Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Climate Scientologists have a plan
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1102
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poptech wrote:
My apologies, I do not live in Brazil. Should the U.S. Invade them to stop them from deforesting the Amazon? I suggest petitioning the Brazilian government.

Why attack Brazil? When it is US corporations who're doing the damage, most of it wholly illegal. The free lunch and wholesale planetary-wide looting has got to stop. It's irrational and it puts us all at risk, and ignoring the consequences in favour of greed and ideology is pure folly.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poptech wrote:
Your ranting is getting more bizarre.


Have you ever seen a grown man nekkid?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidanjt wrote:
Poptech wrote:
There is no such bank policy of driving their customers to bankruptcy or intentionally selling junk investments. Investments are a risk not a guarantee and customers are responsible for taking this risk. Banks do not force anyone to buy any investment.

They did (sub-prime market, remember?) and they do when they use customer savings to make risky investments without the customer's consent.

Actually all this trolling reminds me of Alex Libman.

You and mcgruff are clueless. Banks didn't force people to take loans. If anybody is responsible for influencing people to take loans (to include sub-prime loans) it was the "community organizers" such as ACORN and your friendly Community Organizer In Chief. They, in the form of the ACORN Housing Corporation, were also in cahoots with corrupt officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were cooking the books.

The Government forced the banks to comply with the pressure from these entities (which were partially government-backed and government-created), by creating regulations that forced the banks to issue loans at risky terms. The "community organizers" further pressured, harassed, and intimidated bankers who were reluctant to to so. Calls for investigation and corrective action, made by the Bush Administration and specific Senators and Congressmen, were ignored by Barney Frank and the Democrat-controlled Congress, who had responsibility for oversight.

The only fault of the "Banks" in this is that higher-level financial institutions created derivatives which obfuscated the risk associated with these "toxic assets". The fundamental problems were created by government policy and social activists.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1102
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
You and mcgruff are clueless. Banks didn't force people to take loans. If anybody is responsible for influencing people to take loans (to include sub-prime loans) it was the "community organizers" such as ACORN and your friendly Community Organizer In Chief. They, in the form of the ACORN Housing Corporation, were also in cahoots with corrupt officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were cooking the books.

The banks weren't exactly dissuading them either now, were they? In fact, the banks couldn't come up with consumer finance products fast enough, or spam people with enough junk mail fast enough to entice people to take out stupid loans, credit cards, and mortgages. You practically had to file a restraining order to keep them away from you.

BoneKracker wrote:
The Government forced the banks to comply with the pressure from these entities (which were partially government-backed and government-created), by creating regulations that forced the banks to issue loans at risky terms. Calls for investigation and corrective action, made by the Bush Administration and specific Senators and Congressmen, were ignored by Barney Frank and the Democrat-controlled Congress, who had responsibility for oversight.

Except the GOP held house majority for 80% of Bush's terms in office. It's funny they weren't interested then, when the writing was still on the wall.

BoneKracker wrote:
The only fault of the "Banks" in this is that higher-level financial institutions created derivatives which obfuscated the risk associated with these "toxic assets". The fundamental problems were created by government policy and social activists.

Yeah, the 'only' part which caused the real damage. They lied about the nature of the derivatives to investors, gambled with savings, and played toss the live hand grenade. Then, when they got bailed out, instead of leaving it as reserve cash to help prop up the economy, they went at it again with the stupid bets.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidanjt wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
You and mcgruff are clueless. Banks didn't force people to take loans. If anybody is responsible for influencing people to take loans (to include sub-prime loans) it was the "community organizers" such as ACORN and your friendly Community Organizer In Chief. They, in the form of the ACORN Housing Corporation, were also in cahoots with corrupt officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were cooking the books.

The banks weren't exactly dissuading them either now, were they? In fact, the banks couldn't come up with consumer finance products fast enough, or spam people with enough junk mail fast enough to entice people to take out stupid loans, credit cards, and mortgages. You practically had to file a restraining order to keep them away from you.

I have never experienced this, and I was a renter throughout the period in question. You are just spouting nonsense here. Banks have always been eager to lend; that's what they do. The problem here is that Banks were forced to lend to people who couldn't pay back their loans.

aidanjt wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
The Government forced the banks to comply with the pressure from these entities (which were partially government-backed and government-created), by creating regulations that forced the banks to issue loans at risky terms. Calls for investigation and corrective action, made by the Bush Administration and specific Senators and Congressmen, were ignored by Barney Frank and the Democrat-controlled Congress, who had responsibility for oversight.

Except the GOP held house majority for 80% of Bush's terms in office. It's funny they weren't interested then, when the writing was still on the wall.

75%, and not when it mattered, when it had begun to become apparent there was a problem. The Bush Administration ran its own investigation and found rampant problems in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, found the risk problem, and wrote formal letters to Congress demanding action. You can watch video of Barney Frank saying it was much ado about nothing and how there was no problem. They did nothing.

aidanjt wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
The only fault of the "Banks" in this is that higher-level financial institutions created derivatives which obfuscated the risk associated with these "toxic assets". The fundamental problems were created by government policy and social activists.

Yeah, the 'only' part which caused the real damage. They lied about the nature of the derivatives to investors, gambled with savings, and played toss the live hand grenade. Then, when they got bailed out, instead of leaving it as reserve cash to help prop up the economy, they went at it again with the stupid bets.

It wasn't the only part which caused the real damage. The toxic assets were real, were created by loans having been made to many many people who would default if interest rates rose, and that's what created the damage. The derivatives, which were created by asset holders to mitigate their risk, just moved the damage from one party to another. The fundamental damage resulted from fat-fingered implementation of well-intentioned but misguided government social policy. Let to their own devices, the markets would never permit such a thing.

It's the same story with monopolies. dmitchell has talked at length about how almost every monopoly ever to exist has come about with government assistance.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidanjt wrote:
Poptech wrote:
My apologies, I do not live in Brazil. Should the U.S. Invade them to stop them from deforesting the Amazon? I suggest petitioning the Brazilian government.

Why attack Brazil? When it is US corporations who're doing the damage, most of it wholly illegal. The free lunch and wholesale planetary-wide looting has got to stop. It's irrational and it puts us all at risk, and ignoring the consequences in favour of greed and ideology is pure folly.

U.S. corporations are clear cutting the Amazon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
You and mcgruff are clueless.


I thought you hated strawmen? I didn't say anything about banks.

I have been pointing out that your graph is too large a scale to show any anthropogenic effects on climate, as you claimed. Also, note that it started to "flatline" some time ago, about ten thousand years before the industrial revolution.

You were also wrong - possibly even clueless - to make the assumption that the current interglacial should follow the same pattern as the last three on the basis of a quick glance at a graph.

In short, your argument that AGW is saving us, or will save us, from an imminent glacial is baloney.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Or David Irving.

I'm not sure how much is deliberate lies and how much is just some kind of personality disorder. His "forum" is kind of weird. You'll find topic after topic with no replies to his original post, like some lonely guy masturbating in an empty room. Now he's found a public space to expose himself to. Lovely.

He does pop up on climate blogs from time to time to "rebut" the criticisms of his bogus list, like a 9/11 obsessive insisting that only he knows the truth.

Bad move letting him back in here. Such determined, single-minded bigotry is, er, unheard of on OTW.

The fact that they did "let him back in here" is evidence of the fact that you made a spurious complaint because he was destroying what little remains of your credibility here. The administrators and moderators don't like being taken advantage of like that. You also made in the wrong forum. You might want to think about putting a cork in your drippy pie-hole, because continuing to flap your lips like this is only making it worse.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
he was destroying what little remains of your credibility here.


Yes, in the same sense that creationists "destroy" evolutionary scientists.

You are being ridiculously, incredibly naive BK. How exactly do you think that a self-professed computer guy is able to sift through all these different journals, reading highly technical articles in a range of different fields, and have the expertise to judge which scientists have the better arguments?

Some people will uncritically accept anything they read if it chimes with their preconceptions but, as usual, there is much that you do not know. For example, several authors have complained that their work has been misrepresented on lists such as these and that it does not in fact support any skeptic views. That's the sort of thing which happens when computer guys try to redefine climate science.

BoneKracker wrote:
The administrators and moderators don't like being taken advantage of like that.


One thing I am sure of is that they don't like you putting words in their mouths.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
You and mcgruff are clueless.


I thought you hated strawmen? I didn't say anything about banks.

I never said you did. I simply said you were clueless, which you are.

mcgruff wrote:
I have been pointing out that your graph is too large a scale to show any anthropogenic effects on climate, as you claimed.

I never claimed any anthropogenic effects were apparent in those graphs, but you're wrong that the scale is too large to show them. AGW forecasts (barring any mitigation) have been as large as eight degrees, which would take up half the vertical axis of these graphs. Stop saying moronic things.

mcgruff wrote:
Also, note that it started to "flatline" some time ago, about ten thousand years before the industrial revolution.

We don't understand all the details of anthropogenic influences on climate. The relative plateau shape of the current interglacial maximum (as opposed to the sharp peaks of all others), happens to coincide with roughly a thousand-fold increase in human population. Twelve thousand years ago, there were a few million humans, chucking spears and rocks at furry things. Over the subsequent twelve thousand years, we became billions, spreading all over the planet as it warmed, chopping down forests, digging up peat, burning everything that burns, eradicating entire species, etc., etc. The industrial revolution added to that, certainly, but it wasn't the beginning.

mcgruff wrote:
You were also wrong - possibly even clueless - to make the assumption that the current interglacial should follow the same pattern as the last three on the basis of a quick glance at a graph.

No I'm not.

mcgruff wrote:
In short, your argument that AGW is saving us, or will save us, from an imminent glacial is baloney.

This is another of your classic strawmen. I never said this. I said <a bunch of other more important stuff> and added words to the effect of "and besides, for all we know, AGW is preventing the end of the current interglacial and an even worse climate disaster of the inexorable return to glacial conditions". A two degree rise (assuming we take some action to mitigate AGW) is a hell of lot more acceptable than an eight to ten degree reduction and a return to conditions in which only a few million humans could ever survive. I merely threw it out there as a possibility, but even so, you haven't said anything intelligent which actually refutes it (even after you got over your confusion over the difference between an interglacial period and an interglacial maximum).

More to the point, however, you are merely trying to run off on a tangent with a red herring here. This is not what the discussion is about, now is it. Maybe you're just trying to avoid getting your booty so rigorously spanked and everybody laughing at your obvious humiliation?

Keep in mind that I was agreeing with your original post and taking pride in the fact that you were actually beginning to consider the problem beyond the scope of "ZOMG burn teh Denyers!!! Must stop all teh Karbon burning now!!!". But then, for some reason, you started knee-jerking and ass-hatting again, as usual. :?
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Yes, in the same sense that creationists "destroy" evolutionary scientists.

Typical ad hominem.

mcgruff wrote:
You are being ridiculously, incredibly naive BK. How exactly do you think that a self-professed computer guy is able to sift through all these different journals, reading highly technical articles in a range of different fields, and have the expertise to judge which scientists have the better arguments?

During my university education I wrote many research papers and the research process is very similar. Regardless I am well versed in reading highly technical articles. Many of the papers on the list were already scattered around in various books and websites that I was able to locate and compile them in one location so some of the work was already done for me. You are confused though in that I am not judging who has a better argument but whether a paper can be used to support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm. You will find mutually exclusive papers on the list for this reason. The purpose of the list is simply to prove that they exist and provide a resource for these papers so people can read them and make up their own minds. People are free to judge which papers have better arguments as skeptics accept the existence of independent thought and debate existing on climate change.

mcgruff wrote:
Some people will uncritically accept anything they read if it chimes with their preconceptions but, as usual, there is much that you do not know. For example, several authors have complained that their work has been misrepresented on lists such as these and that it does not in fact support any skeptic views. That's the sort of thing which happens when computer guys try to redefine climate science.

All of these "complaints" were based on strawman arguments for why their papers were listed. For instance the papers by Harold Brooks were listed to support skeptic arguments that tornadoes are not getting worse or more frequent due to ACC/AGW not to "refute ACC/AGW". Context matters and distorting why a paper was listed is not a valid argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
he was destroying what little remains of your credibility here.


Yes, in the same sense that creationists "destroy" evolutionary scientists.

You are being ridiculously, incredibly naive BK. How exactly do you think that a self-professed computer guy is able to sift through all these different journals, reading highly technical articles in a range of different fields, and have the expertise to judge which scientists have the better arguments?

Some people will uncritically accept anything they read if it chimes with their preconceptions but, as usual, there is much that you do not know. For example, several authors have complained that their work has been misrepresented on lists such as these and that it does not in fact support any skeptic views. That's the sort of thing which happens when computer guys try to redefine climate science.

Frankly, I think he sounds a lot like you (has strong opinions about AGW, reads lots of the material, cites it frequently), except his posts are logically coherent and do not exhibit obvious signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder (like losing emotional control when one's constructs are shaken). No offense intended, I'm just giving my honest assessment.

I would think that you'd welcome the opportunity to debate the subject with someone willing to have such in-depth discussions with you. Why so afraid? He's somebody with an interest in the same area; you can debate and learn from each other. Do you have to be so militant, hostile, and abrasive about it?

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
The administrators and moderators don't like being taken advantage of like that.


One thing I am sure of is that they don't like you putting words in their mouths.

I'm not putting words in their mouths, just speaking from experience.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I never claimed any anthropogenic effects were apparent in those graphs


Actually you did:

BoneKracker wrote:
I pointed out the disparity between the shape of the present interglacial maximum and the others of this ice age. I did this to suggest that it could even be true that anthropogenic warming is delaying to onset of glacial cooling.


And that's not all:

BoneKracker wrote:
you're wrong that the scale is too large to show them. AGW forecasts (barring any mitigation) have been as large as eight degrees, which would take up half the vertical axis of these graphs. Stop saying moronic things.


The horizontal axis is the one we're interested in, isn't it? And you have the cheek to call other people moronic!

BoneKracker wrote:
We don't understand all the details of anthropogenic influences on climate. The relative plateau shape of the current interglacial maximum (as opposed to the sharp peaks of all others), happens to coincide with roughly a thousand-fold increase in human population. Twelve thousand years ago, there were a few million humans, chucking spears and rocks at furry things. Over the subsequent twelve thousand years, we became billions, spreading all over the planet as it warmed, chopping down forests, digging up peat, burning everything that burns, eradicating entire species, etc., etc. The industrial revolution added to that, certainly, but it wasn't the beginning.


This is painful. Now you're back to arguing that the graph does show evidence of anthropogenic effects...

We didn't become billions over 12,000 years. We became billions in the last century. The first billion was only reached around 1800. You're clutching at straws now, looking for a way out.

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
You were also wrong - possibly even clueless - to make the assumption that the current interglacial should follow the same pattern as the last three on the basis of a quick glance at a graph.

No I'm not.


BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
In short, your argument that AGW is saving us, or will save us, from an imminent glacial is baloney.

I never said this. I said <a bunch of other more important stuff> and added words to the effect of "and besides, for all we know, AGW is preventing the end of the current interglacial and an even worse climate disaster of the inexorable return to glacial conditions".


OK so you did say it, but you didn't say it. How could I ever have become confused?

BoneKracker wrote:
More to the point, however, you are merely trying to run off on a tangent with a red herring here.


That would get you off the hook, I understand that, but I'm fed up with your bullshit and evasiveness. I don't expect you to admit it but maybe, just maybe, next time you'll be a bit more realistic about your ability to make meaningful arguments about climate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I would think that you'd welcome the opportunity to debate the subject with someone willing to have such in-depth discussions with you. Why so afraid? He's somebody with an interest in the same area; you can debate and learn from each other. Do you have to be so militant, hostile, and abrasive about it?


I believe in treating people fairly. Why you would think that cheats and liars deserve any respect for their cheating and lying escapes me. Like I said, you're being incredibly naive if you think that a computer guy is in any way qualified to do what he claims to be doing. These lists have value only as propaganda for idiots who won't bother to check the details, that's all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I never claimed any anthropogenic effects were apparent in those graphs


Actually you did:

BoneKracker wrote:
I pointed out the disparity between the shape of the present interglacial maximum and the others of this ice age. I did this to suggest that it could even be true that anthropogenic warming is delaying to onset of glacial cooling.

Okay, so what I said implies that the graph may reflect anthropogenic effects. That's not "claiming that it does".

mcgruff wrote:
And that's not all:

BoneKracker wrote:
you're wrong that the scale is too large to show them. AGW forecasts (barring any mitigation) have been as large as eight degrees, which would take up half the vertical axis of these graphs. Stop saying moronic things.


The horizontal axis is the one we're interested in, isn't it? And you have the cheek to call other people moronic!

No, we are interested in temperature changes, which are reflected on the vertical axis. Time is on the horizontal axis; how can time reflect temperature change? Hello? Anybody in there? Please stop saying moronic things. It's especially bad when you repeat them, insisting that they are right.

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
We don't understand all the details of anthropogenic influences on climate. The relative plateau shape of the current interglacial maximum (as opposed to the sharp peaks of all others), happens to coincide with roughly a thousand-fold increase in human population. Twelve thousand years ago, there were a few million humans, chucking spears and rocks at furry things. Over the subsequent twelve thousand years, we became billions, spreading all over the planet as it warmed, chopping down forests, digging up peat, burning everything that burns, eradicating entire species, etc., etc. The industrial revolution added to that, certainly, but it wasn't the beginning.


This is painful. Now you're back to arguing that the graph does show evidence of anthropogenic effects...

No, I'm not. What I am saying implies that it may reflect anthropogenic effects. Now you're just quibbling, in a desperate attempt to extend this red herring and distance yourself from the ass-thumping you received earlier. It's pathetic, really.

mcgruff wrote:
We didn't become billions over 12,000 years. We became billions in the last century. The first billion was only reached around 1800.

This statement is logically incoherent. When we reached the first billion has no bearing on the fact that our population grew from a few million 12,000 years ago to billions today. More pathetic quibbling.

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
You were also wrong - possibly even clueless - to make the assumption that the current interglacial should follow the same pattern as the last three on the basis of a quick glance at a graph.

No I'm not.

If you think I am, then offer some kind of logic. All said is, "you are wrong," with zero substantiation, so all I needed to say was, "no I'm not".

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
In short, your argument that AGW is saving us, or will save us, from an imminent glacial is baloney.

I never said this. I said <a bunch of other more important stuff> and added words to the effect of "and besides, for all we know, AGW is preventing the end of the current interglacial and an even worse climate disaster of the inexorable return to glacial conditions".


OK so you did say it, but you didn't say it. How could I ever have become confused?

Nice selective use of highlighting there. :roll:

Why so asshat, mcgruff? Why so abrasive and antagonistic? Why so illogical and just plain wrong? Why humiliate yourself like this over and over?

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
More to the point, however, you are merely trying to run off on a tangent with a red herring here.
That would get you off the hook, I understand that, but I'm fed up with your bullshit and evasiveness. I don't expect you to admit it but maybe, just maybe, next time you'll be a bit more realistic about your ability to make meaningful arguments about climate.

"Only I teh Scyents!" :roll:

You are the one choosing to pursue this argument of whether AGW might possibly result in a delay or disruption of the interglacial cycle. I only mentioned it in passing. It's not an important argument or even a serious one -- it was merely conjecture, as a peripheral idea at the end of a completely different argument. You simply feel (erroneously, it seems) that you can attack it, so you do. Nobody is forgetting that you just got thoroughly ass-owned on the topic of conversation of this thread. :lol:

And you haven't even managed to effectively argue against this idea, either.

You should really just collect the tatters of your credibility and go, or find something else to talk about, Scyents-Boy.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
I believe in treating people fairly. Why you would think that cheats and liars deserve any respect for their cheating and lying escapes me. Like I said, you're being incredibly naive if you think that a computer guy is in any way qualified to do what he claims to be doing. These lists have value only as propaganda for idiots who won't bother to check the details, that's all.
More ad hominem because you cannot address my arguments. You have failed to show how I "cheated or lied". How am I not qualified? I analyze technical documentation and do research for a living. It does not require a Ph.D. to compile a list of papers. Anyone that has written a research paper at a university has the necessary qualifications. The real problem is you cannot make a valid argument so you hope that you can dismiss it by hand waving. You need to do better and can start by addressing my arguments.

Last edited by Poptech on Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff has gone into full-on asshat mode. He's not going to have a sane conversation about it now. Later he will make posts asserting that he has been victorious and that others don't remember it right.

As to qualifications, ask him what his are.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff has gone into full-on asshat mode. He's not going to have a sane conversation about it now. Later he will make posts asserting that he has been victorious and that others don't remember it right.

As to qualifications, ask him what his are.

I noticed he just repeats the same points I already refuted without even addressing my arguments. He has already been Googling away trying to find anything he can on me but that is futile.

I am still working on him actually responding to my posts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 657
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff's response to evidence
_________________
I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way just to keep Neptune in its daily orbit around the Earth.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I stand corrected. Big deal. Your statement was of no consequence anyway; it just comes off the ever-growing strawman list.


I know most of this goes way over your head but, if you remember, you have been arguing that another glacial is imminent, and that this is the greater threat. If the "plateau" is not anthropogenic, then that leaves us with the influence of celestial mechanics and a current situation which has more in common with the prolonged interglacial of T5, half a million years ago, than it does with the previous three. In other words, in the absence of anthropogenic effects, another glacial would not be a short term, or even a long term threat. It would probably not be due for another 20,000 years*. That's many times longer than the entire span of human civilisation. We don't need to worry about that. We do need to take drastic action here and now in order to deal with the catastrophe threatened by AGW.

*Of course warming will have a pretty dramatic effect on glacial cycles, probably leaving us stuck in an interglacial for half a million years.

BoneKracker wrote:
we are interested in temperature changes, which are reflected on the vertical axis. Time is on the horizontal axis; how can time reflect temperature change? Hello? Anybody in there? Please stop saying moronic things. It's especially bad when you repeat them, insisting that they are right.


You were talking about an anthropogenic signal...

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
We didn't become billions over 12,000 years. We became billions in the last century. The first billion was only reached around 1800.

This statement is logically incoherent. When we reached the first billion has no bearing on the fact that our population grew from a few million 12,000 years ago to billions today. More pathetic quibbling.


The strong asymmetry, not to mention the industrial revolution (!), confines the anthropogenic signal to an invisibly small region, given the scale of your graph.

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
You were also wrong - possibly even clueless - to make the assumption that the current interglacial should follow the same pattern as the last three on the basis of a quick glance at a graph.

No I'm not.

If you think I am, then offer some kind of logic. All said is, "you are wrong," with zero substantiation, so all I needed to say was, "no I'm not".


I've mentioned this before.

BoneKracker wrote:
Why so asshat, mcgruff? Why so abrasive and antagonistic?


You hate being wrong don't you? So try and learn something and don't be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
We do need to take drastic action here and now in order to deal with the catastrophe threatened by AGW.

There is no evidence of any such catastrophe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why am I so fat? Because every time I see Poptech it makes me want a poptart.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
Why am I so fat? Because every time I see Poptech it makes me want a poptart.

Why am I so fit? Because every time I see it, it reminds of "PT" in the Army (Physical Training; i.e., mandatory daily workout). :lol:
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
Why am I so fat? Because every time I see Poptech it makes me want a poptart.

Maybe you should go to the gym more?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poptech wrote:
Maybe you should go to the gym more?

No. I am going to stand my ground until I need to be winched out of the house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum