I just heard the stupid comment of the week.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, July 27, 2006 08:48
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:56 AM

And no, it wasn't made by a politician!

A caller on the late night Art Bell radio show ( aka Coast to Coast ) says he was watching a show about crocs or gators - he couldn't remember exactly which. He says that when the the critters were turned over, it was unclear as to whether they were male or female.......(sigh) THEN he goes on about how the US is using depleted uranium ammo in Iraq/Afghanistan, and that one thing might be somehow connected to the other.

Seems the moron doesn't realized that crocs don't have external genetalia, and that it's impossible to tell the difference, when the critters are young. But to somehow associate his ignorance and not paying attention to some nature show on t.v. , and then to make such a titanic leap of association between 2 completely unrelated things makes me wonder how this guy pays his bills, finds his way to work, chews his own food...stuff like that.

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. "

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN

Sunday, July 23, 2006 6:33 AM

I want to know exactly how how he melted his brain

I blame rap

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, July 23, 2006 6:36 AM

How did his brain even learn human speech?

**********************************

**********************************

OLDENGLANDDRY

Sunday, July 23, 2006 6:44 AM

Did he by any chance live in Knoxville Tenesee?

CITIZEN

Sunday, July 23, 2006 10:09 AM

Obviously the British-Commie-Nazi-Liberal-Jews used their left-wing mind Kontrolen to genetically engineer reptiles with internal genitalia in a grandios plan for Liberal cowardice to create war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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.

STINKINGROSE

Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:44 PM

No really, it's true!! I read it online!
The CIA is training alligators ('cause they're US critters) to take depleted uranium and turn in into little atomic bomb eggs, then lay them like land mines all around the area of conflict. That's why you have to be able to tell if it's a male or female. If you feed it to a male he just gets squishy and glows in the dark. The ony serious roadblock they've run into so far is getting the gators to mark where they left the eggs on a map.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:57 PM

I realized this post wasn't a monumental issue, but I was so annoyed that this guy would take time to spread his ignorance on such issues for all to hear......grrrrr!! While 99.9999 % of the world could care less about croc's cocks and the like, this clown seems to have figured it all out, with no help from the likes of Steve Irwin, aka The Croc Hunter

I guess what really bothers me is that there are folks out there in radio land who are nodding their heads in agreement w/ this moron, as if they've just been privy to some tightly held secret.

For those folks, I would reccomend , no DEMAND that they read both of these books before making any major life decissions.

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. "

RUE

Sunday, July 23, 2006 3:58 PM

A call for science from the guy who says scientists are wrong about global warming. WHOO HOOOO

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN

Sunday, July 23, 2006 4:56 PM

allrighty then

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.

LISSA37

Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
How did his brain even learn human speech?

**********************************

**********************************

Good call, Phoenix. I love that line!

Stinkingrose - the mental image of a squishy glowing 'gator is quite amusing... LOL. Are you serious? The whole concept is kind of sad, though... not to mention odd.

*****
"I'm a leaf on the wind..." - Wash

22CLAWS

Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:56 PM

I live in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Yeah, it sucks.

Shrugs.
22

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 23, 2006 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
A call for science from the guy who says scientists are wrong about global warming. WHOO HOOOO

Yes, some scientist are wrong about global warming. BFD. That most of the clowns who pretend they are scientist when in fact they have no degrees in the relevent science disciplines connected to the issue of global climate somehow escapes the sheeple in the media and the general public.

The Earth gets warmer and cooler over time. That's no secret. But the chicken littles and anti-capitalist all seem to have it figured out, that most of the blame lies w/ one country, the USA.

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. "

RUE

Sunday, July 23, 2006 9:01 PM

Quote:
Yes, some scientist are wrong about global warming. BFD. That most of the clowns who pretend they are scientist when in fact they have no degrees in the relevent science disciplines connected to the issue of global climate somehow escapes the sheeple in the media and the general public. The Earth gets warmer and cooler over time. That's no secret. But the chicken littles and anti-capitalist all seem to have it figured out, that most of the blame lies w/ one country, the USA.

And there you have it. Unwrapped, world-renowned global climate scientist, has provided the scientific community and the world at large his expert scientific opinion. I guess the global climate scientific community can disband now, as they aren't doing real science with the Unwrapped stamp of approval.

KANEMAN

Sunday, July 23, 2006 11:39 PM

Auraptor....Try not to use the word sheeple to much...I love that most people are unaware they are sheeple or don't know what it means shhhhhh!

CITIZEN

Sunday, July 23, 2006 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yes, some scientist are wrong about global warming. BFD. That most of the clowns who pretend they are scientist when in fact they have no degrees in the relevent science disciplines connected to the issue of global climate somehow escapes the sheeple in the media and the general public.

The Earth gets warmer and cooler over time. That's no secret. But the chicken littles and anti-capitalist all seem to have it figured out, that most of the blame lies w/ one country, the USA.

Well that’s the problem isn't it AU. The scientist that support global warming, nearly all, in fact pretty much all the scientists with degrees in that area of expertise, the ones that don't (the ones that Bush, and you (surprise surprise) believe) are not only in the minority but also rarely have credible credentials at all, let alone in the relevant fields of expertise. So really you aren’t interested in science until it tells you what you want to hear.

One last thing, show me, once ever where the climate has changed as quickly as it has recently, I know, that's unfair since it hasn’t, but there you go, that's what happens when you are wrong.

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.

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:05 AM

citizen, rue.. you folks believe in the fairy tale of global warming all you want. i personally don't give a fuck. But the danger lies in how this myth is being promoted more and more, causing gov'ts to tax more and more under the guise of a false issue. THAT's what pisses me off most. Global warming is nothing more than a massive $$ grab, and it's the poor who are getting hurt the most. But since you're all in love w/ big gov't, you simply see it as a necessary evil. For evil is indeed exatly what it is.

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. "

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:18 AM

Well let's see. You slam someone for making truly ignorant comments on scientific topics. And then you make truly ignorant comments on scientific topics yourself.

Do you suffer from irony deficiency?

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well let's see. You slam someone for making truly ignorant comments on scientific topics. And then you make truly ignorant comments on scientific topics yourself.

Do you suffer from irony deficiency?

The problem you suffer from is confusing real science w/ pop pseudo science. Of course, talking about global warming in the middle of summer only confuses the issue that much more. Its the middle of SUMMER. It's SUPPOSE to be hot. Duh! But you'll never elaborate why Greenland use to be , well, GREEN. That hundreds of yrs ago, it was far more suitable for growing crops and raising livestock than today. Long before the Industrial revolution.

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. "

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 3:18 AM

Quote:
Its the middle of SUMMER. It's SUPPOSE to be hot. Duh! But you'll never elaborate why Greenland use to be , well, GREEN.

To what are you referring? Please quote the post you appear to be answering.

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, July 24, 2006 7:34 AM

First off, Coast to Coast ROCKS!!!

When I was driving back and forth between eastern Washington and Los Angeles through some pretty desolate terrain (coming down the backside of the Sierras) there was always one constant at night: an AM radio station in range of my car playing Coast to Coast. Driving along late at night when I hadn't seen a car in quite a while thinking, "Shit. We're all going to die because of X," where X was the topic of the show.

Brings back memories.

Second off, I'm not surprised, at all, that the caller had serious reality issues. It was kind of hit and miss with the callers, from what I remember.

Third off, with respect to global climate change, I know that weather is not the same as climate and that changes in local temperature are really no indicator of climate change but:

IT'S BEEN SO FUCKING HOT THE PAST WEEK I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO THINK

(102,97,93,97,99,106,108)

Sometimes not having AC or ceiling fans and having pets (so we can't just lock up the house and head to an air conditioned space) and working from the house just plain sucks.

That is all.

CITIZEN

Monday, July 24, 2006 8:27 AM

Quote:

The problem you suffer from is confusing real science w/ pop pseudo science.

No AU, that's the problem you are having.

Quote:
But you'll never elaborate why Greenland use to be , well, GREEN.

Let me guess, you based that amazing bit of deductive reasoning on Greenlands name, I bet you think Icelands made of ice too.

Greenland has had it's ice cored to over 100,000 years, but since that doesn't agree with what you say I'm sure its pseudo pop science.

Greenlands glaciers are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, but again that's just pseudo pop science.

The rate of climate change is faster than an time we have data for, but since that doesn't fit with AU's belief that's just pseudo pop science.

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.

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 24, 2006 10:14 AM

Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.

The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.

http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm

Citizen, continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.

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. "

CITIZEN

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.

The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.
http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm

Citizen, continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.

Actually that's contested, something you'd know if you ever looked at sources other than the ones that support what you want to believe.

Quote:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/G/Greenlan.asp
From Iceland, Greenland was discovered and S Greenland colonized (c.985) by Eric the Red, a Norseman, who named it Greenland in order to make it seem attractive to potential settlers.

In other words saying Greenland is like saying "London's streets are paved with gold" which in case you need it pointed out is not the case. London's streets are paved with concrete and paving slabs, not gold, yet they say gold, those crazy people.

Although I'm sure you won't read this source, it not saying what you want it to and all.

Greenland was never very warm, its ice cover is more than 100,000 years old, but as I said that is just pseudo pop science to you since it doesn't support what you want to believe.

The problem is that you think that the Earth's temperature changing over time proves that global warming isn't happening. This is just a function of you playing favourites with the sources (namely the minority of scientists who happen to work for big polluters, funny that

) because those sources say what you want to hear. If you'd done one ounce of research into the subject instead of letting Bush tell you which scientist to listen to (independent scientist bad, the dentist who says what we want to hear good) you'd know that not only is the speed and general upward trend not precedent but that it closely follows atmospheric factors influenced and caused by Human activity.

But all this is pseudo pop science because it's not what you want to believe. If it was left to people like you and GWB we'd still be teaching primary school children about the correctness of the flat Earth theory and how some crazy lying scientists have this huge conspiracy trying to prove the Earth is a sphere.

So AU continue to only look at the side of the argument that supports your narrow under educated view, and remain ignorant of all other facts if they are inconvenient for you.

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.

EMMARIGBY

Monday, July 24, 2006 12:02 PM

I find it so amusing that the guy that got you so irate is exactly the same as you! You have both taken a few facts and misinterpretted them to make them fit an erronious hypothesis without consideration of all other factors.

He correctly states that crocodiles have no external genetalia and leaps to the assumption that this is due to mutagenesis from radiation poisoning.

You correctly state that Greenland has historiucally had a warmer climate than it has today. From this you conclude that the current rapid and continuing global climate changes are nothing to be concerned about.

Neither of you seem to know or even wish to consider all possible facts in a reasoned and balanced fashion. At least he seems to be limited by simple ignorance. You appear to be dismissing alternate points of view based on selfish greed.

I'm afraid you leave me with a greater frustration at the stupidity of the world than he does. I at least have the hope that if I met him and gave him evidence that his beliefs are erronious he might be inclined to listen.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I find it so amusing that the guy that got you so irate is exactly the same as you! You have both taken a few facts and misinterpretted them to make them fit an erronious hypothesis without consideration of all other factors.

Neither of you seem to know or even wish to consider all possible facts in a reasoned and balanced fashion. At least he seems to be limited by simple ignorance. You appear to be dismissing alternate points of view based on selfish greed.

I'm afraid you leave me with a greater frustration at the stupidity of the world than he does. I at least have the hope that if I met him and gave him evidence that his beliefs are erronious he might be inclined to listen.

While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty. Why is Citizen's source better than Auraptor's or vice versa? It seems to me that all parties involved think they are right and are either unwilling or unable to rationally discuss alternate viewpoints. Which is why climate change is and will continue to remain a contentious issue.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:30 PM

Rampant stupidity doesn't surprise me anymore. I stopped being surprised by anything when I found that the average IQ in the US and UK is 100. 100!

one of the Forsaken TM

PDCHARLES

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:39 PM

G.W.

I find it terribly annoying that Bush/War supporters say this "If we are not aggressive and attack Iraq first, we take a huge risk with our own lives. Because THEY MAY come attack us again. We need to be proactive." or something like this. We can put up terror, color-coded alerts on our evening TV screens for this with no whining from cons. This problem MAY affect thousands in our country, how many MAY be affected by GW.

When it comes to GW. If we put warnings on TV and use scare tactics, its all wrong. If we suggest that we better become proactive on GW, it all becomes horseshit to the hardcore right wingers. I cannot f’n believe you are complaining about tax money spent AU; with the money spent on the war.

Now, AU please look at the US and abroad university systems. Look at their findings, can our precious university system be wrong on this large of a scale. As I have said before, if they are failing this badly, we have another huge problem beyond the war and GW.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:42 PM

Hear Hear PD. (edited cause I knows good gremmer and speling)

Is it just me, or does the crap this administration is saying and what they are doing sound just like what the administration was saying and doing during Vietnam?

one of the Forsaken TM

PDCHARLES

Monday, July 24, 2006 3:00 PM

Yes, according to my Dad. Who was in Vietnam. He lost it when Nixon said "honorable peace".

Hear this:
My buddy (swear to you), one of the only hardcore conservatives I hang out with, is actually questioning this Admin now. I mean hardcore, former, cold war marine, south carolina, actually liked Strom Thurmon, "my daddy said so, so its good" conservative. That’s when you know it’s bad.

We debated global warming til I was blue in the face. So, I drug his arse to a local bio-fuels event we had recently. He actually clapped and got something out of it. A proud day for me (like converting browncoats actually). We had a dept. of energy guy (Larry Shirley) as a quest speaker. He laid out FACTS and research and gov’t plans. (no crazy liberal media to filter it in my buddy’s mind) But what really got his attention was the money saved (yes AU, taxpayer money) by not having to defend and protect that oil as it gets here from the Arabs. Larry laid those figures out too. So many reasons to change our energy policies right?

EMMARIGBY

Monday, July 24, 2006 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty. Why is Citizen's source better than Auraptor's or vice versa? It seems to me that all parties involved think they are right and are either unwilling or unable to rationally discuss alternate viewpoints. Which is why climate change is and will continue to remain a contentious issue.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

I'm not sure I would count Citizen as a friend as such, I have never met the guy and only occasionally chatted on line. I was more sticking up for the issue. I have had this arguement previously with AuRaptor and looked into all the evidence he presented to support his point of view and did not find them convincing in light of the 5 years of acedemic study I have put into researching evidence both for and against this issue (I am a zoologist by trade and climate change is an accepted fact in the conferences I have been attending with an overwhealming weight of evidence showing a close correlation of changes in animal ranges with changes in seasonal temperature). You just caught a small portion of this 'debate' but generally, as a scientist, I judge any arguement backed up by controlled and peer reviewed study more convincing than those that quote random websites.

But I really don't have any more time to waste on this. I have to write up a year long study I have made proving that the incidence of grass snake sightings in th UK is less than 17% of what it was 30 years ago, with a significantly more southerly distribution pattern. I will not state that this is due entirely to climate change but will suggest that it is a possibility that this could be a factor that could lead to a potential extinction of the UK reptiles. Then I would be sad (or possibly my children would).

___________________

Hissssssssss!

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, July 24, 2006 3:10 PM

Emma well spoketh. Need some help with the paper?

one of the Forsaken TM

CITIZEN

Monday, July 24, 2006 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty.

So that must mean you’re just sticking up for your friend then.

Quote:
Why is Citizen's source better than Auraptor's or vice versa?

It's not, that was my point. I said that whether the climate of Greenland was significantly milder, or as AU put it quite warm, was contended issue, he said that it WAS green.

However if you're comparing ice cores to speculation based on the name of the place you tell me which is more reliable?

Or maybe you mean the scientists (supported near exclusivly by big polluters) who don’t think global warming is happening? Simply if they DID think it was happening it would be very reliable evidence, but since they have a vested interest in proving otherwise them saying it isn't happening is as reliable.

Also there’s a further flaw in AUs logic and his understanding of the issue, namely that the planets temperature has changed in the past so global warming isn't happening, and/or not man influenced. The issue isn't "The planets temperature has never changed and now it is!" as AU likes to straw man it.

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.

EMMARIGBY

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The issue isn't "The planets temperature has never changed and now it is!" as AU likes to straw man it.

What does this mean? It's an interesting phrase!

I think a lot of the contraversy over global worming comes from a misunderstanding of scientific thinking. Biologists and Climateologists and others in the 'fuzzy' sciences don't like to make definitive statements.

To make an exaggerated analogy I would be uncomfortable in saying "The sky is blue". I could say that out of a given sample of peoiple surveyed a significant number claimed to perceive the sky, at a precise moment in time when no cloud cover was present, to fall within the visual spectrum previously defined as 'blue'. Without confirmation of the absorbtion patterns of the 'cone' photoreceptors of the eyes of each of the participents surveyed we cannot be certain that liguistic variation in the classification of colour has not introduced an element of uncertainty in the results.

This is a long way from saying that the sky isn't blue and a lack of a definate positive answer should not lead to the assumption of a negative.

The case for global warming is more complex as there is actually evidence supporting both sides of the arguement. Some of that evidence has indeed been funded by companies with a vested interest in disproving the theory. Some of it was conducted under very shakey scientific principles. Some of it is perfectly valid. The weight of scientific studies, however, does support a link between human activities and global climate change. Predictions of consequense have ranged from the slight to the disastrous.

The Precautionary Principle of the Kyoto Treaty (which the US has refused to ratify) states basically that, whilst agreement cannot be reached on the scale of impact of global warming, the potential ecological damage caused by taking no action after incorrectly assuming a best case scenario far outweighs the potential economic damage of acting on the worst case scenario if this does not turn out to be accurate.

Thankyou. I feel better for getting that rant off my chest. Getting back to work now.

___________________

Hissssssssss!

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:25 PM

I got a better idea.

Fine, dismiss it all you like.

THEN tell me where the hell this endless series of tremendously brutal storms and hurricanes is coming from, and scientifically (i.e. no theological BS) explain it.

And when they get worse next year and plow the american southwest under even more viciously, explain that one too.

-Frem

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:

Without confirmation of the absorbtion patterns of the 'cone' photoreceptors of the eyes of each of the participents surveyed we cannot be certain that liguistic variation in the classification of colour has not introduced an element of uncertainty in the results.

*falls off his chair again*

OMG, that was priceless!
All this over-wording of what can be simplified into: my drink needs more ice.

Polar cap shaken, not stirred Chrisisall

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:32 PM

Emma

I love it when you talk all like smart and all! now GET TO WORK!

one of the Forsaken TM

CITIZEN

Monday, July 24, 2006 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
Without confirmation of the absorbtion patterns of the 'cone' photoreceptors of the eyes of each of the participents surveyed we cannot be certain that liguistic variation in the classification of colour has not introduced an element of uncertainty in the results.

Maybe how you perceieve the colour blue is the way I percieve the colour green. Maybe the machines didn't know what the colour blue looked like, which is why they made it look like everything, no, wait, wrong movie.

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.

CITIZEN

Monday, July 24, 2006 7:11 PM

This double post is merely a construct of your own imagination.

EMMARIGBY

Monday, July 24, 2006 7:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Emma

I love it when you talk all like smart and all! now GET TO WORK!

one of the Forsaken TM

Why thank you! I shall now go on to prove that white is black and black is white (for a given level of photon absorbtion) and get killed on the next zebra crossing.

___________________

Hissssssssss!

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 24, 2006 7:37 PM

Ahh, you see global warming EVERY MOURNING!!!

It's called a sunrise Chrisisall

PDCHARLES

Monday, July 24, 2006 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
MOURNING!!!

...dying each day

was this your intention, u clever wordsmith?

no-so-morbidisall

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 8:28 PM

Lookit what happens when you go away for a bit ....

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty.
So that must mean you’re just sticking up for your friend then.

I probably should have phrased that better. I meant to say sticking up for another Forsaken.

Quote:

Or maybe you mean the scientists (supported near exclusivly by big polluters) who don’t think global warming is happening? Simply if they DID think it was happening it would be very reliable evidence, but since they have a vested interest in proving otherwise them saying it isn't happening is as reliable.

IMHO, global warming/climate change is a highly partisan subject. How it got that way, or better yet why, is beyond me. Let's not blame 'Capitalist Pigs' or the Government. Let's not blame 'Wacko Tree Huggers' or Al Gore. Let's get both sides together with all of their data and let them hammer on each other until all can agree on one stance.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pdcharles:

...dying each day

was this your intention, u clever wordsmith?

I cannot tell a lie.

Chrisisall

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:31 PM

Quote:
Let's get both sides together with all of their data and let them hammer on each other until all can agree on one stance.

The UN and the NAS (US National Academy of Sciences) do agree. Who else are you looking for?

EMMARIGBY

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:41 PM

But the problem is there will never be 100% agreement. That's just not how science works (see earlier rant), and while there is even the slightest disagreement there are those whose financial interests would be hurt by cutting emissions who will always argue the point. And whilst those few are the ones in power the issue remains a deadlock whilst a potential timebomb ticks away.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 10:15 PM

Quote:
... there will never be 100% agreement. That's just not how science works ...

I agree completely. That's why I was wondering, since all the experts have now weighed-in, who else needs to be heard. Do you count crackpots, industry shills, or who ... I was hoping to spark enough thought to at least generate a reply.

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:08 PM

Quote:
Greenland was never very warm

You seem well adapted at putting words into my mouth. I never said, nor did my source remotely indicate, that Greenland was 'very warm', which is a subjective term. But the evidence clearly shows that Greenland was much warmer than it currently is today. We're not talking coconut trees and pink flamingos, but warm enough to sustain some seasonal farming, a wider variety of livestock, a "decent" place to live for hearty folks already accustomed to a northern lattitudes lifestyle. And all this with your precious 100,000 yr old cover, but not as ubiquitous as you'd have us believe.

I don't know which is more amusing. You presuming that I've never heard the Erik the Red's sales pitch about Greenaland being GREEN only to get folks to settle here, or that you think all YOUR scientist who promote man made global warming are as pure as the wind driven snow, while my sources are nothing more than Big Oil or Gov't shills.

If you having to think those things makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Lord knows, you do seem to need all the help you can get.

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. "

CITIZEN

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:17 PM

Well I suppose that passes for a well reasoned argument amongst you and your hillbilly redneck friends.

AU, if ever there was a person too stupid to bother talking to, you are it.

The evidence, what evidence? None you've submitted, just like every fact you've ever supposedly had you've made it up to save yourself from having to think for yourself.

I don't know what to think is more amusing, your complete inability to grasp the simplest scientific concept, or the fact that your so far up Bush's arse you're not capable of independent thought.

I don't think your sources are nothing more than big oil and Gov shills, I know your one and only source is the word of Bush. An Imbecile thinking for a moron, how perfect is that.

Repeat your mantra then resume your dribbling:
"Bush is my master, Bush is so great, and Bush will tell me who I should hate!"

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.

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:27 PM

Unwrapped,

I don't know where you're getting your information on Greenland. Wherever it is, go somewhere else b/c you are wrong.

Greenland has always been a way station for circumpolar peoples. At times one group or another would set up seasonal locations they would return to year to year. And sometimes a few people would winter-over. But before Eric the Red, it was never an independent continuously settled area.

Eric the Red tried to start a permanent settlement there. The name he gave it - "Greenland" - was probably the biggest example of false real-estate advertizing ever. There was a thin strip of vegetation between the glaciers and the ocean in protected bays. But that was it. Greenland was not green. (Iceland OTOH is not ice, it is actually MUCH greener than 'Greenland'.)

The settlement was never really sustainable and independent. It depended on trade with the Norse countries, trading fur for food, wood and iron. However, as the colony petered out (after using up the available grass, shrubs and soil) and became focused almost completely on survival, it was no longer a viable trading destination and was left out of the itineraries. After slowly grinding down over time, the coup de grace was a series of exceptionally hard winters. The hundred or so people who were left by then disappeared without anyone noticing.

CITIZEN

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If you having to think those things makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Lord knows, you do seem to need all the help you can get.

If this is in refrence to some of the threads that have been started recently, I can well believe you've got something to do with it. Seems just in keeping with the tactics of a coward like you.

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.

EMMARIGBY

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:49 PM

I'm going to stop trying to debate this issue and go to bed but coudn't resist one last metaphore that occured to me.

Those that deny the existance or seriousness of global warming resemble, to me, motorcycle riders who refuse to buy a helmet on the grounds that they are expensive and they read somewhere that helmets don't improve safety much. They may survive to old age (although unless they have looked at an accurate sample of statistics their descision could be viewed as poorly informed), but the consequences of them being wrong could be anywhere from bad to fatal. Now I don't mind if other people want to take risks with their lives, what I do object to is goverments taking risks with the planet's ecosystem without consulting me.

I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

Thank you.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:50 PM

Unwrapped,

Quote:
... YOUR scientist (sic) who promote man made global warming are as pure as the wind driven snow, while my sources are nothing more than Big Oil or Gov't shills ...

What about the global consortium of scientists and the National Academy of Sciences? They all seem to think that global warming 1) is real and 2) is caused by human activity. Do you think they are all corrupted while you (in your expert scientific opinion) have "the truth"?

More to the point, why is the only good science (according to you) the science you happen to agree with?

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:30 AM

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.

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. "

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I'm going to stop trying to debate this issue and go to bed but coudn't resist one last metaphore that occured to me.

Those that deny the existance or seriousness of global warming resemble, to me, motorcycle riders who refuse to buy a helmet on the grounds that they are expensive and they read somewhere that helmets don't improve safety much. They may survive to old age (although unless they have looked at an accurate sample of statistics their descision could be viewed as poorly informed), but the consequences of them being wrong could be anywhere from bad to fatal. Now I don't mind if other people want to take risks with their lives, what I do object to is goverments taking risks with the planet's ecosystem without consulting me.

I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

Thank you.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

Opinion polls aside, I use to be young and duped into the Green way of thinking. Then I grew up. I was discussing w/ a fellow class mate of mine the impending doom facing our planet, running out of oil. " The amount of oil we have is FINITE! We must find alternate sources of energy, cut back, increase taxes on oil.....etc, do ANYTHING to reign in the excessive use of oil. It was so self evident, I couldn't see how ANYONE didn't see the impending problem. All the while, my classmate, whom I got along well enough with despite this one issue, was so clam, smug and confident in her views, it really ticked me off more.

She knew what she was talking about, and I didn't.I was basing my views on what I'd seen on news magazines covers, the nightly news and the daily newspaper headlines. Turns out, all that news that's fit to print - ISN'T. While I wasn't converted on the spot, I was forced to question my own perspective. What came after was a long conversion from being a tree hugger in training to seeing the larger picture on this matter.

That little 'debate' took place in 1981. I was in HS. You know, at that age where kids think they know everything, but have only just begun to learn.

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. "

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:27 AM

Unwrapped,

Quote:
It was so self evident, I couldn't see how ANYONE didn't see the impending problem.

What part did you come to disbelieve? The part that there is a limit on oil, or some other angle?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Let's get both sides together with all of their data and let them hammer on each other until all can agree on one stance.
The UN and the NAS (US National Academy of Sciences) do agree. Who else are you looking for?

Are you sure the NAS is in agreement?

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/17.html

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

ROCKETJOCK

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
A call for science from the guy who says scientists are wrong about global warming. WHOO HOOOO

To be fair, not all scientists are in agreement about global warming, and even those who believe the environment is getting warmer don't agree on human action's part in the process.

Myself, as I've sat huddling in my expensively air-conditioned apartment hiding from the 104 degree heat outside, I've been annoyed by people connecting a seasonal heat wave with global warming. Geez guys, do some research, it doesn't work that way.

"I've got a Master's degree. In SCIENCE!" -- Dr. Science

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:24 AM

Quote:
hAre you sure the NAS is in agreement?

YES
ttp://darwin.nap.edu/openbook.phprecord_id=10139&page=1

From the NAS website:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.

Another article on the topic

AN OP-ED article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-oreskes24jul24,0,
7925596.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:31 AM

RocketJock,

It's true that not ALL scientists agree. But all the credible ones who have research to back them up do. See the article above.

The uncertainty is not whether the earth is warming, or whether human activity is causing it, it is in what fraction of global warming should be attributed to natural variation. As the NAS concluded, the change is far too large to be natural variation. But some small fraction may be.

And you, like Unwrapped, must be hallucinating. Did I say anything about summer heat waves ???? PLEASE feel free to quote me!

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:33 AM

See what I mean.
These two divergent statements were found in the same book which was linked to the NAS' home page. Oh yeah, clear as mud now.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:43 AM

You just don't know science. It's never 100%.
What YOUR link says is:

THE EFFECT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability.
----------------------------------------

What the overall report concluded (couched in terms of confidence and statistics) was:

There is sufficient evidence ... to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, ... although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=1167
6

PDCHARLES

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:53 AM

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

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:03 AM

Quote:
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

I dunno. Mine's from June 22 2006. It was commissioned by congress and is the official conclusion of the NAS. When's yours from? What does it address?

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:17 AM

Quote:
I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

My husband is a research scientist working for the Dept of Energy. The DOE officially supports the theory of global warming and urges all its scientists to direct all their research efforts towards carbon sequestration and the like. It is what is politically popular right now. Dissenting scientists (like my husband) are asked by the administrators to keep their opinions to themselves.

I don't know about public opinion polls, but it is my impression that most people believe that manmade global warming is no longer in debate, but a widely accepted fact.

Personally, I consider myself "green" on most environmental issues. I believe we have a responsibility to take care of our planet, not only for ourselves and our progeny, but for all other life that we share the planet with. I am deeply concerned about all sorts of pollution, from industrial to biological to electromagnetic. I have no love for corporatism or what greed passes for "free market" nowadays. I despise John Stossel. Politically, I hate Bush more than I hated Clinton, if that is possible. I truly came to the global warming table with no agenda to serve.

And yet I can't endorse manmade global warming. Things appear to be getting warmer, yes. Is the change significant? I don't know. Is it manmade? I can't say. I don't think there is enough *evidence* to conclude either way. (Obviously, what is not evidence to me is plenty for others. That is just how the world turns.)

According to my husband, many of his research colleagues do not "believe in" global warming either. But because it is where the money and perceived public support is nowadays, they gear all their research and lip service towards it. In other words, scientists are corruptible by money and opinion, just like everyone else. Plus they don't see any harm in pretending to support something that they don't know for sure isn't true.

To me, global warming has become sort of like a religion. You just can't bring enough evidence to the table to prove that God exist or doesn't exist. People, by now, have already made up their minds and have all the evidence they need to back themselves up. All discussion is just name calling to feel a little righteous indignation and intellectual superiority.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:39 AM

Quote:
And yet I can't endorse manmade global warming. Things appear to be getting warmer, yes. Is the change significant? I don't know. Is it manmade? I can't say. I don't think there is enough *evidence* to conclude either way. (Obviously, what is not evidence to me is plenty for others. That is just how the world turns.)

I wonder. If it were any other scientific topic, would you be as skeptical of the data (it might be getting warmer, it's possibly significant), the analysis (there will never be enough information) and the scientific consensus (it's all just opionion)? Is it skepticism in general, or a reaction to this particular topic that causes you to dismiss the best science available?

Quote:
According to my husband, many of his research colleagues do not "believe in" global warming either. But because it is where the money and perceived public support is nowadays, they gear all their research and lip service towards it. In other words, scientists are corruptible by money and opinion, just like everyone else. Plus they don't see any harm in pretending to support something that they don't know for sure isn't true.

There is more of a name to be made by disproving global warming than by publishing yet another supporting study. But for all those who've tried, no one has managed to kill the idea.

Quote:
To me, global warming has become sort of like a religion. You just can't bring enough evidence to the table to prove that God exist or doesn't exist. People, by now, have already made up their minds and have all the evidence they need to back themselves up. All discussion is just name calling to feel a little righteous indignation and intellectual superiority.

That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.

Quote:
Of course, I could be wrong.

I think you are.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.

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.

Listen, you can call me stupid, arrogant, wrong, a dumbass, whatever you want. 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. That was my point. You've made up your mind and everyone else who doesn't agree is wrong--and no amount of discussion can convince you otherwise.

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.

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.

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.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Edit to add: I forgot that nearly a year ago, I decided to stop talking to Rue about this subject. There are words, but absolutely no communication between us. If anyone else wants a rational, disspassionate discussion, I would be willing.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:44 PM

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".

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.

EMMARIGBY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:46 PM

To be fair I can see why Rue is sounding unghappy. He personally has put a lot of time and effort into collecting data that you appear to be casually dismissing. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone treated your work in such an off-hand fashion.

By the way, I kind of like your metaphore of Global Warming as religion (even though one has an abundance of data covering many different fields of science and the other has none at all - but hey, it's a metaphore, right?!). I can see how, being unconvinced by the arguements for an omnipotent supreme being you would be justified in making the descision not to waste your time on church or your money on the collection plate. I myself am an agnostic and don't think much about the church. After all, if I am wrong about there being no God it would be only myself that would suffer. If I was presented with evidence that a large proportion of the world (including many species I am particularly fond of) would also suffer from my descision, even if that evidence was only 80% convincing, I might be inclined to spend a small proportion in time on a pew and cough up a few pennies.

Here endeth the sermon! (This is a joke by the way, I was merely stating my mind, I (sadly) have no expectations of converting anyone to my point of view!)

___________________
Hissssssssss!

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
even if that evidence was only 80% convincing, I might be inclined to spend a small proportion in time on a pew and cough up a few pennies.

Good point. I don't mind, metaphorically speaking, spending some time on the pew and coughing up a few pennies myself. I object to our exorbitant use of fossil fuels for many other reasons and try to be conscientious in my personal consumption of energy.

But should we pass a law and force everyone to sit on a pew and cough up a few pennies? That is where I draw the line.

BTW, Rue didn't collect raw data personally. He and others have spent a lot of time collecting other people's data and opinions. I respect that effort. I have, in turn, dedicated due time evaluating those data and opinions. That is all that can be asked of me. After examining them, I remain unconvinced. I don't think that can be construed as a casual dismissal.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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.

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:37 PM

EmmaRigby:

Quote:
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?

Mathematically, it's best solved with tit for tat - you mirror the other's actions. Over time, like with evolution, it results in an optimum for both.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:57 PM

Quote:
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?

Kill him, immediately.

Then cook and eat HIM.

Better one survive than neither.

-Frem

EMMARIGBY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

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.

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.

I object! I would never make such a sweeping statement with such a small sample size! Didn't you see me torture the English language earlier to avoid giving a definite answer as to whether the sky is blue?!

You are right that people should not jump to conclusions on inconclusive or contradictory data. But surely policy descisions should be based on our educated guess at this moment in time and possibly modified in the future as the understanding/ accuracy of predictions increases. Doing nothing to curtail pollution because the concientious of those in the scientific community refuse to be pressured into giving a difinitive answer, to me, like saying "We have found something that looks like a tumour in your body. We don't have the equipment to be sure so we're going to wait a couple of years to see what happens. It might all work out or it might be too late by then but we can't operat now on uncertain data, it would be expensive and painful." Dammit, I'd want that operation! (Sorry, I do love my metaphores!!)

Thanks for the compliment, I always try to remain calm (hint hint) when arguing a point. If someone shouts and swears and calls me a poopy head (or some such) I am not really going to be more inclined to take their arguements seriously!

___________________

Hissssssssss!

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I object! I would never make such a sweeping statement with such a small sample size! Didn't you see me torture the English language earlier to avoid giving a definite answer as to whether the sky is blue?!

Yes, and I rather enjoyed it too. All right, we can substitute biologist for ummm....climate scientist? Hehe.

I always say science and medicine don't mix either. We hold up drugs for eons and eons to scientifically "prove" that they are effective before we let patients try them. Meanwhile, patients are clamoring, please shouldn't it be my choice if I want to accept the risks of the drug? At the same time, traditional medicines tested by hundred or thousands of years of use (with no patents or profits) are pooh-poohed by "scientists" as being unproven. It's all crazy. People should be able to take whatever medicines they want, whether they have been subjected to double blind placebo controlled trials or not. Provided they are given all available info and risks up front.

With your tumor analogy, it is the same thing. An experienced clinician interprets his observations (be it with symptom description or technological assay) that you have a tumor. This is not "science" per se. This is, well, really an art based on technology and the accumulated experience of the profession. We should just practice the art in the best interests of the patient and dispense with the pretense of conducting science, which serves knowledge and precision, and NOT the patient.

I guess what I am saying is science has been bastardized and its standards corrupted to make it easier and faster for policies to be "based in science." I would rather see science returned to a slow and painstakingly precise process, and stop saying our decisions have gone through the scientific wringer when they haven't.

It is perfectly ok to make decisions that are not scientific. I see 3 people leave a restaurant vomiting. I don't have scientific proof that the restaurant caused the illness, but I can certainly choose not to eat there. I don't have scientific proof that smoking causes cancer, but I can choose not to smoke. And so forth. It doesn't make our choices less valid. In fact, I don't think true science is ever sure enough about anything to validate a policy. It isn't how science works.

In my humble opinion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

PDCHARLES

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:30 AM

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

No worries and No apologies necessary. but kisses... I'll take 'em

I can see how it could've been taken the other way.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
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

Yeah I know, children, small animals and any others not able to defend themselves perhaps, but as far as I'm concerned I'm well aware that all AQ's threats are merely hot air.

Cowards and bullies only go for those they know they can beat.

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.

STINKINGROSE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:08 AM

Um..it were a joke.
Sorry if I confusticated things. Gotta remember to stick the sarcasm/facetious warning label on stuff.

Or were you joking about my joking?

LISSA37

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Um..it were a joke.
Sorry if I confusticated things. Gotta remember to stick the sarcasm/facetious warning label on stuff.

Or were you joking about my joking?

Is this directed at me? I think so, since I responded to your comment and since I got an e-mail saying you replied to mine. I'm not sure, though, so if you didn't mean me, just ignore this post!

If you do mean me, I did think you seriously read that somewhere, but I also found your comment humorous. Does that make sense? Probably not. Anyway, looking back and rereading, it's pretty clear you were joking. I'm not sure where my mind was that day... I'm not this dumb all the time, I promise.

*****
"I'm a leaf on the wind..." - Wash

STINKINGROSE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:39 AM

Damn I love you guys!
You're amazing!
This is actually 2 separate threads! I've been watching several people end up engaging in a calm reasoned discussion of scientific principles, the reliability of data, and how to best weasel word your findings to get published without ruffling feathers so your funding does not stop (physics widow here) "while..AND AT THE SAME TIME" (to quote Gonzo the Great)ignoring the flame war that has erupted by the people who started the thread in the first place. Are any of you parents?
Remind me not to hit the boards without bringing marshmallows from now on. S'mores for everyone!
You may now resume calling each other poopy head, boys.

EMMARIGBY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by stinkingrose:
Damn I love you guys!
You're amazing!
This is actually 2 separate threads! I've been watching several people end up engaging in a calm reasoned discussion of scientific principles, the reliability of data, and how to best weasel word your findings to get published without ruffling feathers so your funding does not stop (physics widow here) "while..AND AT THE SAME TIME" (to quote Gonzo the Great)ignoring the flame war that has erupted by the people who started the thread in the first place. Are any of you parents?
Remind me not to hit the boards without bringing marshmallows from now on. S'mores for everyone!
You may now resume calling each other poopy head, boys.

What's a good scientific debate without a bit of poop flinging?! It happens at all of the best conferences, it's just as the letters accrue after your name you find more loquatious ways of calling your learned colleagues poopy head.

___________________

Hissssssssss!

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:06 PM

Just to clarify there's a lot of water under the bridge between Armchair Quarterback and I and through continued failed attempts to actually talk to him like a human being I've learnt its a pointless exercise.

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.

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:19 PM

OK. No one has asked he big question yet.

Why are alligators' genitals tucked up into a slit in their bodies?

a)Modesty?

b)Intelligent design?

c)The fact that all the proto-alligators whose dangly bits didn't tuck up had them bitten off by proto-snapping turtles and couldn't reproduce?

d)Use of depleted uranium rounds by the Stegosaurs in the Stegosaurus-Triceratops Wars of the Cretaecous?

e)something else?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:16 PM

Quote:
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.

It's funny to see foreigners use American terms when they have no clue what they're talking about. Armchair quaterback..heh heh. Funny.

a) I've made no threats toward you,and my comments were only in response to threats made by your toward me first. I believe my only comment was " me kicking your ass won't make you any more / less wrong " or words to that effect. Simply stating, violence would NOT prove to be the deciding factor here, nor would it change any of the facts. Take it as you wish.

Quite simply, your claims of any threats is nothing mroe than a strawman scenario based solely on your own delusion. Trying to 'bait' me into a war of words to escalate into childish acts of violence...please.

b ) Yeah, I'm gonna bring a weapon to an AIRPORT....NOT! ROFLOL !! 9/11 happened here, moron, not that I'd bring any weapons anyway....you must have seen Deliverance a few too many times.

" You're " pathetic first.

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. "

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

b ) Yeah, I'm gonna bring a weapon to an AIRPORT....NOT! ROFLOL !! 9/11 happened here, moron, not that I'd bring any weapons anyway....you must have seen Deliverance a few too many times.

So...do you think Global Warming has had an impact with the area they shot Deliverance in?

Chrisisall

EMMARIGBY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. No one has asked he big question yet.

Why are alligators' genitals tucked up into a slit in their bodies?

a)Modesty?

b)Intelligent design?

c)The fact that all the proto-alligators whose dangly bits didn't tuck up had them bitten off by proto-snapping turtles and couldn't reproduce?

d)Use of depleted uranium rounds by the Stegosaurs in the Stegosaurus-Triceratops Wars of the Cretaecous?

e)something else?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Alligators have it sorted. They don't have the stupid sytem of leaving their most importand organ (genetically speaking) dangling naked and vulnerable exposed to the cruel elements. Human males only look as silly as they do because a more sensible mutation hasn't come along yet. Give it a few million years and we may have got the temperature control sysem inside our bodies sorted to the extent that we can do away with dangly bits! (Sorry, is mentioning evolution considered contraversial here?

)

In the meantime, heed the sign!

___________________

Hissssssssss!

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:29 PM

Quote:
Sorry, is mentioning evolution considered contraversial here?

I think some support 'intelligent design' as an alternative. Can you believe it? In this day and age.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
(Sorry, is mentioning evolution considered contraversial here?)

I don't believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Hahaha.... mwahahaha (evil laugh).

I think Rue just ran out vomiting.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

(Yes, I was kidding. Sort of.)

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:50 PM

Now I'm going to bring in the ad hominem thread at this point - you - you - LUDDITE !

STINKINGROSE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:54 PM

I'm for being marsupial!! Or at least redesigning the female pelvis and legs to make delivery less dangerous and walking much less damaging on the joints.
'Course I probably don't get a vote...

Maybe if we rigged males up with an internal coolant system we could get the genetic packaging tucked up in safely? Can we rig up the bladder as a water bath?
Future generations could *not* get the reference to males being groined in movies, not that that doesn't hurt women too..

STINKINGROSE

Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:04 AM

Believe me, it was self evident even to someone who has never seen either of you post before.

That was rather my point.

I was hoping to subtly, using humor, hint that it would be nice if you gentlemen could take the argument outside (start a flame war thread, whatever) and let everyone else continue with their discussion, which I was actually enjoying.

You could try doing what I have done with my uncle whose views I do not concur. I ignore his emails. Just delete 'em right out of existence because I know there is no reasoning with the man. My life is much more peaceful since I tried this approach.

The suggestion came from my mother, who is his sister. It's what *she* does. If we ever get important news from him we're screwed, but that probably won't happen.

I don't know if this site has a moderator, from what I've seen folks tend to be pretty civil to one another without much in the way of argy-bargies. It is one of the things I like about it. People united in support of something and leaving their egos at the door, but not their sense of humor.

Oops, someone's just kicked my soapbox out from under me..time's up.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE