Page 82 of 135 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492132 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 820 of 1347

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

  1. #811
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,617

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    LoL, never be accepted as a theory? By who you? Do we really have to go back to the consensus argument again... my god man. You can believe whatever you want, stop misrepresenting mainstream science though.

    If you don't like the models create a new thread with a very specific intent to question the models and place in this thread honest, accurate, criticisms about their weaknesses.



    The models are wrong.

    What other quality is there that makes them either reliable or wrong?
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  2. #812
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,617

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    LoL, never be accepted as a theory? By who you? Do we really have to go back to the consensus argument again... my god man. You can believe whatever you want, stop misrepresenting mainstream science though.

    If you don't like the models create a new thread with a very specific intent to question the models and place in this thread honest, accurate, criticisms about their weaknesses.



    You are saying that talking about something and proving something are the same thing. They are not.

    Scientists, you remember them, the guys who collect the data that is twisted by the propagandists, the scientists say this is not a theory. They say this because it does not meet the criteria needed to be a Theory.

    Railing that they really, truly do even though they don't does not change the facts in the matter. This does not have the qualities demanded by Science to be a Theory. Why do the Diehards of AGW think that repetition of something that is untrue will make it true?
    Last edited by code1211; 08-18-13 at 09:37 AM.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  3. #813
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The big questions, of course, are: just who is we and exactly how "stopping our contribution" will be accomplished? Even if concensus existed on defining the problem is that "we" are far from having any agreement on any of the proposed "solutions".
    Well, that's why I chek with scientist. I do believe in using bet evidence. While most doubt we (all humans) will significantly lower our contribution, they do say it can be done and can help. Not end; help.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #814
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    If you are talking about the possibility that all things things affect all things when they contact each other, I agree. They do.

    I hope that puts this to bed.

    In the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, I have explained to you that at the current concentrations, additional CO2 will not cause appreciable amounts of additional warming. For your ease of reference:

    4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can JoNova

    If you want to talk about your lake and your barrel, how big is the barrel? What was in the barrel? How big is the lake? What was in the lake before you dumped your barrel?

    Did a scientist tell you to dump the barrel into the lake?
    Jonova?

    Lets see, I've presented the overwhelming view of the scientific community. You? JoNova. Now who should we believe?

    Look, you can't put something to bed using such poor efforts. You have to combatted overwhelming evidence with something more credible.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #815
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Jonova?

    Lets see, I've presented the overwhelming view of the scientific community. You? JoNova. Now who should we believe?

    Look, you can't put something to bed using such poor efforts. You have to combatted overwhelming evidence with something more credible.
    Not that this is anything new for you Joe, because you do this at every turn in arguing your case but, here for you, please take note....

    4. Argument against the Person (Ad hominem):

    Attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself. This also comes in several varieties:

    Abusive: Lynch says that we should spend more state revenue on education because doing so would result in a more productive workforce. But lynch is a bleeding-heart, liberal Yankee from New York -- so you know that his opinion is worthless.

    Circumstantial: Lynch says that we should spend more state revenue on education. But Lynch is a professor who wants a better salary -- so you know that his opinion is worthless.

    From Hypocrisy: You've claimed that smoking is bad for one's health; but you smoke too.

    Notice: if a person with low credibility asserts something without supplying evidence for it, then we should withhold judgment. But, if the person does supply reason for the claim, then we still need to look at those reasons and evaluate whether they support the conclusion in question.

    Another thing to be aware of is convicting someone of holding contradictory beliefs. If we can show this, then we have indeed supplied a good reason to believe that the person is confused. But notice that people can change their minds. Changing your mind is fine; contradictory beliefs are not.

    fallacies
    It is a good idea to avoid fallacious arguments because you can lose all credibility once your poor reasoning is exposed. And yours has...
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #816
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Not that this is anything new for you Joe, because you do this at every turn in arguing your case but, here for you, please take note....



    It is a good idea to avoid fallacious arguments because you can lose all credibility once your poor reasoning is exposed. And yours has...
    Linking a fallacy isn't as important as understanding it. You can't in honest debate merely link any source. You have to link credible sources. I know you don't get this. And you confuse pointing it out with a fallacy. I'm sorry you're so mistaken. But I have done my best to point this out.

    There is a ton of peer reviewed credible sources that back my view. Countering with something like jonova is not going to convince any honest critical thinker. That's just a fact.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #817
    Assassin
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,529

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    The reason I brought up the THEORY of Evolution is that it, too, is a very complex idea that cuts across virtually all sciences. It affects all forms of life in all places in all climates and all times. It is arguably far more complex than the climate and yet it has been proven to reliable enough when making PREDICTIONS to be called a THEORY.

    It works all of the time. When it seems to not be working, it turns out that it is working and is doing so in ways that we just did not consider. The questions posed by evolution re-inforce the science that supports it when the answers are found.

    AGW "Science", on the other hand, has not one part of the requirements to be a Scientific Theory. The questions posed by AGW undermine the the science that supports it when the answers are found.

    Are you saying that the THEORY of Evolution is not complex? Ever heard of DNA?

    From your link:

    <snip>
    A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:
    It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
    It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
    It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
    It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
    It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
    The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution,etc.
    <snip>

    For your convenience, I've highlighted in RED those parts of the criteria that prevent this notion from being a Scientific Theory.
    The falsifiable predictions are the climate change model. I've told you this several times now but you don't understand what it means.

    Are you suggesting climate change theory goes against other theory? What exactly? LoL

    So you think there is a simpler explanation huh? Do tell...

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    It amazes me that people who accept fantasy as fact think they are following the Scientific Method.

    Have you found that Science organization that calls this notion a Theory yet?
    Have you read any literature whatsoever on climate change? Do you know what a theory is? Its such a simple notion I don't think anyone bothers to say "Climate change is a theory". You should just know that it is...

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    The models are wrong.

    What other quality is there that makes them either reliable or wrong?
    So you say they're wrong... ok then... I guess that means they're wrong then... I'll let NASA know they're a bunch of morons.

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    You are saying that talking about something and proving something are the same thing. They are not.

    Scientists, you remember them, the guys who collect the data that is twisted by the propagandists, the scientists say this is not a theory. They say this because it does not meet the criteria needed to be a Theory.

    Railing that they really, truly do even though they don't does not change the facts in the matter. This does not have the qualities demanded by Science to be a Theory. Why do the Diehards of AGW think that repetition of something that is untrue will make it true?
    Here you go again with your fantasy world. The scientists say this is not a theory? Really? What scientists? What organization? What on earth are you talking about? The scientists say AGW is just a bunch of bs or something? Really? Where do you think all the climate change science comes from? Politicians? Al Gore? Obama?

    This is a waste of time to talk to a person like you, its just dumb. I'm here to share quality information with thoughtful people. Not debate this nonsense.

  8. #818
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Linking a fallacy isn't as important as understanding it. You can't in honest debate merely link any source. You have to link credible sources. I know you don't get this. And you confuse pointing it out with a fallacy. I'm sorry you're so mistaken. But I have done my best to point this out.

    There is a ton of peer reviewed credible sources that back my view. Countering with something like jonova is not going to convince any honest critical thinker. That's just a fact.
    "peer review" is corrupt, and broken...Means little today. But that you think that using logical fallacies is the way to win a debate, or is even an accepted method of proving your point is just plain sad.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #819
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,617

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Jonova?

    Lets see, I've presented the overwhelming view of the scientific community. You? JoNova. Now who should we believe?

    Look, you can't put something to bed using such poor efforts. You have to combatted overwhelming evidence with something more credible.


    I have presented a scientific paper that says that the incremental green house effect of CO2 diminishes as the incremental concentration of CO2 increases. You have not addressed this. Please present even one scientific source that says that the green house effect of CO2 does not diminish as the concentration increases.

    By the way, you have presented evidence that there are many who vaguely endorse a vague and poorly defined notion of some things they really do not specify.

    How about this one for the diminishing effect of CO2:

    http://www.davidarchibald.info/paper...of-Climate.pdf
    <snip>
    Figure 28: The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide
    Can global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide save us from the coming decline in mid-latitude agricultural production? Not at all. The first thing to be aware of is that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongly logarithmic. Of the three degrees that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect, the first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the following 400 ppm. By the time we get to the current level of 388 ppm, each 100 ppm increment will produce only about 0.1 degrees of warming.
    If the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued rising at about 2 ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1C every fifty years. Global warming due to carbon dioxide is real, but it is also minuscule. Carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. Very little can be expected of it from here.
    This graph was generated by using the Modtran site maintained by the University of Chicago.
    <snip>

    The graph referenced is on page 38 of the link. The same on used by Nova and is created by the University of Chicago. JoNova reduces things to very common language.

    The thing about real science is that it it is based on things that work the same way all the time.

    The thing about AGW Science is that it changes whenever the agenda demands it change.
    Last edited by code1211; 08-18-13 at 01:55 PM.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  10. #820
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,617

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    The falsifiable predictions are the climate change model. I've told you this several times now but you don't understand what it means.

    Are you suggesting climate change theory goes against other theory? What exactly? LoL

    So you think there is a simpler explanation huh? Do tell...



    Have you read any literature whatsoever on climate change? Do you know what a theory is? Its such a simple notion I don't think anyone bothers to say "Climate change is a theory". You should just know that it is...



    So you say they're wrong... ok then... I guess that means they're wrong then... I'll let NASA know they're a bunch of morons.



    Here you go again with your fantasy world. The scientists say this is not a theory? Really? What scientists? What organization? What on earth are you talking about? The scientists say AGW is just a bunch of bs or something? Really? Where do you think all the climate change science comes from? Politicians? Al Gore? Obama?

    This is a waste of time to talk to a person like you, its just dumb. I'm here to share quality information with thoughtful people. Not debate this nonsense.


    Well, we made some progress.

    You say that the falsifiable part of the AGW Science is the models. Turns out they are all false. What falsifiable means is that if the predictions don't work, then the science is false.

    Case Closed. You lose.


    Attachment 67152268
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •