| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2007 09:57:41 AM · #276 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I think it's unfair to assume someone is saying something. |
So, based on your standards, you're being unfair as well. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:28:37 AM · #277 |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:38:26 AM · #278 |
nm
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 11:40:17. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:40:03 AM · #279 |
.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 11:56:09. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:07:36 PM · #280 |
did someone steal Gordon's keyboard?
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:24:15 PM · #281 |
He's reached the stage of rant participation when you realize every post is just that much more pissing in the wind.
If he pushes through he'll move on to purposely inflammatory, nonsensical posts that keep the discussion from dying a well deserved death. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:29:57 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
He's reached the stage of rant participation when you realize every post is just that much more pissing in the wind.
If he pushes through he'll move on to purposely inflammatory, nonsensical posts that keep the discussion from dying a well deserved death. |
:-)) |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:58:00 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
He's reached the stage of rant participation when you realize every post is just that much more pissing in the wind.
If he pushes through he'll move on to purposely inflammatory, nonsensical posts that keep the discussion from dying a well deserved death. |
At least I'm not the one burning car tires to try and increase CO2 content in the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:07:11 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
He's reached the stage of rant participation when you realize every post is just that much more pissing in the wind.
If he pushes through he'll move on to purposely inflammatory, nonsensical posts that keep the discussion from dying a well deserved death. |
At least I'm not the one burning car tires to try and increase CO2 content in the atmosphere. |
he pushed through...
|
|
|
|
01/06/2008 12:02:40 PM · #285 |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 07:14:56 AM · #286 |
| Maz, revel, and stargazer had some rather pointed replys in the commentary section. Good link. Glad to know that others on this planet are not taken in by the hysteria. It does appear that the proponents of catastrophe do have a bit of explaining to do. Saw a program over the weekend on evolution and how bipedalism was the link to humans. Lucy as well as 1470 were referenced. The world changed from a jungle enviornment to one of grasslands - requiring bi-pedalism. Hmmmm...wonder how that happened. Can't blame it on... |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 02:48:43 PM · #287 |
people just cause less than 1% of global warming. How about our Sun everytime the Sun get older it get warmer and stronger! What do you think it cause venus greenhouse effect
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 14:49:18. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 02:51:08 PM · #288 |
EEEK! Everyone panic, we must have done too good of a job because now we are cooling! Damn you algore!News link
I'm going to run home and burn a lot of stuff. We have to turn this around!
:)
|
|
|
|
03/03/2008 02:49:02 PM · #289 |
luxury homes burned
Looks like these arsonists are trying to help out their cause.
Now did they burn the homes because of the excess - or because the Global Warming was in retreat and they were trying to help it back on course??? Regardless, this serves as an example of the extremists position taken by some. So for those who critique the efforts of others to be enviornmentally friendly (as in driving SUV's), and they counter with "how much house is permissable", remember it is a very real question.
Apparently a 2 million dollar house is excessive. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 12:49:21 PM · #290 |
John Lott article
Another article making more sense of the real data. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 01:23:24 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by Flash:
John Lott article
Another article making more sense of the real data. |
Do you really think that there is some kind of conspiracy about the "real" data?
You have a view that reflects that peddled on right wing, conservative web sites with an agenda to support big business and oil companies. This does not give you any insight into the facts - it just means that you have a view that thousands of environmental scientists are wrong, and a collection of economists and other unqualified people are better at making this judgment.
Personally, I think that your line of reasoning is little short of crazy for well argued reasons. Your choice to believe people who say what you want to hear, rather than people who are qualified to make an assessment, speaks volumes. I think that this is probably reasonably transparent to most people who are capable of looking beyond their own desires and can see the self-interested motives of those who do hold your views. However, it is still quite irritating to see you dress your views up as facts.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 02:41:20 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
John Lott article
Another article making more sense of the real data. |
Do you really think that there is some kind of conspiracy about the "real" data?
... However, it is still quite irritating to see you dress your views up as facts. |
Are you writing that the last decade of "cooling" is not a fact? Are you writing that the hundreds of scientists that are referenced to in the article are not factual? Is that the irritation you are referring?
What is irritating is the continued barrage of extremism, passed off as rational. I am fully aware that the world holds those with your views and unfortunately those are becoming more prevalent. Precisely why the counterpoints must be presented - and often, for balance.
John Lott is a highly regarded professor (in some circles). Certainly I hold him (and his views) in high regard - having been a fan of his since his days at the University of Chicago. His research is typically well documented and reasoned.
John Lott
Message edited by author 2008-03-04 14:44:55. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 03:04:52 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by Flash:
John Lott is a highly regarded professor (in some circles). Certainly I hold him (and his views) in high regard... |
The second statement negates the first. Thank you for posting the wiki article, from which I've learned that Lott advocates that American society should be armed with concealed weapons in order to reduce crime, that 98% of crimes can be halted by brandishing but not using a weapon (a useless statistic he had no intention of backing up with actual data), that hiring minority police officers results in more crime and less professional police departments, that legalizing abortion resulted in increased murder rates, and that he posed as a non-existent woman in newsgroups and elsewhere on the net in order to congratulate and praise himself. Fine gentleman. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 03:37:07 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
John Lott is a highly regarded professor (in some circles). Certainly I hold him (and his views) in high regard... |
The second statement negates the first. Thank you for posting the wiki article, from which I've learned that Lott advocates that American society should be armed with concealed weapons in order to reduce crime, that 98% of crimes can be halted by brandishing but not using a weapon (a useless statistic he had no intention of backing up with actual data), that hiring minority police officers results in more crime and less professional police departments, that legalizing abortion resulted in increased murder rates, and that he posed as a non-existent woman in newsgroups and elsewhere on the net in order to congratulate and praise himself. Fine gentleman. |
Louis - only you could pick out every negative and miss the "rest of the story". Glad to be of help and thanks for not disappointing me. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 04:03:26 PM · #295 |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 04:55:36 PM · #296 |
I would also like to thank Louis. :-)
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 05:20:35 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Are you writing that the last decade of "cooling" is not a fact? Are you writing that the hundreds of scientists that are referenced to in the article are not factual? Is that the irritation you are referring? |
The article rests entirely on a single linked article by a blogger making his own interpretation of data (direct link here).
The blogger has subsequently added a note to say where the graphs have come from, and added the disclaimer "The views and comments are those of the author only" - it seems a bit strange that the scientists who made the measurements did not reach the same conclusion and have left it to a blogger to break the news to us all.
The irritating bit is that it is climate change, not necessarily global warming, on a macro scale, not on a specific day or week or year. I don't know why this straightforward aspect of the problem is seemingly so hard to understand.
Originally posted by Flash:
What is irritating is the continued barrage of extremism, passed off as rational. I am fully aware that the world holds those with your views and unfortunately those are becoming more prevalent. Precisely why the counterpoints must be presented - and often, for balance. |
Not every argument needs balance. We don't need regularly to make the flat earth argument just because the majority of people happen to believe that the earth is a globe.
Originally posted by Flash:
John Lott is a highly regarded professor (in some circles). |
In economics... and then only some circles. Again, your choice of representative leaves something to be desired.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 05:30:06 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Are you writing that the last decade of "cooling" is not a fact? Are you writing that the hundreds of scientists that are referenced to in the article are not factual? Is that the irritation you are referring? |
The following comment on that article explains why the article upon which the global cooling claim is made is horribly misinterpreted from the source data:
Originally posted by Gross Misrepresentation:
This article is a gross misrepresentation of the underlying data, which you can find here.
//data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...
...
Back to the article - What the article is actually reporting is that the temperature in the month of January 2008 was lower than the temperature in the month of January 2007 when using this delta tracking method. This is supported by the underlying data. What the story leaves out is the fact that January 2007 was the hottest month on record. The data from NASA goes back to 1880.
On top of that, January 2007 wasn̢۪t just a little hotter than any other month, it was a lot hotter. It was twice as hot as January 2006, for example.
The headline also implies that we̢۪ve had twelve months of cooling, when in fact 2007 was the second hottest year on record (after 2005). Check the data if you want.
The primary reason the reporter can say that January 2008 is much lower than January 2007 is that January 2007 was so hot. So we̢۪ve hardly wiped out a century of warming in 2007. |
Message edited by author 2008-03-04 17:30:59.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 06:19:46 PM · #299 |
| What I don't understand is how issues and beliefs that are not obviously political become so divided along political lines. Why do so many conservatives refuse to accept man-caused climate change as a reality? Is it the anti-science bias from the same wing of conservatives who object to the theory of evolution? Is it because people like Al Gore publicize it, and Al Gore = democrat = liberal tree-hugger moonbat? Is it because fighting global warming would be damaging to corporate profit, and therefore conservative leaders manipulate public opinion to discredit it? All of the above? |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 02:56:31 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Why do so many conservatives refuse to accept man-caused climate change as a reality? |
Maybe because it is not a reality. Maybe because they are tired of being force fed b-s and see the liberal left swallow it whole and say "mmm" that tastes good. Maybe because the evidence that the climate has warmed and cooled long before man was even a pimple on the face of the earth, proves the cyclical nature of it. Maybe because the Sun's impact has much more to do with it than anything man has done or not done. Maybe because the hypocracy associated with those claiming a mightier than thou holiness, whilst those "evil conservatives" do equally measured activities in recycling or other reduction activities, but are criticized regardless. Or just maybe, because the last decade has actually cooled, while the "sky is falling crowd" is claiming catastrophe.
Maybe that's why.
Message edited by author 2008-03-05 14:57:29. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/17/2025 12:27:24 PM EDT.
