By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Respectfully, you have not reported my post correctly. I said exactly what you said:
"What I have said that could be seen as "disputing" the theory of evolution is that in some [many?] cases it can explain how life has evolved, but it cannot explain how life came to be."
And I said nothing about "abiogenesis" that reflects on the theory of evolution.
[p.s. There was no need for you to have made an ad hominem comment.]
Respectfully, you have not reported my post correctly. I said exactly what you said:
"What I have said that could be seen as "disputing" the theory of evolution is that in some [many?] cases it can explain how life has evolved, but it cannot explain how life came to be."
And I said nothing about "abiogenesis" that reflects on the theory of evolution.
[p.s. There was no need for you to have made an ad hominem comment.]
Respectfully I think you're post could be seen as deliberately ambiguous and you are reinforcing that point further . You're post could be read as trying to discredit evolution by tying it to how life was originally formed. I was pointing out that there is no link - there was no need for you to bring the 2 together.
Global warming is real, only quacks and tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists dispute this. However there is an argument to be had over whether it is natural or due to man made influences.
I would love for you to point me in the direction of the reputable scientists that are debunking global warming, if any of them are using your thermometer argument then I will be questioning their reputation.
I like good science with concrete research and factual results as well its why I'm so interested in quantum mechanics. Without it I wouldn't be able to use my laptop with USB flash and optical disc drives because they all rely on quantum theory being correct in order to work, it also explains what happened to the universe in the moments after the big bang.
“The most useful part of abstract terms are the shadows they create to hide a vacuum." Joseph Joubert
Global warming is real, only quacks and tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists dispute this. However there is an argument to be had over whether it is natural or due to man made influences.
I would love for you to point me in the direction of the reputable scientists that are debunking global warming, if any of them are using your thermometer argument then I will be questioning their reputation.
I like good science with concrete research and factual results as well its why I'm so interested in quantum mechanics. Without it I wouldn't be able to use my laptop with USB flash and optical disc drives because they all rely on quantum theory being correct in order to work, it also explains what happened to the universe in the moments after the big bang.
If you were in any way serious about theories you espouse, you would do your own research on alternative opinions.
I have been examining both sides for years. If I had examined only pro-global warming articles, I would be as misled as you appear to be.
It is neither my responsibility nor my inclination to do it for you. I've probably forgotten more on the subject than you have remembered.
No legitimate scholar would accept only one viewpoint and not study opposing views.
Quoting a French essayist doesn't make you sound less of a hillbilly.
Your ad hominem and other illogical observations are nothing short of precious. I wish I had the inclination to do a book of them. Nah. Not worth the time.
However, do you really not understand that your unkind personal comments make you look rather more like a fool than they make me look?
For what it's worth, I commend you for having the courtesy to be a Wikischolar and look up Joseph Joubert, even though the post wasn't directed to you.
[p.s. Unlike one or two other posters on this thread, at least you are worth reading and responding to. Thanks for that.]
Your ad hominem and other illogical observations are nothing short of precious. I wish I had the inclination to do a book of them. Nah. Not worth the time.
However, do you really not understand that your unkind personal comments make you look rather more like a fool than they make me look?
For what it's worth, I commend you for having the courtesy to be a Wikischolar and look up Joseph Joubert, even though the post wasn't directed to you.
[p.s. Unlike one or two other posters on this thread, at least you are worth reading and responding to. Thanks for that.]
Have they got to the bottom of does father Christmas really exists only it bothers me how he gets down all them chimneys in one night
Why is it that global warming is a relatively new theory if all these guys where that bright all them years back inventing gizmos that tell you how hot it is yet they where pumping all sorts of crap out during the industrial revolution
It's all a load of cobblers the earth has always gone from feckin freezing towawarming up again don't worry about it they will all be talking bolloc is long after my Great Great grandchildren have gone and then some
Chill out and have beer life's to short to worry over all that shite
Your ad hominem and other illogical observations are nothing short of precious. I wish I had the inclination to do a book of them. Nah. Not worth the time.
However, do you really not understand that your unkind personal comments make you look rather more like a fool than they make me look?
For what it's worth, I commend you for having the courtesy to be a Wikischolar and look up Joseph Joubert, even though the post wasn't directed to you.
[p.s. Unlike one or two other posters on this thread, at least you are worth reading and responding to. Thanks for that.]
What a patronising pr!ck - you aren't the only one on here with a literature degree. At least I have the good grace not to accompany my posts with a pretentious quote.
Your thermometer analogy was comedy gold - I'd have to try really hard to look more foolish than that. Keep 'em coming.
ps "I love Beethoven. Especially the poems." Ringo Starr.
What a patronising pr!ck - you aren't the only one on here with a literature degree. At least I have the good grace not to accompany my posts with a pretentious quote.
Your thermometer analogy was comedy gold - I'd have to try really hard to look more foolish than that. Keep 'em coming.
ps "I love Beethoven. Especially the poems." Ringo Starr.
But I don't call people crude names.
It is not "bad grace" to accompany a post with a quotation. People of good grace do it all the time. Perhaps it's not good grace to call someone names who does use a quotation either because it comes from a learned person or because it is strikingly apt.
If you see me as patronizing and pretentious, that's strictly your problem. You know virtually nothing about me, and certainly not enough to make comments like that.
My thermometer analogy is far more serious than you imagine, as you appear to have selected only one part of it for your attention. Let's try a few examples of the influence of the development of the thermometer on the "science" of global warming. I mentioned these briefly in that quote that has you and one or two others so upset, but that no-one seemed to look into.
The results of scientific research must be reproducible to be valid. Scientific instruments must be accurate and, when being used for comparisons, of equal accuracy. Scientific readings of instruments must be accurate. Scientific data must be of sufficient quantity and quality to bring valid conclusions.
I'm not going to try to find the article for you, but it has been shown that temperature readings were not taken in a scientifically valid range of locations, even as late as recent times. Vast areas of the planet have not been examined; and from year to year, different areas of the planet have been more fully examined, yet the readings are all part of the comparisons, and silently assumed to be equally valid. Far too many readings were taken in urban environments which are vastly more subject to human heat-producing activity, such as burning fossil fuels in homes and, more important, in industry, which began its lightning-like increase roughly during the same times as the thermometer. And far more subject to change over time.
Inasmuch as the mercury thermometer was invented only in the late 18th Century, there had not been enough time to spread them around the planet for most of the intervening period in such numbers as to make readings valid.
We're now using computerized thermo-sensing devices, which are far more accurate, but comparing them with cruder instruments or, in some cases, no instruments at all [everything before the mercury thermometer was invented].
By the nature of the planet, and by nature of the spread of science and technology, the northern hemisphere has been subject to far more "temperature research" [I'm being charitable] than the southern; and over time, far more European, then U.S., then Eastern Europe and Western Russia. And it is the northern hemisphere that has seen the most growth in population, therefore sources of heat, and the most growth of industry, more sources of heat. Yet these are the areas that are being included. There have been examples reported of "scientists" putting thermometers in numbers next to sources of raised heat from industry.
What self-respecting "scientist" will take and use "results" from such unscientific sources? See scientists working for interested parties who finance their research. And the main voice shrieking about pollution causing global warming has made multiple millions selling "carbon credits" [a sham of unprecedented proportions], and wins awards from groups who believe him. The "Oscar," for heaven's sake! The Nobel Prize! Sainthood next.
In this global warming sham, the main proponents of global warming destroyed their data, so there can be no attempt to reproduce their results.
As someone in an earlier post wrote, the history of the planet has apparently seen temperature changes in different times and places. Other scientific evidence appears to point that way, and I don't question it. I do question all this pap about temperatures so specific that they cannot be given credibility.
Another poster pointed out that the sun has been shown to have had a great effect on temperatures and temperature swings on the planet, but again, no-one reporting that is giving us fallacious thermometer readings about them, and blaming them on mankind, and making bundles of money off them.
Sensing your literary affection for quotations, I give you this one, most apropos:
“Quite often a large number of people who know nothing about a subject will all agree – and all be wrong.” Gilbert Murray
If you were in any way serious about theories you espouse, you would do your own research on alternative opinions.
I have been examining both sides for years. If I had examined only pro-global warming articles, I would be as misled as you appear to be.
It is neither my responsibility nor my inclination to do it for you. I've probably forgotten more on the subject than you have remembered.
No legitimate scholar would accept only one viewpoint and not study opposing views.
[Post edited 31 Aug 2013 1:20]
I have done my own research into "alternative opinions" and the alternatives don't have any supporting evidence. I have even done some research into the language you use, surprise surprise there is an anti global warming website called junkscience.com and its full of some of the most laughable pseudo-science I have ever read. (Apparently cars that produce water vapour rather than CO2 are worse for he environment because its warmer on cloudy nights than on clear nights.
Believing something in spite of over whelming evidence to the contrary doesn't make you intelligent it makes you an idiot.
The simple fact is that you can't show me any reputable scientists who are debunking global warming because there aren't any. Just like you can't produce any evidence to support anything that you claim on these threads just pointless aphorisms. Whereas I can provide concrete evidence and practical applications of my fairy tales.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
I have done my own research into "alternative opinions" and the alternatives don't have any supporting evidence. I have even done some research into the language you use, surprise surprise there is an anti global warming website called junkscience.com and its full of some of the most laughable pseudo-science I have ever read. (Apparently cars that produce water vapour rather than CO2 are worse for he environment because its warmer on cloudy nights than on clear nights.
Believing something in spite of over whelming evidence to the contrary doesn't make you intelligent it makes you an idiot.
The simple fact is that you can't show me any reputable scientists who are debunking global warming because there aren't any. Just like you can't produce any evidence to support anything that you claim on these threads just pointless aphorisms. Whereas I can provide concrete evidence and practical applications of my fairy tales.
Just because you either can't or won't find fully "reputable scientists" who debunk claims about the source and extent of "global warming" [changed with averted eyes to "climate change"] doesn't mean that I have any obligation to do the research for you. The evidence/proof is there. I found it and read it.
And without destroying their data when it is pointed out that they fudged their numbers, so their findings could not be proven unscientifically wrong.
And there you go attacking me personally because I don't believe what you do. There is a most serious question of which of us is the one "believing something in spite of over whelming [sic] evidence to the contrary."
You are stuck with your analysis of me as not "intelligent" but "an idiot" without knowing a jot about me.
You have not provided concrete evidence and practical applications about your support for silly theories, but you're right that they're "fairy tales."
Example: When I asked you what there was before the "big bang" [I won't go and look up the exact language], you followed your Wikischolarship and replied "a singularity" [the quintessential example of a vague created word without definition to explain something inexplicable to the one creating it]. When I asked you what that "singularity" was and how it came into being, you gave me two alternative answers - "we don't know" and "pure energy."
And when I asked you how matter was created, you snidely answered something like "a hint is E=MC2." That's a formula on how to calculate [or describe] energy, not an explanation of how matter was or is created. There cannot be any energy without matter [you know all about formulae, so remove the "M" and what is energy?].
It is not "bad grace" to accompany a post with a quotation. People of good grace do it all the time. Perhaps it's not good grace to call someone names who does use a quotation either because it comes from a learned person or because it is strikingly apt.
If you see me as patronizing and pretentious, that's strictly your problem. You know virtually nothing about me, and certainly not enough to make comments like that.
My thermometer analogy is far more serious than you imagine, as you appear to have selected only one part of it for your attention. Let's try a few examples of the influence of the development of the thermometer on the "science" of global warming. I mentioned these briefly in that quote that has you and one or two others so upset, but that no-one seemed to look into.
The results of scientific research must be reproducible to be valid. Scientific instruments must be accurate and, when being used for comparisons, of equal accuracy. Scientific readings of instruments must be accurate. Scientific data must be of sufficient quantity and quality to bring valid conclusions.
I'm not going to try to find the article for you, but it has been shown that temperature readings were not taken in a scientifically valid range of locations, even as late as recent times. Vast areas of the planet have not been examined; and from year to year, different areas of the planet have been more fully examined, yet the readings are all part of the comparisons, and silently assumed to be equally valid. Far too many readings were taken in urban environments which are vastly more subject to human heat-producing activity, such as burning fossil fuels in homes and, more important, in industry, which began its lightning-like increase roughly during the same times as the thermometer. And far more subject to change over time.
Inasmuch as the mercury thermometer was invented only in the late 18th Century, there had not been enough time to spread them around the planet for most of the intervening period in such numbers as to make readings valid.
We're now using computerized thermo-sensing devices, which are far more accurate, but comparing them with cruder instruments or, in some cases, no instruments at all [everything before the mercury thermometer was invented].
By the nature of the planet, and by nature of the spread of science and technology, the northern hemisphere has been subject to far more "temperature research" [I'm being charitable] than the southern; and over time, far more European, then U.S., then Eastern Europe and Western Russia. And it is the northern hemisphere that has seen the most growth in population, therefore sources of heat, and the most growth of industry, more sources of heat. Yet these are the areas that are being included. There have been examples reported of "scientists" putting thermometers in numbers next to sources of raised heat from industry.
What self-respecting "scientist" will take and use "results" from such unscientific sources? See scientists working for interested parties who finance their research. And the main voice shrieking about pollution causing global warming has made multiple millions selling "carbon credits" [a sham of unprecedented proportions], and wins awards from groups who believe him. The "Oscar," for heaven's sake! The Nobel Prize! Sainthood next.
In this global warming sham, the main proponents of global warming destroyed their data, so there can be no attempt to reproduce their results.
As someone in an earlier post wrote, the history of the planet has apparently seen temperature changes in different times and places. Other scientific evidence appears to point that way, and I don't question it. I do question all this pap about temperatures so specific that they cannot be given credibility.
Another poster pointed out that the sun has been shown to have had a great effect on temperatures and temperature swings on the planet, but again, no-one reporting that is giving us fallacious thermometer readings about them, and blaming them on mankind, and making bundles of money off them.
Sensing your literary affection for quotations, I give you this one, most apropos:
“Quite often a large number of people who know nothing about a subject will all agree – and all be wrong.” Gilbert Murray
zzzzzzz
"There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers." Captain Beefheart
Just because you either can't or won't find fully "reputable scientists" who debunk claims about the source and extent of "global warming" [changed with averted eyes to "climate change"] doesn't mean that I have any obligation to do the research for you. The evidence/proof is there. I found it and read it.
And without destroying their data when it is pointed out that they fudged their numbers, so their findings could not be proven unscientifically wrong.
And there you go attacking me personally because I don't believe what you do. There is a most serious question of which of us is the one "believing something in spite of over whelming [sic] evidence to the contrary."
You are stuck with your analysis of me as not "intelligent" but "an idiot" without knowing a jot about me.
You have not provided concrete evidence and practical applications about your support for silly theories, but you're right that they're "fairy tales."
Example: When I asked you what there was before the "big bang" [I won't go and look up the exact language], you followed your Wikischolarship and replied "a singularity" [the quintessential example of a vague created word without definition to explain something inexplicable to the one creating it]. When I asked you what that "singularity" was and how it came into being, you gave me two alternative answers - "we don't know" and "pure energy."
And when I asked you how matter was created, you snidely answered something like "a hint is E=MC2." That's a formula on how to calculate [or describe] energy, not an explanation of how matter was or is created. There cannot be any energy without matter [you know all about formulae, so remove the "M" and what is energy?].
I can't find the reputable scientists debunking global warming because they do not exist. I can find plenty of quacks and conspiracy theorists though.
When who destroyed what data? If you are making claims the burden of proof falls on you.
I have provided concrete examples of my "fairy tales" unless of course you can provide alternative explanations for how GPS, lasers, transistors, semi conductors or USB flash drives work?
If you had watched the video in my OP it would explain to you in very simple language all the answers to your questions on the big bang(everywhere stretch), the singularity(a very small area in space where everything in the universe once was as explained by the theory of relativity) and what may have come before the big bang(everywhere stretch).
What do you mean "remove the m and what is energy?" You can't remove m because e=mc2. Or are you claiming to know more about physics than Einstein?
Edited to add that m=e/c2
[Post edited 31 Aug 2013 15:58]
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
"There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers." Captain Beefheart
That's it, then. I spent some effort to explain something that you told me you didn't understand, and your response is "zzzzzzz"?
When I said that you were worth my reading and responding to [you remember, what you called pretentious and something else equally rude], I thought that you were having a bit of fun at my expense, and with a bit of light humour.
Now I realize that you have not yet understood anything I have said - and in this most recent example of your intellectual effort, disrespect me by not reading it.
I can't find the reputable scientists debunking global warming because they do not exist. I can find plenty of quacks and conspiracy theorists though.
When who destroyed what data? If you are making claims the burden of proof falls on you.
I have provided concrete examples of my "fairy tales" unless of course you can provide alternative explanations for how GPS, lasers, transistors, semi conductors or USB flash drives work?
If you had watched the video in my OP it would explain to you in very simple language all the answers to your questions on the big bang(everywhere stretch), the singularity(a very small area in space where everything in the universe once was as explained by the theory of relativity) and what may have come before the big bang(everywhere stretch).
What do you mean "remove the m and what is energy?" You can't remove m because e=mc2. Or are you claiming to know more about physics than Einstein?
Edited to add that m=e/c2
[Post edited 31 Aug 2013 15:58]
You, too.
I have decided that I do not wish to be hard-headed in trying to get a closed mind to open itself up. The very fact that you do not know who destroyed data is proof positive that you are singularly uninformed about the subject of the global warming debacle.
And I do not wish to have a Wikiwarrior calling me names, using profanity, and otherwise impugning my intellectual integrity.
As to your graph and other fallacies of the "scientific" methods of the "warmers," have a look here:
That's it, then. I spent some effort to explain something that you told me you didn't understand, and your response is "zzzzzzz"?
When I said that you were worth my reading and responding to [you remember, what you called pretentious and something else equally rude], I thought that you were having a bit of fun at my expense, and with a bit of light humour.
Now I realize that you have not yet understood anything I have said - and in this most recent example of your intellectual effort, disrespect me by not reading it.
I've spent enough of my time on you.
Arf. Where did I say I didn't understand it? The only thing I don't understand is how you can keep coming out with this guff.
I can't be bothered to read your utterly predictable, tinfoil hat-wearing @rse dribble; I've read more than enough already.
I have decided that I do not wish to be hard-headed in trying to get a closed mind to open itself up. The very fact that you do not know who destroyed data is proof positive that you are singularly uninformed about the subject of the global warming debacle.
And I do not wish to have a Wikiwarrior calling me names, using profanity, and otherwise impugning my intellectual integrity.
As to your graph and other fallacies of the "scientific" methods of the "warmers," have a look here:
You're right I don't have an open mind, open minds are open to any old rubbish, I have a critical mind.
I'll assume that the destroyed data you're referring to is from the hacked CRU emails. You are obviously aware that the "The Independent Climate Change Email Review" chaired by Sir Muir Russell concluded that:
"with regard to the allegations concerning the temperature data, the conclusions of the Review Team are as follows:
Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so.
Regarding data adjustments, there is no basis for the allegation that CRU made adjustments to the data which had any significant effect upon global averages and through this fabricated evidence for recent warming.
We find that CRU was unhelpful in dealing with requests for information to enable detailed replication of the CRUTEM analysis.
Crucially, we find nothing in the behaviour on the part of CRU scientists that is the subject of the allegations dealt with in this Chapter to undermine the validity of their work. "
And the House of Commons Select Committee for Science and Technology concluded that:
"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community.
In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty–for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”–we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”."
You can call me a wikiwarrior if it makes you feel better, I'm happy to admit that I sometimes use Wikipedia as a starting point. But I also use my extensive collection of science books, online science journals and conversations with my uncle, an internationally leading professor in his field, Fellow of The Royal Society and head of school of science at a leading UK university.
As for your graph and website I'll reply with a scientific, peer reviewed paper.
Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay. Global and Planetary Change - Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S. Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A. 2003
"Finally, the evidence for a long period of warmth f450— 900 AD, when Chesapeake Bay SSTs were comparable to, but did not exceed mean 20th century conditions, is particularly important in the context of understanding 20th century warmth. Several studies present convincing evidence that 20th century atmospheric temperatures are anomalously warm relative to those covering the past 1000 years...
...If the Chesapeake record for the period 450 —1000 AD is viewed as a baseline for comparison to 19th and 20th century temperatures in lieu of pre-1000 AD atmospheric records, then the magnitude of recent Chesapeake temperature extremes are larger than those observed even during the relative warmth 1000— 1500 years ago."
[Post edited 1 Sep 2013 11:40]
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
