jakee 1,596
Recommended Posts
QuoteBut of course, according to brenthutch, one month of above average temperatures, on just US land surfaces, means there is not a warming trend.
Blues,
Dave
Please engage brain before applying mouth.
Lol - you're one to talk on that point! Clearly I meant "below", not "above". I consider treating your posts similarly, but in the immortal words of Sweet Brown, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
Still a long way from being settled
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteBut of course, according to brenthutch, one month of above average temperatures, on just US land surfaces, means there is not a warming trend.
Blues,
Dave
Please engage brain before applying mouth.
Lol - you're one to talk on that point! Clearly I meant "below", not "above". I consider treating your posts similarly, but in the immortal words of Sweet Brown, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
Blues,
Dave
Seems truth falls into the same catogory
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteQuoteQuoteBut of course, according to brenthutch, one month of above average temperatures, on just US land surfaces, means there is not a warming trend.
Blues,
Dave
Please engage brain before applying mouth.
Lol - you're one to talk on that point! Clearly I meant "below", not "above". I consider treating your posts similarly, but in the immortal words of Sweet Brown, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
Blues,
Dave
Seems truth falls into the same catogory
So now you're calling me a liar? Most of your arguments I just dismiss as the biased and illogical meanderings of an uneducated mind. This one, I'm going to ask you to substantiate. Who knows, maybe today is that historical day when the "Pick the date that rushmc makes a cogent argument" pool finally pays off. After all these years, you might actually make someone have a VERY good day!
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBut of course, according to brenthutch, one month of above average temperatures, on just US land surfaces, means there is not a warming trend.
Blues,
Dave
Please engage brain before applying mouth.
Lol - you're one to talk on that point! Clearly I meant "below", not "above". I consider treating your posts similarly, but in the immortal words of Sweet Brown, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
Blues,
Dave
Seems truth falls into the same catogory![[:/]](//www.dropzone.com/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png "[:/]")
So now you're calling me a liar? Most of your arguments I just dismiss as the biased and illogical meanderings of an uneducated mind. This one, I'm going to ask you to substantiate. Who knows, maybe today is that historical day when the "Pick the date that rushmc makes a cogent argument" pool finally pays off. After all these years, you might actually make someone have a VERY good day!
Blues,
Dave
No, I am not calling you anything
Calm down there
At this point you have ignored my question
Given the age of the planet, what would be the normal temp? What would be normal weather for that matter?
Now you go to name calling and worse
I know many get pissed off when their religion is questioned
Seems to be the case here
BTW
I am used to the typical "you are undedicated" blathering’s from liberals when I don’t agree with them when they think themselves superior to any position other than theirs
It just make me laugh anymore
So sir, what is normal?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteThere is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science." It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
- Richard Feynman
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteThere is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science." It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
- Richard Feynman
Kind of says it all huh...........
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
About all sides, rush..
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 23
QuoteAbout all sides, rush..
Ya
I dont have a side yet
I was one who believe we were killing the planet and that all guns should be banned
I grew up and started questioning
Seems that is not allowed anymore
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
In a nut shell
We dont have time for the truth anymore
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
There's one side. There's the other side. The truth is somewhere in between, where nobody seems to want to go.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 23
QuoteThere's one side. There's the other side. The truth is somewhere in between, where nobody seems to want to go.
There is truth
And truth is not always in the middle
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanG 1
QuoteThere's one side. There's the other side. The truth is somewhere in between, where nobody seems to want to go.
Actually, I think most people are already there. Here's how I see the debate:
1. Is the climate changing?
Side 1: No, the climate is perfectly stable. (and if it isn't, it doesn't matter.)
Side 2: Yes, the climate is changing so fast that we're all doomed!
Middle: Yes, the climate is slowly changing.
2. Why is the climate changing?
Side 1: The climate's not changing. (but if it is, it's perfectly natural and nothing to worry about.)
Side 2: Man's output of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses is causing the climate to change.
Middle: Man is having some impact on the changing climate, but there are probably other forces at work, too.
3. Is climate change bad?
Side 1: Dammit, the climate is not changing! (but if it is the good and bad aspects will cancel each other out.)
Side 2: See above, we're all doomed!
Middle: There will likely be some negative aspects to climate change, some of which we can't foresee.
4. Can we do anything about it?
Side 1: About what? (and if there was a problem, man couldn't do anything about it anyway.)
Side 2: If everyone stops using oil today, we can save the planet, but otherwise we're doomed!
Middle: Reducing our dependence on oil and other carbon based fuel sources can have an impact on climate change.
The problem is that the debate has become an us vs. them, which tends to attract people who enjoy digging in and fighting it out more than they enjoy learning about the world around them.
- Dan G
QuoteAt this point you have ignored my question
Given the age of the planet, what would be the normal temp? What would be normal weather for that matter?
It's an inane question. Clearly, earth has, at various times (especially in her infancy) experienced temperatures that were not compatible with human life. This fact does not mean that humans should do everything in their power to expedite the next such occurrence.
QuoteI know many get pissed off when their religion is questioned Seems to be the case here
No religion required, I'm convinced by data. I still have questions about man's role in it and am trying to further educate myself on the topic.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
I still have questions about man's role in it and am trying to further educate myself on the topic.
Blues,
Dave
Blues,
Dave
As do I
Still waiting for your data on what should be considered normal given the age of this planet
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteQuoteThere is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science." It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
- Richard Feynman
Agreed, and both sides of this debate are guilty of failing in this regard. Question: If you removed arguments between alarmists and deniers and just looked at peer-to-peer criticism of theories, which side do you think would demonstrate more? My suspicion is that you'd find substantially criticism and review on the alarmist side (in the scientific community, not so much on the social side). Skeptics, on the other hand, seem to jump on board with any argument that even remotely supports their vew.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
Agreed, and both sides of this debate are guilty of failing in this regard. Question: If you removed arguments between alarmists and deniers and just looked at peer-to-peer criticism of theories, which side do you think would demonstrate more? My suspicion is that you'd find substantially criticism and review on the alarmist side (in the scientific community, not so much on the social side). Skeptics, on the other hand, seem to jump on board with any argument that even remotely supports their vew.
Blues,
Dave
Blues,
Dave
This can be spun both ways
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Whatever dude. Is there a more see-through word than transparent that I can use here?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites