+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 33 to 43 of 43

  1. #33
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWhizKids View Post
    Wow… imagine that I provide the peer reviewed scientific journal and Bic cries foul… how typical and predictable.

    first off Bic stats I cannot use blog entries and yet Bic uses blog entries to try and disprove the peer reviewed scientific journal I provided? Hmmm... blogs that aren't peer reviewed somehow trumps the peer reviewed published journal- I don't know but I can get a blog however I couldn't ever get a peer reviewed sicentific paper published. But of course the Blog trumps any peer reviewed paper that doesn't go lock step with Bic's beliefs...well, if that is true then why on earth did you want a scientific journal? And why did you specify that it must be a peer reviewed scientific paper? Why don’t you get me a peer reviewed scientific paper instead of using blogs and global warming talking points propaganda to disprove the paper? I am also going to go out on a limb an say you didn't even read the journal all you did was put it in google and fond a critisim of it because we all know SOAT blog entry is the 2nd on google after the original journal PDF I gave. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mu...en-US:official

    2nd off... I provided the sources yet Bic will not live up to his part of the bargain... He says that because the paper-according to him states "may cool"- hence it is not definitive it some how doesn’t meet his standards- hell, I need a definitive now? Why don't you provided me with a difinative Global warming peer-reviewed scientific paper?

    Unlike you, bic, no one else can predict the future... please provide me with a scientific journal that actually says with no uncertain terms that earth will warm on a constant basis over the next 20,30,40,50- hell, even 100 from now... You will not find a scientific journal that will predict precisely what will happen with the climate over a large spans of time they do not use absolutes they all just examining the trends from the situations that are known and none of them ever say what will happen in the future is an absolute certainty... no peer reviewed scientific paper ever specks of Global Warming as an absolute- hell, if they did then man could really not do anything about it. The Journal I provided stated what they believe the trend is according to the data and meets the argument that you provided… you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game

    3rd... off it didn't really matter what I provided- Hell, there are hundreds of peer reviewed journals that don’t agree with the Global Warmer’s consensus that the earth is getting hotter because of man. Bic is set in his ways and will not admit he could be wrong... the Scientific Journal was published in 2006 before we had any indications that the earth might be cooling... and low and behold from Jan.2007-to-Jan.2008 the earth has cooled off... a lower global temp for this time period of Jan. 2007-to-now is not in dispute.

    4th you completely avoided the Richard Mackey peer reviewed paper which states there might be a very cold global climate ahead and explains there theory why the earth's climate changes and how it goes though cycles



    LOL… are you kidding me? Global warmers say "the debate is over the 'facts' are in" all the time... and Bic you attack and name call whenever someone says they do not believe your man made global warming is the whole truth or even if it is true at all.

    You state now maybe man isn’t the sole cause however he is major reason for it according to you and the other fear mongering global warmers… ok lets say man is the major reason we are responsible for 60% or something of the problem... so would global warming really decrease if we some how reduce our responsibility from 60% to 58% and the non human factor stays at 30%?

    I hate to tell you the debate whether the man made theory is the most solid isn’t over. I provided a scientific Journal that states another theory that is as much plausible as your man made global warmer theory. The problem is you are stuck in your little box bound by some silly dogma and believe there is no room to debate and everyone must go lock step with your beliefs or they will be called names.

    And just look Bic states the obvious global warming created by man is not 100% fact- I hate to tell you but you are a little late on that epiphany... of course we know that hell, even the global warmer scientist state that they are only 75% certain... yet for some reason we cannot debate this and if we say "this might not be the right theory" we are labeled deniers and called names by bic and the rest of the global warmers... now I don't know about you but if I wasn't 100% sure of something I wouldn't be calling the guy who states he is not sure about it silly names. To me that is just stupid if I am not 100% certain of something then obviously I might be wrong and to sit here and call everyone else names that do not agree with your dogma- which you yourself just stated you are not 100% sure of- is just absurd




    Thank God! … why doesn’t Al Gore and all his millionaire Hollywood buddies fund it… hell, if they believe the garbage they preach and the seas are really going to rise 20ft and cover most of the major costal cities around the world you would think they would be throwing money into this- I know I would… oh wait I forgot Al Gore makes money on Global Warming he doesn’t give it away and they want me and the rest of the hard working American people to pay for it not them sorry I forgot that part.

    Havn't you realized it yet? Bic can control reality with his beliefs. If you try to proove anything that he does not belive, then you are a l#[email protected]%@ lieing mother @#[email protected] and whatever other insults he can muster.

    The reason he doesn't debate, is because there is no question that he could possibly be wrong. Even if there was a possibility that he was wrong, reality would change to adopt his oppinion as fact you know, making him right again.

    All we can hope is that there aren't so many extremists like him to sway parliment to taking rash steps and starting a recession any worse than the USA is realising now.

    Oh and I'm starting to believe Bic IS Hanson as he;s the only person Bic ever uses for proof. Even his reference BLOGS, have several people pointing out problems with the theory behind it.

    Oh and another thing you might notice is that Bic doesn't need to conform to the same rules as he presented for your proof. You may notice that his "papers" do not need to meet the same standards he he insisted yours do. That's a double standard. He uses them in his proof and he uses them in his debate. Just wait till he starts accusing you of "quotemining", whatever that is, just for referencing one of his posts.
    Last edited by Lord_jag; 03-28-2008 at 11:35 AM.

  2. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    86

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_jag View Post
    Oh and I'm starting to believe Bic IS Hanson as he;s the only person Bic ever uses for proof. Even his reference BLOGS, have several people pointing out problems with the theory behind it.
    I think you are giving Bic way to much credit there... with no due respect to Bic, Bic is not a legitimate real scientist... Hanson is and should be respected and I am willing to bet Hanson would discuss and debate any issue without calling people names or even saying the debate is over because we are 75% sure- and by 75% I mean it's a fact" The only people who do that are the layman true believers... I was at a conference at a major university (UF) where the Global Warmer scientist speaker did not attack people who disagreed with him- the legitimate scientist are not the ones saying there is no debating this it is only the true believer fanatics who have little to no background in the field (yes, I am pointing at you Sherrly Crow and your one square of toilet paper)- it is the arrogance of these true believer laymen who really have no creditability that irks me and they have given this theory a back eye.

    For the record I will state I find the man made Global warming to be a credible theory and may be to a certain extent true however there are probably many more factors involved that lead to climate change and there are many other theories out there that are pretty much as plausible as Bic's one and are worth while looking at and debating. The real problem I have is with the rhetoric (and of course the scam's- carbon credits, ethanol just to name a few) ... The layman Global warmer fanatics who have built a religion around this hell, if we want to debate the issues we are labeled “deniers” “heretics” and “blasphemers” how dare we question them!... to these people both man has brought this "end times" upon itself and he alone can stop it- nature has little to do with it... but how does he stop it? He stops it by reducing 1/10 of 1% (or some other absurd # like that because we all know the CO2 levels will not go down over a short period of time) over the next 5, 10 or however many years? It is just absurd and not logical if we are at the point of "irreversible consequences" then surely that is not enough and we cannot reverse the amount of C02 that is already there- and we know that if all the cars where stopped tomorrow there would be no reduction in C02... We do know The USA has reduced its CO2 out put since 2005 and yet the CO2 meter is still going up? Why because China and India are increasing there’s...Yet the temp has been constant from 2001 till now and even seems to be on a down trend... surely there are many other factors at work here. And the debate therefore is not over.
    Last edited by TheWhizKids; 03-28-2008 at 05:37 PM.

  3. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWhizKids View Post
    and here is a published peer reviewed one about Global Cooling:
    http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/docs/...c263af1904.pdf
    The paper doesn't argue that global warming is not occuring, quite the opposite in fact.

    If you look at the Empirical Mode Decomposition you will notice that the 6th graph is labelled "res", short for residual. The previous 4 graphs are the frequency decomposition of the global temperature, and it is with these that the paper is concerned.

    The author argues that there are 6/20/60 year heating/cooling cycles, and there very well may be. If you take these heating/cooling cycles and remove their influence from the global average temperature you will end up with the residual graph.

    In other words, there are short term (<60 year) cycles that effect the global temperature, but as well as those cycles there is an overall heating trend (otherwise known as "global warming"). The author argues that over the next 20 years, the magnitude of the effects due to short term cycles is greater than the magnitude of the effects due to global warming, and hence there will be a global decrease in temperature for the next 20 years.

    This is not, a refutation of global warming, because this decrease over the next 20 years will be compensated for by an even bigger increase in the 20 years to follow it. The paper is only concerned with the short term oscillatory behaviour of the temperature, not the long term trend which is global warming. You only have to read the abstract to see that the author explicitly acknowledges a global warming trend.

  4. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    838

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    ....
    The author argues that there are 6/20/60 year heating/cooling cycles, and there very well may be. If you take these heating/cooling cycles and remove their influence from the global average temperature you will end up with the residual graph.
    I'm not too sure we are getting good information from these artificial constructs. Other analysis could produce equally valid "cycles" to reproduce the emperical. For more complex "understanding", you could even "cycle out" the residual, if you wanted to take it that far. In any case, I think it's clear that the science is still murky.
    Last edited by phlipper; 03-30-2008 at 08:56 AM.

  5. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    86

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    The paper doesn't argue that global warming is not occuring, quite the opposite in fact.

    Hmmm... I don't know but I think you missed something somewhere... the question was not find me a paper that states global warming is not occurring it was find me a paper that states a global cooling trend occurring... If the earth temp goes down over the next 20 years this wouldn't be considered "global warming" would it? The paper argues that the earth could cool down over the next 20 years- and therfore if the earth is cooling it isn't warming- hence a "cooling trend". the paper predicts this cooling trend. Bic, asked for a scientific paper that predicts a global cooling trend and I provided it- no one said it had to state global warming isn't real and I surely have not said it states that point- did I? Nope can't say I did :)

    I have not looked for or even submitted any scientific papers that state Global warming has not occurred. Quite frankly because I don't believe global warming has not occurred... it is more or less the reason for it that is in debate. I submitted a peer viewed Scientific paper that states an alternate view of why the earth is warming- the paper like the Chinese scientist one doesn't state the earth was not getting warmer over the last couple of decades however both state a cooling trend starting or even happening now. Bic, asked for a scientific paper that argues a cooling trend and both papers argue a cooling trend.
    Last edited by TheWhizKids; 03-30-2008 at 03:06 PM.

  6. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    @TheWhizKids

    Ahh, I see. Wasn't really following the argument between you and Bic. Just saw the article and figured I would try to clarify a little.

    On the other hand, the website quoted by Bic does a horrible job of refuting the paper, and I'm not sure if I'm just missing the joke, but their attitude appears entirely unscientific:
    "But why is it rubbish? (of course it must be, since it rejects the consensus :-), but is more detail of any value?)."

  7. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    838

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    ...but their attitude appears entirely unscientific:
    "But why is it rubbish? (of course it must be, since it rejects the consensus :-), but is more detail of any value?)."
    I would agree.
    On the other hand, weather on the coast of San Diego appears to be a constant 73 degrees, year 'round. But, one would be woefully mistaken to think we don't have huge fluxuations over certain time scales. Through rigorous Fourier analysis, I have found these fluxuations vary with the numerical day of the month along with an equally strong negative feedback, the causes of which are not my concern but left to scientists to discover.
    The analysis produced this equation:
    Let San Diego daily temperature= T
    Let Numerical Day of the month= N
    T= 73 + Cos(N) + Sin(N)
    Last edited by phlipper; 04-01-2008 at 11:23 AM.

  8. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    86

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    @TheWhizKids

    Ahh, I see. Wasn't really following the argument between you and Bic. Just saw the article and figured I would try to clarify a little.
    no problem...

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    On the other hand, the website quoted by Bic does a horrible job of refuting the paper, and I'm not sure if I'm just missing the joke, but their attitude appears entirely unscientific:
    "But why is it rubbish? (of course it must be, since it rejects the consensus :-), but is more detail of any value?)."
    I also found Bic's blog rebuttal to be unscientific.. not to mention it is also full of logical fallacies... Your (Kazza) explanations was much more scientific and accurate to the paper at hand. The Scientific Journal doesn't refute Global Warming as the blog is trying to state however it is predicting a cooling trend and also states Man is not the sole factor in climate change. That is why I even questioned whether or not Bic even read the paper.

  9. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,840

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    i dont know what others had to comment about, too much to read. BUT the environmentalists are IN ON THIS HOAX about GLOBAL WARMING... they are pushing this NONSENSE ...>>>>> because they work for this CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.... this is pushed by their MASTERS the Global Elites. Mahn it is going to get cold tonight down to 29 and might see some SNOW FLURRIES, and here it is SPRING April 12, 2008 When is spring going to surrender it's beautiful warmth????

  10. #42
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by galaxy View Post
    i dont know what others had to comment about, too much to read. BUT the environmentalists are IN ON THIS HOAX about GLOBAL WARMING... they are pushing this NONSENSE ...>>>>> because they work for this CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.... this is pushed by their MASTERS the Global Elites. Mahn it is going to get cold tonight down to 29 and might see some SNOW FLURRIES, and here it is SPRING April 12, 2008 When is spring going to surrender it's beautiful warmth????
    Yes, and the melting polar ice caps are a pretty neat trick also.

  11. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    506

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    By the way, I just read up on the "empirical mode decomposition" method used by Zhen-Shan and Xian, and looked at how Zhen-Shan and Xian used it, and here's my take on their paper. Summary: it's still bogus.

  12. 05-19-2008, 04:11 AM

    Reason
    yellow spam

Similar Threads

  1. Evolutionists vs. Environmentalists
    By naturefreak2101 in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-2011, 08:32 AM
  2. Will Environmentalists EVER Grow Up?
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 12-06-2010, 08:38 AM
  3. Who won debate #2
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 08:26 PM
  4. Deadly Environmentalists
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 08:40 PM
  5. Humans: Environmentalists Don't Get It
    By rubyslippers in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 12-31-2006, 11:59 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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