And the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is... the EU!

Post Reply New Topic

Your delusions of grandeur are... grand... The reason why I referred to that PNAS article was because I didn't want to waste my time and the pixels of WP on refuting every single idiotic claim you make. Smarter minds than me have long since given up in this endeavour when facing someone so resilient to the concept of facts as you.

It takes a tremendous act of suspension of disbelief to assume that some crackpot climate sceptic on WP has a deeper understanding of climate change than the IPCC and a ridiculously large majority of scientists actually doing science on climate change. Do you claim to be the Mann reincarnated?

I might resort to strawmanning you by claiming that you don't believe in evolution either... But hopefully, your ignorance of science does not extend to that field, as well...



Peer reviewed science > random link.



I edited your post to account for your typo.



Once again, irrelevant. I only bothered referring to my degree because you claimed I did not have one...



I would like to remind you that BS is a limited resource. Please don't overuse it, as other idiots might have need for it in their discussions...

I didn't want to do this, but the thread is already horribly derailed, so here it goes.

The fact that the pp of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere is pretty irrefutable evidence that nature is NOT compensating for the fact that we are taking millions of years worth of naturally sequestered carbon and pumping it back into the atmosphere in the course of less than a century. The greenhouse effect is physics; albedo is physics; disolved CO2 is chemistry. These are known as 'hard sciences' because they're relatively easy to predict with relatively simple math. Photosynthesis is biolgy, and thus has a little more wriggle room, but the data coming in pretty much all points in the direction of decompensation.


You're an idiot, and you're grasping at straws.
For one thing, climate scientists include natural causes like volcanism in their models. They're not tens of thousands of effing morons who haven't figured this out, while your brilliance alone has picked out this cause that no one who specializes in the field ever thought of, you arrogant ass.
For another, volcanoes have a net downward effect on temperature due to the albedo of sulfur emissions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming- ... canoes.htm

The vast majority (>97%) of climate scientists accept anthropogenic climate change. The OISM petition, to which I assume you refer, is a self-selected group of scientists (BSc or above) from any field, with all of the statistical validity of a ladmag poll on whether gentlemen prefer blondes. The PNAS study is a statistical sampling of top climate scientists. Here are a couple more:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full


NO ONE IS CITING AL GORE. You're the only one to even mention that name here, so find another tune, ok? How about former climate-denier Michael Mann? You guys used to love him.

Increased temperatures decreases the water's abilities in absorbing CO2. Again, solar activity is increasing and continental drift is increasing.



Not a part of the curriculum in most colleges. The physics most people with a degree in science have, is limited to mechanical physics (Newton's laws, momentum and all that), but in some cases, a very basic introduction on refraction/reflection and particle physics is given as well.



But still not a part of the curriculum in most universities.



Correct. And CO2 is the main thread here.



Idiot? Statistically, I'm among the top 5% students in my class (computer science). In Norway, computer science is so hard that 3/4 of all students drop out the first year; 13% finish the third year within time.



What about the scientists with relevant degrees who've figured out it's most likely (one cannot prove a negative) not manmade? If I am to sink down to your level of debating: Do you claim to be smarter than Stephen McIntyre?

I'm citing them; I never claimed to do any research on the subject myself. Scientists can be victims of mass hysteria as well, which happened to be the case with y2K or the "global cooling scare" of 1940-1970.

In the middle ages, we scared people with Hell; now we scare them with global warming. We even have emission tradings in place of indulgences. You pay money for your sins and then you drive your flashy V8 SUV home again.



Depends on how much emissions we're speaking of. I didn't say we were facing an intense wave of volcanic activity similar to the one that ended the permian era. And I never said that volcanos directly caused temperature increase, but that they were the main source of CO2. There are of course factors that are far more important that CO2 which contributes to the temperature increase.



97% of the ones surveyed.



Again: They're the "top" scientists in their fields because their given a chance to speak because of their views. If the UN climate panels took skeptics more seriously, the numbers would be different.

As previously stated, the y2K history repeats itself.



I certain guy who can't even back up his claims by a single survey mentioned that nobody deserved the peace prize more than him.

"You guys"? Strawmaning, are we? He's not a denier, as he can back up his claims.

Here you go:



This graph is from McIntyre/McKitrick. Neither are religious zealots; neither are (seemingly) George W. Bush's henchmen and both are respected scientists.

Show me a picture of the cars the Mongols drove, the coal plants the native Americans used to get electricity or the vikings' oil platforms and I'll agree that global warming is manmade. Currently, there's no evidence that we're affecting it more than a single person pissing in a lake affects your drinking water.

Even if it is manmade, our contributions to it are small and we're still facing far more severe environmental disasters. There's less money to be made there, though. The very fact that the poster boys for manmade global warming labels anyone who disagrees with them a herretic, will backfire on them in the future.

Quite frankly, I find it amusing that many intelligent people believe in manmade global warming with so little evidence. Obviously, nobody learned anything from the steady state theory of the universe, the y2K (in today's value, the costs preparing for this were more than 400 billion dollars), when the LHC supposedly "prooved" that something traveled faster than light, Fleischmann and Pons' very cold fusion, the theory on how Venus was just like earth (but a little warmer) or the global cooling scare.



No. I claim that many of the scientist skeptics know more about the subjects than the UN climate panel.

American medical doctors are 22 times more likely than regular people to believe in hinduism. Hence (according to your logic) only the hindus should voice their opinion on human anatomy.



We have strong indications on evolution, but we do not have strong indications on manmade global warming. There's not a significant amount of money to be earned by saying that evolution is real and currently, nothing else explains how every living creature originated.

Honestly, the debating tecnique used by internet climate-know-it-alls are not all that different from the God of the gaps fallacy.



Fixed.



You seem to be sitting on a lot of BS. It can't be that limited.

By the black hand of Hume, *EVERYTHING* you say is BS (might be a valuable investment object)... That is quite impressive, by the way, as most idiots accidentally introduce something marginally useful in even their most incoherent rants...

I recommend this article (but I suspect that you are way beyond any chance of redemption)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Oh, and it is BBCode, not BBCodes... But hey, trolling is a art.

Now please stop trolling reality, troll.

Either post evidence not backed by syllogistic fallacies, a debunked graph that looks like something, anything you've randomly Googled or f*ck off. You're the one who's trolling.

(And no, saying that so-and-so many people believe in something is not evidence.)

Google Ivar Gjæver. He is able to explain everything regarding this in a simple, yet intelligent way.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money (Al Gore earned 100 million "money" by scaring people with his movie.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogistic_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda



Nobody care if it's BBCode or BBCodes. You're not impressing anyone older than 14 by showing how to use them; the same goes for your fallacies.

"A rock cannot fly. Mother cannot fly. Therefore, mother is a rock." -- Danish proverb

Cherry-picking.

As I previously stated, there is a reason why I referred to Expert credibility in climate change. Climate sceptics will continue to cherry-pick arguments until the end of time. But they are an insignificant minority compared to the scientists who support anthropogenic climate change.

And once again, you need to possess an extraordinary ability for suspension of disbelief to assume that your crappy posts are comparable to the best of the best in the scientific study of climate change.

In other words, READ THE f*****g ARTICLE!
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract



BS.



En sten kan ikke flyve. Morlille kan ikke flyve. Ergo er morlille en sten.

If you want to argue with a Dane about Danish proverbs, at least speak Danish.

And please stop strawmanning Ludvig Holberg, one of the greatest philosophical thinkers in Denmark, in support of your tåbelige udfald mod videnskaben og din totale mangel på indsigt i den videnskabelige metode. Er dit virkelige navn Henrik Svensmark? Eller er du bare miljøskadet af 180grader.dk?

Again, how many who believes it is besides the f*cking point. It only makes the matter more ridicculous when said persons are proven wrong.

I never claimed to be a better scientist than anyone from the UN climate panel, but Ivar Gjæver is. I'm not debating the UN climate panel right now, I'm debating you; so far, you've been thoroughly owned.



I did. Pretty much anything in it can be debunked.



En sten kan ikke flyve. Morlille kan ikke flyve. Ergo er morlille en sten.



Few Americans understand Danish.



There would be no reason for Holberg to believe in manmade global warming.

Ekstraordinære påstander krever ekstraordinære bevis. Bevisbyrden ligger hos den som påstår at global oppvarming er menneskeskapt. Er du fra Danmark, vet du også at summa cum laude-tittelen ikke gjelder der og at det som omtales som cum laude i Danmark tilsvarer gjennomsnittskarakteren 10. Cum laude i det hele tatt brukes bare av Aalborg universitet.

Det er ingen fundamental forskjell på argumentasjonen til de som i dag tror på menneskeskapt global oppvarming og de som trodde at infrastrukturen over hele verden ville kollapse den 1. januar år 2000.

That's funny. The way I see it, I am putting another ignorant fool in its place.



Then please provide peer-reviewed evidence that actually debunks it. Given the impact factor of PNAS, I might not be satisfied with just any article, by the way... Science or Nature would be sufficient, though, assuming that it would have the same scope as the article referred to by yours truly (=no cherry picking).



Back to English (although since Holberg was born in Norway, you are in your right to respond in Norwegian, and not Danish)

Extraordinary evidence exists, thus fulfilling the Sagan standard. Which is why 97-98 percent of climate scientists support anthropogenic climate change.

BTW, I am fully aware that the summa cum laude title does not exist in Denmark. That is why I said my grades were equivalent to summa cum laude. The viper is in the details.



More BS.

By lay preaching about global warming without knowing anything about it? I'm not denying that we are going through (or at least went through) a global warming epoch. It's probably not manmade, though. It was warmer in the 13th and 14th century than it is now, and the inland ice of Greenland is increasing as we speak. The sea levels have been rising for 300 years.

Either post evidence of highways and cars with internal combustion engines in the 14th century or f*ck off.



Peer reviewed surveys do not proove anything; they put amount before independent thinking and reasoning. Again, you're showing a fundamental lack about what truth really is. Ad populum at it's best. It's still no more true than the y2K bug, which the majority of scientists believed in at one point.



If it does, then post it. I've been asking for this for countless posts now. A survey with what the majority believes is not "evidence".



So are mine (and they're in the field of science); this does not give me the right to claim that I have a summa cum laude. The summa cum laude definition simply means better than 5% of the class.



Please explain why. It's two sides of the same coin; both are golden calfs people have danced around. The American government spent three times as much on the y2K bug as they have done on global warming--yet it still turned out to be BS and they didn't proove a damn.

Also bear in mind that I'd take the word of Ivar Giæver or Frederick Seitz over your word any day.

The number of climate heretics are finally increasing, by the way:

http://www.webcitation.org/5zjrj25T4

Once again, your obsessive narcissism dominates your statements. Do you *seriously* think that the brilliant scientists of today have *overlooked* previous fluctuations in the average global temperature? Are you so self-absorbed that you consider yourself the only intelligent person on the planet Earth?



You, Sir, are an idiot. I find it somewhat amusing that a person accusing me of having no grasp of the concept of scientific proof can't even spell the word "prove".



Start here... Unless you are the Mann reincarnated, it will take you some time to read the evidence, so a quick reply will be considered proof of you not having read the evidence... [Xanatos gambit initiated]
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... Hsme1FJ3Q8



Then I am fully in my right to use that term when referring to my academic achievements as my grades are in the 1% best range. But once again, irrelevant.



BS!



At least you are honest when it comes to your intellectual faults. Neither Ivar Giæver nor Frederick Seitz are climate scientists. They both did work on solid state physics, an entirely different topic. Oh, and you are cherry-picking scientists, by the way. How predictable...

Thread locked because it's going nowhere and has degenerated into a series of personal attacks