Quake3World

shiznit wrote:

tnf wrote:As a former (and sort of still current) part of it

Yeah because teaching a bunch of 13 year olds basic science qualifies you as being part of the scientific community, please spare yourself the ridicule.

:lol: :lol:

shiznit wrote:

tnf wrote:Right, having been a cancer researcher beforehand and writing for college biology textbooks doesn't mean shit does it?

No not really, when we are talking about environmental changes not cancer.

There comes a point when you gain a certain level of knowledge about how science, and the world works, that you can call yourself a 'scientist.' When you use that experience to analyze systems, you are more than a mere amatuer.

But beyond that, give me some solid facts. Give me those 'couple scientists' who are giving into the whims of the hysterical naturalists.

shiznit wrote:We are not arguing biblical beliefs over science here; you are basing your opinion on some naturalist hysteria and a couple of scientists that think we can correctly model our future climate based on computer models. We can’t, we can’t even predict the eruption of volcanoes.

either you're trolling or just another huge retard

shiznit wrote:We are not arguing biblical beliefs over science here; you are basing your opinion on some naturalist hysteria and a couple of scientists that think we can correctly model our future climate based on computer models. We can’t, we can’t even predict the eruption of volcanoes.

1. Trying to convice an anti-global warming supporter that global warming is caused by human activity is similar to trying convice a theologian that the earth wasn't created in 6 days/6000 years, so the comparison is valid.
2. You're comparing apples to oranges. Just because weather and erupting volcanoes are Earth processes, doesn't mean that both cannot be predicted using computer models.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

shiznit wrote:We are not arguing biblical beliefs over science here; you are basing your opinion on some naturalist hysteria and a couple of scientists that think we can correctly model our future climate based on computer models. We can’t, we can’t even predict the eruption of volcanoes.

either you're trolling or just another huge retard

or both

Dave wrote:yeah tnf, you science n00b. Stop researching cancer, writing books and teaching classes

... or playing those god damn video games. Or having that RC Car hobby. Or golf hobby. Or being fitness and weight lifting guru. Jesus Christ, stop being interesting in so many fucking things and live a shitty existence, ffs.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environmen ... ageID=1320

There's the letter signed by leading scientists, nobel laureates, etc...a relatively small number of signatures to the initial letter to Bush, but thousands more have signed on...a general letter about restoring scientific integrity...with this little snippet.

*********************************
For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.

The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. “Clear Skies” would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.

Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.

The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, “How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations.”

Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:

*
Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
*
Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s policies or with the views of its political supporters.
*
The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
*
Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
*
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education. To elevate the ethic that governs the relationship between science and government, Congress and the Executive should establish legislation and regulations that would:

*
Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern;
*
Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards; and
*
Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels.

That's a bunch of horseshit and you know it, just because you wrote some articles and did some research in cancer makes you qualified in predicting climate changes. You don't have adequate enough evidence and the computer models provided so far ar shit.

riddla wrote:Yet another classic example of something we dont know for sure, but at least this one is more fun to argue about

But on a philosphical note - would it not be wise, if we are not totally sure, to err on the side of caution if that can be done in a way that doesn't bring about the economic ruin the doomsdayers say it will?
By the way, we do KNOW what we've observed. We do know what we are discovering by looking at ice core samples that contain bubbles of gas from thousands and thousands of years ago....
oh well...

yea i am a scientist of corce

shiznit wrote:That's a bunch of horseshit and you know it, just because you wrote some articles and did some research in cancer makes you qualified in predicting climate changes. You don't have adequate enough evidence and the computer models provided so far ar shit.

Stop with the ad hominem.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

Dave wrote:

shiznit wrote:We are not arguing biblical beliefs over science here; you are basing your opinion on some naturalist hysteria and a couple of scientists that think we can correctly model our future climate based on computer models. We can’t, we can’t even predict the eruption of volcanoes.

1. Trying to convice an anti-global warming supporter that global warming is caused by human activity is similar to trying convice a theologian that the earth wasn't created in 6 days/6000 years, so the comparison is valid.
2. You're comparing apples to oranges. Just because weather and erupting volcanoes are Earth processes, doesn't mean that both cannot be predicted using computer models.

First of all I'm no anti-global warming supporter, I believe there is global warming. Second I have never subscribed to the bible or any other religious reading. My argument is that global warming doesn't attribute as much as does natural climate change, at least for now and that this global warming apocalypse is merely brought up in order to bring awareness to the issue, sort of like recycling in the 90’s.

No, you guys don't understand -- he's already done the research. Why would he want to do more?

riddla wrote:

tnf wrote:

riddla wrote:Yet another classic example of something we dont know for sure, but at least this one is more fun to argue about

But on a philosphical note - would it not be wise, if we are not totally sure, to err on the side of caution

I agree, but thats beside the point

That's hardly beside the point. It pretty much is the point.

shiznit wrote:That's a bunch of horseshit and you know it, just because you wrote some articles and did some research in cancer makes you qualified in predicting climate changes. You don't have adequate enough evidence and the computer models provided so far ar shit.

THEN GIVE ME THE FUCKING ALTERNATIVE NUMBNUTS. FORGET I POSTED SHIT. SHOW ME THE FACTS. SHOW ME THE 'ENTIRE BODY OF SCIENCE' THAT IS BEHIND YOU. Trust me, there are some scientists (many funded by oil companies) will say, patently, that global warming is a complete myth..just like there are some scientists who say that earth was created in 6 days by God.
The person who hasn't posted 'evidence' here is you, dumbfuck.
Apparently, I'm not qualified to discuss matters of science with you. And I am not predicting the climate changes. I am looking at the research being done, the predictions being made by the climatologists , the majority of whom AGREE THAT WE ARE IMPACTING THE COURSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, and then critically analyzing their scientific methodologies. I can look at an experimental design, I can read an abstract, a discussion (in a professional scientific journal like Science or Nature or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and make educated inferences and statements. See, we scientists often read these things called 'journals' that have 'papers' in them. These aren't quite your standard "Discover" or "Scientific American" or "National Geographic" magazines you get at the bookstore. They are full of peer-reviewed papers that have to stand up to the scrutinizing eyes of reviewers before they are published. Your material has to be rock solid. If you try to make a statement that isn't plausibly supported by your data, you don't get published.

Getting through to you yet buddy?

tnf wrote:

riddla wrote:Yet another classic example of something we dont know for sure, but at least this one is more fun to argue about

But on a philosphical note - would it not be wise, if we are not totally sure, to err on the side of caution if that can be done in a way that doesn't bring about the economic ruin the doomsdayers say it will?
By the way, we do KNOW what we've observed. We do know what we are discovering by looking at ice core samples that contain bubbles of gas from thousands and thousands of years ago....
oh well...

Hey, I don’t disagree with you on that. It would be nice to have clean air and no global warming. But why do people have to provide exaggerated information, as if we are going to kill ourselves in the next century with this global warming. Like I said before it’s similar to recycling, some moron provided an article about how US is running out of landfills and we need to recycle or we will all suffocate under our own garbage and guess what everyone bought it. But did you know that we created even more pollution as a result of recycling? We can rush in to the exact same problem here.

tnf wrote: But on a philosphical note - would it not be wise, if we are not totally sure, to err on the side of caution

Careful with that line of approach... *cough* Pascal *cough*.

shiznit wrote:Second I have never subscribed to the bible or any other religious reading.

Obviously irrelevant.

riddla wrote:

tnf wrote:

riddla wrote:Yet another classic example of something we dont know for sure, but at least this one is more fun to argue about

But on a philosphical note - would it not be wise, if we are not totally sure, to err on the side of caution

I agree, but thats beside the point

No, its not beside the point. Bush will err on the side of caution if it involves bombing the fuck out of a country that 'might' have WMDs (but didn't) and 'might' harbor Al-Qaeda (but wasn't) and might have ties to 9/11 (but didn't) but won't do shit about erring on the side of caution when it comes to dealing with greenhouse emissions because it 'might damage our economy.' All that being said, GWB is a fucking tool.

riddla wrote:Yet another classic example of something we dont know for sure, but at least this one is more fun to argue about

:icon33: :icon33: :icon33: :icon33:

riddla wrote:@rook: It is beside the point unless this planet is ruled with an iron fist and our selfish wants are taken completely away, so whether we're sure or not means nothing until basic human nature can be drastically changed.

Change can never come about without accepting the trends that we are seeing first.

tnf wrote:

shiznit wrote:That's a bunch of horseshit and you know it, just because you wrote some articles and did some research in cancer makes you qualified in predicting climate changes. You don't have adequate enough evidence and the computer models provided so far ar shit.

THEN GIVE ME THE FUCKING ALTERNATIVE NUMBNUTS. FORGET I POSTED SHIT. SHOW ME THE FACTS. SHOW ME THE 'ENTIRE BODY OF SCIENCE' THAT IS BEHIND YOU. Trust me, there are some scientists (many funded by oil companies) will say, patently, that global warming is a complete myth..just like there are some scientists who say that earth was created in 6 days by God.
The person who hasn't posted 'evidence' here is you, dumbfuck.
Apparently, I'm not qualified to discuss matters of science with you. And I am not predicting the climate changes. I am looking at the research being done, the predictions being made by the climatologists , the majority of whom AGREE THAT WE ARE IMPACTING THE COURSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, and then critically analyzing their scientific methodologies. I can look at an experimental design, I can read an abstract, a discussion (in a professional scientific journal like Science or Nature or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and make educated inferences and statements. See, we scientists often read these things called 'journals' that have 'papers' in them. These aren't quite your standard "Discover" or "Scientific American" or "National Geographic" magazines you get at the bookstore. They are full of peer-reviewed papers that have to stand up to the scrutinizing eyes of reviewers before they are published. Your material has to be rock solid. If you try to make a statement that isn't plausibly supported by your data, you don't get published.

Getting through to you yet buddy?

You need to calm down and stop swearing, we are having a discussion here not a flamewar. This is exactly why people don’t want to look at facts; they are too blinded by their passion to preserve the environment or to make a change.

shiznit, you still haven't shown us how all the world's scientists agree with you.


That's what this whole thing is about.
I've already been humiliated enough by you exposing me for the scientific ignoramus that I am - barely able to grasp the material I teach to 13 year olds (although my human biology class is a college prep type course - and I've actually never taught a 13 year old kid...). So, since you are the only truly educated voice on the subject here, please enlighten us.

And you started the flamewar with the 'spare yourself the humiliation' bit.

Your side continually uses the 'blinded by passion' bit to deflect the issue. Again, you voluntarily put the burden of proof on yourself. The world's scientists agree with you.

Please, do not feed the troll.

mjrpes wrote:

Dave wrote:yeah tnf, you science n00b. Stop researching cancer, writing books and teaching classes

... or playing those god damn video games. Or having that RC Car hobby. Or golf hobby. Or being fitness and weight lifting guru. Jesus Christ, stop being interesting in so many fucking things and live a shitty existence, ffs.

Just read that...heh. ty.