Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'

Voidwar · 11-20-07, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

I was pointing out the obvious flaw of your stated opinion. Environmentalists don't need there to be environmental problems.

Laughably naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

As you stated since tautologies need no proof you're being academically dishonest in ignoring the obvious 500 ton gorilla in the room. Let me post it again here.
"Oil companies need to have a mass market in fossil fuels to remain profitable"

I'm not ignoring anything. Your gorilla, allows me to use my gorilla.

Quote:

Environmentalists need for there to be a problem, so they can keep being environmentalists.

My gorilla cancels your gorilla.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Well then I really can't help you there if you feel that science is some how left. If you understood the process you would not be making such an ignorant claim.

It is nowhere near an "ignorant" claim.

It is based off of a Double Major in Genetics and Chemistry and a modest career doing bench research. So I do understand the process, as I have worked in the field for years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

It is YOU now who are attempting to discredit and without any proof there of.

No, I am using my gorilla, right where you used yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

You're attempting to show how the NSF and various other grant boards lean in one direction without addressing the fact that even so that would not change the out come of the science because it would never pass the peer review process.

It does if all your peers are in on it, and they ostracize the few who disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

It's evident as such that you don't understand and are quite ignorant of the way in which the scientific method works.

You do not know near enough about me to make any of these claims, and I suggest you check your personal tone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Environmentalists don't need there to be a problem to be environmental.

As Above, Laughably Naive.

I've done bench chemistry in a grant funded lab, have you ?

Binary_Digit · 11-20-07, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Yes there is something funny about the way you argue there is no debate, nobody making the debate is credible and when presented with only a few quotes from books and reports in the public domain by credible scientist, you still find time only to knee jerk them all off.

Much like akyron and his post, which I guess you can’t blithely dismiss as internet fed hysteria, so you just skip them. I mean, you have had days to reply to them now have you not? Why the silence?

I think my mistake was that after our initial discussion I thought you were some kind of man of science, not the typical Net Knee Jerk. Crowing for internet links one minute, bemoaning them when you think you have them being used to support an argument opposite yours.

You run on about listening to "credible" sources and when I list some of the sources and ideas I have found worthy of note you dismiss them. OK, so how about you address the issues brought up, instead of trying to ignore another argument? Which ironically you claim comes from "links" which you call for. I was so wrong about the circular nature of this all huh? Because pesky PHD holding MIT types in the mix just don’t serve your argument well do they?

You must have me confused with someone else. I have not dismissed or bemoaned any of the sources. I only addressed Akyron's first two sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Had I actually composed my reply based upon the website you list, I’d give that dodge a thumbs up instead of down. The quotes I listed where not from the website you found as hit #1 on your Google search.

Well I don't know how else to explain the fact that searching Google for the phrase "I am willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now" returns one result - that forum.

And that is not my rebuttal either. I'm only pointing out that you should source the things you quote from other websites because it's one of DP's posting rules.

I don't intend to get into the AGW debate, but when I have time I will look at all the sources you and Akyron have provided. Surely something in there has been peer reviewed and would meet the criteria of "credible scientific debate", at which point I will gladly retract my assertion and admit that I was mistaken. Meanwhile, I apologize for having to postpone a response with actual substance, but we're pretty busy getting ready for the holiday.

jfuh · 11-20-07, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Laughably naive.

I'm not ignoring anything. Your gorilla, allows me to use my gorilla.

My gorilla cancels your gorilla.

It is nowhere near an "ignorant" claim.

It is based off of a Double Major in Genetics and Chemistry and a modest career doing bench research. So I do understand the process, as I have worked in the field for years.

Bull**** based on the argumentative pattern it is quite telling that you don't have any such degrees and you're flat out lying here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

No, I am using my gorilla, right where you used yours.

It does if all your peers are in on it, and they ostracize the few who disagree.

You do not know near enough about me to make any of these claims, and I suggest you check your personal tone.

As Above, Laughably Naive.

I've done bench chemistry in a grant funded lab, have you ?

The typical response of someone trying to sound more credible than they really are. Maybe you've worked in grant funded lab but at most you are the glass washer. Here you are claiming that the grants are rigged the the science is politicized and as is the publication process. One thing a scientist would never critique is the scientific method and here you are doing exactly this.
Sorry, you've just lost any and all credibility.

jfuh · 11-20-07, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Please sir, a modicum of honesty and commons sense. Climate scientist on a fundamental level need there to be a problem in order to secure funding. There are many credible scientists who will testify about this matter. There is a vested monetary interest in perpetuating panic about MMGW, then money flows unhindered to climate science studies. The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend upon MMGW now. Deny it if you wish, that is a fact. If the whole Y2K like arguments about MMGW go away so do those jobs.

Then we find ourselves back in the ExxonMobil Research argument. ExxonMobil has contributed to some studies, all of them dismissed on the face of the matter because EM helped fund them (maybe the same argument about the IPCC could be made?) but they do not now nor have they ever made it a part of their business model studying MMGW. They are far too busy employing geoscientist and petrol chemist in the discovery of oil and uses for it. But then as one argues that you should not villanize the scientists who agree with MMGW, nor should one do the same with scientists who disagree with it. That is if you really want to be taken seriously.

Quite wrong. The science for AGW started in the 60's and 70's before it was even a mainstream issue whatsoever. The argument posted by the denial crowd has been as you've done so too here, that some how the problem was created out of the blue and was a marketing tactic to secure more monetary funding like the Y2K. What you fail to realize is that the academic and scientific community never worried about the Y2K problem and it was the popular media community frightening a gullible mass, just as they do with many other issues.
There are plenty of other issues that climate scientists and environmental scientists study that don't for the slightest bit over lap with AGW so again, that claim is invalid.

As for exxon, dissmissed because EM helped them is the only reason? Sorry science does not work that way. The rejection or acceptance of a scientific manuscript is completely independent on where the funding comes from and based entirely on the work itself and whether the conclusion is valid based on the research. Exxon studies as well as those that deny AGW have 0 scientific publication because they weren't valid.

Finally as for the bolded statement above - there's a conundrum for you, how is it possible that they're both too busy for anything else other than digging for oil yet then also have studies that were rejected because they funded it? Not to mention if they are too busy - then just wtf is this?Or this?

Voidwar · 11-20-07, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Bull**** based on the argumentative pattern it is quite telling that you don't have any such degrees and you're flat out lying here.
+
The typical response of someone trying to sound more credible than they really are. Maybe you've worked in grant funded lab but at most you are the glass washer.

Again, fallacious allegations and ad hominem attacks.

Earning yet another report to the mods

I have a double major in Chemistry and Genetics from the Iowa State University.

I have worked on the Species Survival Plan for Galapagos Tortoises, collecting 100's of samples from zoos worldwide, and genetically phenotyping them on a 3 million dollar gene sequencer. All extractions and preparations performed personally, from turtle blood extracted to DNA in buffer, to prepping the lead crystal plates and the electro-phoretic gel in between, and loading their wells with the ordered and extracted and flourecently gene-labeled DNA extractions.

Care to hear about my second job out of school ?

jfuh · 11-20-07, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Again, fallacious allegations and ad hominem attacks.

Earning yet another report to the mods

I have a double major in Chemistry and Genetics from the Iowa State University.

I have worked on the Species Survival Plan for Galapagos Tortoises, collecting 100's of samples from zoos worldwide, and genetically phenotyping them on a 3 million dollar gene sequencer. All extractions and preparations performed personally, from turtle blood extracted to DNA in buffer, to prepping the lead crystal plates and the electro-phoretic gel in between, and loading their wells with the ordered and extracted and flourecently gene-labeled DNA extractions.

Care to hear about my second job out of school ?

You worked in a lab on an expensive machine woopdifracking doo. DNA extraction isn't exactly very requiring of any high level degree - I can train anyone to work on an automatic gene sequencer - which is all you're doing. Machine loading.
Normally on these boards the only people that ever boast of their intelligence are those that actually don't have said intelligence. You're academic degree wouldn't even have been brought into focus were you not posting in a highly un-academic way questioning the very methods that were used to develop your own degree.

Voidwar · 11-20-07, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

You worked in a lab on an expensive machine woopdifracking doo. DNA extraction isn't exactly very requiring of any high level degree - I can train anyone to work on an automatic gene sequencer - which is all you're doing. Machine loading.
Normally on these boards the only people that ever boast of their intelligence are those that actually don't have said intelligence. You're academic degree wouldn't even have been brought into focus were you not posting in a highly un-academic way questioning the very methods that were used to develop your own degree.

Nice attempt at a backpedal.

Note you called me a liar and a dishwasher, and now you admit you were wrong. Weren't you the one bringing up credibility earlier ? Where does that leave yours ?

cascadian · 11-20-07, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

A
I have a double major in Chemistry and Genetics from the Iowa State University.

I have worked on the Species Survival Plan for Galapagos Tortoises, collecting 100's of samples from zoos worldwide, and genetically phenotyping them on a 3 million dollar gene sequencer. All extractions and preparations performed personally, from turtle blood extracted to DNA in buffer, to prepping the lead crystal plates and the electro-phoretic gel in between, and loading their wells with the ordered and extracted and flourecently gene-labeled DNA extractions.

Care to hear about my second job out of school ?

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...html#falseauth

akyron · 11-20-07, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

I always wondered where you get your primary argument strategery from.

Thanks. It all makes sense now.

Dune is cool btw..

Sir Loin · 11-20-07, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

You must have me confused with someone else. I have not dismissed or bemoaned any of the sources. I only addressed Akyron's first two sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Well I don't know how else to explain the fact that searching Google for the phrase "I am willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now" returns one result - that forum.
[/COLOR]
And that is not my rebuttal either. I'm only pointing out that you should source the things you quote from other websites because it's one of DP's posting rules.

I don't intend to get into the AGW debate, but when I have time I will look at all the sources you and Akyron have provided. Surely something in there has been peer reviewed and would meet the criteria of "credible scientific debate", at which point I will gladly retract my assertion and admit that I was mistaken. Meanwhile, I apologize for having to postpone a response with actual substance, but we're pretty busy getting ready for the holiday.

Well I thought we had spent some time now having an argument that there was no “credible scientific debate” about MMGW. Looking back through the thread I see this is in fact the case. So I pulled out some material I have here and took the time to type out certain quotes and comments from it. To satisfy a condition you set out. I’m more than aware that there are websites devoted to arguing everything I posted, so try not to fall into the same trap you warned me of. I actually could have saved myself some time and effort had I the link to the website you decided I was quoting from. Now if you could actually address the quotes and why they and their sources are lying or wrong. I’ve not yet encountered anyone who sweepingly “debunked” the whole debate by claiming that there is none. Not by anyone credible.

Anyway I had no expectations that I would hear from you further until you recover from L-tryptophan induced rest this holiday. Happy Thanksgiving and have a great one.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode