Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know that guy is a meteorolgist, right?

[/ QUOTE ]He is a expert on hurricanes and he directly refutes Gore's and the global warming alarmists silly nonsense about global warming and links to hurricanes. There has actually been less hurricanes in the last several decades.

If you were to ask the so called experts and the global warming community if global warming has caused the increase in hurricanes over the last few decades I bet you would get a resounding yes. I bet only a tiny fraction of people could state that there has been no increase.

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I would be very interested in seeing any data that suggests that man made global warming is NOT the consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]The argument of whether it is a consensus or not is really beside the point. I would just like to see a single study that shows a statistically significant likelihood that man has caused global warming. All we have is crap like the IPCC that uses silly phrases like "likely" and "highly likely" with confidence intervals that do not meet the scientific burden (in addition to the 100 other problems with that b.s. study). We also have crap like the false hockeystick that was the global warmings becon disappear in the IPCC report after being so prominently featured in the previous report. You have people global warming "experts" like Hansen and Mann making a mockery of scientific methods and you have massive issues with the historical temperature database (ie, it doesn't exist in native form).

So, to base belief in global warming on consensus is just plain silly to me at this point, especially when the so called experts may all relying on flawed data and approaches. Heck, we don't even know if there is a consensus among serious scientists. I understand the point you are making about following the consensus of experts in a field with no other knowledge and I generally agree with that. But, in global warming, I think if that one even looks a little bit at the data they would be a fool to believe those scientists who are saying global warming is caused by man. Heck, I am not even sure that global warming has occurred to any great degree or if at all given that there is no true temperature db to look at.

My challenge back to you is to produce a signal study by respected experts that shows, with a statistically significant degree of accuracy, the link between man and global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I could take out every word relating to CC and replace it with 911 conspiracy arguments, the rhetoric is strikingly similar. No matter what evidence is provided the, the retort is always a widening of the conspiracy. Of course the IPCC is crap, they are in on it didn't you know that!

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conclusions based on nothing and ad ad hominem attack, its all you ever have to offer. Ever here of addressing the basis for your conclusions?

LOL, you think peer reviewed journal entries are ALWAYS based purely on objective science and are never compromised in any way, ever? BHAhahahah....
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1114539

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conclusions based on nothing and ad ad hominem attack, its all you ever have to offer. Ever here of addressing the basis for your conclusions?

LOL, you think peer reviewed journal entries are ALWAYS based purely on objective science and are never compromised in any way, ever? BHAhahahah....

[/ QUOTE ]

You are putting forth a conspiracy that our entire Scientific Process is corrupt, and your laughing at me?

If the science behind Climate Change is bunk, then it will be proven as bunk. Science does not start with the conclusion that there is climatte change, data adds up and experts form conclusions based on that data, we are at the point now that the data has persuaded to the point that it is no longer a mojority but a consensus.

What this means is that thereis in fact more of incentive to DISPROVE Climate Change than it is to add additional data!

Do you not think there are enough interests chomping at the bit to fund studies that will disprove the theory? Ther is not an expert in the field who wouldn't LOVE to be the one who disproves it.

You are showing a profound, profound amount of ignorance to general science principles. I swear I wouldn't be surprised to hear you make the same claim in regards to creation.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conclusions based on nothing and ad ad hominem attack, its all you ever have to offer. Ever here of addressing the basis for your conclusions?

LOL, you think peer reviewed journal entries are ALWAYS based purely on objective science and are never compromised in any way, ever? BHAhahahah....

[/ QUOTE ]

You are putting forth a conspiracy that our entire Scientific Process is corrupt, and your laughing at me?

If the science behind Climate Change is bunk, then it will be proven as bunk. Science does not start with the conclusion that there is climatte change, data adds up and experts form conclusions based on that data, we are at the point now that the data has persuaded to the point that it is no longer a mojority but a consensus.

What this means is that thereis in fact more of incentive to DISPROVE Climate Change than it is to add additional data!

Do you not think there are enough interests chomping at the bit to fund studies that will disprove the theory? Ther is not an expert in the field who wouldn't LOVE to be the one who disproves it.

You are showing a profound, profound amount of ignorance to general science principles. I swear I wouldn't be surprised to hear you make the same claim in regards to creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again, off on another ranting tantrum. Learn how to read, better yet learn how to understand what you are reading, troll.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]


Wow, I could take out every word relating to CC and replace it with 911 conspiracy arguments, the rhetoric is strikingly similar. No matter what evidence is provided the, the retort is always a widening of the conspiracy. Of course the IPCC is crap, they are in on it didn't you know that!

[/ QUOTE ]
Cool. exactly what I thought. The number of studies you can produce = exactly zero. Regardless of my problems with the IPCC, it doesn't claim man caused global warming. It uses very lose phrases like "likely". But, that is one study. There must be scores and scores of studies claiming man has caused global warming if there is a wide consensus. I mean, you would look pretty stupid if those studies didn't exist [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You can engage in all the ad hominem attacks you want but they don't further the discussion. Would you not agree that if the scientific community believes in global warming that there must be lots of studies supporting this position? List 10 of them. If that is too hard list 5 of them. You can shut me up real quick by listing them.

My prediction, you will either shut up or engage in a bunch of stupid rhetoric because you cannot produce the reports. The reason is they don't exist. Come on, it is easy to make me look stupid. All you have to do is list the reports. If there is such wide consensus they have to be easy for you to produce.

Bonus challenge: point out where there is a clean database of global temperatures for the last 50-100 years.

[iron81]

Utah, I admit I can't provide the links you're seeking. I hate having Wacki fight my battles for me, so I want you to consider that if Wacki's location field is correct:

[ QUOTE ]
reading 1K climate journals

[/ QUOTE ]
And that Wacki is the foremost defender of the "Man Causes Global Warming" hypothesis on this forum, I want you to consider that maybe a few of those 1k peer-reviewed climate journals have included papers concluding that man does in fact cause global warming.

Also, the IPCC is not any ordinary study. It basically represents the collective wisdom of the climatology field including data from dozens of studies.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool. exactly what I thought. The number of studies you can produce = exactly zero. Regardless of my problems with the IPCC, it doesn't claim man caused global warming. It uses very lose phrases like "likely".

[/ QUOTE ]
You demonstrate your ignorance here. You do not understand that this is ordinary language distilled from a precise scientific meaning - which is clearly defined in the report. The language isn't loose at all if you have any notion of the underlying science that it refers to. For example, this graph is far from a "loose phrase" - but it forms part of the basis for the layman language that you see in the report.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's "unfair" that it's "ok" to break things in a store if you can pay for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit different since breaking things in a store is not portrayed as bringing about the cataclysmic destruction of the entire world.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah, I admit I can't provide the links you're seeking.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think they exist. I would be happy to shut up if someone could show them to me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]