NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
- Thread starter Rx_
- Start date
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 02:41
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,964
I agree, after all you have the party science on your side. You have logic, common sense and the moral high ground. Not to mention social media and all news outlets in general, with the one exception the very threating FOX news.Absolutely .... and utterly predictable
And the opposition is left with only conspiracy theories. I do believe this is fair fight though.
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 02:41
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,964
Yeah, David against Goliath. You literally have one commercial station to offset 15, I can see why you guys would be triggered.
Vassago
Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
- Local time
- Today, 05:41
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 4,748
Yeah, David against Goliath. You literally have one commercial station to offset 15, I can see why you guys would be triggered.
Who is "You guys?" None of the major news networks are worth any time.
May as well watch BBC. At least they are on the outside looking in at the crapshow that is FAUX or CNN.
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 05:41
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 6,637
Couldn’t agree more...with my current living situation the only “news” I encounter is what I actively seek...with means I am uninformed.
Last edited:
isladogs
MVP / VIP
- Local time
- Today, 10:41
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2017
- Messages
- 18,581
Unimfomed! Does that mean you are frothing at the mouth?
I knew you are Frothy were very similar!
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 05:41
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 6,637
Unimfomed! Does that mean you are frothing at the mouth?
I knew you are Frothy were very similar!
Alright, ya made me laugh. Thanks I needed some levity...this batchelor lifestyle is making me Nucking Futs!
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
- Local time
- Today, 05:41
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,276
Unimfomed! Does that mean you are frothing at the mouth?
I knew you are Frothy were very similar!
Attachments
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 02:41
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,964
John Stossel on climate change. John is not a wild-eyed republican climate denier, in fact he is a libertarian.
Libertarians believe there should be no regulation. It is an extreme form of the beliefs of Republicans.
Stossel was even against the ban on DDT. Clearly he is an idiot.
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 02:41
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,964
Whew! I thought maybe you saw the clip and you would mention the Cato Institute. Dodge that bullet.
- Local time
- Today, 04:41
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 29,019
Greg: In various posts in this thread, you have said:
Post #9: "Perhaps you could rephrase what you are trying to say because, on the face of it, that is a ridiculous statement to make."
Post #30: "I have watched it now. What an utter load of rubbish."
Post #45: "Until the deniers can show some evidence, they are indulging in unsubstantiated speculation and should be ignored."
Post #51: A double-header - "Ivar Giaver has zero credentials in anything related to climate science." and "Monkton has no scientific credentials at all. Moreover he is a despicable person."
Post #59: "Coleman has no academic credentials in the field. He was a television weatherman."
Post #61: "Truth is you are an old man and don't care to change because you won't be much affected. Please ensure your grand children know exactly where you stand on this issue so they will treat your memory with the deserved disdain."
Post #65: "Your obvious lack of knowledge about such a simple aspect of the science shows you don't know near enough to "do your own research". It is you who is being led by the nose."
Post #71: "It has already been debunked as overly simplistic."
Post #72: "That is so last century as a criticism."
Post #80, pretty much the whole comment.
Post #82: "I am sick and tired of people like Richard who continue to spout dangerous rubbish and lies."
Post #99: "Honestly Doc, you should start critically analysing stuff before you repeat it, if you don't want to be taken for a fool."
Post #131: "Stossel was even against the ban on DDT. Clearly he is an idiot."
These are examples, to varying degrees of severity, of direct argumentum ad hominem attacks on persons who happen to disagree with you to some degree or another. Don't you recognize that you are repeatedly employing a tactic of discrediting a person rather than addressing the issues being claimed? What are we supposed to think about the validity of your arguments when you shoot the messenger so often? It is unbecoming to you and to your position - but is a common-place approach taken by the "climate disaster" side of the argument.
I'm sorry to say this, but your repeated insults reflect poorly on you. I may have drawn some of your ire but I have tried to remain civil once I realized that I had myself crossed a line. Of all of the things that I might wish for you, G., NONE of them involve bad events happening to you. I hope to heck you DO get to live out a good life with your grandkids playing with you or otherwise interacting with you in a fun way.
In the end analysis, we are driven by different forces; we look through the kaleidoscope with different original points of view - and it IS a big, whompin' kaleidoscope with many facets and many pieces reflecting different ways at different times.
I see industrial effluents as a disease issue. You see them as a climate issue. We both see them as something bad. Can we agree that much?
Post #9: "Perhaps you could rephrase what you are trying to say because, on the face of it, that is a ridiculous statement to make."
Post #30: "I have watched it now. What an utter load of rubbish."
Post #45: "Until the deniers can show some evidence, they are indulging in unsubstantiated speculation and should be ignored."
Post #51: A double-header - "Ivar Giaver has zero credentials in anything related to climate science." and "Monkton has no scientific credentials at all. Moreover he is a despicable person."
Post #59: "Coleman has no academic credentials in the field. He was a television weatherman."
Post #61: "Truth is you are an old man and don't care to change because you won't be much affected. Please ensure your grand children know exactly where you stand on this issue so they will treat your memory with the deserved disdain."
Post #65: "Your obvious lack of knowledge about such a simple aspect of the science shows you don't know near enough to "do your own research". It is you who is being led by the nose."
Post #71: "It has already been debunked as overly simplistic."
Post #72: "That is so last century as a criticism."
Post #80, pretty much the whole comment.
Post #82: "I am sick and tired of people like Richard who continue to spout dangerous rubbish and lies."
Post #99: "Honestly Doc, you should start critically analysing stuff before you repeat it, if you don't want to be taken for a fool."
Post #131: "Stossel was even against the ban on DDT. Clearly he is an idiot."
These are examples, to varying degrees of severity, of direct argumentum ad hominem attacks on persons who happen to disagree with you to some degree or another. Don't you recognize that you are repeatedly employing a tactic of discrediting a person rather than addressing the issues being claimed? What are we supposed to think about the validity of your arguments when you shoot the messenger so often? It is unbecoming to you and to your position - but is a common-place approach taken by the "climate disaster" side of the argument.
I'm sorry to say this, but your repeated insults reflect poorly on you. I may have drawn some of your ire but I have tried to remain civil once I realized that I had myself crossed a line. Of all of the things that I might wish for you, G., NONE of them involve bad events happening to you. I hope to heck you DO get to live out a good life with your grandkids playing with you or otherwise interacting with you in a fun way.
In the end analysis, we are driven by different forces; we look through the kaleidoscope with different original points of view - and it IS a big, whompin' kaleidoscope with many facets and many pieces reflecting different ways at different times.
I see industrial effluents as a disease issue. You see them as a climate issue. We both see them as something bad. Can we agree that much?
There are also many cases I have argued the science.
In some of the the cases you cite, the criticisms I have made of these people are a valid reflection on their lack of credentials and propensity to post rubbish that flies in the face of established science that could be critiqued by a high school science student. I can't be bothered with it.
Those who continually exude shit should expect to be taken for arseholes.
- Local time
- Today, 04:41
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 29,019
Your closing sentence says it all, G. Argumentum ad hominem strikes YET AGAIN.
I have honest doubts on the validity of some of those studies. For instance, the infamous "hockey-stick" graph is based on many years of one type of data, but then switches to another data source - and the sudden incline begins at the point of the switch. In science this is an "apples and oranges" graph, but you don't see it that way. I do. It is a MAJOR source of my doubt. I don't know about you, but when I got my doctorate, it was HAMMERED into me that THOU SHALT NOT MIX INCOMMENSURATE DATA! (Yes, at the level of a "Biblical" commandment.) If science can be said to contain the concept of sin, then presenting synthesized data mixed in with real data comes close to one such sin. You just DON'T DO THAT! If I did that in chemistry and got caught at it, my reputation would have been permanently ruined! But apparently it is OK for a climate scientist to do that? Sorry, not buying it.
And you can bluster all you want. You can accuse me of mopery and dopery and six kinds of flummery, but contrived data sources are ALWAYS subject to doubt. I'm sorry, but that was just the way I was taught and have NEVER seen valid grounds to change that viewpoint. Oh, I can learn new things. But I don't give out a free pass to people who have to fudge their data to get their point across.
Speaking of which, are you aware that the 97% consensus that everyone has bandied about is a finding from an unemployed cartoonist who did a literature survey? His REAL findings were based on a survey of various articles not always of a scientific nature and he REALLY found that (a) in passing as well as directly, articles regarding climate agreed that climate was changing and (b) that 97% of the authors thought that human activities had SOME contributing effect in that.
Yep, sounds like a consensus to me. Just not much of one. If you want to attack the credentials of everyone, why don't you attack the author of that consensus article? Or is applying sauce to the goose too much for the gander to tolerate?
I have honest doubts on the validity of some of those studies. For instance, the infamous "hockey-stick" graph is based on many years of one type of data, but then switches to another data source - and the sudden incline begins at the point of the switch. In science this is an "apples and oranges" graph, but you don't see it that way. I do. It is a MAJOR source of my doubt. I don't know about you, but when I got my doctorate, it was HAMMERED into me that THOU SHALT NOT MIX INCOMMENSURATE DATA! (Yes, at the level of a "Biblical" commandment.) If science can be said to contain the concept of sin, then presenting synthesized data mixed in with real data comes close to one such sin. You just DON'T DO THAT! If I did that in chemistry and got caught at it, my reputation would have been permanently ruined! But apparently it is OK for a climate scientist to do that? Sorry, not buying it.
And you can bluster all you want. You can accuse me of mopery and dopery and six kinds of flummery, but contrived data sources are ALWAYS subject to doubt. I'm sorry, but that was just the way I was taught and have NEVER seen valid grounds to change that viewpoint. Oh, I can learn new things. But I don't give out a free pass to people who have to fudge their data to get their point across.
Speaking of which, are you aware that the 97% consensus that everyone has bandied about is a finding from an unemployed cartoonist who did a literature survey? His REAL findings were based on a survey of various articles not always of a scientific nature and he REALLY found that (a) in passing as well as directly, articles regarding climate agreed that climate was changing and (b) that 97% of the authors thought that human activities had SOME contributing effect in that.
Yep, sounds like a consensus to me. Just not much of one. If you want to attack the credentials of everyone, why don't you attack the author of that consensus article? Or is applying sauce to the goose too much for the gander to tolerate?
- Local time
- Today, 10:41
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,039
>>> If science can be said to contain the concept of sin <<<
According to Dr Jordan B Peterson, the word sin means missing the target!
According to Dr Jordan B Peterson, the word sin means missing the target!
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 02:41
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,964
It really boils down to credibility; the alarmist has none. In late 60’s early 70’s it was the coming “mini ice age”, obviously that never materialize.
Then in 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?""
It wasn’t until Al Gore lost his presidential bid in 2000, the phrase global warming was really developed for public consumption.
On January 26, 2006 the Washington Post stated Al “believes humanity may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.” BTW Al was the only one smart enough to save the world back then.
After that fiasco they needed a new catch phrase, and climate change or weird weather became the new tag line.
Apocalypse Delayed; About every 10-12 years it seems we are on the brink of destruction, we have reached the point of no return again.
Just the other day a freshman congresswoman declared "We’re, like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change"
By all accounts the statue of liberty should be half way under water by now, I just checked its not even up to the grass.
Obviously, I taken a few liberties and have my tongue firmly in cheek. But the moral outrage from the alarmist in this forum is typical and expected. It boils down to credibility, or the lack of it.
Edit: John Stossel is not an idiot, he has more class an integrity then any climate guru.
Then in 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?""
It wasn’t until Al Gore lost his presidential bid in 2000, the phrase global warming was really developed for public consumption.
On January 26, 2006 the Washington Post stated Al “believes humanity may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.” BTW Al was the only one smart enough to save the world back then.
After that fiasco they needed a new catch phrase, and climate change or weird weather became the new tag line.
Apocalypse Delayed; About every 10-12 years it seems we are on the brink of destruction, we have reached the point of no return again.
Just the other day a freshman congresswoman declared "We’re, like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change"
By all accounts the statue of liberty should be half way under water by now, I just checked its not even up to the grass.
Obviously, I taken a few liberties and have my tongue firmly in cheek. But the moral outrage from the alarmist in this forum is typical and expected. It boils down to credibility, or the lack of it.
Edit: John Stossel is not an idiot, he has more class an integrity then any climate guru.
Last edited:
isladogs
MVP / VIP
- Local time
- Today, 10:41
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2017
- Messages
- 18,581
Perhaps this whole issue is viewed differently in the US to Europe.
I first heard concerns about the rise in CO2 levels back and the likely impact on the climate back in the early 1970s. When Al Gore spoke about the issues, it wasn't regarded as new information. What he may have done was bring that information to a wider public.
What is news to me is this 97% figure.
That seems to be endlessly repeated by those who oppose the vast majority of scientific research findings. It is also being recycled within this thread. Personally I don't care if it was invented by a cartoonist as the figure isn't used in the scientific community as a whole. Nor is it in general use in the UK/Europe.
I did watch part of the programme by John Stossel. I'd never heard of him before. I also recognised the guy from the Cato Institute. The program provided as much serious scientific debate as the Jerry Springer show.
I've not read anything in this lengthy thread to sway my opinion. Nor have any of these video clips been, in my view, a serious analysis of the evidence.
Hopefully I will never need to watch rubbish like John Stossel again, no matter what the subject.
I normally keep out of threads like this as they tend to degenerate like an episode of the Springer show. I do regret that the thread has become personal. Buttons are deliberately being pressed to provoke a response...with some success
I first heard concerns about the rise in CO2 levels back and the likely impact on the climate back in the early 1970s. When Al Gore spoke about the issues, it wasn't regarded as new information. What he may have done was bring that information to a wider public.
What is news to me is this 97% figure.
That seems to be endlessly repeated by those who oppose the vast majority of scientific research findings. It is also being recycled within this thread. Personally I don't care if it was invented by a cartoonist as the figure isn't used in the scientific community as a whole. Nor is it in general use in the UK/Europe.
I did watch part of the programme by John Stossel. I'd never heard of him before. I also recognised the guy from the Cato Institute. The program provided as much serious scientific debate as the Jerry Springer show.
I've not read anything in this lengthy thread to sway my opinion. Nor have any of these video clips been, in my view, a serious analysis of the evidence.
Hopefully I will never need to watch rubbish like John Stossel again, no matter what the subject.
I normally keep out of threads like this as they tend to degenerate like an episode of the Springer show. I do regret that the thread has become personal. Buttons are deliberately being pressed to provoke a response...with some success
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 02:41
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,964
For better or worse Al Gore is the face of the climate debate, there is nothing more Jerry Springer then Al Gore.
You can try and distance yourself from him but you cannot escape the dire predictions that have failed to materialize.
You can try and distance yourself from him but you cannot escape the dire predictions that have failed to materialize.
isladogs
MVP / VIP
- Local time
- Today, 10:41
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2017
- Messages
- 18,581
Possibly for those of you in the USA
Certainly not to those of us in Europe (as the UK still just about is!)
I'm not trying to align myself or distance myself from him.
I've said repeatedly in this thread that some climate models have been inaccurate. I've also provided several links to detailed scientific evidence.
By definition, no models (not just those relating to climate change) can ever be 100% accurate as they are modelling the future.
However the data is becoming more and more detailed with every passing year and the overall trend remains on course for continued global warming over the next few decades UNLESS significant changes are made.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a detailed critique of the scientific evidence on which the climate model recently provided by the UK Met Office was based. From that, perhaps you will be able to submit a factual refutation of its findings.
I'll be here if you care to do so....
