Shady Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Dissent is fine. Refusal to accept any facts whatsoever, just because one doesn't like the people stating them is a problem of ego. I agree. But having an ego problem shouldn't be made against the rules or against the law. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 I agree. But having an ego problem shouldn't be made against the rules or against the law. No, but people should be able to detect it and immediately exclude you from the debate. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
dre Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 No, but people should be able to detect it and immediately exclude you from the debate. Thats already been done by most people for all intents and purposes. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 ah yes... the simpering/whimpering, posturing with a false civility, while failing to recognize and acknowledge their own incessant attacks... false civility. no problem attack dog! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 18, 2011 Author Report Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) I see Waldo has had a flurry of posts. The interesting thing about what I refer to as Alarmists (Waldo and his Ilk) is that they will only accept one possibility - that humans/CO2 are the major cause of any warming. They refuse to even consider that CO2 could be anything less than the major cause. They deny the possibility. Edited January 18, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 false civility. no problem attack dog! Waldo IS overly bombastic sometimes but to be fair hes often dealing with people that cant muster the sort of basic logic taught to children in grade 3. The "Its cold outside! AGW must be a hoax!" crowd. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
waldo Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 I see Waldo has had a flurry of posts. The interesting thing about what I refer to as Alarmists (Waldo and his Ilk) is that they will only accept one possibility - that humans/CO2 are the major cause of any warming. They refuse to even consider that CO2 could be anything less than the major cause. They deny the possibility. well, oh Simple one... what you and, as you say, "your ilk" refuse to consider, is that positions have been formed based on the founded premise that CO2 is the major cause of anthropogenic warming, as supported by the overwhelming evidence "your ilk" refuses to accept. You deny what's more than a possibility - you deny this overwhelming evidence for CO2, while failing to provide any other substantive alternatives. In fact... you deny your denial! Quote
Shady Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 No, but people should be able to detect it and immediately exclude you from the debate. It's not your decision as to whether somebody is excluded from a debate. Sounds like more silencing of dissent. You really have a problem with a free exchange of ideas don't you? Perhaps a closet totalitarianist? Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) It's not your decision as to whether somebody is excluded from a debate. Of course it is if he's the one responding. Edited January 18, 2011 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 It's not your decision as to whether somebody is excluded from a debate. Sounds like more silencing of dissent. You really have a problem with a free exchange of ideas don't you? Perhaps a closet totalitarianist? It's kind of a group decision. No, I love intelligent and well-reasoned opinions that disagree with mine. People who argue out of ego, or to be obtuse aren't good to discuss with. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bloodyminded Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) It's not your decision as to whether somebody is excluded from a debate. Sounds like more silencing of dissent. You really have a problem with a free exchange of ideas don't you? Perhaps a closet totalitarianist? You misread him. He means that the people with whom you are debating (I mean "you" in the general sense, not the personal one) can make the decision to exclude you from the debate...by not taking you seriously, or by not responding. That's not "silencing dissent," but personal choice. For example, M. Dancer has me on "ignore." That doesn't mean he's "silencing" me! Edited January 18, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shady Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 It's kind of a group decision. It's more of an individual decision each person has to make for themselves. People who argue out of ego, or to be obtuse aren't good to discuss with. You shouldn't be assigning motives to people's arguments. But let's assume you're correct. Yes, they aren't good to discuss with. That doesn't mean they should be prohibited from expressing their opinions. I've heard you mention that quite a lot in your posts. In fact, I believe it was you that said if you had the power, you'd shut Glenn Beck down completely. That kind of attitude is fairly scary. We don't need people like you decided for the rest of us which opinions should be allowed to be expressed, and which one's shouldn't. You misread him. He means that the people with whom you are debating (I mean "you" in the general sense, not the personal one) can make the decision to exlcude you from the debate...by not taking you seriously, or not responding. That's not "silencing dissent," but personal choice. For example, M. Dancer has me on "ignore." That doesn't mean he's "silencing" me! No, I didn't misread him. He specifically stated that a certain opinion should no longer be posted. That's much different than ignorning someone. In Michael's world, it seems you either think similar to him, or you're being "stubborn" as he put it. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 No, I didn't misread him. He specifically stated that a certain opinion should no longer be posted. If that's what he meant, than I disagree. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 You shouldn't be assigning motives to people's arguments. But let's assume you're correct. Yes, they aren't good to discuss with. That doesn't mean they should be prohibited from expressing their opinions. I've heard you mention that quite a lot in your posts. In fact, I believe it was you that said if you had the power, you'd shut Glenn Beck down completely. That kind of attitude is fairly scary. We don't need people like you decided for the rest of us which opinions should be allowed to be expressed, and which one's shouldn't. Nobody can prohibit people from expressing their opinions, and I haven't said that either. Yes, if I had the power I might do something that is completely wrong. Luckily I don't have that power. You're right that I shouldn't decide what should be allowed or not. It is, though, proper and normal for people to not listen to people who argue out of a personality flaw such as incurable stubbornness, arguing to feed your ego, etc. Your contribution to the group is negligible in those cases, and you won't need me to shut down those people... they won't be listened to. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
WIP Posted January 18, 2011 Report Posted January 18, 2011 I see Waldo has had a flurry of posts. The interesting thing about what I refer to as Alarmists (Waldo and his Ilk) is that they will only accept one possibility - that humans/CO2 are the major cause of any warming. They refuse to even consider that CO2 could be anything less than the major cause. They deny the possibility. Well, since I am of his ilk, there is a reason why we can't accept an argument that AGW is a debate point...because it isn't. You can argue about how to deal with the effects of global warming (this is the direction most of your skeptic sources are going in now) but the basic science is not subject to debate. For example, this point about evidence from carbon chemistry has probably been posted a zillion times so far, but here we go again: How does this help in determining the source of CO2 increase? The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in atmospheric CO2 is larger than the ratio in fossil fuel. If atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to burning fossil fuels, then the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 should be decreasing. And that is exactly what is happening. In the graph below (Figure 2.3( in Chapter 2 [PDF] of the IPCC report), the black line shows increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the red line shows the decreasing ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12. (The red scale is reversed, so the line goes up as the ratio declines.) http://green.yahoo.com/blog/climate411/134/how-we-know-humans-cause-global-warming-part-2-of-5-chemistry.html Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Pliny Posted January 19, 2011 Report Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Well, since I am of his ilk, there is a reason why we can't accept an argument that AGW is a debate point...because it isn't. You can argue about how to deal with the effects of global warming (this is the direction most of your skeptic sources are going in now) but the basic science is not subject to debate. For example, this point about evidence from carbon chemistry has probably been posted a zillion times so far, but here we go again: How does this help in determining the source of CO2 increase? The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in atmospheric CO2 is larger than the ratio in fossil fuel. If atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to burning fossil fuels, then the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 should be decreasing. And that is exactly what is happening. In the graph below (Figure 2.3( in Chapter 2 [PDF] of the IPCC report), the black line shows increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the red line shows the decreasing ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12. (The red scale is reversed, so the line goes up as the ratio declines.) http://green.yahoo.com/blog/climate411/134/how-we-know-humans-cause-global-warming-part-2-of-5-chemistry.html Note* The graphs used in the example were taken from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. There is no mention of compensation for any volcanic activity that may have occured in the area. Why would they use Mauna Loa? Convenience? A true representation of global CO2 emissions? If the whole scenario were that scary why wouldn't they be a little more honest with the numbers, taking an average. They also scale the graphs so they appear to have steep changes. If there were a scale of -10 to +10 the change in temperature would look very minimal and not scary enough. Edited January 19, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
WIP Posted January 19, 2011 Report Posted January 19, 2011 Note* The graphs used in the example were taken from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. There is no mention of compensation for any volcanic activity that may have occured in the area. Why would they use Mauna Loa? Convenience? A true representation of global CO2 emissions? If the whole scenario were that scary why wouldn't they be a little more honest with the numbers, taking an average. They also scale the graphs so they appear to have steep changes. If there were a scale of -10 to +10 the change in temperature would look very minimal and not scary enough. It doesn't really matter, because carbon dioxide from a volcano will have a different isotopic signature than carbon coming from fossil fuels. The atmospheric carbon isotopic composition is changing, and this change matches the isotopic signature that would be expected if the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
waldo Posted January 20, 2011 Report Posted January 20, 2011 I see Waldo has had a flurry of posts. The interesting thing about what I refer to as Alarmists (Waldo and his Ilk) is that they will only accept one possibility - that humans/CO2 are the major cause of any warming. They refuse to even consider that CO2 could be anything less than the major cause. They deny the possibility. well, oh Simple one... what you and, as you say, "your ilk" refuse to consider, is that positions have been formed based on the founded premise that CO2 is the major cause of anthropogenic warming, as supported by the overwhelming evidence "your ilk" refuses to accept. You deny what's more than a possibility - you deny this overwhelming evidence for CO2, while failing to provide any other substantive alternatives. In fact... you deny your denial! Well, since I am of his ilk, there is a reason why we can't accept an argument that AGW is a debate point...because it isn't. You can argue about how to deal with the effects of global warming (this is the direction most of your skeptic sources are going in now) but the basic science is not subject to debate. For example, this point about evidence from carbon chemistry has probably been posted a zillion times so far, but here we go again: How does this help in determining the source of CO2 increase? The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in atmospheric CO2 is larger than the ratio in fossil fuel. If atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to burning fossil fuels, then the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 should be decreasing. And that is exactly what is happening. In the graph below (Figure 2.3(-B-) in Chapter 2 [PDF] of the IPCC report), the black line shows increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the red line shows the decreasing ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12. (The red scale is reversed, so the line goes up as the ratio declines.) http://green.yahoo.com/blog/climate411/134/how-we-know-humans-cause-global-warming-part-2-of-5-chemistry.html Note* The graphs used in the example were taken from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. There is no mention of compensation for any volcanic activity that may have occured in the area. Why would they use Mauna Loa? Convenience? A true representation of global CO2 emissions? watch it, Pliny... danger, danger! Given your absolute failed MLW history related to CO2 discussion, I thought you would have tread more cautiously! There is no challenge to the veracity/integrity of the world-wide (~100 locations) CO2 measurement 'network' - none whatsoever! As for the particulars of the Mauna Loa location: How do scientists know that Mauna Loa's volcanic emissions don't affect the carbon dioxide data collected there? of course, the history/results/legacy of Mauna Loa reflects upon one of the scientific giants, Charles Keeling... the NYT recently ran a lengthy tribute article... and an earlier BBC anniversary related article: If the whole scenario were that scary why wouldn't they be a little more honest with the numbers, taking an average. They also scale the graphs so they appear to have steep changes. If there were a scale of -10 to +10 the change in temperature would look very minimal and not scary enough. average Pliny? Really? As for the scale... Pliny... are you suggesting you'd like to, "hide the incline"? Oh my! Quote
Pliny Posted January 20, 2011 Report Posted January 20, 2011 It doesn't really matter, because carbon dioxide from a volcano will have a different isotopic signature than carbon coming from fossil fuels. Wrong. The burning of a volcano or burning of fossil fuels will both have a similar isotopic signature. The atmospheric carbon isotopic composition is changing, and this change matches the isotopic signature that would be expected if the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. The atmospheric isotopic composition of carbon may be changing from past millenia but readings from a single Volcanic area doesn't offer up an honest example. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
waldo Posted January 20, 2011 Report Posted January 20, 2011 ... but readings from a single Volcanic area doesn't offer up an honest example. honest? Oh please, Pliny... please... dare to challenge the world-wide CO2 measurement 'network'... dare to challenge the Mauna Loa location. Go for it! Please, please... bring back Mr. Wizard!!! watch it, Pliny... danger, danger! Given your absolute failed MLW history related to CO2 discussion, I thought you would have tread more cautiously! There is no challenge to the veracity/integrity of the world-wide (~100 locations) CO2 measurement 'network' - none whatsoever! As for the particulars of the Mauna Loa location: How do scientists know that Mauna Loa's volcanic emissions don't affect the carbon dioxide data collected there? Quote
Pliny Posted January 20, 2011 Report Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) [/indent][/indent] watch it, Pliny... danger, danger! Given your absolute failed MLW history related to CO2 discussion, I thought you would have tread more cautiously! There is no challenge to the veracity/integrity of the world-wide (~100 locations) CO2 measurement 'network' - none whatsoever! As for the particulars of the Mauna Loa location: How do scientists know that Mauna Loa's volcanic emissions don't affect the carbon dioxide data collected there? Absolutely failed? Another of your obfuscatory pipe dreams. Is the isotopic signature of volcanic activity not similar to the burning of fossil fuels? Why would they use a location as an example and have to eliminate or modify the results of readings by a mathematical formula? Why not use a different location? I'm certain there are a few isolated islands in the Pacific. Perhaps the Aleutian islands that would not require any mathematical recalibrations. It smells, bob. the history/results/legacy of Mauna Loa reflects upon one of the scientific giants, Charles Keeling... the NYT recently ran a lengthy tribute article... and an earlier BBC anniversary related article: average Pliny? Really? As for the scale... Pliny... are you suggesting you'd like to, "hide the incline"? Oh my! No. I would like it to be scaled properly and not to the benefit of creating alarmism. Edited January 20, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
waldo Posted January 20, 2011 Report Posted January 20, 2011 learn how to use freaking block quotes - hey, Pliny? It's bad enough you have to have your idiocy associated to yourself... no need to falsely position your thoughts within your attribution of my quote! But... like I said: honest? Oh please, Pliny... please... dare to challenge the world-wide CO2 measurement 'network'... dare to challenge the Mauna Loa location. Go for it! Please, please... bring back Mr. Wizard!!! As for the scale... Pliny... are you suggesting you'd like to, "hide the incline"? Oh my!No. I would like it to be scaled properly and not to the benefit of creating alarmism. the scales are fine, lil' buddy... you just don't like the presentation... why do you want to 'hide the incline', Pliny? perhaps this pic of decreasing ice extent is more to your (and Simple's favour)... it certainly lines up with the past MLW "it's cooling" idiocy - hey, Pliny? Hey now, Pliny - with this one, you'd be "hiding the decline"!!! Quote
Shady Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 learn how to use freaking block quotes Oh the humanity! Not proper block quotes! I guess waldo's run out of alarmist blogs to link to, and people's quoting style is all he has left. Exit question to the rest of the forum. How long before waldo goes "Loughner" on all us evil deniers? Quote
waldo Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 oh ShadyOne... and you were doing so well... fresh from the cooler, your humbled self gave the impression of posting like a semi-literate... as opposed to your typical knuckle-dragging self. It's a shame to see you so emboldened as to return to your former ShadyPostingWays. BTW, do you actually have anything of substance to add... or are you just spoiling for a lil' attention - hey? Quote
lukin Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) learn how to use freaking block quotes - hey, What a clown. Waldo, we'd all know how to use "freaking block quotes" if we spent 22 hours a day at the computer like you do. Get a job...better yet.........get a life. Here is a great video exposing the BBC's biased reporting on global warming. http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/257376/video-bbcs-biased-reporting-global-warming-greg-pollowitz Here is an article on declining sea levels. http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/2010-sea-level-largest-drop-ever-recorded/ Europe's flawed carbon credits. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jan/17/europe-carbon-credits Carbon from the deeps. http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/carbon-deeps Warm weather brings prosperity. http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/14/new-esper-study-confirms-warm-periods-lead-to-prosperity-cold-periods-to-death-and-misery-climate-extremes-were-greater-in-the-past/ The art of global warming propaganda. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/scientists_challenged_to_becom.html Alarmists like waldo are getting desperate. Have another stimulating day of sitting at your computer copying and pasting waldo. You've been defeated. Edited January 21, 2011 by lukin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.