A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: 1988: we know a recession is comming

  1. #21
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    I agree. However, notice the most amazing aspect from that exchange: the date. Since that time, climate research has apparently changed so much that the IPCC now espouses the view that he describes as the radical left. 95% of climate researchers haven't done a 180 degree turn on this issue since 2006.

    What do you think of this presentation? http://www.discovery.org/v/30
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  2. #22
    Spartan Mop Warrior Loyal Rogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Pit of Despair
    Posts
    513
    FL completely dismisses the entire history of all peer-reviewed research and studies by every recognized science organization in the world, and instead chooses to believe in a lecturer for Big Oil/conservative thinktanks who's own papers and theories can't pass peer-reviewed scrutiny... and I'm the one here going on pure faith?!? LOL

    I am very certain, FL, that you can find many links, articles, and slanted/flawed polls/studies by politically motivated rightwingers to help you maintain your contradictory view to reality, but can you provide any credible peer-reviewed evidence to support your wild and extra-ordinary claims?

    When you make wild and unsubstantiated claims that disagree with every recognized body of science in the world and every bit of research they have done, then the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders.
    Their evidence has already passed the test and has been accepted as fact by a vast majority of experts in the fields of climate science... yours have not.

    Why should anyone take you or the unfounded opinions of other politically-motivated AGW deniers seriously?
    If we are going to dismiss all verifiable evidence and facts in favor of wild theories which cannot pass even the basics of scientific proof then we may as well give equal weight to those that believe the moon is made of green cheese, the sun revolves around the earth, and that Obama was the lone gunman on the grassy knoll.

    As the saying goes, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
    The facts and reality don't agree with your opinion on the subject and I'm sorry, but your rejection of all credible facts and evidence don't make your position any less ridiculous.
    ::
    "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN

    "Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick

  3. #23
    Senior Member ihoss.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    581
    FlashLackey, I think you need to look into the scientific method. Science has never proven anything, and it won't start with global warming. Instead science comes up with a theory which is supported by evidence. This theory needs to be disprovable (eg, if you drop a pencil an it doesn't fall, then you have disproved gravity), and so the burden of proof is on you. If you can collect evidence, form a hypothesis, do an experiment and show that the production of CO2 does not have any effect on the climate, then I will take your side. For now the evidence indicates that CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuel, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And greenhouse gasses are known to increase the temperature of the atmosphere (or else the earth would be a very cold place, like Mars or the moon).

    You also need to learn how to read research papers. When someone links to a paper, then you read through it. In the paper the author makes statements and backs them up either with their own data or with references to other papers. Then you read those papers. When someone links to a paper claiming that a large percentage of scientists and researchers believe global warming to be true, then don't dismiss it as the authors opinion. Look into the data and the referenced papers.

  4. #24
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    FL completely dismisses the entire history of all peer-reviewed research and studies by every recognized science organization in the world, and instead chooses to believe in a lecturer for Big Oil/conservative thinktanks who's own papers and theories can't pass peer-reviewed scrutiny... and I'm the one here going on pure faith?!? LOL
    So far, you have provided nothing that indicates to me that you have any basis for your position beyond faith.

    There are many science organizations in the world and many capable scientists that do not belong to the government funded academies you would like to believe are the only ones recognized. Just because they are the only ones that you recognize personally to be authorities on this issue doesn't mean that they are the only ones who can make scientifically sound observations. You seem to mistakenly believe that peer-reviewing is scientific proof in itself. Peer-reviewing is a good idea. It does not demonstrate that all peer-reviewed ideas are true. In fact, lot's of peer-reviewed ideas contradict each other.

    You are arbitrarily choosing to believe in one group of people for non-scientific reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    I am very certain, FL, that you can find many links, articles, and slanted/flawed polls/studies by politically motivated rightwingers to help you maintain your contradictory view to reality, but can you provide any credible peer-reviewed evidence to support your wild and extra-ordinary claims?
    And I'm very certain that as long as you continue to have no scientific basis to support your position, you will continue to fall back to ad hominem attacks on any evidence that contradicts your faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    When you make wild and unsubstantiated claims that disagree with every recognized body of science in the world and every bit of research they have done, then the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders.
    Their evidence has already passed the test and has been accepted as fact by a vast majority of experts in the fields of climate science... yours have not.
    First of all, you are the one who has made a claim (that global warming is man-made). Back it up.

    Second, what claim have I made that is not substantiated? I didn't make any claim about the link I just posted. I asked what jAQUAN thought of it. It appears to me that the person giving the presentation did substantiate his points. Did he not?

    If he made an error in his charts and reasoning, please let me know where.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    Why should anyone take you or the unfounded opinions of other politically-motivated AGW deniers seriously?
    You are the one who is denying substantiated, scientific criticism. You are denying scientific evidence in favor of having faith in people that you are predisposed to believe.

    You should take scientific scrutiny seriously because the solutions being proposed to address the junk science you have faith in is very costly. In a world in which there are millions of people starving to death, there are better ways to use that money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    If we are going to dismiss all verifiable evidence and facts in favor of wild theories which cannot pass even the basics of scientific proof then we may as well give equal weight to those that believe the moon is made of green cheese, the sun revolves around the earth, and that Obama was the lone gunman on the grassy knoll.
    That's exactly how I feel about you and your clergy of AGW believers. Telling us that the apocalypse is coming so that enormous amounts of funds can be stolen and granted to environmentalist groups and other projects that will do little or no public good.

    Please, by all means, verify something. I've been asking for a few posts now. Please, verify your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    As the saying goes, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
    The facts and reality don't agree with your opinion on the subject and I'm sorry, but your rejection of all credible facts and evidence don't make your position any less ridiculous.
    You have yet to provide any credible fact or evidence whatsoever.
    Last edited by FlashLackey; 12-29-2009 at 12:59 PM.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  5. #25
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by ihoss.com View Post
    FlashLackey, I think you need to look into the scientific method. Science has never proven anything, and it won't start with global warming. Instead science comes up with a theory which is supported by evidence. This theory needs to be disprovable (eg, if you drop a pencil an it doesn't fall, then you have disproved gravity), and so the burden of proof is on you. If you can collect evidence, form a hypothesis, do an experiment and show that the production of CO2 does not have any effect on the climate, then I will take your side. For now the evidence indicates that CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuel, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And greenhouse gasses are known to increase the temperature of the atmosphere (or else the earth would be a very cold place, like Mars or the moon).
    You contradict your own point here. You have only made an assertion and provide no evidence. Yes, if you had provided verifiable evidence, then the burden would be on me to disprove it. However, you have provided no evidence and that's the problem with the AGW believers as well. Their position relies on prediction models rather than historical data and evaluation of concrete evidence. The historical data shows that warming correlates with natural causes and that human CO2 activity shows an insignificant impact on temperature.

    It is true that greenhouse gases affect the temperature. However, there are many natural processes involved and many other gases besides CO2. The question is how much does human created CO2 affect it. The evidence to date shows that it is negligible. Only when you start tinkering around with models and purposely try to tweak them to show unusual warming in the future do you have a case.

    Quote Originally Posted by ihoss.com View Post
    You also need to learn how to read research papers. When someone links to a paper, then you read through it. In the paper the author makes statements and backs them up either with their own data or with references to other papers. Then you read those papers. When someone links to a paper claiming that a large percentage of scientists and researchers believe global warming to be true, then don't dismiss it as the authors opinion. Look into the data and the referenced papers.
    Wonderful. Then please look into all of the evidence provided in the link that I posted and explain to me where the presenter made an error or used bad data. You wouldn't want to dismiss it.

    You're right that the paper I dismissed wasn't the authors opinion. I shouldn't have implied so. It doesn't represent all credible scientists. Science doesn't work by poll. It works by evidence. If every scientist in the world believed in AGW and one dissented, it would not be the first time in the history of science if the one dissenter was right. I'm sure you know that.

    The paper didn't even indicate that there was a consensus on the issue anyway. Of the peer reviewed papers they include (no method given for how they selected the papers) 75% "implied" that they supported global warming. That leaves quite a few dissenting papers. And I would really like to see the definition of what "implied" meant in this case. Frankly, I find that this paper leaves us with much to be desired on the issue it tries to address.
    Last edited by FlashLackey; 12-29-2009 at 01:03 PM.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  6. #26
    supervillain gerbick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    undecided.
    Posts
    18,979
    Quote Originally Posted by ihoss.com View Post
    You also need to learn how to read research papers. When someone links to a paper, then you read through it. In the paper the author makes statements and backs them up either with their own data or with references to other papers. Then you read those papers. When someone links to a paper claiming that a large percentage of scientists and researchers believe global warming to be true, then don't dismiss it as the authors opinion. Look into the data and the referenced papers.
    You're talking about reading through a scientific paper with people that are not scientists and honestly have shown a tendency of following whatever opinion suits their own personal beliefs.

    Simply stated, you are wasting your time. Show whomever an article wherever that supports that they're implying and they will agree wholeheartedly. Show them something that they disagree with and it will be dismissed as some agenda to whatever group opposes their opinion (as an individual or as a group, it doesn't matter) and they will not show something that is as well-thought out or scientific - remember, these people are not scientists themselves - and rely on opinion that allows them to continue down that path they had already chosen.

    Feigning comprehension, empathy, sympathy is oft seen around these forums; it is faked. That is my opinion, I'm entitled. The aforementioned bits, historically have been strengthened by past, observed tendencies.

    Thanks for the link. Thanks for the paper. At least I will admit I know too little in these subjects to form any opinion worth a damn and I refuse to be led by the media.

    [ Hello ] | [ gerbick ] | [ Ω ]

  7. #27
    Spartan Mop Warrior Loyal Rogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Pit of Despair
    Posts
    513
    You beat me to my next thought.

    FL mentioned faith, and I have to admit he is right.
    None of us have the training, knowledge, or data to be able to tell the difference between real scientific facts and false pseudoscience political spin.
    Just for that reason alone, every one of us is forced to form an opinion based on nothing but faith... faith in the expert source of our choosing.

    As for me, I'll play the odds and choose to put my faith in the conclusions of the greatest number of experts in the field that are then policed and fact-checked by other experts (peer-reviewed).

    For example, if I had 97% of brain surgeons that looked at my scans tell me I had a brain tumor I would tend to put my faith in their conclusions as opposed to ignoring them in favor of my oral hygienist's advice that she can't see any brain tumor... others may choose to put their faith in her diagnosis instead.
    ::
    "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN

    "Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick

  8. #28
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    Thank you for admitting that.

    The next question is how much have you looked at the arguments and data yourself? Do you understand the basis for the AGW believers and the basis for the skeptics?

    It's good to try and understand these things if you're going to advocate one way or another.

    PS: If you think that 97% of the people qualified to analyse climate change believe in AGW, you are mistaken. Or, do you also have faith that the entire body of qualified scientists consists of the 79 anonymous people that took the on-line poll you linked to?
    Last edited by FlashLackey; 12-30-2009 at 12:32 PM.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  9. #29
    N' then I might just
    Jump back on
    An' ride
    Like a cowboy
    Into the dawn
    ........To Montana.
    david petley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    not in Montana
    Posts
    10,192
    In some peoples eyes, I guess the issue is not so much about global warming, which pretty much every scientist in the world now acknowledges will bring changes that will have an impact, but whether it is man made.

    ...not mine though, and I am glad I do not live at the beach on the coast, or beside any rivers like the Mississippi or the Ganges.

    david
    No longer a Flashkit mod, not even by stealth

    Insanity is just a point of view. After all, the world looks pretty normal through your own underpants.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,764
    Is this the same peon who posted that thing about aliens building the pyramids?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center