The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (190 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..37..71..105..139..172~173~174~175~176~177 [Next]
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17517 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Fracking has forced the OPEC crowd to lower their prices in an effort to stop it.

The number of People who sign up for unemployment has little or no bearing on how many people are currently working or currently unemployed.

It just means that a certain number of people have lost their current job and are seeking employment. It doesn't take into account the millions of people that have been unemployed so long that they no longer qualify.

There are no more jobs now than 8 years ago... Actually less people are fully employed ... Things are not getting better on the job front .. Proof of this is that we still have a record number of people needing food stamps and welfare ....
It's a scam with the numbers.

I predict the Saudi's lower oil to about $40 a barrel in an attempt to destroy fracking.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15919 Posts

Profile of tommy
It is warfare against Iran and Russia.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2726 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Great! Let's destroy people's ground water for lower prices and a short term solution.

I suppose as long as it's not your ground water getting ruined, you're OK with that!
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4791 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, tommy wrote:
It is warfare against Iran and Russia.

This.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15919 Posts

Profile of tommy
This will also cause a financial catastrophe, as the Banks, they have bet heavy on the oil price going up and when they can’t pay, the Banks will take your deposits. So get your money out the banks now.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27073 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Fracking is on the water side of the hot air / hot water question. Iran-Russia oil prices on the hot air side. Living conditions vs political position.

Any thoughts on the linked articles?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4791 Posts

Profile of landmark
Jon, what new info on either side do you think the articles bring into the discussion? Seems like these are arguments rehashed many times here over the past hundred pages.

The oil prices have nothing to do with fracking. Lots of evidence out there that it is harmful to the water table and to people who live in houses just trying to survive without their backyards being contaminated because of it.

And more info here: http://fractivist.blogspot.com/
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Fracking is on the water side of the hot air / hot water question. Iran-Russia oil prices on the hot air side. Living conditions vs political position.

Any thoughts on the linked articles?


Yeah, I've got some thoughts. Both articles present extremely weak arguments and numerous logical fallacies in their attempts to refute the articles they refer to. I could go through them step by step but don't really want to waste the time. I'll give you a quick fer instance from the Watts rebuttal article.

Rebutting paragraph 2, 2nd part. The quote James Taylor as saying, "At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

In attempting to Rebut this, they completely ignore the point and simply argue that, "Taylor neglects to mention that John Cook's study isn't the first to find that over 95% of actual climate scientists agree with the evolving consensus understanding." One way to prove this, they link to a report that links back to the John Cook study! But regardless, they never address the above point that they claim to rebut!

That's just one quick example but both articles are replete with similar examples on most every point they attempt to make.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4791 Posts

Profile of landmark
And somewhat off-topic, but forgivable after 100+ pages, The Oil Coup: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/16/the-oil-coup/
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17517 Posts

Profile of Slim King
I will be at the East Coast Spirit Sessions next weekend in Myrtle Beach. I'll see if they are flooding. They weren't last time I performed there. According to Al the place should be under water by now....

I'm happy that fracking will have the gas prices down below $2.

The lower prices will allow me to spend more money on Bizarre and Mentalism products and spend a few more bucks to assist in Myrtle Beach's economic growth.( I should save at least $100 just on gas)

My room is right on the beach ... Al Gore would be proud???? Smile
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Fracking is on the water side of the hot air / hot water question. Iran-Russia oil prices on the hot air side. Living conditions vs political position.

Any thoughts on the linked articles?


Yeah, I've got some thoughts. Both articles present extremely weak arguments and numerous logical fallacies in their attempts to refute the articles they refer to. I could go through them step by step but don't really want to waste the time. I'll give you a quick fer instance from the Watts rebuttal article.

Rebutting paragraph 2, 2nd part. The quote James Taylor as saying, "At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

In attempting to Rebut this, they completely ignore the point and simply argue that, "Taylor neglects to mention that John Cook's study isn't the first to find that over 95% of actual climate scientists agree with the evolving consensus understanding." One way to prove this, they link to a report that links back to the John Cook study! But regardless, they never address the above point that they claim to rebut!

That's just one quick example but both articles are replete with similar examples on most every point they attempt to make.


And btw, the fact that the entire study was based on the meaningless survey question is something no one here has ever bothered to address either. One of those nasty little facts that Bob likes to complain about.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27073 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, landmark wrote:
Jon, what new info on either side do you think the articles bring into the discussion? ...


If physics has not changed in the last century - and human nature has not changed in the last century - then the discussion degrades into both denial and hypocrisy if pursued. Earlier posts covered the specifics of wrong (then vs now) and roads not taken to date. What new ideas/methods/understanding has led you to suddenly worry that...

Taking another tack - what kind of context would lend credence to such an argument about global warming? (that's a rhetorical question) Imagine there were folks bombing oil pumping and refining installations claiming such as against the interests of human survival. That would be evidence of basic congruence between behavior and claims. Affecting our survival and all that... but for now it's just been hot air and pleas for further expense both attention and money. End of the world politics - as if being "right" has meaning when the house is on fire? I posit that it's more direct to explain the behavior as social/political rather than geophysical concerns - economic profit taking from green guilt rather than species level survival concerns.

You too can avert the end of the world by fretting and annoying others. Really?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4791 Posts

Profile of landmark
Jon, you have your position, fine. But IMHO, there's nothing new in those articles you posted for either side.

As for bombing oil pipes etc., some of the more pacific folk have won some victories against the pipelines without bombs. It's the oil boys who bring in the heavy equipment when their profits are threatened. As long as less drastic measures work, they will be pursued. When those ways no longer do, you will see other kinds of responses.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27073 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Agreed Landmark. The base issue was settled when the author of the article decided to go into advertising and public awareness.
The OP cited research was challenged. The linked and quoted comment about politics of publication and funding seems accurate. It's as hot or hotter than the old cigarettes and cancer thing from twenty years ago.

I'm arguing that in current context an appeal to science has little value. Nine out ten dentists agree that seeing you twice a year is better than only once Smile Similarly the "end of the world" ploy has gotten trite. It's been "just wait and see" winning every time so far so why would this time be different? There are significant well financed vested interests moving much of the public discussion who want money for; technology at further public expense, mostly the usual crony capitalism (public risk private profit), and a host of approved talking heads to keep the language away from the pragmatic.

gas prices versus scientific theory. politics of payouts versus vague environmental concerns. or as posted before a fight between hot water and hot air. Do you want hot water? How much hot air are you willing pay for it?

My position - if you're clever with engineering and physics it would be a well respected accomplishment to develop and deploy less toxic toxic technology. And wasn't that the promise of nuclear power? Solar power? Wind farms? ... so many expensive schemes.

Being "right" with others is, I feel, less than the best we can do as magicians and grownups.

You don't need others to say you are "right" until others attempt to stop you Smile
...to all the coins I've dropped here
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15919 Posts

Profile of tommy
When are you Americans going to pay us for all this damage you have done?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4791 Posts

Profile of landmark
We don't need no stinkin' badges.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15919 Posts

Profile of tommy
Because you now have a label?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Fracking is on the water side of the hot air / hot water question. Iran-Russia oil prices on the hot air side. Living conditions vs political position.

Any thoughts on the linked articles?


Yeah, I've got some thoughts. Both articles present extremely weak arguments and numerous logical fallacies in their attempts to refute the articles they refer to. I could go through them step by step but don't really want to waste the time. I'll give you a quick fer instance from the Watts rebuttal article.

Rebutting paragraph 2, 2nd part. The quote James Taylor as saying, "At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

In attempting to Rebut this, they completely ignore the point and simply argue that, "Taylor neglects to mention that John Cook's study isn't the first to find that over 95% of actual climate scientists agree with the evolving consensus understanding." One way to prove this, they link to a report that links back to the John Cook study! But regardless, they never address the above point that they claim to rebut!

That's just one quick example but both articles are replete with similar examples on most every point they attempt to make.


And btw, the fact that the entire study was based on the meaningless survey question is something no one here has ever bothered to address either. One of those nasty little facts that Bob likes to complain about.


I see you still haven't read the Cook article. It did not involve a "simple survey". First they did a thorough search of the publushed peer-reviewed literatue, identifying over 11,000 candidate papers. Phase 1 involved a content analysis of the abstracts of the papers to classify them as supporting, not supporting or indifferent to the position that human activity is a cause of global warming. In Phase 2 they had the authors of the papers classify the position they believed the papers took.

You seem awfully certain about something you haven't read, rockwall.
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
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17517 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Almost every scientific prediction has been WAY OFF
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barb......rming-17
... yet somehow they still sing the same song failure after failure. It's almost like a cult or something. Look around ... We aren't flooding. No one is drowning. The Polar Ice Caps are still there and the polar bears are better than ever (Growing at an astounding rate.. from 5,000 to 30,000 or more). The ocean is only rising 1/2 of an inch every DECADE.
AL GORE lied to everyone and made $200 million dollars doing it.

The sun heats the earth Smile
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
196 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Slim King wrote:
The sun heats the earth Smile


And Slim's hot air heats the Café.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (190 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..37..71..105..139..172~173~174~175~176~177 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL