Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
You Too CC. I hope you didn’t take my period of silence as an insult. I’ve been so busy at work and had the day off so I figured I’d try to respond.
I hope too that you don’t think I’m picking on you. When I first stumbled on this thread I noticed someone basically making the argument to another member that “Global Warming is a fraud because you and Al Gore are a couple of faggots.” It’s been my experience that someone whom has nothing insightful to offer instigates such arguments… Which is why I entered the thread stating just that, and then thereafter ignored this person’s moronically imbecilic rejoins.
I firmly believe that we [members of the forum] should at least agree we are all hemp activists… and that any disagreement on topics such as this ultimately doesn’t impair the demographic potential of our common goal. For this reason I have not chosen to debate those who accuse me of “belittling” them for stating the obvious… Or would rather pretend that I was claiming the Romans invented the aqueduct (an immensely broad term) rather than claiming they invented the Roman Aqueduct:
|
Invented? You could have just said they built the aqueduct, or look at the roman aqueduct a monumental engineering achievement. But like most things you said you just didn't know what you were talking about. Like the dark ages crap you spewed. First the dark ages is a misnomer and I would like you to prove that someone else thanks that it started around 300 bc , or that constantines successor ordered the destruction of the library of Alexandria? Best as I remember the library was decimated 4-6 times and no one knows when it was destroyed and I think it came in to being around 300bce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
A monumental engineering achievement utilized by the arch and methods of slope measurement that would leave today’s plumbers in awe,
|
Some of the best minds of the time worked on it, do you think that plumbers of today have some of the best brains?
Or do you think its the plumbers of today that are responsble for bringing water 40 miles for its use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
brought potable water from streams as much as 40 miles away, sometimes thru mountains, and allowed a level of cleanliness to facilitate a million-plus city that would not be rivaled for 2,000 years…
|
The greeks did these things [through less far for fewer] as did others and they also had the arch , before the romans. The greeks tunneled a half mile or so through a moutain around 600BCE, started from both sides and although they needed to zigzag to stay in good rock the tunnels were only 2 feet off side to side but right on level wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
Rather than just letting me refer to a well known scientific achievement as “invented the aqueduct,” this person chose to debate what clearly I did not mean.
|
Bullshit! you had no reason to refer to it in the first place, it was just a lame way to brag on what you know and showed me your lack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
With that said, I hope you understand that you should take my continued criticism / critique as a compliment rather than an attack.
|
Dito, I say the same thing. Now doesn't that make you feel good to get this compliment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
To what isle are you referring? Scientifically peer reviewed data versus partisan hackery? That’s a pretty big isle my friend, and this is why I don’t quote Al Gore (he’s not a scientist with published data.) I don’t know where you get your information, but the paper I read restricts commentary in the ‘News’ to the experts publishing data, and separates opinion to the editorial section. For example the NY-Times publishes the notably brilliant yet notably biased economic commentary of Paul Krugman [Dean of Economics at Princeton] to the editorial section (Let’s not debate if the NY-Times is liberal. It’s not the point.) The information you have presented to date, in my opinion, represents commentary as news. Given your previous admission that historical president is reason enough to demand science be “regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science” (that’s directly out of my dictionary.) I would hope you will 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. Will you admit that for me? Will you admit if the vast majority of scientist are in agreement they tend to be at least more correct than lay-people or even those who may be brilliant yet have chosen to devote their time & effort to suspiciously funded organizations with political agendas? If not could you please site one historical instance in which such an anomaly has occurred? Of course not because it doesn’t exist.
|
Is it not true that allmost 2,000 years after erastosthenes came up with how to calculate the circumference of the earth, that scientific CONSENSUS was that the earth was flat?
Now don't you feel a little silly? As well you should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
The examples sited by Michael Crichton are lame at best… The “tectonic plates…” This is just a theory of geology you know? It has now superseded the theory of “continental drift.” With just the slightest bit of critical thinking, the arguments of those you’re quoting break down and actually support the opposite. Mr. Crichton is actually asking us to assume the scientific consensus is correct over the 0.1% of geologists who disagree. Talk about fucking hypocrisy.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
You keep saying this as though I haven’t already addressed it. Many brilliant scientist believe the 911 conspiracy theories, believe in UFO abductions, believe the earth is 6,000 years old, believe in some bat-shit-insane, Cool-Aid drinkin’, spoon bending maharishi is the profit of god, etc, etc. Are you actually insinuating that scientific consensus is no more reliable than the clearly delusional yet somehow brilliant minority? (I’m going to respond exactly the same way every time you re-state the above without addressing my rejoin.)
|
So you would see Erastosthenes also as clearly delusional?
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
Say’s who? Are you suggesting that ‘Global Climatology’ has no basis as a science, and therefore should not be studied due to the fact that we only have one scale model (the earth) in which to compare our data? Are you forgetting the NASA search returned a No.2 item pertaining to Mars? Are you suggesting that published data by those same climatologists predicting the 900 degF surface temperatures created by Venus’ massive CO2 atmosphere are correct simply by accident? This conspiracy theory has more moving arguments than O.J.
|
Its not really a conspiracy as much as how things work and how the data has been collected. Take temp. data, it has collected for a long time but almost all of it has been taken from towns and citys as they got larger and the air quality went down the temps went up, while this seems simple, baselines are pulled from these past temps and not adjusted because how would you quantify the adjustment?
[quote=towlie;561046Let’s be perfectly honest. You and I are not meteorologists or climatologists. I have a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, which means nothing more than at one time I could regurgitate calculations generated by those far more brilliant than I could ever hope to be… So we are simply at the mercy of qualified scientists… and furthermore we may use historical precedence to better our chances at being correct…[/quote]
You should stay away from using history as you seem not to have the knack or knowage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
Would you please respond to this so I don’t have to keep banging out the same thing over and over again?
|
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result, is a way to define mental illness. You should seek help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
WTF? Give me a break here man… You have offered nothing scientific. The Morano article used a study, which all peers agreed was oversimplified and less accurate than the 2006 NASA study… Morano’s conclusion: “A new “peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.” Read the NASA peer review Abstract, Introduction, & Conclusion and tell me with a straight face that Morano's thesis is based on legitimate science:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
Use any of the other published reviews if you like. Morano either didn’t read the reviews or he’s being deceitful… Let’s be honest… He’s a god damn fucking liar, and this first and therefore clearly your best reference which quite grossly overstates the implication of it’s thesis reference study is nothing more than a medium of deceit.
|
I ask you to give me your best study so that I may point out the problems with it and I asure you that I can read and understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
Put yourself in my shoes. Until you provide a single study with positive peer reviews, I cannot take your argument seriously. I’ve got kids, so I’m hope your right but Jesus, how hard would it really be to provide this if you were actually correct? It will take you 30 seconds to look up my study and it’s corresponding reviews:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
|
Please cut&paste the study here for all to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
Don’t “fucking count” to you, and since when do they not test against historical data points. This is obvously the only way to test on a full model scale. It is quite obvious from the above statement that you have never read any of these studies, but rather accepted propoganda from the likes of Morano and company as fact over the science. How many times do I have to keep requesting a single scientific study before you admit you don't have one. Like all scientific theories, the intellectually honest admit that nothing is fact (just like I admit you might be right, just like the biblical creationists might be right, you just don't have scientific consensus on your side)… You’ll impress me if you post what I’ve requested now at least 5-times per post, because by now it is quite obvious that you won’t because you can’t.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
Let’s quit pretending to be qualified of making such grand conclusions… It’s insulting. And let’s quit pretending that there’s anything less than a scientific consensus tantamount to evolution or tectonic plates, etc.
|
If you would have said tantamount Darwins theories I wouldn't argue even though you would be wrong, but the truth is its tantamount to the proof of life on mars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towlie
If you can't post the science I’ve requested, let’s agree to defer to a scientific journal of your choosing & perform a key word search as a random sampling of scientific consensus. Again, I’m looking for actual science here, not news/commentary from suspiciously funded organizations or NewMax. I’m going to have to start keeping track of how many times I’ve requested some legitimate science here.
|
I for one haven't seen proof you could read it nor that you would know it if you see it.
|
03-13-2008, 10:54 AM
Linear Mode
