Who believes in Global Warming?

“Ok, that was a little unprovoked.

I'll phrase it differently.

Why is it that you can't understand the concept of limiting pollutants of all kinds and choose instead to pretend that reducing greenhouse gases means going back to the stone age?
last edited: 12/14/06 3:04:03 PM”

“Lets put it this way for you Moonglo.

You're short of money, you can either stop spending any money at all, and die.

Or you can look to cut back on your spending, or find a cheaper place to shop.

You understand the concept and you're capable of relating this to limiting the so-called greenhouse gasses and other pollutants? Or do we need to put it more simply for you?”

“"YAWN....Laq...if the North Pole melts how much will it raise the ocean level?"


YAWN.....it's not the polar cap we really have to worry about.”

“Yeah, it's more like eutrophication of the ocean and everything dying.”

“Imagine the US energy consumption if we didn't import so much value added products. The average home size is up 140% since 1964. Car mileage is the same as 1975 even with efficiency gains.”

“Hey, and speak of the devil...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061214/sc_nm/climate_oceans_dc”

“Hey Q, I should send you a copy of my documentary I produced and directed a few years ago on water and the problems we will start to see in the very near future.”

“That's cool. Are you in the water field, WK? I have been for the past ten years...”

“No, I was a TV Producer for a few years and produced this while I was a graduate student at Purdue U.

We interview a State Senator from NC, Marc Basinight, former Senator from Illinois, the late Paul Simon, and a good buddy of mine from Canada that is an ecoligist and has been preaching on the subject for some years now.

It turned out okay.”

“"“Yeah, it's more like eutrophication of the ocean and everything dying.”"


Yep, that's one, but along what XL is trying to grasp at; the Greenland ice sheet melting is much more of a concern than the cap.

For those who love to promote the "increase in solar activity" as support for natural cause for the current climate conditions; the facts speak otherwise:

"The authors suggest that the greater multicentennial variability could be due to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing larger than previously thought. However, model experiments indicate that the recent warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone. As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/moberg.html
last edited: 12/14/06 7:32:03 PM”

“"“Hey Q, I should send you a copy of my documentary I produced and directed a few years ago on water and the problems we will start to see in the very near future.”"



I would love a copy.”

“"The authors suggest that the greater multicentennial variability could be due to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing larger than previously thought. However, model experiments indicate that the recent warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone. As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia."
laqtis
9:30:56 PM
12/14/06


I'm sorry, where was the fact portion?”

“YAAAAWWN...yep, and this is the same planet that survived a massive direct hit from a meteor....I am guessing it will survive this.

I still don't see how destroying American ...um and ONLY American Society will save the world? I mean you totally ignore the destruction in China and India becuase they are not the US. This in itself is the necessary evidence to prove you care not a whit about the Planet and are more interested in Destruction of America...LOL...Silly libbies

OH and LAQTOSE...being intolerant again aren't we.....have you ever heard of a "scientist" making up stuff to get Government funding? I wonder what would happen if we made them get private funding for their research instead of the taxpayers paying them to tell us to destroy our lives.”

“Why do you think it will destoy American society XL - you're not really being rational here are you?”

“"I'm sorry, where was the fact portion?"

That was lifted from the abstract and from the middle of the paragraph. If you follow the link provided, it will put you at the starting point for the research results (facts).

When conducting research and providing the results for peer review, it is common for the terms you highlighted to be used during presentation of that information. My c and p was not, nor should it be, interrupted as the lone support for my claim; the support is in the research.

Perhaps this link is a better starting off point:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/index.html

Please follow the link for data.


Let me know if I can be of any more help.
last edited: 12/15/06 11:02:19 AM”

“it will put you at the starting point for the research results (facts).


Oh, so the story changes.

All the scientists on here have been adamant when telling me they discovery "theories", but now, according to Q, they discover "facts".”

“Once again, the rest of the world agrees it is happening and signs a treaty to start curbing it while America, the lead consumer of natural resources on the planet, doesn't. I guess our dumbass president is waiting for his "god" to tell him that it is.

