Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Giaever is a mechanical engineer. he is not a geophysicist. would you take the word of a botanist over an oncologist if it came to reading your biopsy report? Right off Wikipedia. I don't understand why you would discredit Gaiever's opinion, when you also did not read more about the man before you post. Somebody gets it wrong and labels him a geophysicist, and not a Biophysicist. Instead of correcting him with the correct field of science, you just added that he was a mechanical engineer... Why??? Giaever's research later in his career was mainly in the field of biophysics. In 1969, he researched biophysics for a year at Cambridge University, England, through a Guggenheim Fellowship, and he continued to work in this area after he returned to the US.[4] Biophysics is an interdisciplinary science that uses the methods of physical science to study biological systems.[1] Studies included under the branches of biophysics span all levels of biological organization, from the molecular scale to whole organisms and ecosystems. Biophysical research shares significant overlap with biochemistry, nanotechnology, bioengineering, agrophysics and systems biology. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I have no interest in arguing what I am about to post. It's for the simple reason that there really is no point in arguing it. Source Good, because I have no interest in rebutting it point by point. It is just another content-free rant without a shred of supporting evidence offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I have no interest in arguing what I am about to post. It's for the simple reason that there really is no point in arguing it. First, a quote from Roger Pielke: This quote has no bearing on whether the main points of AGW theory are true or not. It simply shows the difficulty and problems associated with reducing emissions. The validity of AGW theory, which is a claim about the nature of reality, has nothing to do with the economic consequences it might have. I would describe myself as a free-market capitalist. And I acknowledge that reducing CO2 emissions in any major way will lead to what most would describe as a lower standard of living. That doesn't change the scientific facts of AGW unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Right off Wikipedia. I don't understand why you would discredit Gaiever's opinion, when you also did not read more about the man before you post. Somebody gets it wrong and labels him a geophysicist, and not a Biophysicist. Instead of correcting him with the correct field of science, you just added that he was a mechanical engineer... Why??? Source You still haven't answered the question of why Dr Giaever's opinion is relevant to the climate change discussion. Climatology is not his field, and he hasn't offered specifics on why he holds his opinion. So he won the Nobel Prize . . .how does that make him a Universal Expert In All Fields? Again, you are guilty of the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority if you're saying that because he's smart in one field, he's smart in all fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You still haven't answered the question of why Dr Giaever's opinion is relevant to the climate change discussion. Climatology is not his field, and he hasn't offered specifics on why he holds his opinion. So he won the Nobel Prize . . .how does that make him a Universal Expert In All Fields? Again, you are guilty of the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority if you're saying that because he's smart in one field, he's smart in all fields. Phillip, do you trust the IPCC? Why is Rajendra Pachauri allowed to discuss climate change? Why did Al Gore receive an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize for his vocal support? If I use your logic, then these two should not be trusted, nor should they have ever been given the prestigious positions they held or hold. Bull dinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 This quote has no bearing on whether the main points of AGW theory are true or not. It simply shows the difficulty and problems associated with reducing emissions. The validity of AGW theory, which is a claim about the nature of reality, has nothing to do with the economic consequences it might have. I would describe myself as a free-market capitalist. And I acknowledge that reducing CO2 emissions in any major way will lead to what most would describe as a lower standard of living. That doesn't change the scientific facts of AGW unfortunately. You are not a free market capitalist if you believe the Government should be allowed to dictate energy policy. Stop describing yourself as something you are not. Otherwise you are just a hypocrit statist who pretends to promote himself as free market... Better put, you might just want to look up the definitions again. I do not believe anyone in the AGW camp who promotes forceful tactics to eliminate carbon can be described as free market... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Phillip, do you trust the IPCC? Why is Rajendra Pachauri allowed to discuss climate change? Why did Al Gore receive an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize for his vocal support? If I use your logic, then these two should not be trusted, nor should they have ever been given the prestigious positions they held or hold. Bull dinky The theory of AGW has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore or Pachauri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You are not a free market capitalist if you believe the Government should be allowed to dictate energy policy. Stop describing yourself as something you are not. Otherwise you are just a hypocrit statist who pretends to promote himself as free market... Where did I ever say that the government should dictate energy policy? So basically you are saying you cannot believe the science of AGW and at the same time be a capitalist. Objective science and truth shall be made subordinate to ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Good, because I have no interest in rebutting it point by point. It is just another content-free rant without a shred of supporting evidence offered. I know reality hurts. This is not a rant, but supported by Public polling that has taken place around the clock for the past decade. I don't know of a single poll that shows an increase in people who believe in AGW or the methods used to prevent it. I don't need to do your homework for you. Look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Where did I ever say that the government should dictate energy policy? So basically you are saying you cannot believe the science of AGW and at the same time be a capitalist. Objective science and truth shall be made subordinate to ideology. Ok, let's step back for a second. Let's pretend you are free market and that in said market, ideas will win the day. Tell me how you will freely scale back the hypothetical scenarios that AGW forecasts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 what does public polling have to do with hard science? believing something doesn't make it so. You still haven't apologized for not doing your research on our nobel prize winning skeptic... If you read my post from before, I only argue that hard science is clearly not accomplishing much and that you are wasting your time on here. Go out into public and save the world from global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Ok, let's step back for a second. Let's pretend you are free market and that in said market, ideas will win the day. Tell me how you will freely scale back the hypothetical scenarios that AGW forecasts? I don't know. Any suggestions? Unfortunately we may have run into a little bit of a jam. This has no bearing on whether AGW is true or not. It just reveals why you are so vehemently opposed to it. You can't even wrap your head around how one can believe in capitalism and yet believe that AGW is true. You are denying an aspect of reality because you find it inconsistent with your ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I don't know. Any suggestions? Unfortunately we may have run into a little bit of a jam. This has no bearing on whether AGW is true or not. It just reveals why you are so vehemently opposed to it. You can't even wrap your head around how one can believe in capitalism and yet believe that AGW is true. Didn't think you would provide us with any solutions...The public is losing interest and the economy is a BIG reason why. My point was an economic one strictly related to the topic of this entire thread. It suggests why the public is losing interest, regardless of the so called "hard science" of global warming. At no point in my post on the other page did I say "AGW is fake" or "AGW is a scam". I just tried to reason why the public is losing interest. Good job not doing your reading. You are the person who isn't getting it, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Phillip, do you trust the IPCC? Why is Rajendra Pachauri allowed to discuss climate change? Why did Al Gore receive an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize for his vocal support? If I use your logic, then these two should not be trusted, nor should they have ever been given the prestigious positions they held or hold. Bull dinky I am skeptical of both Gore and the IPCC - which is why I make a serious effort to study the actual climate research. Isn't that a prerequisite for honest skepticism? Isn't thinking for onesalf a good thing? Certainly it's not an easy thing, and sometimes it's a pretty scary thing, but unquestioning acceptance of what anybody purporting to be an expert (Gore, Watts, Monckton, Pachauri, Giaever, Spongebob Squarepants, whoever) says is intellectual laziness of the worst kind. But all sources of information are not created equal so some experts have more credibility in my opinion than others. I would say that there is a whole spectrum of credibility based on their track record of being right. From Watts and Limbaugh at the bottom to scientists like Gavin Schmidt at the top. You still haven't said why we should give more credibility to Dr Giaever than to the other Nobel Prize winners who belong to APS and who haven't resigned over the APS position on global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Didn't think you would provide us with any solutions...The public is losing interest and the economy is a BIG reason why. My point was an economic one strictly related to the topic of this entire thread. It suggests why the public is losing interest, regardless of the so called "hard science" of global warming. At no point in my post on the other page did I say "AGW is fake" or "AGW is a scam". I just tried to reason why the public is losing interest. Good job not doing your reading. You are the person who isn't getting it, not me. You are the one that told me I can't believe in the hard science of AGW and be a capitalist at the same time. I am simply pointing out that that claim is false and the two have nothing to do with each other. AGW is a theory about the nature of reality, of truth. Capitalism is an economic theory that is about production and freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You are the one that told me I can't believe in the hard science of AGW and be a capitalist at the same time. I am simply pointing out that that claim is false and the two have nothing to do with each other. I told you that you couldn't believe in the solutions to AGW that are being promoted by world governments. Please stop this, and reread our posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You are not a free market capitalist if you believe the Government should be allowed to dictate energy policy. In fact, here it is, again for you Skier...Again, please stop accusing me of something I did not say. You'll just be acting in bad faith... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Stop describing yourself as something you are not. You told me I am not a capitalist. I AM a capitalist. And AGW is a valid theory. Bite me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Would you please slow down and type something readable? I find it hard to take you seriously, someone who claims to be joining Mensa and can't differentiate between to, too and two or threw and through. It really makes it hard to take you seriously when you go throwing opinion around as fact. It is your opinion that the arctic ice will eventually be void in a summer in the future, not fact. I'm not a denier but I do not respect alarmists like yourself who do nothing but hurt the AGW debate by peddling fear and unsubstantiated rhetoric. You seem fairly educated on the subject if you would tone down the fear and doomsday comments and slow down a tad on your posts you may find you reach people a tad better and your message is better received. what fear and doomsday comments do I make? Again, now your talking about my grammar and sentence structure. I can pass those Mensa tests because Grammar and sentence structure is not on them. I have Severe ADD, not ADHD. When I was a child everyone thought I was gifted. But I always did bad in school because it was boring. I daydreamed all the time. Eventually a doctor when I was 13 confirmed that my auditory learning ability was impaired but my spatial conceptual learning was not. As I have gotten older i am 28 now. My intelligence has continued to grow. I also suffered from horrible childhood trauma, multiple horrible traumas. Which also impeded my learning abilities as a child. I didn't test out for having an IQ at Mensa levels until I was 27. My son is now 5 and has been diagnosed with ADHD, his teachers say he has reasoning and logic skill well beyond the normal 5-6 year old level. But is behind in discipline and attentiveness. The boy at 5 already has video game skills beating other kids who are 8-11 years old. It is quite remarkable and hard to believe for me. But I came from years of horrible abuse that prevented me from fulfilling my potential. I have never read a book front to back. I have only read one book outside of self help books. Which was called On the Beach, very interesting read. I have also read part of a Kennedy Biography lol. I have no formal training on climate science. But I quickly identified the reason for the recent sea ice melt long before I read one page of research on it. I didn't need peer reviewed studies. After following this. It just came to me in my head. Not only that. The visualization of the process did as well. Again this is before any papers I read here on it. I brought this up a few times and it was shot down over and over. Now it turns out, Water Temperatures are the main driver for the rapid ice melt. Does this make me a genius? hardly. The point is. It backs a spatial thinker. And that will get me in mensa. Which I am only doing so I can prove it to myself. After the bleep I've been through keeping a lot of confidence has been hard. I have recently gone through some more trauma. It's been a constant battle. I am only saying this because I am sick of being discredited by the grammar police. In brain/world grammar is irrelevant. Grammar has zero to do with intelligence. Rather it has to do with training. It never mattered to me to learn such things over learning more important things. I also like to utilize my time as fast and well as possible. So throwing my thoughts on paper are good enough for most of the people here. They should be good enough for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You told me I am not a capitalist. I AM a capitalist. And AGW is a valid theory. Bite me. Yup, you clearly live in an alternative reality and dreamed up a debate we did not Just have. And now you say "bite me". You have lost this argument and you are just acting in bad faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Yup, you clearly live in an alternative reality and dreamed up a debate we did not Just have. And now you say "bite me". You have lost this argument and you are just acting in bad faith. You specifically told me I am not a capitalist. I am a capitalist. What do you want me to say? I resent being told what my own beliefs are. Stop describing yourself as something you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 You actually proved my point. All you could do it go is something subjective on a short to medium range timeline. The arctic has already melted out 70-80 percent of its volume just since the 70s. this feedback is already well into action. Which can't be debated. The Arctic melting out just causes it to be stronger than it already is. Which supports the Earth Warming faster than it would of Co2 was the only driver of an warming earth. ah, sure it can. You say CO2, I say jet stream configurations causing wind anomolies (due to stratospheric warming maybe?). You say warm SST's, I say AMO. Looks like a debate to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You specifically told me I am not a capitalist. I am a capitalist. What do you want me to say? I said that someone who believes in Massive government intervention to prevent AGW can no longer be described as Free Market. Once you said you did not believe in government intervention, I back tracked on saying you weren't free market and asked for your solutions. Instead of providing me any, you accused me of saying that AGW'ers can not be free marketers. I feel like I am arguing with a child here. Just admit you were wrong about the statement I never made and also give us some FREE MARKET solutions to win over the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Try to close your eyes and envision the Earth 100,000K years ago with a couple million(if that) hominids walking around in Africa and the rest of the Earth as it is. Now switch that to how the 7 billion hominids live today and tell me they are not having a tremendous impact on this planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 ah, sure it can. You say CO2, I say jet stream configurations causing wind anomolies (due to stratospheric warming maybe?). You say warm SST's, I say AMO. Looks like a debate to me. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I said that someone who believes in Massive government intervention to prevent AGW can no longer be described as Free Market. Once you said you did not believe in government intervention, I back tracked on saying you weren't free market and asked for your solutions. Instead of providing me any, you accused me of saying that AGW'ers can not be free marketers. I feel like I am arguing with a child here. Just admit you were wrong about the statement I never made and also give us some FREE MARKET solutions to win over the public. No you did not say "If you believe X then you are not Y" You said specifically that I am not a capitalist. You're right. You have backtracked. Stop describing yourself as something you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 this makes zero sense. what point are you trying to make? Don't bother. If you have to ask, then the entire discussion went right over your head. Instead, what are your reasons for why the public has lost interest in AGW and continues to become more skeptical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 No you did not say "If you believe X then you are not Y" You said specifically that I am not a capitalist. You're right. You have backtracked. Glad to see you never got my point before and you still aren't answering. I posted after this Post you quoted me on by saying "let's pretend you are free market". In other words, I wanted to see as a free market thinker what your solutions were. Instead of giving me any, you have wasted our time in a meaningless debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Try to close your eyes and envision the Earth 100,000K years ago with a couple million(if that) hominids walking around in Africa and the rest of the Earth as it is. Now switch that to how the 7 billion hominids live today and tell me they are not having a tremendous impact on this planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Ok, let's step back for a second. Let's pretend you are free market and that in said market, ideas will win the day. Tell me how you will freely scale back the hypothetical scenarios that AGW forecasts? Once again skier, here it is for you and it is a Post after the one you are quoting me on. Now, let's have you answer this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.