elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 What's that LinkBoy? You "exposed" your own ignorance by once again failing to offer any original thoughts? Quick LinkBoy, google a response!! Uses emoticons- check. Irrationally comes to the defense of an equally douchey loser-check. Has over 10,000 posts-check. You're scoring perfect in the internet loser trifecta tonight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Looks like you've chose to ignore the fact that I just exposed your boyfriends regurgitation of the right wing "computer model" meme as his own thoughts. The truth hurts doesn't it! Now go ask El Rushbo for a witty comeback. Actually, I've never listened to talk radio (least of all Limbaugh) in my life. My statements comes from my experience doing computer modelling. You know, that pesky little physics background I mentioned a while back that you dismissed as "Argument from authority", and continue to counter with the marvelous strategy of "Argument from somebody else's authority." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 He's been "owned" and can't think of anything else but calling people names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Actually, I've never listened to talk radio (least of all Limbaugh) in my life. My statements comes from my experience doing computer modelling. You know, that pesky little physics background I mentioned a while back that you dismissed as "Argument from authority", and continue to counter with the marvelous strategy of "Argument from somebody else's authority." Does your "physics background" teach you how to blather inanities you once read on the Wall Street Journal editorial page? What a coincidence that every conservative blogger and radio host had the same take on global warming computer models as you did! What are the odds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Because they objectively look at the science and see that it is badly done. Do you do anything besides post links and hurl insults? Did you even read the list of links you posted? Some of them do a good job of refuting man-made global warming, especially the one with the photos of temperature stations right next to a trash burning barrel and next to an AC unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Because they objectively look at the science and see that it is badly done. Rush Limbaugh is the epitome of objectivity! Do you do anything besides post links and hurl insults? You crybabies can dish it out but you can't take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 You haven't answered a single question I have asked, now its' late, have your mom tuck you in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Actually, no you can't. You can investigate theories from computer... Mr. Tom, your a good man with, obviously, a very smart head on your shoulders. I still say you are wrong on this. And of course, I'm not qualified to fully argue on this (though I did link to IPCC's paper above ) You seem to concede most major points I would want from any human - The air, earth, and water are not as clean as they could be, and they are only getting worse at the moment. Is that agreeable, at least? I have a hard time believing that arguing with anthropogenic global warming is a crime or frowned upon in the world of science. I mean that's what science does, argue with itself. Perhaps it is possible the cooling really does mean global warming is getting worse? I mean money can't be the motive, Exxon or whoever I'm sure would love to sponsor research that did say the world really was cooling. Anyways, you have labeled it "religion" but I prefer "urgent". do you have any idea how environmentally destructive it is to manufacture a NiMH battery for a hybrid car? Yeah, I have seen those studies that say the Prius does more damage to the environment than Hummer, just because of the manufacturing footprint. I'm all about the road bike myself. I wish everyone rode one of those things to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Does your "physics background" teach you how to blather inanities you once read on the Wall Street Journal editorial page? What a coincidence that every conservative blogger and radio host had the same take on global warming computer models as you did! What are the odds! Congratulations on your very first ever posted original thought! Don't read the Journal, either (Barrons, if you must know. BBC and the Washington Post for daily news.) And I find myself significantly underwhelmed by the criticism of my knowledge of the limitations of computer modelling from someone who can't even comprehend the limitations of hyperlinks. Keep trying, though...I know you're handicapped by not being able to link to it, but I'm sure you'll humiliate me eventually, if only accidentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Congratulations on your very first ever posted original thought! Don't read the Journal, either (Barrons, if you must know. BBC and the Washington Post for daily news.) And I find myself significantly underwhelmed by the criticism of my knowledge of the limitations of computer modelling from someone who can't even comprehend the limitations of hyperlinks. Keep trying, though...I know you're handicapped by not being able to link to it, but I'm sure you'll humiliate me eventually, if only accidentally. Even in that case it's still one more than you have had in you 16,000 posts. SIXTEEN THOUSAND. Looks like Talking Point Tom has nobody to bounce his crackpot regurgitations off of in real life! "So Tom what do you do in your spare time?" "Well I paraphrase the latest conservative talking points on the politics sub-forum of a Buffalo Bills message board to the tune of 16,000 posts!" "Dear God!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Mr. Tom, your a good man with, obviously, a very smart head on your shoulders. I still say you are wrong on this. And of course, I'm not qualified to fully argue on this (though I did link to IPCC's paper above ) You seem to concede most major points I would want from any human - The air, earth, and water are not as clean as they could be, and they are only getting worse at the moment. Is that agreeable, at least? I have a hard time believing that arguing with anthropogenic global warming is a crime or frowned upon in the world of science. I mean that's what science does, argue with itself. Perhaps it is possible the cooling really does mean global warming is getting worse? I mean money can't be the motive, Exxon or whoever I'm sure would love to sponsor research that did say the world really was cooling. Anyways, you have labeled it "religion" but I prefer "urgent". Yeah, I have seen those studies that say the Prius does more damage to the environment than Hummer, just because of the manufacturing footprint. I'm all about the road bike myself. I wish everyone rode one of those things to work. We are for cleaning the environment and keeping it clean. Actually I would say that the environment is much cleaner than it has been before in the US. The environmental laws, which were non-existent in the 50s and early 60s are very strict. Out here in CA when the air pollution is bad, they call a "Spare the Air Day". In the SF area,two summers ago we had maybe 2 or 3, caused by temperature inversions, where warmer air aloft kept the pollution concentrated at the lower altitudes. These were usually very hot days (105-115 where I live). This was a lot less than the 10-15 they had regularly in the past. This past summer, we had a lot more because of the hundreds of wild fires, the vast majority of which were caused by lightning. When we don't have the fog rolling in, which is often, you can get spectacular views of SF from Oakland or even near Palo Alto , down the peninsula over 20 miles away. The fires were so bad this year we could smell the smoke from the nearest fire which was about 50 miles away. It was so thick that the ridge 2 miles from my house was almost obscured. I was in San Jose one day in June. There was a massive fire (at least 50 square miles burnt) about 100 miles south. The wind shifted and it looked like a thunderstorm was rolling in. It was the smoke. Everything had an eerie orange glow. I even thought I saw snowflakes. It was ash from the fire coming down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Want some more humiliation? Looks like Talking Point Tom has been cribbing off of Wacka! That's like cheating on a test by copying a D student's answers! The idea that man is causing the global warming is based on COMPUTER MODELS, not any real world experiments. It is a theory, not a fact. Just as sting theory in physics is a theory and not proven because no one has come up with an experiment to prove it. Why doesn't Gore give away his fortune his daddy made from the evil Occidental Chemical and that Stalin lover Armand Hammer. Actually, no you can't. You can investigate theories from computer models. Form them...not so much. They're useful tools, but nowhere near and end-all and be-all, since they're only as good as your a priori premises underpinning them. I certainly wouldn't trust a theory derived strictly from them (not that global warming is strictly derived from computer models - my issues with it lie elsewhere.) And a "theory" is nothing more than a description of the empirically observed world. A "scientific theory" is a theory that is falsifiable (or refutable), testable (verifiable by repeatable observation, such as but not limited to experiments in a lab setting), and predictive. Anybody else hear an echo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Go to bed, It's past your bedtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Go to bed, It's past your bedtime. I will in a minute Gramps. Make sure you don't fall asleep with your dentures in again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 What a coincidence that every conservative blogger and radio host had the same take on global warming computer models as you did! What are the odds! If all conservatives said the sky is blue, would you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It's early here. I'm watching two and a half men in a few minutes. I could keep this up for at least 4 more hours, but I have to clean up the dinner dishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Mr. Tom, your a good man with, obviously, a very smart head on your shoulders. I still say you are wrong on this. And of course, I'm not qualified to fully argue on this (though I did link to IPCC's paper above ) You seem to concede most major points I would want from any human - The air, earth, and water are not as clean as they could be, and they are only getting worse at the moment. Is that agreeable, at least? At least. It's been agreeable for quite some time. You seem young (younger than me, at least)...I can recall back, to my late childhood, at least two other "most important environmental crisis that will kill us all!" in the past thirty years or so (CFC's destroying the ozone layer, sulfur dioxide and acid rain). To me, this focus on CO2 is simply yet another example of people's tendency to focus on the one single thing they're told is most important, while ignoring the simple fact that things are usually way more complex than just that one single thing. I have a hard time believing that arguing with anthropogenic global warming is a crime or frowned upon in the world of science. I mean that's what science does, argue with itself. Perhaps it is possible the cooling really does mean global warming is getting worse? I mean money can't be the motive, Exxon or whoever I'm sure would love to sponsor research that did say the world really was cooling. No, it's pretty much money. When policy and science collide, science suffers. Exxon will fund contrary research, sure...but will it get published? Will it pass peer review? Will it even be honest? How about someone funded by an NSF grant? Will the NSF even fund anything not doctrinaire (I know the answer to that one is no: my brother's setting up an environmental engineering lab under an NSF grant that will not allow any research contrary to anthropogenic global warming). And really...that shouldn't surprise anyone. When politics gets involved in science, politics controls the purse strings and makes science dance to its tune...and science doesn't mind, because it's money after all. Look at the entire history of AIDS research. How much money was dumped into researching "environmental causes" - meaning "prove the fags are doing this to themselves" - versus responsible public health and epidemiology research early on, because the Reagan Administration's policy on gay rights was hostile. How much is dumped now into finding a "cure" compared to effective public health strategies, because government and special interests (drug companies and the AMA) policy is hostile to public health in favor of individual health care? Or stem cell research (which I think need not be detailed here)? Why would anyone expect, with the money thrown at global warming, the quality of that research to be any more honest? Anyways, you have labeled it "religion" but I prefer "urgent". Comparing apples and squirrels. "Religion" doesn't preclude "urgent". In this case, one could argue quite the contrary: the unscientific nature the topic has taken on adds urgency to the topic, because the religious nature of the discussion gets in the way of the research that needs to be done. Yeah, I have seen those studies that say the Prius does more damage to the environment than Hummer, just because of the manufacturing footprint. I'm all about the road bike myself. I wish everyone rode one of those things to work. I have a Prius. I really didn't get it because it's environmentally friendly...I got it because I like it (I'm a techno-geek, what can I say? I even keep a slide rule on the dashboard, for ironic juxtaposition). Really, the most environmentally friendly car to buy would have been...none. It is ALWAYS more environmentally friendly to keep the car you have as long as possible, rather than buy a new one. But again...money. If Detroit (okay...Tokyo) can convince you that you NEED to replace your ten year old oil-burning clunker with a shiny new hybrid or else the world is going to end, it's to their benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Want some more humiliation? Looks like Talking Point Tom has been cribbing off of Wacka! That's like cheating on a test by copying a D student's answers! This must be some new and interesting definition of "humiliation" I've never heard before. I actually don't read Wacka's posts. As I've said before, and anyone can tell you...I think he's pretty much an idiot. Again, if you could read, you'd probably know that. But you have a truly impressive knack for impressing absolutely no one but yourself. Keep it up, it's very entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Rock on, DC Tom. Can we build some more nuke plants already? I love the look of cooling towers and Homer is my favorite simpson. And I like paying less for energy, and shutting environmentalists up. Like little kids defying their parents, they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Rock on, DC Tom. The dude is on fire today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts