Climate 'Study' By Non-Scientist At EPA Is Right's New Cause Celebre

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

Because it was already challenged and shot down. Science isn't done by consensus. Theories are only models that fit the data. You do know that the earth centered universe was once a theory? You do know that a scientific law about gravity by a fellow named Newton has been disproved by another guy named Einstein? Just because a bunch of scientists agree with something doesn't make it right.

Wait. Are you saying now that a scientific theory doesn't require a general acceptance among the scientific community to become a theory? What are the requirements, Gary, for a scientific theory to come into existence?

[GaryC 7]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

Because it was already challenged and shot down. Science isn't done by consensus. Theories are only models that fit the data. You do know that the earth centered universe was once a theory? You do know that a scientific law about gravity by a fellow named Newton has been disproved by another guy named Einstein? Just because a bunch of scientists agree with something doesn't make it right.

Wait. Are you saying now that a scientific theory doesn't require a general acceptance among the scientific community to become a theory? What are the requirements, Gary, for a scientific theory to come into existence?

A theory is just a model that explains the data seen. It can be accepted but that does not mean it is fact. When the data changes so must the theory. When the data changes enough the theory must be abandoned. So it goes with GW. At one time the data was explained by the theory. The data has changed but the theory has not. With eggheads like HAL doggedly sticking to a disproved theory you get the consensus we have today.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yeah, those damn eggheads and their fvckin' books. They think they know better than we do just cuz they done read more. Damn faggits.

[GaryC 7]

Here is a new list of "peer reviewed" studies that contradict the theory. The links are not there and I am not going to waste my time finding them again because you will just dismiss them out of hand again. What is the point? But it does show the rest of those here that there is plenty of real scientists that disagree and have provided evidence. As far as HAL is concerned I have zero respect for your scientific opinion.

http://www.heartland.org/publications/envi...g_Alarmism.html

No Gary, show us the proof and we can discuss it point by point. If you don't want to "waste your time," then don't waste your time.

Those studies have the proof in them, you just don't want to look at them. Are you afraid?

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

All I've ever tried teaching you is that the proof you think backs your claim isn't proof that backs your claim. Easy as that.

So until I am a scientist and develop these magical reading skills then you can't discuss them with me. And you wonder why I don't trust you. Mawilson is right, you are so full of yourself.

No, but you can learn how to read science material without letting the preconcluding happen before the material. There's not much magic involved other than taking some time to understand what is written.

You don't trust me. Boo hoo.

You mean like what you did when I asked you to read an article?

Show us points. What is it specifically about the proof you have that convinces you. That is where conclusions are derived from, so lets at it. Otherwise, as you say... you're wasting your own time.

Your the scientist. As you so aptly pointed out I am not. I can only read the conclusions from others that reference those articles that do understand them. I asked you to read them also and give your opinion. All I got was your opinion without your reading them.

Which is why I'd just really like it if you'd get to the points about the proof you have. I've covered specifics in the past about the physical chemistry of CO2, how it behaves in solution (atmosphere) at the molecular level. If you want to go on others' conclusions, citing particular reports that have a difficult time convincing actual scientists in their fields, how can you assume that you, as a layman, are getting the entire picture from those sources?

I don't know where it is I was supposed to not have read something and made a conclusion based on not having done so... but if you were to again, list specific details I'd be more than happy to go over those points. After all, that is why we're here isn't it?

Otherwise, we can go around in circles as always, ignoring the science behind these things. Well... at least I know I don't do so. And no, you don't need a degree to catch on.

You are thick aren't you? I GAVE you studies that disputed the consensus. You didn't want to read them. As far as I am concerned you have no standing to comment any more. I don't want to discuss them with you. But I do want to show you how you are a pompous azz that thinks he can comment on things just because you have a degree. Your HAL 9000 persona, your siggie graphic that says you are the science and technology division of the C4C, your piping in on anything remotely scientific and coming across as the "expert" is really getting old. You are really so self important it is nauseating.

[HAL 9000 96]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

Because it was already challenged and shot down. Science isn't done by consensus. Theories are only models that fit the data. You do know that the earth centered universe was once a theory? You do know that a scientific law about gravity by a fellow named Newton has been disproved by another guy named Einstein? Just because a bunch of scientists agree with something doesn't make it right.

Wait. Are you saying now that a scientific theory doesn't require a general acceptance among the scientific community to become a theory? What are the requirements, Gary, for a scientific theory to come into existence?

A theory is just a model that explains the data seen. It can be accepted but that does not mean it is fact. When the data changes so must the theory. When the data changes enough the theory must be abandoned. So it goes with GW. At one time the data was explained by the theory. The data has changed but the theory has not. With eggheads like HAL doggedly sticking to a disproved theory you get the consensus we have today.

So where is this data that disproves the theory of man-made GW Gary? I mean... if scientists are such dogs at sticking to disproven theories, and theories that have data that disproves them must be discarded... then there should be sufficient data available to do so... so again... share point by point and what makes YOU conclude such things.

Yeah, those damn eggheads and their fvckin' books. They think they know better than we do just cuz they done read more. Damn faggits.

We fairy geeks are too weak to pick up books. We rely on lighter magazines with pretty pictures.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gery-

You are thick aren't you? I GAVE you studies that disputed the consensus. You didn't want to read them. As far as I am concerned you have no standing to comment any more. I don't want to discuss them with you. But I do want to show you how you are a pompous azz that thinks he can comment on things just because you have a degree. Your HAL 9000 persona, your siggie graphic that says you are the science and technology division of the C4C, your piping in on anything remotely scientific and coming across as the "expert" is really getting old. You are really so self important it is nauseating.

Well that solves it (again).

You don't want to discuss something that clearly discomforts you, and I don't know if its because you can't grasp the concepts behind the reasoning... since I don't know you well enough about how you really think, I reserve making personal and insulting judgements that make Baby Jesus cry.

But when you do want to have an open discussion about science and how things work, let me know.

[pedroh 21]

I'm burning tires in my backyard.. any1 wants to join?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm burning tires in my backyard.. any1 wants to join?

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm burning tires in my backyard.. any1 wants to join?

Can I throw battery acid on it?

[GaryC 7]

Gery-

You are thick aren't you? I GAVE you studies that disputed the consensus. You didn't want to read them. As far as I am concerned you have no standing to comment any more. I don't want to discuss them with you. But I do want to show you how you are a pompous azz that thinks he can comment on things just because you have a degree. Your HAL 9000 persona, your siggie graphic that says you are the science and technology division of the C4C, your piping in on anything remotely scientific and coming across as the "expert" is really getting old. You are really so self important it is nauseating.

Well that solves it (again).

You don't want to discuss something that clearly discomforts you, and I don't know if its because you can't grasp the concepts behind the reasoning... since I don't know you well enough about how you really think, I reserve making personal and insulting judgements that make Baby Jesus cry.

But when you do want to have an open discussion about science and how things work, let me know.

http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf

Read it, comment on it. It isn't a scientific study but it is an article written by a PHd. He outlines point by point the problems I have with GW. He also posted links to the studies that are in his article. Read them. Show me where he is wrong.

Edited July 1, 2009 by GaryC

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

very good point.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gery-

You are thick aren't you? I GAVE you studies that disputed the consensus. You didn't want to read them. As far as I am concerned you have no standing to comment any more. I don't want to discuss them with you. But I do want to show you how you are a pompous azz that thinks he can comment on things just because you have a degree. Your HAL 9000 persona, your siggie graphic that says you are the science and technology division of the C4C, your piping in on anything remotely scientific and coming across as the "expert" is really getting old. You are really so self important it is nauseating.

Well that solves it (again).

You don't want to discuss something that clearly discomforts you, and I don't know if its because you can't grasp the concepts behind the reasoning... since I don't know you well enough about how you really think, I reserve making personal and insulting judgements that make Baby Jesus cry.

But when you do want to have an open discussion about science and how things work, let me know.

http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf

Read it, comment on it. It isn't a scientific study but it is an article written by a PHd. He outlines point by point the problems I have with GW. He also posted links to the studies that are in his article. Read them. Show me where he is wrong.

So if it isn't scientific, what level of comment would be suitable for you? And you do understand that right and wrong aren't exactly the best concepts to juggle in an Op piece right?

(I am reading it, BTW).

Again... lets address points, not conclusions.

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

I'm burning tires in my backyard.. any1 wants to join?

you stop that right now! don't you have any sense at all?

i'll be right over to get them, and we'll go burn them in steven's yard.

[pedroh 21]

I'm burning tires in my backyard.. any1 wants to join?

Can I throw battery acid on it?

sure, and some old plastic bottles, the non-recyclable ones

[GaryC 7]

Gery-

You are thick aren't you? I GAVE you studies that disputed the consensus. You didn't want to read them. As far as I am concerned you have no standing to comment any more. I don't want to discuss them with you. But I do want to show you how you are a pompous azz that thinks he can comment on things just because you have a degree. Your HAL 9000 persona, your siggie graphic that says you are the science and technology division of the C4C, your piping in on anything remotely scientific and coming across as the "expert" is really getting old. You are really so self important it is nauseating.

Well that solves it (again).

You don't want to discuss something that clearly discomforts you, and I don't know if its because you can't grasp the concepts behind the reasoning... since I don't know you well enough about how you really think, I reserve making personal and insulting judgements that make Baby Jesus cry.

But when you do want to have an open discussion about science and how things work, let me know.

http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf

Read it, comment on it. It isn't a scientific study but it is an article written by a PHd. He outlines point by point the problems I have with GW. He also posted links to the studies that are in his article. Read them. Show me where he is wrong.

So if it isn't scientific, what level of comment would be suitable for you? And you do understand that right and wrong aren't exactly the best concepts to juggle in an Op piece right?

(I am reading it, BTW).

Again... lets address points, not conclusions.

It is an OP piece written by a scientist and he is citing scientific studies. That makes it a valid starting point for discussion. If you find his facts questionable then follow the links he provides to his evidence. There is a lot of information if you include his references.