Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore - Page 38

ccodiane · #**371** 03-10-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by towlie

Oh ccodiane. Do you really want me to list my questions and your corresponding responses? You don't really think you answered them directly do you???

Can you repeat the question, please?

closet.cult · #**372** 03-11-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by towlie

It is amazing to me that the people who are clearly the most lacking in scientific education… the people coincidentally attempting to debunk GW… would have the hubris to openly analyze it.

And yet, that is what you continuously ask us to do. Over and over and over and over and over again....

You keep asking us to debate you by posting scientific studies and articles. We don’t have to, Towlie. Do your own research on BOTH SIDES of the discussion and make YOUR OWN conclusions.

If you want to debate science find one of the 19,000 American scientists who signed the Petition Project, created by Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
"Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals."

There is even a peer reviewed science section. Can't believe it?!- you say? Maybe you don’t understand what is peer reviewed science. See, all the science the global warming advocates create is good, peer reviewed science. The problem is created when they MISINTERPRET the results. Their predictions don't match the actual conditions on the planet. THAT is where they fail. And each year they adjust the crisis one notch down, as new evidence disagrees with their flawed premis. They're good scientists who just got caught up in a bad theory. In another year or two, man-made global warming will be history.

towlie · #**373** 03-11-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by closet.cult

And yet, that is what you continuously ask us to do. Over and over and over and over and over again....

Bullshit. I keep telling you that I don’t think any legitimate science exists, but I’ll admit it if I see it. I keep telling you over and over that I could find a 100 scientific studies in under 2-minutes, but none of them agree with what you’re saying. You keep saying over and over that there is legitimate science but have yet to back it. The fact that I have to explain this to you on post 372 only proves your absolute delusion.

Are you prepared to search the archives of any actively publishing research center of your choosing? Of course not. You’d rather post links to un-published, non-scientific spin sites founded by former oil exec’s who happen to have a physics degree. Dude he’s not even a relevant scientist… so keep telling me 19,000 scientist have signed a petition and I’ll keep reminding you that none of them are published. Someday you’ll read a book about science and realize this means something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by closet.cult

If you want to debate science find one of the 19,000 American scientists who signed the Petition Project, created by Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.

I am already quite aware that you are unable to discuss science on even the most remedial posts. I’m just going to remind you every time you post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by closet.cult

There is even a peer reviewed science section. Can't believe it?!- you say?

No I cant. You’ve already posted indirect links to peer reviewed studies that you clearly lack the intellectual curiosity to read. Are you saying you’re prepared to do it now? Of course not! You’re not scientifically minded, and you’re clearly not interested in finding any truth in this debate.

towlie · #**374** 03-11-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccodiane

Of course you wouldn't use, or acknowledge, this argument. It makes you look stupid.

“I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above… um… moronically retarded argument.”

What do you not get about this question? You have posted a moronic straw man to argue against. Prove me wrong. Site an instance where someone pushing GW has made this moronic argument. Why is it that the people pushing this conspiracy theory can’t even answer the easiest questions honestly?

towlie · #**375** 03-11-2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccodiane

Can you repeat the question, please?

Questions the people pushing this debate are refusing to answer:

1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

2) If you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why you’re citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If you’re going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?

3) Furthermore if you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates… would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (You’re scientifically minded right?)

4) May I see your best scientific study please?

Answer: Do your own goddamn research

5) You’re argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFO’s, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?

6) I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find… you’re a scientifically minded person right??? And let’s perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say.

Hint: Answers shouldn’t end with a question mark, and should be relevant to the question.

closet.cult · #**376** 03-11-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by towlie

Bullshit. I keep telling you that I don’t think any legitimate science exists, but I’ll admit it if I see it.

The legitimate science exists. It is the same data that your scientists use. The only difference is how they interpret it.

One more time Towlie: Man-made global warming is a FUTURE theory. Data supports warming, not man-made warming. You have to look to the future using climate models to try to prove the idea.

All the science on BOTH sides of the debate is valid. How each scientist INTERPRETS the science is the only important question.

You believe the scientists who proclaim "Crisis! Crisis!". I believe the more moderate scientists who see nearly all data of every 'scietific study' as being within the natural range of climate variability.

Don't get your panties in a bunch over it. The consensus you speak of is nothing more then a belief.

medicineman · #**377** 03-11-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by closet.cult

[/color][/size][/font]

The legitimate science exists. It is the same data that your scientists use. The only difference is how they interpret it.

One more time Towlie: Man-made global warming is a FUTURE theory. Data supports warming, not man-made warming. You have to look to the future using climate models to try to prove the idea.

All the science on BOTH sides of the debate is valid. How each scientist INTERPRETS the science is the only important question.

You believe the scientists who proclaim "Crisis! Crisis!". I believe the more moderate scientists who see nearly all data of every 'scietific study' as being within the natural range of climate variability.

Don't get your panties in a bunch over it. The consensus you speak of is nothing more then a belief.

Rent, borrow, or buy the DVD, "The Planet" and get back to me. You may have an epiphany.

closet.cult · #**378** 03-11-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicineman

Rent, borrow, or buy the DVD, "The Planet" and get back to me. You may have an epiphany.

O.K. WILL DO.

ccodiane · #**379** 03-11-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by towlie

“I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above… um… moronically retarded argument.”

What do you not get about this question? You have posted a moronic straw man to argue against. Prove me wrong. Site an instance where someone pushing GW has made this moronic argument. Why is it that the people pushing this conspiracy theory can’t even answer the easiest questions honestly?

My sources tell me the Earth is in a cooling phase.

Prove me wrong however you determine would best satisfy your yearning to believe.

ccodiane · #**380** 03-11-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by towlie

Questions the people pushing this debate are refusing to answer:

1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

In 1988, the surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, proclaimed ice cream to a be public-health menace right up there with cigarettes. Alluding to his office’s famous 1964 report on the perils of smoking, Dr. Koop announced that the American diet was a problem of “comparable” magnitude, chiefly because of the high-fat foods that were causing coronary heart disease and other deadly ailments.

That was a ludicrous statement, as Gary Taubes demonstrates in his new book meticulously debunking diet myths, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (Knopf, 2007). The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly. The evidence against Häagen-Dazs was nothing like the evidence against Marlboros.

It may seem bizarre that a surgeon general could go so wrong. After all, wasn’t it his job to express the scientific consensus? But that was the problem. Dr. Koop was expressing the consensus. He, like the architects of the federal “food pyramid” telling Americans what to eat, went wrong by listening to everyone else. He was caught in what social scientists call a cascade.

We like to think that people improve their judgment by putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong.

If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s more liable to go along just because she assumes the first two together know more than she does. Thus begins an “informational cascade” as one person after another assumes that the rest can’t all be wrong.

Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people started out knowing better, according to the economists Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If, say, 60 percent of a group’s members have been given information pointing them to the right answer (while the rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will cascade to a mistaken consensus.

Cascades are especially common in medicine as doctors take their cues from others, leading them to overdiagnose some faddish ailments (called bandwagon diseases) and overprescribe certain treatments (like the tonsillectomies once popular for children). Unable to keep up with the volume of research, doctors look for guidance from an expert — or at least someone who sounds confident.

1, ahh ahh ahhh ahhh

Forum	Shop	Market		Seeds	FAQ	Tools
SEE OUR MARIJUANA SEED GUIDE FOR THE BEST STRAINS				Looking for Legal Marijuana look no further!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
song written for 2 gurls 1 cup - for our freind of the weed song	pandabear	Music	3	09-20-2008 07:30 PM
climate "crisis"	fdd2blk	Politics	62	10-21-2007 01:11 PM
Gore Bust Offers Opportunity	Dankdude	Politics	1	07-10-2007 02:48 PM
Will Al Gore Melt?	Wavels	Politics	83	02-07-2007 08:31 PM
Al Gore	skunkushybrid	Politics	110	10-12-2006 10:16 AM

User Name		Remember Me?
Password

SEE OUR MARIJUANA SEED GUIDE FOR THE BEST STRAINS

Looking for Legal Marijuana look no further!

Thread

Thread Starter

Forum

Replies

Last Post

Posting Rules