If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 305
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

3173 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Dec 2008 at 6:50 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



305 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-28 03:47:33 PM
FloydA: nicksteel:
Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Yeah, seems about right. I tried to open up polite discussion, and he immediately attempted to insult me, instead of responding in a rational manner. He made some claims that I can't seem to find any evidence for with a Google search (non-consensus), and he made some claims that, albeit correct, do not infer correctness or incorrectness of claim (IPCC = governmental panel =? bad/wrong/biased).

I'm of the opinion that a decent scientific discussion should include (if not start with) a prospect of falsifiability of one's claims and opinions.

Alas, I am out of time, and must leave for work.

btw, Floyd, I was amused by the gif. :)
 
2008-12-28 03:49:23 PM
mgshamster: FloydA: nicksteel:
Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.

Yeah, seems about right. I tried to open up polite discussion, and he immediately attempted to insult me, instead of responding in a rational manner. He made some claims that I can't seem to find any evidence for with a Google search (non-consensus), and he made some claims that, albeit correct, do not infer correctness or incorrectness of claim (IPCC = governmental panel =? bad/wrong/biased).

I'm of the opinion that a decent scientific discussion should include (if not start with) a prospect of falsifiability of one's claims and opinions.

Alas, I am out of time, and must leave for work.

btw, Floyd, I was amused by the gif. :)


and another tree hugger runs and hides. I answered the questions and your only response is to whine and run????
 
2008-12-28 03:50:50 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: I did not attack anybody, I counterattacked.

The cartoon was not an attempt at a discussion. Discussions require words. The cartoon was more of a comment.

nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Well, again, if you're complaining about the reaction you got, then maybe it's not a good idea to do that next time. You reap what you sow.


the reaction that I got was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.
 
2008-12-28 03:52:18 PM
nicksteel:

Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen

You mean like those "tree huggers" and "morons?" you've spoken of today?

Oh my.

There have been a few reasonably intelligent discussions even in this thread, certainly many before. Some of them even argued the points that you like.

There's a reason that you're Farkied as "ACC troll, argues just to be arguing."
 
2008-12-28 03:52:20 PM
FloydA: nicksteel:
Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


You are a perfect example of how a tree hugger reacts when the truth of your actions is pointed out to you. thanks for the help
 
2008-12-28 03:54:47 PM
maxheck: nicksteel:

Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen

You mean like those "tree huggers" and "morons?" you've spoken of today?

Oh my.

There have been a few reasonably intelligent discussions even in this thread, certainly many before. Some of them even argued the points that you like.

There's a reason that you're Farkied as "ACC troll, argues just to be arguing."


I posted one cartoon and was immediately attacked. I did not start the attacks, I just responded in kind.

Of course, YOU see me as the bad guy.
 
2008-12-28 03:58:52 PM
nicksteel:

Of course, YOU see me as the bad guy.

With clear eyes and sufficient experience...

Not a bad guy, just an idiot troll. For all I know you're good to your whelps or something.
 
2008-12-28 03:59:23 PM
nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???


nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Again, you should heed your own advice. I invoked evolution as a way of providing an example of a "scientific consensus" as opposed to an absolute consensus in the way that you understand it. If you have a problem with my definitions, then just say it. Don't lash out like a petulant child - again, heed your own advice.
 
2008-12-28 04:00:30 PM
nicksteel:

You are a perfect example of how a tree hugger reacts when the truth of your actions is pointed out to you. thanks for the help


i105.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 04:01:10 PM
maxheck: nicksteel:

Of course, YOU see me as the bad guy.

With clear eyes and sufficient experience...

Not a bad guy, just an idiot troll. For all I know you're good to your whelps or something.


So, if I counterattack, I am a bad guy. If you call me names, it is okay??

Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

I think there is.
 
2008-12-28 04:03:47 PM
nicksteel:
the reaction that I got was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.


Damnhippyfreak: You reap what you sow.


Hey, if you don't mind getting flamed in these threads, then by all means, that's your right. But if you're going to whine about how you're treated, then don't make the first thing you say in a thread a "completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived" cartoon. If that's what you bring to a thread, then that's what you get in return. Don't be surprised.
 
2008-12-28 04:07:07 PM
nicksteel: Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

If you repost it or clarify exactly what point you made (it's a bit cluttered in here), I'll take a stab at it.
 
2008-12-28 04:07:34 PM
nicksteel:

So, if I counterattack, I am a bad guy.

Counter-counter attack? I do believe you came in here with your little guns a-blazing. You received in kind.

Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

What's the specific question ????
 
2008-12-28 04:09:18 PM
nicksteel:
Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

I think there is.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 04:10:35 PM
maxheck: nicksteel:

So, if I counterattack, I am a bad guy.

Counter-counter attack? I do believe you came in here with your little guns a-blazing. You received in kind.

Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

What's the specific question ????


I posted a cartoon. How is that guns ablazing??
 
2008-12-28 04:11:53 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

If you repost it or clarify exactly what point you made (it's a bit cluttered in here), I'll take a stab at it.


It's not that cluttered, scroll down the screen and you will see it.
 
2008-12-28 04:13:18 PM
FloydA: nicksteel:
Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

I think there is.


See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.
 
2008-12-28 04:14:28 PM
nicksteel:

I posted a cartoon. How is that guns ablazing??

My apologies. What exactly was the statement you were making with your "comment" cartoon again?

How exactly did I say you were a bad guy again?
 
2008-12-28 04:15:01 PM
nicksteel: It's not that cluttered, scroll down the screen and you will see it.

nicksteel: the strange thing about their first report is that they addressed warming at least 38 times and only used cold and cool to address the fact that there would be less cold or cool temperature days.

nicksteel: The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.



There's a couple of things you said. Is it one of these ones, or both, or one that I missed?
 
2008-12-28 04:15:25 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel:
the reaction that I got was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.

Damnhippyfreak: You reap what you sow.


Hey, if you don't mind getting flamed in these threads, then by all means, that's your right. But if you're going to whine about how you're treated, then don't make the first thing you say in a thread a "completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived" cartoon. If that's what you bring to a thread, then that's what you get in return. Don't be surprised.


You seem to be confused. My Boobies was a cartoon. The Weeners to that cartoon was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.
 
2008-12-28 04:16:28 PM
Allow me to summarize this thread for those of you who've just joined us....

nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:


/is that you Tatsuma?
 
2008-12-28 04:16:37 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: It's not that cluttered, scroll down the screen and you will see it.



nicksteel: The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.


There's a couple of things you said. Is it one of these ones, or both, or one that I missed?


try these.
 
2008-12-28 04:16:43 PM
nicksteel: FloydA: nicksteel:
Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

I think there is.

See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 04:16:47 PM
nicksteel: See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.

nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???



You really need to be less of a hypocrite in these threads. Come on now. Grow up.
 
2008-12-28 04:19:24 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.

nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???


You really need to be less of a hypocrite in these threads. Come on now. Grow up.


It was a serious question. Your attempt to defend yourself can only be explained by a serious drug addiction.
 
2008-12-28 04:24:48 PM
nicksteel:

It was a serious question. Your attempt to defend yourself can only be explained by a serious drug addiction.

If you have ever had a serious question in your life, I have yet to see it here on Fark.

I'm still saddened by how long a certain other Farker fed you in going 'round and 'round about the meaning of the word "control."

Shades of Bill Clinton.

If you have a question that you can state without going off on tangents, then ask it.
 
2008-12-28 04:25:01 PM
nicksteel: You seem to be confused. My Boobies was a cartoon. The Weeners to that cartoon was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.

I think you really misread the response you got. Let's trace it back and hopefully this will clear up. You start off with this cartoon:

www.ibdeditorial.com

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Thanks to nicksteel for providing further proof that the only thing global warming "skeptics" are skeptical about is the value of a proper education.

nicksteel: your statement makes no sense at all. You are claiming that I do not value education because I do not believe in your religion. All you have done is point out your own bias and closed minded attitude.

You also do not understand that I value a sense of humor.



I think what LouDobbsAwaaaay was getting at is that the cartoon demonstrates a lack of knowledge between the idea of weather and climate, something so basic as to cast doubt on the quality of the person's education, and by extension, on the knowledge of who posted it.

I can't stress enough that you get back what you put out in these threads. If the first thing you post in a thread demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance, you probably shouldn't act all butthurt when someone calls you on it. You should really grow a thicker skin, for all the name-calling you yourself do in the threads.
 
2008-12-28 04:25:29 PM
maxheck: nicksteel:

I posted a cartoon. How is that guns ablazing??

My apologies. What exactly was the statement you were making with your "comment" cartoon again?

How exactly did I say you were a bad guy again?


It was just a funny cartoon that was 100% on topic.

You continue to call me a troll simply because I defend myself. That, in my opinion, is calling me the bad guy. It is obvious that you came in to the middle of this attack without reading my original posts or you would have known that my Boobies was a cartoon. You start attacking me without reading my posts, that would make you a troll.
 
2008-12-28 04:28:11 PM
nicksteel: It was a serious question. Your attempt to defend yourself can only be explained by a serious drug addiction.

nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Again, you really need to stop bashing yourself like this. And you still haven't responded to my argument at all about the definition of a 'scientific consensus'.
 
2008-12-28 04:29:29 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: You seem to be confused. My Boobies was a cartoon. The Weeners to that cartoon was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.

I think you really misread the response you got. Let's trace it back and hopefully this will clear up. You start off with this cartoon:



LouDobbsAwaaaay: Thanks to nicksteel for providing further proof that the only thing global warming "skeptics" are skeptical about is the value of a proper education.

nicksteel: your statement makes no sense at all. You are claiming that I do not value education because I do not believe in your religion. All you have done is point out your own bias and closed minded attitude.

You also do not understand that I value a sense of humor.


I think what LouDobbsAwaaaay was getting at is that the cartoon demonstrates a lack of knowledge between the idea of weather and climate, something so basic as to cast doubt on the quality of the person's education, and by extension, on the knowledge of who posted it.

I can't stress enough that you get back what you put out in these threads. If the first thing you post in a thread demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance, you probably shouldn't act all butthurt when someone calls you on it. You should really grow a thicker skin, for all the name-calling you yourself do in the threads.


Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.
 
2008-12-28 04:33:14 PM
nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.



And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.
 
2008-12-28 04:34:32 PM
By the author's method of determining global cooling, we've had a heck of a lot of it over the last 40 years:
i277.photobucket.com

Yet...
i277.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 04:36:31 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: It was a serious question. Your attempt to defend yourself can only be explained by a serious drug addiction.

nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Again, you really need to stop bashing yourself like this. And you still haven't responded to my argument at all about the definition of a 'scientific consensus'.


Your argument about a scientific consensus was, as I pointed out before, pathetic. You try to explain that a scientific consensus is not as stringent as a consensus and then go on to explain that your scientific consensus has overwhelming support, thus being a consensus.

Then you tried to climb out from under than blunder by stating that some of the scientists at those scientific centers probably did not agree with the rest, thus no longer a consensus, buy a scientific consensus.

It sounds stupid when I try to explain it and I see no reason to discuss it.


What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position. My "attack" on you was based on some rather stupid comments and explantions on your part. To be honest, your posts and your attempts to explain yourself remind me of a guy at college who was burnt out on drugs. You call yourself a hippie, so the use of drugs is implied in your name.
 
2008-12-28 04:38:20 PM
nicksteel: What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position.

By the way, what is your official position now? What all, exactly, do you disagree with? And quite a few people are also attacking your arguments because they don't hold water.
 
2008-12-28 04:41:59 PM
trofl: By the author's method of determining global cooling, we've had a heck of a lot of it over the last 40 years:


Yet...


He was only addressing the last year, yes, fallacious to base climate change on one year's worth of data.trofl: nicksteel: What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position.

By the way, what is your official position now? What all, exactly, do you disagree with? And quite a few people are also attacking your arguments because they don't hold water.


not one person in this thread has attacked my arguments. They just attack me.
 
2008-12-28 04:42:10 PM
FloydA:

i105.photobucket.com

Commie
 
2008-12-28 04:43:48 PM
trofl: By the author's method of determining global cooling, we've had a heck of a lot of it over the last 40 years:


Yet...


he was just referring to events this year. I agree that basing his decision solely on the weather over the past year is not correct, but he also mentions that several agencies and groups have reversed their earlier opinion on the subject.
 
2008-12-28 04:45:16 PM
nicksteel: What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position. My "attack" on you was based on some rather stupid comments and explantions on your part. To be honest, your posts and your attempts to explain yourself remind me of a guy at college who was burnt out on drugs. You call yourself a hippie, so the use of drugs is implied in your name.

nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Again, grow up. Or at the very least, stop being such a hypocrite.

There's two arguments currently on the table that you have not or cannot respond to. You haven't addressed my argument about the definition of a 'scientific consensus'. And I asked you a direct question about your opinion on the IPCC so I can address it.

If you continue to not address these ideas, and keep on throwing a childish temper tantrum, I'll have to assume you, as your own statement indicates, "does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently".
 
2008-12-28 04:45:45 PM
img352.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-28 04:46:06 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.


the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.
 
2008-12-28 04:48:15 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position. My "attack" on you was based on some rather stupid comments and explantions on your part. To be honest, your posts and your attempts to explain yourself remind me of a guy at college who was burnt out on drugs. You call yourself a hippie, so the use of drugs is implied in your name.

nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Again, grow up. Or at the very least, stop being such a hypocrite.

There's two arguments currently on the table that you have not or cannot respond to. You haven't addressed my argument about the definition of a 'scientific consensus'. And I asked you a direct question about your opinion on the IPCC so I can address it.

If you continue to not address these ideas, and keep on throwing a childish temper tantrum, I'll have to assume you, as your own statement indicates, "does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently".


I have addressed your statement about consensus. If you want an intelligent discussion on the subject, start with an intelligent statement.

I gave you my impression of the IPCC report - twice.
 
2008-12-28 04:48:16 PM
nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.

the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.



Then for chrissakes shut up about it already if you're not whining. Get over it!
 
2008-12-28 04:49:01 PM
nicksteel: the cartoon was not stupid

nicksteel: I agree that basing his decision solely on the weather over the past year is not correct

Wait, what?
 
2008-12-28 04:50:56 PM
Otto_E_Rodika

Off by about a factor of 10 there, buddy.
 
2008-12-28 04:51:27 PM
trofl: nicksteel: the cartoon was not stupid

nicksteel: I agree that basing his decision solely on the weather over the past year is not correct

Wait, what?


The cartoon showed the typical response of people who know nothing about climate change. That made it funny, just like stating that one year's worth of temperature data proves that global warming is dead.
 
2008-12-28 04:52:35 PM
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.

the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.


Then for chrissakes shut up about it already if you're not whining. Get over it!


uh, you are the one who is not getting over it.


light one up for me!!!
 
2008-12-28 04:57:11 PM
nicksteel:

not one person in this thread has attacked my arguments. They just attack me.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 04:57:12 PM
onfinite.com
 
2008-12-28 05:00:20 PM
nicksteel:
I have addressed your statement about consensus. If you want an intelligent discussion on the subject, start with an intelligent statement.

I gave you my impression of the IPCC report - twice.



Alright. At least we got you back on topic. I'll reiterate my argument on 'scientific consensus' first, then get to the IPCC. You started off with this, and I attempted to explain why a 'scientific consensus' differs from what you're talking about, a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.

nicksteel: I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????

Damnhippyfreak: I think you may be mistaking what people mean when they talk about 'scientific consensus' vs simply 'consensus'. An absolute consensus is of course impossible for anything, even for the most basic of scientific knowledge. What people call a 'scientific consensus' is a bit more broad. I think of it more as a general agreement as the basics. There's no clear line, but when you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board (new window), it gives a pretty clear indicator that there is a 'scientific consensus'.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.


Damnhippyfreak: As for the part above in bold, I think you've missed the point. There is doubtlessly people in those organizations who do not agree with the statements their organizations have put out. What this illustrates is again, a consensus on a broad scale, but not an individual one. If you still don't understand, I can try to word it differently.

If you want another example, one can talk about evolution. There are scientists who do not accept it's basic principles. But evolution's wide base of support means there is again a 'scientific consensus', not a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.


nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???


You really haven't addressed my argument or definitions at all here. Again, there is a difference between 'scientific consensus' and 'consensus' in an absolute sense (much in the same way that 'scientific theory' differs from 'theory'). The first is an indicator of the vast majority of scientific opinion, and the latter means that every individual agrees with an opinion. The first can be better understood on a collective level, while the latter on an individual matter. Hopefully that's more clear.
 
2008-12-28 05:03:39 PM
nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.

the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.


nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.

the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.


Then for chrissakes shut up about it already if you're not whining. Get over it!

uh, you are the one who is not getting over it.


light one up for me!!!


Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel:
I have addressed your statement about consensus. If you want an intelligent discussion on the subject, start with an intelligent statement.

I gave you my impression of the IPCC report - twice.


Alright. At least we got you back on topic. I'll reiterate my argument on 'scientific consensus' first, then get to the IPCC. You started off with this, and I attempted to explain why a 'scientific consensus' differs from what you're talking about, a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.

nicksteel: I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????

Damnhippyfreak: I think you may be mistaking what people mean when they talk about 'scientific consensus' vs simply 'consensus'. An absolute consensus is of course impossible for anything, even for the most basic of scientific knowledge. What people call a 'scientific consensus' is a bit more broad. I think of it more as a general agreement as the basics. There's no clear line, but when you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board (new window), it gives a pretty clear indicator that there is a 'scientific consensus'.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

Damnhippyfreak: As for the part above in bold, I think you've missed the point. There is doubtlessly people in those organizations who do not agree with the statements their organizations have put out. What this illustrates is again, a consensus on a broad scale, but not an individual one. If you still don't understand, I can try to word it differently.

If you want another example, one can talk about evolution. There are scientists who do not accept it's basic principles. But evolution's wide base of support means there is again a 'scientific consensus', not a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.

nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???

You really haven't addressed my argument or definitions at all here. Again, there is a difference between 'scientific consensus' and 'consensus' in an absolute sense (much in the same way that 'scientific theory' differs from 'theory'). The first is an indicator of the vast majority of scientific opinion, and the latter means that every individual agrees with an opinion. The first can be better understood on a collective level, while the latter on an individual matter. Hopefully that's more clear.


your initial argument was a mess.

So do you have 51% on your side?? 60%?
 
Displayed 50 of 305 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report