THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.
THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.
THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.
THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.
Zarquon's Flat Tire: About two years ago I saw my first white christmas. It was fun for a few hours, but with Atlanta's notorious lack of plows and salt trucks it just became a nuisance the next day.
iwatts: Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.
omeganuepsilon: I understand the general purpose of citations just fine, what you posted earlier was a good rule of thumb. As you yourself state it isn't always needed. Being as stubborn as you are over it this time is plain silly, and a little aggrandizing.While you're probably right about me being stubborn, the discussion we've been having is the only recourse we have about that specific claim we've been talking about, as the guy who presented it refuses to back it up. We can't have a discussion about the merits or problems of the evidence if there's no evidence, can we?
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:Your misguided attempt to look for some sort of all-or-nothing "either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do" without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place.That's a mighty fine log you have in your eye.Listen, Mr. Whistle -- you have not the tiniest bit of room to talk. In EVERY instance, your "evaluation of the quality of research" has fallen according to whether or not that research supports AGW.
GeneralJim: When I have shown you how you can prove Michael Mann has engaged in deliberate fraud for yourself, you have ignored it.
GeneralJim: Meanwhile, Miskolczi publishes a major work that shot the then current AGW theory in the heart, and which goes unchallenged for nearly five years, and it's nothing, or badly done, according to you. Really?
GeneralJim: You display the massive ignorance you enjoy in this subject -- science does not work that way. Should another Velikovsky paper be discovered, with more of his planet-slinging physics-denying crap, it would be eviscerated in no time. Bad science which claims to overturn current science in ANY field is contested with cold facts in a time frame most conveniently measured in single-digit weeks -- unless the bad science is supported by government money. But, the "official" take on climatology is upended, and there is no peer-reviewed comment for almost five years? That is the ACTUAL pattern of an "inconvenient truth."
GeneralJim: The fact that the planet is backing Miskolczi up with a stoppage of warming, impossible, according to all the warmer alarmist models, despite all the after-the-fact attempts to back-pedal by warmer alarmists. I note that NO warmer alarmist ever claimed that a more-than-a-decade "pause" in warming was either expected or possible. Rather, the patently absurd idea of "tipping points" being reached, which would cascade and accelerate "dangerous warming" was a topic of discussion.
GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate
GeneralJim: The planet is telling you to fark off, you have it wrong. And all the bluster about an "expected pause" in warming is bollocks. NOTHING was said of such a thing -- until it happened.
GeneralJim: The last fifteen years of no warming caught the warmer alarmists flat-footed, and they have countered with ever more dire, and ever more urgent warnings about the dangerous warming -- which isn't taking place.
GeneralJim: Things have gotten so surreal that the claim has been made that one of the effects of global warming is global cooling. The desperation is palpable.
HighZoolander: RedVentrue: He makes more sense than you do, and he does it more politelyDear Sir,Please accept this note with my humblest condolences for the recent passing of your critical thinking skills.Yours sincerely in grief,HighZoolander
Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: Actually, in this case, YES, the laws of physics would have to change to have changes in carbon dioxide level be a significant factor in planetary temperature.See everyone. Not only does the green-threadshiatter preach brain-dead conspiracy theories ... he actually denies the greenhouse effect. Something that is based on extremely solid science and that can be reproduced in a lab.This is how far out of whack with reality deniers are.How about you repost the paper supporting how CO2 lags warming. I always enjoyed when you trotted that one out so we could show you the quotes from the paper where it shows CO2 as a major driver of the warming brings the earth out of the ice age and the part where the author explicitly states that the results do not apply to the current warming.You posted that crap >100 times, you were slapped down every time and here you are repeating the same crap over and over again. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Your misguided attempt to look for some sort of all-or-nothing "either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do" without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place.
Wait, are you asking for a citation where he makes the claim?Isn't that kind of pointless as he explained exactly what he meant? He set up a very basic theory, gave you all the information you needed to find a few papers.Or do you mean citation for the validity of the claim?What is the claim exactly? Lets review:Lots of studies and papers consistantly re-examine physics(to include gravity) as well as evolution, as both are theories that we don't have a precise handle on one level or another. (I see that as common knowledge, if you need a cite for that you're woefully deficient)And that GW piece, which the picture was posted in this very thread, the pie chart where there is a tiny tiny amount of re-evaluation on par with that, which made up a fark thread a couple weeks back. The whole "consensus makes us right" thread.Where is there a need for citation, precisely?
Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...Well, it's up to you, but your extreme unwillingness to back up a claim you've made renders it indistinguishable from an outright lie.It's only true if someone else says it?WTFMore that it's only true if you can back it up in some way.Another way to rephrase:It can only be true if supported by facts that agree with my position.The Inquisitors used similar tactics. Just sayin'I'm also sure that, just like me, the Inquisitors wore shoes.In my opinion, when someone makes a specific claim, simply taking someone's word that they once posted information in a thread proving it sometime in the past isn't really convincing. I politely asked for the fellow to back up the claim (that he himself brought up) in some way, and he vehemently refused to do so repeatedly.What you should be asking yourself is why one (potentially including you) should accept the guy's word without a shred of evidence or critical thought.
Well, it's up to you, but your extreme unwillingness to back up a claim you've made renders it indistinguishable from an outright lie.
I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.
dready zim: RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?
THE GREAT NAME: rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.htmlAnd the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.htmlDid you even read the links you supplied?He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.Why do you waste everybody's time posting such blatant rubbish on public forums?
THE GREAT NAME: Those corporations you love to hate are all profiting from green tech, renewable energy, carbon trading etc.
Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]Trying too hard
THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?
ManRay: iwatts: Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.But fake trees are made of plastic (oil). Real Christmas trees are grown for only one purpose so "wild" trees are not depleted. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. Plus you get the benefits of the tree for the years it is growing.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 24 2017 10:46:25
Runtime: 0.375 sec (375 ms)