Could we just eject him and his crackpot followers now?”

“a scientifically minded person wouldn't say the research results are "facts"

hmmm”

“Once again, the rest of the world agrees it is happening and signs a treaty to start curbing it while America


LOL! Really? Is that what happened? LOL! Somebody doesn't know what they're talking about.”

“"YAAAAWWN...yep, and this is the same planet that survived a massive direct hit from a meteor....I am guessing it will survive this."


Obviously. That's not the issue. The issue is how the climatic change will affect us. We are not going to kill the planet, just greatly impact the way our species lives on this mud pile in the future.


"I still don't see how destroying American ...um and ONLY American Society will save the world? I mean you totally ignore the destruction in China and India becuase they are not the US. This in itself is the necessary evidence to prove you care not a whit about the Planet and are more interested in Destruction of America...LOL...Silly libbies"


This was not contended by me and you again cannot properly support a claim without committing multiple fallacies.

"OH and LAQTOSE...being intolerant again aren't we.....have you ever heard of a "scientist" making up stuff to get Government funding? I wonder what would happen if we made them get private funding for their research instead of the taxpayers paying them to tell us to destroy our lives."

Another unsupported claim. Your counters are unsupported and invalid. I don't understand why you even think we should take you seriously, when all of your responses, counters, etc. have read like verbal diarrea?

It's borderline insulting.”

“What's insulting is saying scientific research determine factual information. Maybe you skipped science class?”

“Hey man. I'm not the one in denial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol”

“"Oh, so the story changes.


No, it stays in line with what I posted.

"All the scientists on here have been adamant when telling me they discovery "theories", but now, according to Q, they discover "facts"."


Your unsupported claim is invalid.

"a scientifically minded person wouldn't say the research results are "facts""

And true to form, Sgt. Moonglo commits yet another fallacy when trying to counter.

Perhaps if you could provide some sort of properly structured argument, it might give you some shred of credibility.”

“"What's insulting is saying scientific research determine factual information. Maybe you skipped science class?"


Your claim is incorrect.”

“Yes you are.

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf”

“Cutting back on pollutants by use of conservation and technology will give america a vast competitive advantage, and reduce the reliance on foreign oil - and yet the flat-earthers are so caught up in their reactionary postion against what they see as a leftist cause they try to pick apart the tiniest details of the overwhelming scienticific case.

Why do they hate America so much that they want to see it stuck in the dark ages as other nations find cheaper cleaner ways to live.

Hopefully the leaders will come soon who won't bow to big oil and big energy and their dollar bills and 'campaign contributions' and who will make reducing America's dependence on foreign oil the Manhatten Project for the 21st century.”

“Moonglo, XL, why do you hate America SO much that you want it stuck in the dark ages and beholden to Saudi Arabia and Iran just to survive?”

“Is not being seen to support a traditionally 'leftist' view more important to you than America's future?”

“Your claim is incorrect.

LOL! Any real scientists want to explain to Q what scientists do?”

“Come on moonglo - you're focusing on the details to qavoid dealing with the big picture once again. I guess winning your argument is more important to you than America's future?”

“Thank you for proving my point.

America, with the richest per capita in the world, has not ratified the treaty.

We should be leading the world in alternative energy. Instead, what did Shrub do within his first week of office? Rolled back alternative fuel requirements for the big three and loosened clean air standards. Six years later, with his ass in a sling over Iraq, he trots out "we need to reduce reliance on foreign oil." Sheer genius. Did he learn that one reading My Pet Goat?”

“Thank you for proving my point.

What you said was, and I quote:

the rest of the world agrees it is happening and signs a treaty to start curbing it while America, the lead consumer of natural resources on the planet, doesn't

This statement was proven incorrect by me using a source from your link. You are wrong.”

“"Your claim is incorrect.

LOL! Any real scientists want to explain to Q what scientists do?"

Actually, my mistake is that I should have stated that your statement was correct; however, your claim still wasn't.”

“Well those big oil companies, you know, the ones making all those billions of dollars off the American people at the gas pump - they helped pay for Bush's election win. They needed to be paid off. And look how handsomely they have been paid off. You're helped to pay for Bush's election victory every time you slide your card into the gas pump.”

“Actually, my mistake is that I should have stated that your statement was correct;

My statement was that your statement was incorrect; therefore your statement should have been that you were incorrect and you should have issued an apology to XL.”

“oh 'Moonglo' - come on, even the board at Exon, BP, Shell and Chevron aren't dumb enough to pretend that human actions aren't influencing the environment - and yet you still persist with your wacko conspiracy theories.”

“"My statement was that your statement was incorrect; therefore your statement should have been that you were incorrect and you should have issued an apology to XL"


Nice shift attempt; is there going to be any statement, or claim for that matter, that isn't wading shoulder deep in fallacy?”

“Nice shift attempt; is there going to be any statement, or claim for that matter, that isn't wading shoulder deep in fallacy?


You even admitted that my statement was correct. My statement was that your statement was incorrect. You're talking nonsense now Q. That's not a shift. All I did was simply say that YOUR statement was incorrect, which you later indirectly admitted. I realize you'd prefer if we skipped over your incorrect statements, but then what's the point of discussing this if we do that? You made a stink to Noncon that his claim that this was all speculation by saying the scientists concluded facts, which I said was wrong, and you later admitted to. The fact is that XL was correct all along, but you can't bring yourself to admit it.
last edited: 12/15/06 11:59:41 AM”

“*** REALITY FLASHBACK ***


NONCON: “"The authors suggest that the greater multicentennial variability could be due to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing larger than previously thought. However, model experiments indicate that the recent warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone. As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia."

I'm sorry, where was the fact portion?”


Q: That was lifted from the abstract and from the middle of the paragraph. If you follow the link provided, it will put you at the starting point for the research results (facts).


MOONGLO: Oh, so the story changes. All the scientists on here have been adamant when telling me they discovery "theories", but now, according to Q, they discover "facts".” "a scientifically minded person wouldn't say the research results are "facts""


Q: And true to form, Sgt. Moonglo commits yet another fallacy when trying to counter.


MOONGLO: “"Your claim is incorrect.

LOL! Any real scientists want to explain to Q what scientists do?"



Q: Actually, my mistake is that I should have stated that your statement was correct; however, your claim still wasn't.”


MOONGLO: My statement was that your statement was incorrect; therefore your statement should have been that you were incorrect and you should have issued an apology to XL(should have said NONCON)"


Q: Nice shift attempt; is there going to be any statement, or claim for that matter, that isn't wading shoulder deep in fallacy?”



The FACT is that you were wrong telling NONCON that the research results are "facts". They are not.”

“"You even admitted that my statement was correct. My statement was that your statement was incorrect."

Here, I'll go reeeeal slow for ya, K?

The statement "What's insulting is saying scientific research determine factual information." is correct.

You using the statement to say that I claimed that scientific research determine factual information is incorrect.

I know what you are trying to make your "issue" about. You think that my sentence:

"If you follow the link provided, it will put you at the starting point for the research results (facts)."

claims that research develops facts. That is not the case. While I might have took it upon assumption that the posters here might already know the fact that you cannot have research results without some sort of gathering of facts, the sentence does not commit the error you claim.

Posting it the way I did, I kinda knew which route you were going to take, so I let out some line. So now, unless you have anything to really add to the debate of the facts I provided, this pretty much wraps up your invalidity.”

“Its a real nice day here in PA... if this is global warming then screw florida ,I will take two...”

“The only problem with all of that is that you were responding to this by Noncon:

“"The authors suggest that the greater multicentennial variability could be due to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing larger than previously thought. However, model experiments indicate that the recent warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone. As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia."

I'm sorry, where was the fact portion?”

The reason that is a problem is that you "answered" him - and nowhere in that "answer" did you say "you know what Noncon, you are correct. There are NO facts in that research."

By answering the question "I'm sorry, where was the fact portion?” without saying that portion does not exist, and by further providing a text in response to that question, you tried a "SHIFT ATTEMPT" (your words) in the form of a retort, which means that you disagree with his assessment.

You are incorrect. His assessment was correct from the git-go.”

“If I ask you "Where precisely is the cat on the moon located?"

And you say "The coordinates of the cat on the moon can be found in this log-book."

when in fact, there are no coordinates of the cat on the moon in the log-book - then you are wrong.


There is no source demonstrating or even beginning to lead you to the conclusion that the conclusion from that scientific study demonstrated "facts". -- even though you tried to show that there was such a source.”

“Wow. So, this is what's wrong with that 30 percent of America's population...”

“""The reason that is a problem is that you "answered" him - and nowhere in that "answer" did you say "you know what Noncon, you are correct. There are NO facts in that research.""


I'm sorry if you are having a very hard time with this. I could not have stated that, because it would have went against my prior claims. The research I linked to does have facts in it as well, so it would have made little sense to utilize your "suggestion".

I explained where the c and p came from, including the note of how those terms are used in presenting the material.

"By answering the question "I'm sorry, where was the fact portion?” without saying that portion does not exist, and by further providing a text in response to that question, you tried a "SHIFT ATTEMPT" (your words) in the form of a retort, which means that you disagree with his assessment."

That is clearly not the case. His request for facts in the research were clarified with my post back to him. That is not a shift. I did not disagree that there were no facts in the c and p, and later ever clarified further that the c and p should not be used as sole support for my claim, rather the research itself.

This is what is comes down to:

Your misinteruptation of my statement does not make me wrong in this situation. In addition, it matters not what you think the statement means in the first place; the post was to noncon and not you. He should be the one to decide what action, if any, in discourse should be taken about the post.

My last note with this "fighting about the fight" with you; perhaps if you didn't jump in on things where you were not needed, there would be a lesser chance of you looking foolish.”

“I'm thinking not much chance of that, laq, in either regard.”

“"“Wow. So, this is what's wrong with that 30 percent of America's population...”
roseymonster
1:27:28 PM
12/15/06"


Unfortunately, when a poster has not other course to counter clear support, they have not other choice (other than capitulate) but to result to fallacy.

It clear in this case that Sgt. Moonglo has no way counter the research I linked to, so it has to result their bread and butter in an attempt counter the argument.




.....edited for spelling
last edited: 12/15/06 12:41:35 PM”

“I have no reason to counter the research you pointed to. I was only countering your claim that it could lead to a conclusion of facts, which it could and did not.”

“WOW..the love today is so neat.

You know I see both of the arguments and my only question is..."WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG?"

There was a time when the "science of the day" claimed they could identify WITCHES. There was a science that said this or that drug worked, and each time a scientist makes a BAD determination we are told, "Hey this is not an exact science."

So how do we make a decision and if in a few years we discover we had NO real effect what is the action that could be taken to prevent future mistakes by these scientists?

Neat word Laqtose used...RESPONSIBILITY.”

“"I was only countering your claim that it could lead to a conclusion of facts, which it could and did not."


That was not my claim. Here's it is in even simpler terms:

Your claim that:

not stating that I disagree with noncon, it should be taken as I disagree with him

has no other choice but to be invalid. First, it makes no sense what so ever. Secondly, you clearly do not realize that by me not disagreeing with him could be an agreement with him.


You would have some sort of grounds to stand on if I in fact stated: "No, noncon. You are incorrect". However, to claim an omission is only one type of action is a invalid claim. If one does not disagree with something, that does not mean they necessarily disagree with it. I could have been agreeing with it, (perhaps thus the clarification?).

You cannot rely on bifurcation to support your claim. You clearly got burned on it this time.


Perhaps you get it now?”