|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6..9..12..15..16~17~18~19~20..24~25~26 [Next] | ||||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts 
|
Gotta be cheaper.... I was born on the Columbia River! (not on it but in a town that it runs through).
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
Whit, my exact point in posting those two things are the nature of the internet. One so certain with the science on their side, and then the exact opposite view so certain with the science debunked or on their side. That is the point I am making.
I was also making the point that we tend to agree with and post stuff and talk about what exactly we agree with. Which you proved pretty nicely. As did Payne. I mean you guys proved EXACTLY what I was claiming! Thank you. I could post a story that a republican has found a cure for cancer, and you would post a story that champions the plight of unemployed lab rats, or how the common cold still ravages millions! At this point it your positions are no longer "scientific" in the least and are political inside out. That is exactly what is wrong with what is going on. People will do ANYTHING to put forth a political belief, including refusing to learn.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts
|
It's really enlightening to have a veritable textbook of propaganda techniques on this very website. Kudos.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-08-11 09:40, Dannydoyle wrote: I am not just posting a contrarian expert. The documents are devastating to the report you cited. One needs to actually read the reports. You obviously feel that they are of equal value. I find that very dispiriting. If you think this is just about putting up experts, you will lose anyway. I can put up 97 guys to every three of yours. But it isn't just the weight of opinion. The reports you have cited have all proven to be junk. I don't think you understand how to evaluate scientific articles. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
Whit I PUT UP THE CONTRARY OPINION. ON PUROPOSE to show that things are simply the way that they are. As for 97 to 3 that is just a claim you can not possibly back up.
No biggie, I just like to show that each side uses propeganda machines, and each side falls for them. When 97% of scientists thought the world was flat, was it? Yea tell me I am the one who does not know how to evaluate scientific claims. CONCENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE, never was.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
The article you submitted as evidence turns out to be:
1.Not peer reviewed 2.deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts 3.data was falsified 4.the renewable energy investment did not have the major negative impact on business that Calzada claims 5.analysis was too simplistic to be applied in any real world model 6.Calzada fails to mention or factor in to the study extremely relevant facts and statistics 7.Fails to take into account what most economists believe to be the cause of Spain's high un-employment It is not enough to take a study and show all the places it is quoted on the internet. When a study is criticized, you must come back with answers to the critique. Saying that my guy believes this, and your guy believes that, so it is a standoff is not a scientific approach. One must look at the evidence presented and try to see who has the strongest position. I don't just quote people who agree with me. I try to find reports that actually clarify, disprove or call into question the evidence and statements that are presented by the other side. Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
Wow have you missed the point. Never mind. It is my fault, I am lacking in the communication skills necessary to make it. (seriously)
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Danny, you posted three links; two links accepted the Spanish study and one provided counterarguments. Several people have responded to these links. What could be more fair?
The simple fact that foolish people fall on two sides of a debate isn't very enlightening, surprising or interesting. At the end of the day, the evidence will stand. Likely in ways that nobody can completely foresee right now. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-08-11 14:55, Dannydoyle wrote: True, but there can be a Scientific Consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus Which is why many people maintain a belief in anthropogenic climate change. We believe in global warming not simply because a bunch of scientists say so. But because the scientists that say so have the data to support their claims. But then this has been explained to you many, many times before and you still don't get it. You keep failing to provide us with verifiable evidence that the consensus of these scientists is false
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
Danny, here is a great layman's view of most of the arguments on both sides in a side by side chart:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/vi......nsensus/ I highly recommend this to anyone who wants to get a better grip on the arguments raised by both sides. It is very clear, informative, and simple to read. from wikipedia: "According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW. According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points." |
|||||||||
|
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts
|
Believe me, if I get a job where I am getting paid by fighting global warming I'm going to swear before god and man that it exist!
|
|||||||||
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
Well, scientists are usually more concerned with the quality of their papers and research than with the point of view they adopt.
The majority of climate scientists have little or no financial incentives to fudge their work, and their careers can easily be ruined by publishing shoddy research. Their academic careers, and their jobs and reputations depend on the accuracy of their published work. Publishing anything in peer reviewed journals submits one's work to the criticism and judgment of every other climate scientist in the world. To submit anything with errors, sloppy research or unsound conclusions could leave your job and reputation destroyed by devastating critiques like those from just the one paper cited above that was critical of the work of Gabriel Calzada Averez. His paper was not offered for peer review, but came to attention because it was promoted on Fox news. And in academia, one must publish or perish, as they say. Do you have any facts to show that there are more than a few climate scientists who would have a financial incentive to side with global warming? Who do they work for? What kind of advantage would acrue to them for supporting the science? I believe there is much more money to be made by the handful of scientists who are willing to side with the multi-national corporations, world governments, local industries, and right wing think tanks against the science supporting global warming. I suspect you will find that the majority of scientists willing to support the denier sides make much more money than any scientists on the majority. Look up the salaries before you make such statements. |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-08-11 17:01, MagicSanta wrote: I used to work in the oil and gas industry; I was paid to do the opposite. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
"According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW. According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points."
Only approximately 5% of the respondents were Climate Scientists.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts
|
Scientist are not anything more than educated employees and they tend to follow the company line. Companies don't pay guys to contradict them publicly and if a scientist is tasked with ways to reduce global warming they will come up with ideas the same way a scientist tasked with figuring out what living on Saturn would be like will do that. It doesn't matter that no one lives on Saturn or ever will the scientist will come up with all kinds of detail and even nice drawings if you want them...all unable to be validated.
My dad was a nuc engineer first with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then with GE designing cooling systems for plants. He mentioned once that he could make money doing anti nuc lectures (he was a very good speaker) should GE let everyone go....he wasn't anti nuc power but if that was his job he could sure come up with an anti nuc stance. He never did, he retired and has a good time instead. |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-08-11 17:48, tommy wrote: 77/3146=0.024=2.4% 75/77=0.93=93% Kinda obvious isn't it?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-08-11 18:00, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: I don't think the non-publishing scientists were counted--they are not the deniers being counted. They were not counted. 77 of the 3146 climate scientists were non-publishing. They were not counted. 97% of the 3067 climate scientists remaining who responded to the survey supported the basic ideas that global warming was real, dangerous, and was at least partially man-made. |
|||||||||
BIGmagiclV Veteran user 375 Posts
|
I'm both amused and amazed that the people who deny the existence of man made climate change, regardless of the evidence, are the same people who have blind faith in a guy that can walk on water and rise from the dead. I have nothing against the latter. It's just interesting to me that they are the loudest in denouncing others beliefs.
|
|||||||||
|
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts
|
What does Chriss Angel have to do with this?
|
|||||||||
|
lebowski Veteran user 377 Posts
|
Angel likes to play the part of the man Bigmagiclv is refered to.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6..9..12..15..16~17~18~19~20..24~25~26 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 10, 2010 09:16 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|