Wacka Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 But they weren't on his DNC handout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 As for the IPCC being open to facts...you're kidding, right? You honestly believe The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is open to anything that contradicts their funded mandate? The IPCC is part of the reason the science sucks so badly: they're not a scientific organization, they're a policy organization that forces a specific, narrow point of view on the scientific community, and one of the best examples I know of for keeping government out of science. Lol, wut? What do they care what causes the climate change? Climate change happens, and they research why. Fine... there is like a huge list of Scientific organizations who have made statements saying global warming is likely caused by humans. European Academy of Sciences and Arts National Research Council American Meteorological Society World Meteorological Organization Federation of American Scientists European Science Foundation InterAcademy Council Royal Meteorological Society Network of African Science Academies American Quaternary Association There is like a huge list of these guys. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikip..._climate_change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 30, 2008 Author Share Posted November 30, 2008 Once again, demonstrating your ability to quote other people yet yourself know nothing. When did I claim to be a climatologist? You seem to think you are one after reading one Op-ed piece in the Washington Times. I'm just pointing out that your resistance to global warming is based on politics and not science. Look into this Mr. Talking Points! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 30, 2008 Author Share Posted November 30, 2008 That, in itself, is patently ridiculous, and demonstrates how poor the quality of the science is on the topic. Again, I want to see the science done. You remind me of the black people who say that OJ didn't kill his wife. The real reason that you won't believe in global warming is because it pisses off liberals which makes you nothing more than a hack that bloviates on the politics sub-forum of a Buffalo Bills message board. As for the IPCC being open to facts...you're kidding, right? You honestly believe The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is open to anything that contradicts their funded mandate? The IPCC is part of the reason the science sucks so badly: they're not a scientific organization, they're a policy organization that forces a specific, narrow point of view on the scientific community, and one of the best examples I know of for keeping government out of science. So I guess you're saying the all powerful IPCC has much more juice than say Big Oil, right? No one would be financially motivated to further a global warming denial movement, would they? Big business would never lie to you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 You remind me of the black people who say that OJ didn't kill his wife. The real reason that you won't believe in global warming is because it pisses off liberals which makes you nothing more than a hack that bloviates on the politics sub-forum of a Buffalo Bills message board. Who said I didn't believe in global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Who said I didn't believe in global warming? Can we please not nitpick on wording and just assume "global warming" to always mean "human caused global warming". Caused by humans. That is why we're here, and that is why we're having this stupid brain smear of a "debate". (debate in quotes, because none of us know wtf we're talking about, especially wacka) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Can we please not nitpick on wording and just assume "global warming" to always mean "human caused global warming". Caused by humans. That is why we're here, and that is why we're having this stupid brain smear of a "debate". (debate in quotes, because none of us know wtf we're talking about, especially wacka) Okay. Who said I don't believe in it? All I said is that I believe the science behind it is generally garbage. The tone of the scientific research is set, unfortunately, by idiots not unlike elliot, who brook no debate with their dogma, which results in important data not being integrated into the overall research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Can we please not nitpick on wording and just assume "global warming" to always mean "human caused global warming". Caused by humans. That is why we're here, and that is why we're having this stupid brain smear of a "debate". (debate in quotes, because none of us know wtf we're talking about, especially wacka) Right Mr "WTC7 was an inside job". What science background do you have exactly? And Elliot, I'm still waiting for you to reply too. I agree with Tom, global warming may be happening (I'm still on the fence with this because of the location of reporting stations on places like roofs, next to AC units, etc), but the people who treat it as a religion have shown no scientifically verifiable and reproducible proof that it is man caused. Computer models are not scientific proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 The earth has actually cooled the last 8 or nine years. These folks say it aint so. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/16036.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 These folks say it aint so.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/16036.html Answer my question- what is your scientific background? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Answer my question- what is your scientific background? I really don't get what that has to do with the price of hay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 Right Mr "WTC7 was an inside job". What science background do you have exactly? And Elliot, I'm still waiting for you to reply too. I agree with Tom, global warming may be happening (I'm still on the fence with this because of the location of reporting stations on places like roofs, next to AC units, etc), but the people who treat it as a religion have shown no scientifically verifiable and reproducible proof that it is man caused. Computer models are not scientific proof. Since I'm not a climatologist I'm not allowed to listen to the opinion of every major scientific body in the world? I'm not a cardiologist, should I not be allowed to believe that cigarettes are a cause of heart disease? PS- If you think parroting Talking Point Tom and Alaska Darin makes you sound smart you should really think again. If you want to act like you're smart you'd be well advised to start parroting me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 All I said is that I believe the science behind it is generally garbage. The tone of the scientific research is set, unfortunately, by idiots not unlike elliot, who brook no debate with their dogma, which results in important data not being integrated into the overall research. Do you want to come clean on your "methodology" talking point or do I need to humiliate you in front of you adoring sidekick Wacka? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 The religion of Global Warming does not use reproducible experiments to prove their points, the same as creationists. If we can't find an explanation for the warming, it must be man, the same as when the creationists say that a biological mechanism is so complicated (to them) that god must have created it. I want to know your backgrounds (why not give them?) to see if you actually know how real science is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Do you want to come clean on your "methodology" talking point or do I need to humiliate you in front of you adoring sidekick Wacka? Humiliate me. Since you haven't once posted an original thought here, and I'm reasonable sure there's no authoritative "humiliate DC Tom" web sites out there for you to link to, this ought to be a real challenge for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Since you haven't once posted an original thought here, and I'm reasonable sure there's no authoritative "humiliate DC Tom" web sites out there for you to link to, this ought to be a real challenge for you. Hands down the funniest line ever on PPP. humiliatedctom.com is available!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Humiliate me. Since you haven't once posted an original thought here, and I'm reasonable sure there's no authoritative "humiliate DC Tom" web sites out there for you to link to, this ought to be a real challenge for you. Some of the funniest shiit is based on truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 As someone else with a science background, I completely agree with DC Tom and Wacka on this issue. (i dont agree with his politics, but Wacka knows his science). And to connor, please explain why your little global warming religion buddies never show data prior to more than 100 years ago or so? Why are we warming? -The last glaciation period ended a mere 10,000 years ago. Guess what happens after we experience cooling? We warm. -We had the little ice age which ended around the late 1700's. That means it was very cold. Care to hazard a guess as to what happens after a long cold spell? Also, please explain why the temperatures during the medieval maximum were pretty much the same as they are today? Must have been the Vikings and their damn diesel longships or all the SUVs that the peasants in Europe were driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 As someone else with a science background, I completely agree with DC Tom and Wacka on this issue. (i dont agree with his politics, but Wacka knows his science). And to connor, please explain why your little global warming religion buddies never show data prior to more than 100 years ago or so? Why are we warming? -The last glaciation period ended a mere 10,000 years ago. Guess what happens after we experience cooling? We warm. -We had the little ice age which ended around the late 1700's. That means it was very cold. Care to hazard a guess as to what happens after a long cold spell? Also, please explain why the temperatures during the medieval maximum were pretty much the same as they are today? Must have been the Vikings and their damn diesel longships or all the SUVs that the peasants in Europe were driving. I think my full point is, I trust the made statements on this issue of countless Scientific consensus panels. I mean obviously we're all aware of the theories of CO2 trapping in the heat. But without exception I take the research and minds in the IPCC and countless other scientists who have dove head first into the research here over the feeble thoughts of Ramius or Wacka. "have shown no scientifically verifiable and reproducible proof that it is man caused" Statements like that by Wacka cause me to see that he lacks trust in the scientific process of theory and testing and drawing conclusions from the data, and not outside of the data. If he had a mind that even resembled that of a scientist he would know that proof is impossible and best possible theories are all that we have. Wacka lets the Bible guide him more than scientific processes and has not fully rejected the Bible as a source of authority. Also, I don't see how him being in the field of biology gives him any sort authority over climate change. And as far as the word "Religion" ('ll repeat myself here) If this was String Theory of the Theory of Relativity of the Theory of Evolution we would have time to test the theory for hundreds of years and try to prove it. The proofs of those theories are not urgent. In this case, the answer to this proof we do not have time to wait for. The welfare of mankind is at stake and we must do something before we become extinct. The risks of being wrong are way greater if we do nothing than if we move to green energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 If Wacka is so smart, I'm telling you he could be !@#$ing rich, I mean really really wealthy if he just talked one, even one scientific panel into changing thier mind. Exxon Mobile would pay him a ton of money to someone who could do such a thing. So Wacka if you know so much, go get paid dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts