Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 86
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Facts are not facts... yes, that is what I said!

    I bet if we did a search on GW and CC (global warming and climate change) threads... we could find endless posts to links of scientific facts on BOTH sides of the argument.

    Now the message I get from the resident liberals here is: The so called facts support their view, so that HAS to be correct. They do not discuss other facts... only theirs.

    Yet the message I get from the conservatives (IMO the ones with common sense) is: The facts support their view... so that has to be correct.

    Folks, two opposing views which are BOTH supported by so called scientific facts... neither can be totally right.

    So get used to it: science is just as fallible as polecats.
    The only fact so far is that you have not provided any.
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,057
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    The only fact so far is that you have not provided any.
    Why should I parrot information I do not believe is reliable?

    Does winning the discussion make my facts right? Certainly your mind is developed beyond thinking the person with better debating skills is always right... that is just totally illogical... and even bordering on somewhere between overblown personal pride and just plain arrogance.

    Old proverb: Pride goes before a fall... It is actually fun to watch folks get a puffed up head... they always get a pen poked in it. Sometimes I even give them more rope to hang themselves...
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Why should I parrot information I do not believe is reliable?

    Does winning the discussion make my facts right? Certainly your mind is developed beyond thinking the person with better debating skills is always right... that is just totally illogical... and even bordering on somewhere between overblown personal pride and just plain arrogance.

    Old proverb: Pride goes before a fall... It is actually fun to watch folks get a puffed up head... they always get a pen poked in it. Sometimes I even give them more rope to hang themselves...
    If you do not believe your information is not reliable how can you have such a firm opinion? Oh yeah I forgot, faith.
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,578
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    If you do not believe your information is not reliable how can you have such a firm opinion? Oh yeah I forgot, faith.
    Come on printer with all the doctored data that these so call "environmental scientists" have doctored up to make their case for man-made GW why would you still want to listen to them. Most of them are no better than prostitutes selling their souls to their paymasters in order to promote man made GW.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-t...-warming-panel

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-...lobal-warming/
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,057
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    If you do not believe your information is not reliable how can you have such a firm opinion? Oh yeah I forgot, faith.
    Your debate technique has turned into subtle shaming and put-downs; usually what happens when folks know they are cornered.

    Obviously winning the discussion is more important than learning and growing mentally... IM(maybe not so humble)opinion, a questionable attitude.

    Intellectual high-mindedness, while it feels good to the one doing it, looks just plain silly to the rest of the world...

    Time to and
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,057
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Come on printer with all the doctored data that these so call "environmental scientists" have doctored up to make their case for man-made GW why would you still want to listen to them. Most of them are no better than prostitutes selling their souls to their paymasters in order to promote man made GW.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-t...-warming-panel

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-...lobal-warming/
    MeThinks Printer more or less fits into a similar category to GeerAir...
    He is not here to discuss, learn, grow... he is here for entertainment and to practice debate technique. Shame, guy is smart enough to do better.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    From the very start of our discussions on this matter, if you'll kindly remember, I've more or less beaten a single drum;

    There is no such thing as science by consensus.

    The only time consensus has value in science is when EMPERICAL (not variables, models and estimates) data is used to conduct experiments. Consensus means that science agrees on the interpretation of the experiement.

    But now for the last few decades, and in more scientific areas that just GW, it is ok for a consensus of scientists to believe a thing that has nothing to do with peer reviewed experiments conducted using empirical data. This has more or less replaced "hard" science.

    Here, see what I mean; "a majority consensus of scientists say that c02 generated by man is a major cause of global warming".

    It would not be unusual to read something like that if not exactly that.

    Ok, now let's move the example to other areas of science;

    "a majority consensus of scientists believe that E=mc2".

    "a majority consensus of scientists believe that atoms are the basic building blocks of the universe".

    You don't exactly hear that, right? That's because those things were determined by empirical science, not consensus. It would never occur to someone to speak like that when the science has been determined in the proper way.

    So the reverse of that concept is, consensus science is invoked only when the science is too weak to be presented in the traditional way.

    However, let's be clear, that does NOT mean that the AGW proponents are wrong. They may well be right.

    It is only that hard science does not properly support that view at this time.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,057
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    From the very start of our discussions on this matter, if you'll kindly remember, I've more or less beaten a single drum;

    There is no such thing as science by consensus.

    The only time consensus has value in science is when EMPERICAL (not variables, models and estimates) data is used to conduct experiments. Consensus means that science agrees on the interpretation of the experiement.

    But now for the last few decades, and in more scientific areas that just GW, it is ok for a consensus of scientists to believe a thing that has nothing to do with peer reviewed experiments conducted using empirical data. This has more or less replaced "hard" science.

    Here, see what I mean; "a majority consensus of scientists say that c02 generated by man is a major cause of global warming".

    It would not be unusual to read something like that if not exactly that.

    Ok, now let's move the example to other areas of science;

    "a majority consensus of scientists believe that E=mc2".

    "a majority consensus of scientists believe that atoms are the basic building blocks of the universe".

    You don't exactly hear that, right? That's because those things were determined by empirical science, not consensus. It would never occur to someone to speak like that when the science has been determined in the proper way.

    So the reverse of that concept is, consensus science is invoked only when the science is too weak to be presented in the traditional way.

    However, let's be clear, that does NOT mean that the AGW proponents are wrong. They may well be right.

    It is only that hard science does not properly support that view at this time.
    Good post Scrog, that is what I was trying to say.

    If we accept 'consensual' science as fact (without irrefutable proof), then my statement that 'facts are not facts' becomes true.

    GA's opinion: Govts would LOVE for the public to accept consensual science as fact... it would make manipulating the public easy as stealing candy from a baby... which we all know they do daily.

    GA's solution: Two things;
    One: We need to think for ourselves rather than let others tell us what is and is not, and
    Two: We need to see polecats as they are... lieing thieves to NOT be trusted.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Something else I find a bit strange about all of this consensus stuff... when you think about it, the great scientists of our time are considered great PRECISELY BECAUSE they broke with consensus and went on to demonstrate what they said to be true right in the face of consensus.

    The historical examples can be endlessly multiplied. Louis Pastuer!

    It seems we have too many "follow the leader" types and too few "mavericks".

    No one wants to be great anymore, I guess.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Come on printer with all the doctored data that these so call "environmental scientists" have doctored up to make their case for man-made GW why would you still want to listen to them. Most of them are no better than prostitutes selling their souls to their paymasters in order to promote man made GW.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-t...-warming-panel
    I assume the point you wish to emphasize in the article is the bit about the hi-jacked e-mails.

    Of course we have been over this very issue many times and it has been pointed out to you that eight independant investigations have been conducted with the result that all investigations found no evidence of manipulation of evidence, fraud or "doctored data" as you put it.

    The cognitive dissonance you continually display is epic.


    Ah, another little gem of pathetic, ideological based reporting.


    Let's see what the scientist who wrote the paper has to say about your linked article and others like it. From the Syracuse University College of Arts and Sciences News; Dr. Zunli Lu: "It is unfortunate that my research, "An ikaite record of the late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsuls" recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

    Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Anarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditiona across the entire globe. Other statements such as the study "throws doubt on orthodixies around global warming" completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well- established anthropogenic warming trend."

    Glenn old buddy, you wail and moan accusing science of fraud and doctoring data but the only ones doctoring data are your sources.

    Hell boy, this kind of fiddling and farting with scientific papers is classic creationist tactics.

    Then again, you are probably a creationist yourself so this misreprensentation of science must seem normal and proper to you.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    From the very start of our discussions on this matter, if you'll kindly remember, I've more or less beaten a single drum;

    There is no such thing as science by consensus.
    Oh but there is. It is called the prevailing scientific view. While consensus/prevailing view is not evidence confirming the accuracy of a particular theory, it is a confirmation that a majority of the scientists who are trained and conduct research in the relevant field are convinced that the evidence supports this view.

    This is the case in all science and is scientifically proper. Indeed just as evolution is the consensus/prevailing scientific view, so it is with AGW.



    The only time consensus has value in science is when EMPERICAL (not variables, models and estimates) data is used to conduct experiments. Consensus means that science agrees on the interpretation of the experiement.
    Every theory in science is a model. Every theory in science makes estimates. Every theory in science is ruled by variables. Experimentation in climate is every bit as robust as any other branch of science

    But now for the last few decades, and in more scientific areas that just GW, it is ok for a consensus of scientists to believe a thing that has nothing to do with peer reviewed experiments conducted using empirical data. This has more or less replaced "hard" science.
    The number of peer-reviewed, emperical papers concerning AGW is enormous.

    Here, see what I mean; "a majority consensus of scientists say that c02 generated by man is a major cause of global warming".

    It would not be unusual to read something like that if not exactly that.

    Ok, now let's move the example to other areas of science;

    "a majority consensus of scientists believe that E=mc2".

    "a majority consensus of scientists believe that atoms are the basic building blocks of the universe".

    You don't exactly hear that, right? That's because those things were determined by empirical science, not consensus. It would never occur to someone to speak like that when the science has been determined in the proper way.

    So the reverse of that concept is, consensus science is invoked only when the science is too weak to be presented in the traditional way.
    I've read any number of scientific papers, articles by those in the relevant fields and very few if any ever mention consensus. I believe you have been duped by science writers and other incompetent commentators.

    It is only that hard science does not properly support that view at this time.
    A review of the scientific literature does not support this statement.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    Oh but there is. It is called the prevailing scientific view. While consensus/prevailing view is not evidence confirming the accuracy of a particular theory, it is a confirmation that a majority of the scientists who are trained and conduct research in the relevant field are convinced that the evidence supports this view.

    This is the case in all science and is scientifically proper. Indeed just as evolution is the consensus/prevailing scientific view, so it is with AGW.
    Ah, but evolution has no choice but to be the prevailing view, since it, as a fact, was established by observation. AGW was not established as a fact via human senses. It has not been established as a fact at all.

    Every theory in science is a model. Every theory in science makes estimates. Every theory in science is ruled by variables. Experimentation in climate is every bit as robust as any other branch of science

    The number of peer-reviewed, emperical papers concerning AGW is enormous.
    Most other sciences do not use models to predict the future. Intead they use known and not estimated data. For example, in the latest shuttle accident report they used a fluid flow dynamics model to show how super-heated plasma likely entered the wing and destroyed it. In that report the researchers were very careful to state that the model alone was not "a smoking gun" in terms of evidence, it simply agreed with other data points.

    Model the past, sure. Fine.

    Of course, some do use theoretical models as that's the only way. Like astro-phyisics. We do call these "theoretical sciences" for a reason.

    I've read any number of scientific papers, articles by those in the relevant fields and very few if any ever mention consensus. I believe you have been duped by science writers and other incompetent commentators.

    A review of the scientific literature does not support this statement.
    Historically, there is no doubt that consensus has been invoked many times. Particularly when science is being improperly used as a tool to enable social change.

    Take the EPA when it first classified second-hand smoke as a class A carcinogen in 1993. As a follow-up, in 1998 The Christian Science Moniter announced that "second hand smoke was the third leading preventable cause of death in the US". Then the American Cancer Society said that "53,000 people died every year from second hand smoke". The evidence for these claims was non-existent, yet they served as the basis for laws that curtailed smoking. That the evidence does NOW exist does not excuse them from making claims based on openly fraudulent science at the time.

    In 1998 a federal judge concluded that the EPA had acted improperly coming to a conclusion before science had begun.

    How did Carol Browner, the head of the EPA at the time react?

    She invoked consensus. ""We stand by our science; there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings a whole host of health problems."

    Note, again, the invocation of consensus where proper science was weak. Amusingly, Browner in this instance did not even evoke a scientific consensus, but rather a consensus of the people!

    Of course, we all know how this works. Speak out against openly fraudulent science and you get branded a shill of RJ Reynolds in the greatest example of an attempt to attack the source rather than addressing the argument that possibly exists.

    Consensus was also invoked during the pellgra epidemic, for Nuclear Winter, and after the bombs dropped on Japan where the consensus held that nothing would grow there for decades. In fact, melons grew the following year.

    Again, the most famous example is likely Pastuer, but the historical record of scientific consensus leaves a lot to be desired.

    Science is about repeatable observations and repeatable experiments. Not consensus, except for peer review of proplerly conducted empirical science.

    The matter here is not whether or not consensus is invoked, it clearly is and has been for a while. This has replaced proper science and I seem to be in the minority view that this is not ok.

    You know what I really hate about all this? I think you'll relate even if we disagree on some things here. I hate it when Joe Public views science as a joke. Here in the office today someone offered another employee a pain reliever (Motrin I think) that had gotten some bad consensus press, to which the offering person smirked and said "don't worry... they said it's good again".

    Reminds me of the margerine debacle among many others.

    How did we arrive here? Yep, you guessed it!
    Last edited by scrogdog; 06-26-2012 at 02:32 PM.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,578
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    I assume the point you wish to emphasize in the article is the bit about the hi-jacked e-mails.

    Of course we have been over this very issue many times and it has been pointed out to you that eight independant investigations have been conducted with the result that all investigations found no evidence of manipulation of evidence, fraud or "doctored data" as you put it.

    The cognitive dissonance you continually display is epic.


    Ah, another little gem of pathetic, ideological based reporting.


    Let's see what the scientist who wrote the paper has to say about your linked article and others like it. From the Syracuse University College of Arts and Sciences News; Dr. Zunli Lu: "It is unfortunate that my research, "An ikaite record of the late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsuls" recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

    Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Anarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditiona across the entire globe. Other statements such as the study "throws doubt on orthodixies around global warming" completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well- established anthropogenic warming trend."

    Glenn old buddy, you wail and moan accusing science of fraud and doctoring data but the only ones doctoring data are your sources.

    Hell boy, this kind of fiddling and farting with scientific papers is classic creationist tactics.

    Then again, you are probably a creationist yourself so this misreprensentation of science must seem normal and proper to you.
    Geer all I can say is that you are just not believable and I'll leave it at that. Don't have the time or patience to argue with you since you are allways one track in everything you post and say. Always on the far left of any issue no matter what it is and never admit wrong. You sir are a troll. Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event