Jump to content


Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
981 replies to this topic

#21 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 25 November 2009 - 11:21 AM

View Postahosang, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

This won't slow the political class in championing AGW and it's spin-off projects...
Even if global warming was completely debunked, there would in short order be another grave matter in which massive wealth and power would need to be confiscated in the name of saving the planet. (see The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich)
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#22 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 25 November 2009 - 12:11 PM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 2:15 PM, said:

I will believe this when I see it.
You do realize that "science" and the common beliefs held by intelligent scientists change constantly, as new experiments, discoveries, theories, etc are seen and discussed and debated? That's like, the very basis of what science is. You keep on retesting shit (theories) and coming up with new ideas of what and how to test that shit, and if ever you get consistently repeatable results that go against your supposedly-proven theory, then that theory must be changed. Unless you're a bad scientist, in which case you cover up the data that doesn't help your theory, such as these guys did.I'm going to try and find this really great quote about a related point. I'll edit this, or post below if there's crazy discussion while I'm gone (unlikely).
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#23 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:06 PM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I will believe this when I see it.

View Posttimwakefield, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

You do realize that "science" and the common beliefs held by intelligent scientists change constantly, as new experiments, discoveries, theories, etc are seen and discussed and debated? That's like, the very basis of what science is. You keep on retesting shit (theories) and coming up with new ideas of what and how to test that shit, and if ever you get consistently repeatable results that go against your supposedly-proven theory, then that theory must be changed. Unless you're a bad scientist, in which case you cover up the data that doesn't help your theory, such as these guys did.
Yeah, TW answered this pretty directly. If you've never seen a scientific theory change you just haven't been paying attention. They don't all need to change -- some of them are right!

#24 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:28 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 3:06 PM, said:

Yeah, TW answered this pretty directly. If you've never seen a scientific theory change you just haven't been paying attention. They don't all need to change -- some of them are right!
Well, my point is that those involved in global warming/climate change aren't concerned with the science in the first place. I think they mostly fall into the catagory of the "bad Scientists" mentioned in TW post.
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#25 SCYUKON

SCYUKON

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,409 posts
  • Location:Up North
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, fast SUVs

Posted 25 November 2009 - 06:59 PM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 1:33 PM, said:

Hazaaa:Posted Image
:club: This little fella does look a little rabid....
"In the language typical of an IPCC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by Climategate and Glaciergate strongly suggest this is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words "very likely" in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there's a 90% probability the climate-change political machine is going to come crashing down."

#26 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 25 November 2009 - 07:43 PM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 1:28 PM, said:

Well, my point is that those involved in global warming/climate change aren't concerned with the science in the first place. I think they mostly fall into the catagory of the "bad Scientists" mentioned in TW post.
I don't see how you or I could possibly be in a position to make that judgment.

#27 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:18 PM

Here's the quote I was thinking of. It's by Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker. He's talking about evolution, and I want to point out that it's not a direct parallel because global warming is nothing like Darwinian theory as far as how extensively proven and rationally understood it is, but I think the message is relevant to any scientific theory, well-proven or not."Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers."
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#28 nutzbuster

nutzbuster

    Point taken....

  • Members
  • 11,378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix / Motor City

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:36 PM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 1:33 PM, said:

Hazaaa:Posted Image
:club:



F Cancer

#29 nutzbuster

nutzbuster

    Point taken....

  • Members
  • 11,378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix / Motor City

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:38 PM

View Postcolonel Feathers, on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 2:57 PM, said:

With billions of dollars in the research stream, not to mention a couple of bogus nobel prizes, if the slies parted and God himself said it was bogus, GORE and his band of merry followers wouldnt be taken off message.
My new after the Holidays sig.Thank you sir.



F Cancer

#30 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:32 PM

View Postnutzbuster, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

My new after the Holidays sig.Thank you sir.
It's kind of out of context if you don't include this part though:

View Postcolonel Feathers, on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 4:57 PM, said:

To be fair tho, if all the polar bears dropped dead, the ice caps melted, and las vegas became a beachfront town, we wouldnt be swayed either.

Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#31 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:08 AM

Stupid polar bearsLink
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#32 nutzzcase

nutzzcase

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:22 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

Stupid polar bearsLink
Are polar bears allowed on Airplanes now?

#33 85suited

85suited

    Politics Forum Pundit

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Location:In The Obamanation
  • Favorite Poker Game:Vast Right Wing Conspirator

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:30 AM

http://www.canadafre...p/article/17183Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding "Climategate" scandal

#34 SCYUKON

SCYUKON

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,409 posts
  • Location:Up North
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, fast SUVs

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:37 AM

The more I read the better it gets:http://www.cbsnews.c...l?tag=mncol;txt
"In the language typical of an IPCC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by Climategate and Glaciergate strongly suggest this is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words "very likely" in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there's a 90% probability the climate-change political machine is going to come crashing down."

#35 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:14 AM

View Posttimwakefield, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Here's the quote I was thinking of. It's by Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker. He's talking about evolution, and I want to point out that it's not a direct parallel because global warming is nothing like Darwinian theory as far as how extensively proven and rationally understood it is, but I think the message is relevant to any scientific theory, well-proven or not."Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers."
Huh?! so in the global warming debate which side are you accusing of distorting facts and blowing things out of proportion????
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#36 strategy

strategy

    Internet expert

  • Members
  • 15,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:strategy
  • Favorite Poker Game:strategy

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:44 AM

.
QUOTE (ShakeZuma @ Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 4:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seriously though, with that grammar it's really like, I mean it doesn't bother me as much that she gets beat, you know?


#37 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:55 AM

View Poststrategy, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 7:44 AM, said:

I know I've said this before, but I'm still baffled that so many of you would rather armchair it with Internet research than listen to LLY on this one.
Because we would rather listen to Rush.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#38 85suited

85suited

    Politics Forum Pundit

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Location:In The Obamanation
  • Favorite Poker Game:Vast Right Wing Conspirator

Posted 26 November 2009 - 10:33 AM

Do you think the AP will assign 11 reporters to fact check global warming?

#39 strategy's_touch

strategy's_touch

    has enough mobile posts to have a title

  • Members
  • 1,183 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:35 PM

View Post85suited, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 1:33 PM, said:

Do you think the AP will assign 11 reporters to fact check global warming?
how lucky you are that dbagka showed up to make you seem reasonable
I got tired of logging in and out on my iPod. I made this so I could stay logged in on both my PC and this.

#40 85suited

85suited

    Politics Forum Pundit

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Location:In The Obamanation
  • Favorite Poker Game:Vast Right Wing Conspirator

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:40 PM

View Poststrategy's_touch, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 8:35 PM, said:

how lucky you are that dbagka showed up to make you seem reasonable
Reasonable meaning I would like reporters to investigate something important rather than picking apart a book by sarah palin...seems very reasonable doesnt it




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users