I just heard the stupid comment of the week.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, July 27, 2006 08:48
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 8 of 11

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

EMMARIGBY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:05 PM

Ah, now were getting down to philosophy (which I've never been very good at). I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?

By the way, my apologies, the word 'casual' was in itself a bit dismissive. I respect the fact that you appear to have put some time into weighing some of the scientific arguements on both sides. Rue seems to have put a LOT of effort into weighing a vast amount of work (for which he has my respect. I have done reviews of published data myself, it's a labour intensive task). AuRaptor has, by his own admission and judging by the evidence he has used in his arguements, formed his opinions based on magazine articles and internet sites. If he has read real scientific articles I have never seen him quote them.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - It's funny to see you react w/ name calling as you do. That shows you're the real coward here, where you rely in ad hominems instead of substantive talking points. Small minds, like yours, react in such a manner.

It's what you do.
Just shut up before you embarrass yourself further you sad pathetic little man.

You haven't had a debate with anyone here ever, you've never brought anything to a discussion and every time you attempt to join in you end up in a slanging match with someone, me or whoever simply because the only way to perpetuate your warped, freighted nasty little viewpoint is to attack those that hold different ones rather than debating your own.

I have had civil debates with people here, you never have and never will, which just goes to prove what you say applies infinitely more to you than me or anyone else here (and I include PirateNews, you're worse by far).

You are nothing but a tired sad little hypocrite.

I’ll see you in September, or not, it’s up to you if you want to carry out your threats of physical violence, or prove finally that you're, as they say, "all mouth and no trousers".

It's funny how you attempt to project your own shortcomings and faults onto others. I mean, HI-LARIOUSLY funny. I've had countless civil discussions on fff.net, just none w/ YOU. Key word - YOU.

I'll still be here in Sept, though I'll retract that pint I was going to buy you. There are limits to how far Southern hospitality can go.

More mouth and trousers than you can handle.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:18 PM

Quote:

Um, thats really not necessary is it?

one of the Forsaken TM

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:39 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I am not saying you can't prove or disprove global warming by evidence. I am saying that for most people, it is LIKE that. It is LIKE trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. I have NEVER seen anyone change his or her mind on this subject because someone brought new "evidence" to their attention. Have you? THAT is my point.

Oh absolutely. I have changed my mind on many things when presented with convincing data.

Quote:
Listen, you can call me stupid, arrogant, wrong, a dumbass, whatever you want.

All I did was say you were wrong.

Quote:
But when you tell me I am rejecting science, that goes too far. Just because I have different standards in evaluating evidence than you doesn't mean YOURS is "scientific" and mine isn't. Of course you think I'm wrong. You've made up your mind and everyone else who doesn't agree is wrong --and no amount of discussion can convince you otherwise.

My point is that until you and I become experts, we're pretty much stuck with expert scientific analysis to help inform us. It's not a religion, it's a process of education. And people who don't given credit to the weight of expert scientific analysis are wrong - for not giving it due credit.

Quote:
If you have scientific evidence to back up global warming, I am telling you right now that I have no trouble admitting in public, right here on RWE, that I was wrong and I am now converted. However, I have seen nothing in all the links and documents you and the others have ever posted that is convincing so far.

Then I'm not sure what it would take. Someone to tell you global warming is iron-clad? Or conversely, that the disproof of global warming is iron-clad? You'll never get that in true science. The best you can get are estimations of likelihood. Like the statements from the IPCC and the NAS that there is a high probability ...

Quote:
And yes, I am as skeptical in all other areas as I am in this. My standards are my standards, and in many many fields that claim to have scientific consensus, the evidence just doesn't measure up for me. For example, I do not believe vaccines ever been proven to be effective or safe, despite "scientific" claims to the contrary.

Well, there you have it.

Quote:
I don't want to spiral into another endless GW name-calling session. So that is all I am going to say. Please try not to insult me again, though I fear that is an impossible request.

Where oh where did I call you any names? Where did I do ANYTHING except express an opinion that you are wrong?

PLEASE, if you can't have an adult discussion where people debate their areas of disagreement, then stay off the board.

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:02 PM

FutureMrsFillion,

I have to say, I approve of your taste in your intended.

I was irked, I admit.

PDCharles wrote this:
yes Rue...
and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

Aside from being wrong in his facts (he was mistakenly referring to the same study I was linking), he impugned my integity. Yes, I was irked. And no, it probably wasn't strictly necessary, but then, the icons are there for a reason, I suppose.

PDCHARLES

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
FutureMrsFillion,

I have to say, I approve of your taste in your intended.

I was irked, I admit.

PDCharles wrote this:
yes Rue...
and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

Aside from being wrong in his facts (he was mistakenly referring to the same study I was linking), he impugned my integity. Yes, I was irked. And no, it probably wasn't strictly necessary, but then, the icons are there for a reason, I suppose.

Rue,

I didn't switch to the dark side all of a sudden.

It was late and I was sleepy and it seems my intent was misinterpreted. I was reading the more recent 2006 article on the very site BDN had posted from, WITH findings suggesting human intensified GW.

I felt it was no need to post that since you had already done so just before I was going to and they just weren't listening. thus the crap emote.
Unfortunately I was unable to immediately respond to your inquiry.

...and thanx FMF. my skin is tougher than 60 grit SP though.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's funny how you attempt to project your own shortcomings and faults onto others. I mean, HI-LARIOUSLY funny. I've had countless civil discussions on fff.net, just none w/ YOU. Key word - YOU.

No, AQ It’s hilarious how you do it, constantly but you are too stupid to see it. It’s not just me, that’s just your selective memory, the only people you’ve had anything even approaching a civil discussion with are those that accept your flagrant insults, baiting and character assassinations and treat you with more civility than you treat anyone else at any time. I’m, like many others, not prepared to do that, you nor George Bush’s opinion which is all you spout, are simply not worth the effort. It’s funny how nearly everyone else who ever speaks to you reaches the same conclusion.

Countless civil discussions, i.e. with yourself or someone who agrees with you totally, otherwise you just end up hurling insults, or ever so *politely* baiting them like here.

Quote:
I'll still be here in Sept, though I'll retract that pint I was going to buy you. There are limits to how far Southern hospitality can go.

That's fine, I'm meeting real stand up decent folk there, what makes you think I'd need to drink with a scared aging friendless little toad like you?

Quote:
More mouth and trousers than you can handle.

Like I said Armchair Quarterback, if you want to make good on the threats of physical violence you've made against me in the past I'll be ready and waiting. We both know you won’t, its real easy to threaten people over the net, not so easy face to face, but you wouldn't know that, never having done it. Whatever else I've done, whatever else I am I've never threatened to beat some one up over the internet, your pathetic.

Just don't bring weapons like some sort of coward.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Just don't bring weapons like some sort of coward.

Yo Citizen, you know that me and AU rarely see eye to eye here, but I don't see him as being a senseless violence-type. I think you're getting worked up over something that ain't gonna go down.
Embrace your Shaolin side, my brother. Don't let him get to ya like that.

Unofficial moderator Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?

This comes down to personal values, doesn't it? Some believe the "good of the many should outweigh the good of the individual." Others value individual autonomy as a line that shouldn't be crossed, even for the greater good.

But this is different from our original discussion of the scientific merits of global warming. Here we have a disagreement on what IS the public good, let alone how to achieve it. It comes down to another branch of philosophy, epistemology: how do we know what we know? Some people rely on authority: if the IPCC says it is true, it must be true because all those educated people can't be wrong. I, like a lot of folks on this board, prefer empiricism, or replicable observations.

Once you have the observations, there is the question of interpretation. There is a joke about a biologist, physicist, and mathematician riding a train into Scotland. They see a black sheep out on a pasture. The biologist exclaims, "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black." The physicist corrects, "Well, actually, at least one sheep in Scotland is black." The mathematician refines, "No, at least one sheep in Scotland is black, on at least one side."

I interpret data very conservatively, like the mathematician. If I say at least one sheep in Scotland is black, I like to qualify it with, "assuming sheep in Scotland are the same color on both sides." It is nice to have assumptions clearly defined--it increases falsifiability, which is the hallmark of good science.

Like any field studying the immeasurable and unobservable past, climate science makes a lot of assumptions. Most of what I have read about global warming does not clearly define their assumptions and limits. The lines between extrapolation and conjecture and good theory are blurred or sometimes nonexistent. I find myself disagreeing, not with the observations, but with their conclusions as premature and unwarranted--much like I would disagree with the biologist who concluded that the sheep in Scotland are black.

Science and politics don't mix well. Politics wants action right NOW. Science takes too long, so scientists are pressured to rush their conclusions to justify policy. It is more honest to justify policy on merits of value rather than scientific consensus. Talk about 2 men stranded on an island, and admit that it has nothing to do with science. Talk about using less fossil fuel and reducing emissions, because it is good for our economy and our health, and leave climate science (practically still in its infancy) out of it.

Eh, just my opinion. BTW, I appreciate talking to you Emma. You're the first person in a long, long time I've met here who can discuss this topic with both conviction, logic, and respect. Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:29 PM

PDCharles,

OH ! Then I got it your post all wrong! Well, they don't have an apology icon, so how's about this?

Quote:

Rue,

I didn't switch to the dark side all of a sudden.

It was late and I was sleepy and it seems my intent was misinterpreted. I was reading the more recent 2006 article on the very site BDN had posted from, WITH findings suggesting human intensified GW.

I felt it was no need to post that since you had already done so just before I was going to and they just weren't listening. thus the crap emote.
Unfortunately I was unable to immediately respond to your inquiry.

...and thanx FMF. my skin is tougher than 60 grit SP though.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE