cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Yet that is EXACTLY what you did in the post that I was replying to. I don't hold the views you claimed and I made it very clear what my views are. Yet in your case you refuse to answer the question: was I right or wrong in my assumption that you believe that developing countries should be given a free pass on emissions?I'm not answering your question because it's completely irrelevant. I didn't make up views for you. I simply contrasted your own statements with the fact that 85% of scientists believe climate change is a problem. I can repeat this all day if you would like, but you're not squirming away from that point that you seem to refuse to reconcile with your opinionated rambling about climate change not being a problem.I believe very much in scientific observations. The trouble is you won't find any that support the claim that CO2 is a clear and present danger. That claim requires computer models which are hypotheses - NOT observations.You know what we do find though? 85% of scientists saying that climate change is a problem.This is another example of the 'bait and switch' tactic used by alarmists. You want to argue that since we have observed warming that means the climate models must also be correct. But observe warming does nothing but show the climate models could be correct.I want to argue what?I'm not arguing anything. Once again, I'm just putting your statements up against the fact that 85% of scientists believe that climate change is a problem. Every single time you say it's not a problem, allude to it not being a problem, shrug it off as no big deal, write that nothing should be or can be done about it, I'm going to continue to remind you that 85% of scientists say that it is indeed a problem. Frankly, it doesn't matter at all whether or not TimG of Whocaresville, Canada believes its a problem or not. When 85% of scientists are in agreement that it is a problem, it's pretty safe to say that there is a scientifically recognized problem that should probably be addressed. I'll just keep reminding you every time you say or imply that it shouldn't be addressed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Uh... science can't ever prove a theory. It builds up evidence to support it, such that the preponderance of data makes it highly unlikely that the negative of the theory is true. However, nothing is ever proven as absolute. Science is simply a tool for explaining natural phenomena. Actually science is a broad term that includes scientific research. You are starting to attack distort what has already been accepted here. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Once again, I'm just putting your statements up against the fact that 85% of scientists believe that climate change is a problem. Every single time you say it's not a problem, allude to it not being a problem, shrug it off as no big deal, write that nothing should be or can be done about it, I'm going to continue to remind you that 85% of scientists say that it is indeed a problem.Yet the same survey says that 59% of scientists believe is not a serious problem which is more or less in line with my views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 So when you have a better explanation for global climate change than the one offered by scientists, perhaps you will be taken seriously as a denier. As it stands, all of the deniers' explanations are less adequate (if not wholly inadequate in some cases) than the existing ones. I take offense to being called a "denier" When you use this word to address me it is insulting and dehumanizing and I am kindly asking you to stop using such terminology when addressing me. If you continue to do so then I will report you! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 You have no idea how NSERC works and therefore are taking a completely uninformed position on it. You're claiming NSERC is bias, but you really have no idea whatsoever who they are or how they operate. This is the problem with the internet as mode of communication in a postmodern era. People believe all opinions are valid. After you first mentioned it I did a quick search and found it was a branch of the government. Are you saying that it is completely independent of the government? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Yet the same survey says that 59% of scientists believe is not a serious problem which is more or less in line with my views. No. It does not show that. Someone that thinks something is a moderate problem does not think that something is "not a problem," no matter how you try to interpret it. Now you're pretending to be illiterate. Edited October 2, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html#l6POpZU0lStm6R5A.99 you're a dishonest cherry picker tim typical of the denierworld...so here's you a non scientist claiming intellectual superiority over 97% of the experts in their field of study, eew the arrogance...maybe when wwwtt seeks cardiac advice he should consult you with as well as a podiatrist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I take offense to being called a "denier" When you use this word to address me it is insulting and dehumanizing and I am kindly asking you to stop using such terminology when addressing me. If you continue to do so then I will report you! WWWTT Oh grow up. You deny that climate change is a problem, which makes you a denier. Report away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 After you first mentioned it I did a quick search and found it was a branch of the government. Are you saying that it is completely independent of the government? WWWTT Their decisions, processes, and operations are entirely independent of the government. Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 you're a dishonest cherry picker tim typical of the denierworld...so here's you a non scientist claiming intellectual superiority over 97% of the experts in their field of study, eew the arrogance...maybe when wwwtt seeks cardiac advice he should consult you with as well as a podiatrist... Tim's that customer that brings his car to the garage and tells his mechanic how to fix it. Then hires a contractor to put a roof on his house and tells him how to properly put shingles on. Then brings his wife to the gynaecologist and tells the doctor how to take care of his wife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Whao buddy you think I'm going to let a broad swipe statement like that go unnoticed!?!?! You seem to have let the many times I have shown your claims to be wrong to go unnoticed - such as when I showed that your claim that more CO2 just leads to more photosynthesis, despite not understanding the basic biology of limiting factors, and how CO2 is even close to a limiting factor. You just Gish galloped to your next nonsense claim. Just because science can not prove gravity does not mean that all science is based on Earth-Wind-Fire-Water!Can science prove flight and lift? Yes it can(physics) But thanks for pointing out that science is limited and should not be always taken as some unquestionable word. You fail to understand the most basic points about science, yet despite having an understanding that is surpassed by most 3rd graders, you possess a level of arrogance that can only come with complete and total ignorance. Scientific theories can NEVER be proven. A single experiment can disprove a theory, but no amount of experiments can prove a scientific theory. This is the most basic day one stuff. No scientific experiment has disproven climate change, so far they have just added weight to the theory by failing to disprove it (and I sure hope to hell I don't have to explain here that theories don't turn into laws when they are proven, or other similar nonsense spouted by people who possess negative knowledge about science). This is called falsifiability. And no one here has ever said that any science should never be questioned. What people have said is that if you wish to claim that an established scientific theory is wrong you should 1) actually know what you are talking about (you don't have a clue) and you should apply skepticism to your own claims which go against established scientific theory such as asking yourself why you came to a different result, or why you think that everyone else missed it, or what gaps in your own knowledge may lead to have come a conclusion that is wrong, before you throw out a pile of ridiculous nonsense. As Dara O'Briain says: Just because science doesn't know everything, doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy-tale most appeals to you. The theory of climate change (and evolution, and gravity) will of course be updated by new evidence as it comes in. However, your opinions will still be completely wrong because they make no sense and contradict known knowledge. The theory of evolution is not 100% correct, but creationists are still 100% wrong. The theory of climate change is not 100%, but the views you have expressed here are 100% wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Yet the same survey says that 59% of scientists believe is not a serious problem which is more or less in line with my views. This is true if you determine that "moderately dangerous" equals "not a serious problem." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Oh grow up. You deny that climate change is a problem, which makes you a denier. Report away. No,how bout you grow up and realize that maybe,just maybe some people find insult and are degraded when being called names buddy! You somehow think you are above the rules that we must all conform to? I kindly asked you before,please do not call me names that I find degrading! It was never up to you to decide what names you can and can not call anyone! If you have a problem understanding the rules around here then re read them until you understand! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) No. It does not show that. Someone that thinks something is a moderate problem does not think that something is "not a problem," no matter how you try to interpret it. Now you're pretending to be illiterate. it also does not address their individual expertise, what does geologist know of the problems associated with excess heat/crop failure? or coral reef dying due to climate change...a survey like that is at best an indicator of the awareness of non-climatologists to any problems... I've a brother-in-law who was senior geologist with Exxon in Calgary before he started his own oil exploration firm, he's firmly on the side of climate change experts and AGW but also admits he's not an expert on climatology and said I probably know as much as he does on the issue.... Edited October 2, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 93% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. Like gravity and evolution it is real. Also, we already do have the technology and money to generate clean energy and cut emissions. When factoring in the real costs of fossil fuel derived energy, clean sources are already cheaper. Just simply switching $1 trillion in annual world subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy and retrofit projects would put us well on our way to success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 You seem to have let the many times I have shown your claims to be wrong to go unnoticed - such as when I showed that your claim that more CO2 just Are you waldo? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 No,how bout you grow up and realize that maybe,just maybe some people find insult and are degraded when being called names buddy! You somehow think you are above the rules that we must all conform to? I kindly asked you before,please do not call me names that I find degrading! It was never up to you to decide what names you can and can not call anyone! If you have a problem understanding the rules around here then re read them until you understand! WWWTT I'm reporting you for being condescending, disrespectful, and dehumanizing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I forgot to add... "buddy!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Are you waldo? No, as you already know. However, I feel that it is insulting the posters on here when you refuse to even acknowledge when your claims have been proven completely wrong, and instead just hop to your next piece of nonsense. It doesn't surprise me though, I have dealt with the exact same things with 9/11 truthers, creationists, anti-vaccination cranks, paranoid conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers and other climate change deniers. (And yes you are a denier. You may not like the label, but it fits you perfectly). And yes, I noticed that yet again when you were challenged about the misinformation you spread, you did not provide evidence to support your claim or admit that you were wrong, but instead changed the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Grow up. in the absence of any argument you can bring forward and/or having your argument consistently shown weak/without merit/unrelated/misinforming/disinforming/etc., ... quit being one of the 'feigning indignity' crowd attempting to cover-up your own failings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 This is true if you determine that "moderately dangerous" equals "not a serious problem." and 47% of petroleum geologists contributed to that viewpoint... tim's version of not serious problems previously included the Fukishima meltdown which was an inconvenience and not a catastrophe, that some 80,000 people may never be allowed to return to their homes seems a wee bit more than a inconvenience to me...but hey I'm no expert so what do I know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sorry. I disagree with your premise entirely. Government funding bodies have their own biases based on a desire to maintain political support for funding of science. This does not mean they follow the government of the day but it does mean they have an incentive to exaggerate problems in order to justify more research dollars. As I can't prove a negative, I understand that I can't prove that NSERC has no bias. If someone brings forth evidence that NSERC has bias in their funding, or favours projects that exaggerate problems I will evaluate the evidence brought forward and concede my point if it is justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I forgot to add... "buddy!" ya that "buddy" tag apparently isn't seen as a taunt by wwwtt...in the real world that's usually a verbal prelude to fists ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 This is true if you determine that "moderately dangerous" equals "not a serious problem."Well it really depends on the context. In this case the context was a choice between "very great danger", "moderate danger" and "little danger". The "very great danger" option was rejected by 59% of respondents which repudiates the more extreme views. The dictionary definition of moderate is: mod·er·ate (mdr-t)adj. 1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: I think my characterization of "not a serious problem" is consistent with the definition of the word "moderate". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 As far as climate research goes,you're going to have to provide a reliable link if you want to convince me. Unsurprisingly, you don't understand the burden of proof. It would be pointless for me to provide you with the name of a funding organization as you would either say 1) that it is just one of many organizations, so showing that one has no bias means nothing about the other ones. and/or 2) that I can't prove that the funding organization in question is not biased, just that the bias has not been found yet. The burden of proof lies on you. If you want to claim that such funding organizations are biased, then it is up to you to provide positive evidence for your claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.