liberals. too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 btw, woodypeckerhead, I worked for ten years in a high tech R&D lab, designing custom proprietary scientific software. Stuff that a lot of experts didn't think was possible. But I wasn't a scientist. I worked with a few. One of them got angry one time, because the ultra complex algorithms in my software calc'd to different answers than he did manually. It was a super proprietary software based on a super secret test another scientist had invented. Yep. Angrily denounced me in a meeting with the VP of R&D. Demanded I be fired because I was incompetent, and I offended him by daring to try to show my methodology of developing scientific software was not flawed. blah blah blah. He was from India, you know. Way up in the upper elite. Except, this scientist - after I took to the white board, and outlined at length how I designed it, and why the algorithms were exact under any conditions that could be thrown at them... which is quite a feat, since the databases were nearly 1 G at the time, and the calc's were hideously complex... it took about about 45 minutes to basically flow chart it... He was wrong. He had been interpreting several major algorithms incorrectly. It was confirmed by the expert VP, via industry experts, who were nationally well-known. He humbly apologized to me in front of the VP, I received a beautiful letter on how I conducted myself in that situation from the VP, and that PHD took me out to lunch every other week for months, and we talked a lot about other possible scientific software that were possible in the coming years. One of his fields was "conductive polymers". I went on to develop some really great stuff over the years after. You, woodypeckerhead, can quit gloating about science - you aren't it. You're a little beakhead, a little johnny sissypants butt of this board. You, Chris, are just a whiney liberal limey, and you, Os, are a liberal who believes in mmgw as a dramatic crisis. Well, you three can keep threatening to huff, and puff, and blow the gw reality house down. But it won't go away. The reality is, all these scientists who make up your "consensus"... simply figure that man's activities were "likely" to have an impact on global warming. Like, throwing a rock into Niagara falls has an affect on the flow. Sure it does. A tiny eensey weensie bit. But, realistically, it didn't shut the falls down, and evaporate all the water away. And mmgw? didn't "shut the Niagra Falls down" either. Didn't flood all the continents last year. Nothin. You three have a nice day. Say, mebbe, you should all three go out and build yourself a knucklehead ark. And you can all climb aboard, and await the global flooding that was supposed to have happened already. Bon Voyage' And that's okay. I'm not buyin it, others aren't, thousands and thousands of scientists aren't. And blasting anyone who doesn't cliimb on board your ark with you, is just hot air. , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 Yes Cal... We've hears countless times how you were the best computer programmer in the world and your colleagues just didn't "get" the brilliance of your work. You've driven that into the ground on here. But you're right, my bad, I brag too much. I don't claim to be a scientist. That is why I look toward the expert opinions in these matters. And as it turns out, that is a pretty uniform opinion. You have made no real argument again climate change and the ones you have attempted have been shot down hard. You know why? Because experts already had this debate outside of the presence of politics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 I don't believe debunkiing one or two links of all the links I've posted is much of a victory. Your blather is boring. ask anybody - I've never said I was the best programmer nothin. In the early years, I learned from experts. The trouble is, woodypeckerhead, is that you conveniently and politically pick and choose which experts you listen to. You probably watch "Star Wars" and fret and fret about robots being more numerous than people several decades from now. You should just grow up. A lot. Meanwhile, you talk ad nauseum about your academia blah blah blah blah... and you continue to say stupid things in your posts: " We've hears countless times..." woodpecker I mean, seriously. " We've hears countless times" ?????????????? not smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 I've just been posting and posting and posting articles about the work by scientists who dispute your disaster alarmist scientists. That means that there most certain IS a whole lot of debate, and the side I take is growing dramatically. So, there ya go, woodpecker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 No it does not Cal. The vast majority of the people you posted have nothing to do with climatology. Even if you can find 50, that's a minuscule fraction. I posted over 200 world wide respected scientific groups that disagree with you. And yes, a typo on my phone. Congrats again. The ultimate sign of you getting your ass kicked is when you start calling out typos. Myself and others have debunked plenty more than one or two BTW. You just have very selective reading. U Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 What, by denigrating the author of an article who writes about, and links to, a scientific report by real climate scientists? That is "debunking" No, woodypeckerhead, you ignored a couple hundred links until you could find one to bitch about. That's all you've done. And, yes, it most certainly does prove the debate is just starting to get serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 hardeeharhar woodypeckerhead. Read on and have a nice cultish day. But it's a bogus mmgw alarmist cult. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 An opinion piece by a guy from the Heartland Institute. Well I'm sold... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.