Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

Can't win an argument...resort to name calling. Who's the child? I'm obviously wasting my time.

In the words of the fuckstick who put that garbage in there. “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html

I refuted your ridiculous argument and then called you a name. You keep reaching but you still aren't grabbing anything. Once the problem was identified it was corrected. Climatologists recognized it was a problem and readily accepted it. This completely undermines your childish, ignorant position. Try again.

 

[CiSTM]

Can't win an argument...resort to name calling. Who's the child? I'm obviously wasting my time.

In the words of the fuckstick who put that garbage in there. “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html

Yeah, Big problem with IPCC is the very fact that they tend to use data from non scientific sources so it really makes you wonder how right their reports are. Ofcourse they use real scientific data too and do bang up job in most areas but they have plenty of big misses too. I think the big question is should we keep on funding IPCC or replace it with newly build and thought panel.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Yeah, Big problem with IPCC is the very fact that they tend to use data from non scientific sources so it really makes you wonder how right their reports are. Ofcourse they use real scientific data too and do bang up job in most areas but they have plenty of big misses too. I think the big question is should we keep on funding IPCC or replace it with newly build and thought panel.

Exactly. That's my point. My position is that the politicization of science helps to undermine science -especially in situations like this. It succeeds only in giving skeptics ammunition - and they are right to seize on this. I think there should be more checks on the IPCC somehow. The simpleton's view that the IPCC is simply making mistakes (oopsie) by including non-peer reviewed data or even word of mouth is naive at best.

(I'm somewhat of a skeptic myself. I don't deny that there has been warming. I'm skeptical as far as the extent of influence of CO2 levels on climate and, in particular, the supposed feedback)

 

[Mushroom021]

It has not been that cold out this winter, we'll all probably be dead before any of this affects us.

 

[KHarvey16]

Exactly. That's my point. My position is that the politicization of science helps to undermine science -especially in situations like this. It succeeds only in giving skeptics ammunition - and they are right to seize on this. I think there should be more checks on the IPCC somehow. The naive view that the IPCC is simply making mistakes (oopsie) by including non-peer reviewed data or even word of mouth is naive at best.

(I'm somewhat of a skeptic myself. I don't deny that there has been warming. I'm skeptical as far as the extent of influence of CO2 levels on climate and, in particular, the supposed feedback)

The IPCC is entirely irrelevant to the question of if there is anthropogenic global warming. They don't conduct the science. Your skepticism is irrational and presupposed, and the IPCC is the excuse you've settled on to justify it.

 

[mclaren777]

One of my favorite GIFs...

Oops. It looks like some of you don't understand what's happening in this GIF.

This is just 12 months of seasonal change. This isn't some ridiculous liberal nonsense about the world melting. This is both cyclical and normal. No need for concern.

 

[Something Wicked]

Surprises me that someone who has an engineering degree would have to ask if altitude affects precipitation rates. Or did he not pay attention during Chemistry?

Edit: he has a Chem E degree? You've gotta be kidding me...

Altitude question was more so meant to be rhetorical. Though I should have further specified "does distance from a large body of water affect precipitation rates?" The answer is obviously "yes" and yet one of the fundamental pillars of climatology does not account for this. I'm amazed at how people blindly take data from others at face value.

The last time I heard someone talk like this was during the 9/11 conspiracy threads.

"If you only knew architecture, civil-engineering, demolitions and thermo-reactive science, exobiology, and Saudi Arabian history would you know why it was a hoax."

I believe in evolution, that Al Qaeda was responsible for killing 3,000+ people on 9/11/2001, and even that President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, yet... from my personal research and utilizing my own technical background, I've concluded that the data used for AGW predictions is highly inaccurate and thus the predictions themselves are inaccurate. We simply do not have sufficient data to any claims upon minor global temperature rises over the next century (and probably never will). Many other engineers, chemists, physicists, meteorologists, and even climatologists agree with my position. And no, I am not affiliated with any oil companies or businesses that benefit from fossil fuel usage- soon to be a bit of the opposite actually.

What the hell are you talking about? So little of this is correct.

And that's the entirety of your rebuttal? Well, shucks, you showed me... ...

 

[adamsappel]

You're effectively saying your undemonstrated and unexplained expertise exceeds that of mainstream scientific consensus. In short you're appealing to your own authority.

I basically can never understand why anyone would type this shit.

Liberals say, "I stand on the shoulders of giants." Conservatives say, "I am surrounded by dwarfs."

Spoiler

I adapted/stole that from Murray Gell-Mann.

 

[KHarvey16]

And that's the entirety of your rebuttal? Well, shucks, you showed me... ...

I already explained it to you when you asked your questions(that you're so sure no one answered). That you don't understand is not my problem.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

The IPCC is entirely irrelevant to the question of if there is anthropogenic global warming. They don't conduct the science. Your skepticism is irrational and presupposed, and the IPCC is the excuse you've settled on to justify it.

I think you argue just for the sake of argument. Can you carry on a normal conversation?

 

[KHarvey16]

I think you argue just for the sake of argument. Can you carry on a normal conversation?

I argue because you're wrong. If you weren't wrong I'd have nothing to argue about. You hold the power.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I argue because you're wrong. If you weren't wrong I'd have nothing to argue about. You hold the power.

Wrong about what? The extent that CO2 contributes to warming? Are you one who thinks the science is settled? That the feedback theory can't be questioned? That climate models have not exaggerated the effect of CO2? That there is room for skepticism? Are you as close minded as you seem?

 

[Navidson REC]

I find it kind of sad how actual discussion (of which there is quite a lot in here) is constantly hindered by name-calling and "no you"'s (for a lack of a better term).

I don't mind a heated argument, but let's not go overboard here.

Aren't opposing or even contradictory opinions what drives science forward? So let's concentrate on those and on the actual differences rather than... well, yeah, as already said: Arguing for arguing's sake.

And by this I don't mean to take sides or anything. Let's just get back on track.

 

[KHarvey16]

Wrong about what? The extent that CO2 contributes to warming? Are you one who thinks the science is settled? That the feedback theory can't be questioned? That climate models have exaggerated the effect of CO2? That there is room for skepticism? Are you as close minded as you seem?

Wrong about...what I just responded to? Surely the structure of a discussion hasn't confounded you.

 

[hadareud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJSA0iZ_xeA&feature=g-all-u&context=G267e48bFAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[Gr1mLock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJSA0iZ_xeA&feature=g-all-u&context=G267e48bFAAAAAAAAAAA

Shocking.