Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Verax said:

Jesus Christ, you're just like Code. You turn everything into a mind numbing assault on sensibilities. Now we have to define the meaning of relevant because you have a quibble.

Definition of RELEVANT
1
a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand

Did you really think relevant meant EVERYTHING ever published on climate change?

If somebody told you that they were going to rebuild their carburetor in their vehicle, and they had read the "relevant" material to do so. Would you assume they were claiming that they had read every published document on carburetors EVER? Of course you wouldn't you psycho. The **** is wrong with you? lol

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

sorry dude, I never said you claimed to have read all the material ever published about global warming. you are the one who made the claim that you had read all the relevant material. I was merely pointing out that, unless you narrowly define "relevant", it is highly unlikely that you have read "cover to cover" all the relevant data. (and FWIW...if you haven't read ALL the data...how do you know if it is relevant or not? )

so, there is nothing "wrong" with me. You are the one who made an exaggerated claim and then got butthurt when I called you on it.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

Yes, nothing can be proven. It is possible that gravity just hasn't been proven wrong, yet.

Do not confuse this with the likelihood that gravity is correct. Gravity is a fact because it is easily observed as true by any competent person. Again this doesn't "prove" it 100% We call things true, correct, a fact because of their track record, not because it is impossible to prove them wrong.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

LoL WAT? Did you read what I said? He said what I said he says. If you're not sure, read it again. If you're still not sure... maybe this isn't your forte.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

I'm not perfect, so lets look at. I'll remove the words in () so we can see it better:

But Dyson's purpose seems to be to throw out "heretical" ideas that can then spur further debate. As he said: "I know a lot about nuclear weapons and nothing about climate change."

News Blog: Freeman Dyson and the irresistible urge to be contrary about climate change

It doesn't seem like a misreading to me. The pronoun should not refer to anything in the (), so it should refer to Dyson. Do you have other information?

Click to expand...

I'm heretical because I was in the business of studying climate change at least 30 years ago before it became fashionable.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Didn't I read someplace he studied Climate change for 30 years of his life?

Do you really think the same man who said he studied the climate for 30 years would say that referring to himself? That quote means Reagan. Notice is is when speaking of Reagan as well.

I'm looking for the link I found yesterday. The quotation marks were different:

"As he said: I know a lot about nuclear weapons and nothing about climate change."

I haven't found it yet, but it also sounds more like Reagan.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

I read it wrong, here is what he said about understanding climate:



He understand climate change.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Is that from my link or yours, and does that mean he still doesn't know more about nuclear weapons than Climate Change?

The point is, you and J did read the quote wrong. And this is not his field. He, while a bright fellow, is not the foremost expert on the subject. You merely like him because he says what you want to hear.

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Here's a nice critique on Dyson.

Freeman Dyson, Climate Confusionist | ThinkProgress

I find it funny that the same guys who whine about 'argument from authority' when you cite the thousands of climate scientists who are convinced of AGW absolutely drool over a guy like Freeman Dyson as a skeptic.

Remember, Einstein (i cite him because he seems to be another drool-worthy figure in skeptic minds) fought quantum theory til the end of his life, and that was actually his FIELD, unlike Dyson talking outside his.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Wow, shocker, you agree with a progressive hack site like thinkprogress.....:roll:

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Outstanding LoP....So, in my limited educational level, if I understand what Dr. Dyson is saying here, is very close to what those opposing AGW for years is, and that is that computer models are garbage if we really want to understand what is going on with climate change.

Now, one has to ask if the AGW cult is relying so much on computer models, and a strong campaign to discredit, and destroy anyone whom disagrees with their thinking, then what is their real goal here? My opinion is that it has nothing to do with the well being of the world, and much more to do with political, control, and wealth issues. IOW, a huge scam.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

That's why it's a theory, and AGW variables aren't. Only geometry had "proofs."

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Here's a nice critique on Dyson.

Freeman Dyson, Climate Confusionist | ThinkProgress

I find it funny that the same guys who whine about 'argument from authority' when you cite the thousands of climate scientists who are convinced of AGW absolutely drool over a guy like Freeman Dyson as a skeptic.

Remember, Einstein (i cite him because he seems to be another drool-worthy figure in skeptic minds) fought quantum theory til the end of his life, and that was actually his FIELD, unlike Dyson talking outside his.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

So you post a wiki link as proof, which only says "90% certainty."

Don't you understand the insignificance of 90%, compared to 100% of everything we test with something like gravity?

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

LOL...

You expect us to believe Think Progress over one of the greatest thinkers alive?

Next, you're going to find somewhat to discredit his hypothesis of a Dyson Sphere.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

Moving the goal posts? What are you upset now that it doesn't claim to be 100% right? Isn't that a reasonable number to give it a 10% chance of being wrong? Isn't that what you want anyway, for people to recognize AGW has a chance of being wrong? I agree there is a small chance. Why does it need to be as good as gravity? What point are you trying to make?

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Once again, you fail to comprehend my point.

Gravity is repeatable, quantifying AGW isn't. It's only a hypothesis until it's repeatable.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

:roll:

I've explained this to you and others several times now. You're starting to sound more like people on here who don't have any scientific knowledge whatsoever. Are we not able to quantify GHG's and their effects? Really? What is wrong with you.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Greenhouse gasses, individually, are quantifiable. It's when you mix them in the atmosphere, with all the other variables, that you have too many assumptions that have not produced repeatable results.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

So this is just another play on your ("the models are wrong" / "the models aren't good enough") position. :roll:

Click to expand...