Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
01-06-2004, 11:44 AM
#7261
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
In article <newscache$7dc2rh$icb1$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:tEgKb.291818$_M.1568579@attbi_s54...
>> In article <newscache$bdh0rh$d1a1$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt
> wrote:
>>
>> > Ah, yes you did.
>>
>> Then you should have no trouble quoting it and pointing to relevant
>> post in your favorite usenet archive, so do so.
> Easily:
> "That's the beauty of the global warming theory, no matter what happens
> it proves global warming theory"
>
> Textbook cyclical logic argument. In short, in an attempt to discredit the
> idea, rewrite it as a circular argument then claim that the logic is
> invalid.
> Sorry Brent you will need to do better than that.
That does not prove your claim. Probably why you trimmed your claim
out. Here is what you claimed I did:
-> "seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove
-> that the globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's
-> temperature change with a thermometor over time."
Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
>> > "global warming" as the scientists put it is pretty much restricted to the
>> > observational part.
>> "global warming" refers to much more than that and you know it.
> Only in the eyes of the popular masses. You see this is another line of
> your attack - in short, lump all the ideas of global warming into a single
> pot then claim they are all discredited because some of the ideas are
> idiotic.
This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
newsgroups of usenet. There is very little science in sci.environment,
it's almost entirely politics. Hence I am using the political definition.
The political definition is lumping every kind of bad weather into the
theory to further the political agenda.
> If you reread my post the line was:
>
> "prove that the GLOBE IS WARMING by the act of actually measuring
> it's temperature change"
>
> it was NOT proving "global warming" by the act of actually measuring the
> temp change.
I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
going to play. Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion where certain
things like Global Warming cannot be questioned. Questioning the
damaging effects of CO2 output is blasphemy.
> I was specifically excluding the "assumption" part of the theory of global
> warming and making a statement on the observational part to
> saw off your wild-eyed religion spouting in an attempt to get the discussion
> back onto some semblence of a logical discussion. Of course, you cannot
> tolerate this because you don't want to talk logically about the theory, you
> just want to write it all off because of the spouting of a minority of
> rediculous greenies.
*Laugh* I tried logical discussion in sci.environment many times. Logic is
not used in that newsgroup. I logically cornered a number of it's
regulars and the response is always to call names like 'conservative
corporate -----'. Simply questioning the tenets of the religion get
people's panties in a bunch as it seemingly has done with you as well.
>> And don't
>> forget the mixing of science and religon that we see here on usenet. There
>> is a new religon and it masks itself within science.
> YOU are just as guilty of mixing science and religion as the greenies, your
> just doing it from the opposite side.
Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
for proving my point.
Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
bunch.
>> > You may not believe the assumption that the globe is warming up because of
>> > man-made things. That I can understand, and so far it is still a somewhat
>> > defensible position. But your foolish if you don't believe that the globe is
>> > getting warmer.
>> Warmer than what? We have maybe 50 years of good *global* data. Maybe a
>> century of much of the world. The rest gets pretty spotty and the remaining
>> is from proxy data that has to be interpeted correctly. Throw into that
>> the proper use of statistics etc, and this warming trend does become
>> questionable.
> Rubbish. The world has been in existence for what - 4 billion years I
> think.
Here is where a global warming true believer will call me a creationalist
that thinks the world is four thousand years old or some nonsense. The fact
I made no claim regarding the age of the planet, or even questioned the
4 billion year old estimate makes no difference.
> Thus, when you take the entire age of the planet into account for your
> "proper use" of statistics, then the entire time period of human existence
> becomes statistically meaningless, let alone a century. You can use the
> "proper use of statistics" argument to invalidate any time-based observation
> of the world.
Read the above again without *YOUR ASSUMPTIONS*. I am not using that
arguement at all. The proper use of statistics refers to the paper
I cited earlier in the thread. This paper fixed errors in previous
work.
> We could have incontrovertable observational facts that the world's temp
> was dropping 1 degree every 50 years, based on observations made over
> the last 10000 years, and using your logic you would still be arguing that
> the 10000 year timeperiod was statistically meaningless compared to the
> timeperiod of the existence of the world. In the meantime we all
> would be at absolute zero :-|
Made no such arguement. You are the one putting words into my mouth.
Typical behavior from the sci.environment crowd.
> How many thousands of years is it going to take before you accept as fact
> that the worlds temp is rising? Oh I get it - 100 years is too short
> for you, you want 200 years.
Now the use of ridicule based upon an arguement you made up for me.
Again, a typical sci.environment response.
> How convenient since you will be long dead by then - you can
> just let your children deal with it. What a wonderful attitude!
Now the claim that I hate children... What a wonderful political
newsgroup sci.environment is, you're proving me correct with every
sentance with your baseless attacks.
> Why if all our
> children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around to
> dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
> Ah, now I see the general plan here!
Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
Just come right out and do it. It's comical the way you true believers
attack me because I question your religion. I probably do more to conserve
resources than the average self-labeled environmentalist, but to realize
that means you can't go off on this tanget of not giving a damn about
the future.
> Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of the
> Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
> the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
> This is a far cry from the baloney of Star Drek
> which claims such silly things as being able to create and destroy
> antimatter and get a net gain of energy out of it, "beaming down"
> physical objects and travelling faster than lightspeed.. Just because
> we don't know how to control the Earth's
> weather now (other than by turning on or off a few smokestacks) doesen't
> make
> it impossible. By contrast all that Star Drek stuff is provably impossible.
Oh I get it, it's just more ridicule for daring to question your
religion of man altering the climate.
And really that's all I've done, question. I question because there are
holes. I question because there is scientific reason to. I question because
of the kinds of things that people want to impose because of the belief.
When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are weak
and based in faith. If were just isolated cases then it wouldn't mean
much. But it's rutine. question global warming get ridicule, character
attacks, and name calling in response.
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:tEgKb.291818$_M.1568579@attbi_s54...
>> In article <newscache$bdh0rh$d1a1$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt
> wrote:
>>
>> > Ah, yes you did.
>>
>> Then you should have no trouble quoting it and pointing to relevant
>> post in your favorite usenet archive, so do so.
> Easily:
> "That's the beauty of the global warming theory, no matter what happens
> it proves global warming theory"
>
> Textbook cyclical logic argument. In short, in an attempt to discredit the
> idea, rewrite it as a circular argument then claim that the logic is
> invalid.
> Sorry Brent you will need to do better than that.
That does not prove your claim. Probably why you trimmed your claim
out. Here is what you claimed I did:
-> "seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove
-> that the globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's
-> temperature change with a thermometor over time."
Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
>> > "global warming" as the scientists put it is pretty much restricted to the
>> > observational part.
>> "global warming" refers to much more than that and you know it.
> Only in the eyes of the popular masses. You see this is another line of
> your attack - in short, lump all the ideas of global warming into a single
> pot then claim they are all discredited because some of the ideas are
> idiotic.
This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
newsgroups of usenet. There is very little science in sci.environment,
it's almost entirely politics. Hence I am using the political definition.
The political definition is lumping every kind of bad weather into the
theory to further the political agenda.
> If you reread my post the line was:
>
> "prove that the GLOBE IS WARMING by the act of actually measuring
> it's temperature change"
>
> it was NOT proving "global warming" by the act of actually measuring the
> temp change.
I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
going to play. Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion where certain
things like Global Warming cannot be questioned. Questioning the
damaging effects of CO2 output is blasphemy.
> I was specifically excluding the "assumption" part of the theory of global
> warming and making a statement on the observational part to
> saw off your wild-eyed religion spouting in an attempt to get the discussion
> back onto some semblence of a logical discussion. Of course, you cannot
> tolerate this because you don't want to talk logically about the theory, you
> just want to write it all off because of the spouting of a minority of
> rediculous greenies.
*Laugh* I tried logical discussion in sci.environment many times. Logic is
not used in that newsgroup. I logically cornered a number of it's
regulars and the response is always to call names like 'conservative
corporate -----'. Simply questioning the tenets of the religion get
people's panties in a bunch as it seemingly has done with you as well.
>> And don't
>> forget the mixing of science and religon that we see here on usenet. There
>> is a new religon and it masks itself within science.
> YOU are just as guilty of mixing science and religion as the greenies, your
> just doing it from the opposite side.
Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
for proving my point.
Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
bunch.
>> > You may not believe the assumption that the globe is warming up because of
>> > man-made things. That I can understand, and so far it is still a somewhat
>> > defensible position. But your foolish if you don't believe that the globe is
>> > getting warmer.
>> Warmer than what? We have maybe 50 years of good *global* data. Maybe a
>> century of much of the world. The rest gets pretty spotty and the remaining
>> is from proxy data that has to be interpeted correctly. Throw into that
>> the proper use of statistics etc, and this warming trend does become
>> questionable.
> Rubbish. The world has been in existence for what - 4 billion years I
> think.
Here is where a global warming true believer will call me a creationalist
that thinks the world is four thousand years old or some nonsense. The fact
I made no claim regarding the age of the planet, or even questioned the
4 billion year old estimate makes no difference.
> Thus, when you take the entire age of the planet into account for your
> "proper use" of statistics, then the entire time period of human existence
> becomes statistically meaningless, let alone a century. You can use the
> "proper use of statistics" argument to invalidate any time-based observation
> of the world.
Read the above again without *YOUR ASSUMPTIONS*. I am not using that
arguement at all. The proper use of statistics refers to the paper
I cited earlier in the thread. This paper fixed errors in previous
work.
> We could have incontrovertable observational facts that the world's temp
> was dropping 1 degree every 50 years, based on observations made over
> the last 10000 years, and using your logic you would still be arguing that
> the 10000 year timeperiod was statistically meaningless compared to the
> timeperiod of the existence of the world. In the meantime we all
> would be at absolute zero :-|
Made no such arguement. You are the one putting words into my mouth.
Typical behavior from the sci.environment crowd.
> How many thousands of years is it going to take before you accept as fact
> that the worlds temp is rising? Oh I get it - 100 years is too short
> for you, you want 200 years.
Now the use of ridicule based upon an arguement you made up for me.
Again, a typical sci.environment response.
> How convenient since you will be long dead by then - you can
> just let your children deal with it. What a wonderful attitude!
Now the claim that I hate children... What a wonderful political
newsgroup sci.environment is, you're proving me correct with every
sentance with your baseless attacks.
> Why if all our
> children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around to
> dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
> Ah, now I see the general plan here!
Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
Just come right out and do it. It's comical the way you true believers
attack me because I question your religion. I probably do more to conserve
resources than the average self-labeled environmentalist, but to realize
that means you can't go off on this tanget of not giving a damn about
the future.
> Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of the
> Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
> the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
> This is a far cry from the baloney of Star Drek
> which claims such silly things as being able to create and destroy
> antimatter and get a net gain of energy out of it, "beaming down"
> physical objects and travelling faster than lightspeed.. Just because
> we don't know how to control the Earth's
> weather now (other than by turning on or off a few smokestacks) doesen't
> make
> it impossible. By contrast all that Star Drek stuff is provably impossible.
Oh I get it, it's just more ridicule for daring to question your
religion of man altering the climate.
And really that's all I've done, question. I question because there are
holes. I question because there is scientific reason to. I question because
of the kinds of things that people want to impose because of the belief.
When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are weak
and based in faith. If were just isolated cases then it wouldn't mean
much. But it's rutine. question global warming get ridicule, character
attacks, and name calling in response.