Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe author does not represent any sort of "We."The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostActually, it wasn't Juvenal's title - it was the title given by Eugene Linden, the author of the opinion piece.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40829[/ATTACH]
Now - regardless of how we provide attribution to the title itself, It's purpose remains the same. It is a jab at those in the anti-climate-change misinformation crowd that try to cast aspersions on the attempts by the scientific community to quantify the effects of AGW over time.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-13-2019, 08:43 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIf all that is available for discussion on this is pedantic trivia masquerading as legitimate criticism, it is not either/or CP....
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour title is from a very biased non-scientific agenda,...
Next?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostDoesn't appear to be a pun, either; the author seems to genuinely think its affects have been vastly underestimated by scientists.
And it bears mentioning that you are actually perverting the focus of the article, which is NOT to be critical of the science and scientists, but the political and corporate forces that have made their voices harder to hear and trust and forced them to be wary of speaking loudly about the data in the true direction it leads - especially when that data shows things are capable of going bad quickly.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-13-2019, 09:00 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostCalm yourself, brother -- the false accusation was that it was MY title.....
It clearly was not MY title.
Next?
Originally posted by CPActually, it wasn't Juvenal's title - it was the title given by Eugene Linden, the author of the opinion piece.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-13-2019, 09:08 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI'm not replying in reference to that at all CP. I am responding to your quip about it not being Juvenal's title but rather that of the NYTimes author. The post of yours that I quoted in my reply.
Are you just roaming the board looking for a fight, Jim?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostJuvenal used - verbatim - the author's title, which I clearly demonstrated with the screenshot - and it was in response to shuny's moronic accusation that it was MY title.
Are you just roaming the board looking for a fight, Jim?
This is the initial post you made that I replied to:
Originally posted by CPI think it's interesting that the fact that scientists "got science climate so wrong" is an argument for trusting them now.
I responded to THAT post CP and said your implications are wrong and gave reasons why we can trust science in general.
THEN you picked only the fact Juvenal used the NTYimes title as his thread title as your point to criticise my reply - which is not even a legitimate criticism of my attribution of the title, for the equally pedantic reason I gave.
Hence my question to you CP. You don't seem to understand what I was replying to, or even to be aware of what you were saying when I chose to reply to your post.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-13-2019, 09:29 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo CP. let's review:...
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIf all that is available for discussion on this is pedantic trivia masquerading as legitimate criticism.....
Lemme guess, Jim --- this is your very gentlemanly way of "extending a friendly hand, eh?
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostAnd again ... and yet I'm still extending a friendly hand (or trying to anyway)
Done with you.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI have no desire to have any conversation with you, Jim, particularly when you start off with this kind of crap....
Lemme guess, Jim --- this is your very gentlemanly way of "extending a friendly hand, eh?
Done with you.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostCP - you probably should be. Because I certainly am not going to lay down and let you blame me for a mistake you made.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOK, ya got me --- how am I blaming you for a mistake I made?"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostThat's the thing that gets me. We know the greenhouse effect exists on Earth and other planets, because we've measured it there. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas both because physics demands it and because we've measured that too. But somehow people seem to think scientists are in some way biased for expecting that adding a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere would actually cause it to behave as a greenhouse gas.
Until they don't.
No, wait, they do.
Er, no, they're actually good for you.
But wait...
And that mess was based on actual studies, not computer modelling. A given isolated fact is not a definitive projection of outcome.
Scientists have mortgages like the rest of us - and we've seen how well that turns out when science meets politics. It's far more amazing to me that anyone takes science in polity seriously at all."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
So, you would refuse to heed solid data that shows the effect of greenhouse gasses on temperature because the complexity of a living being might have created conflicting data on which foods are best for a human being over a lifetime?My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostYou posted in Nat Sci.
A) failing to worship at the altar of the climate science gods
2) failing to be totally consumed with daily spewings forth of all manner of criticisms and railings against the Orange One.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 05-28-2024, 01:19 PM
|
18 responses
96 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-30-2024, 05:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
35 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
9 responses
90 views
2 likes
|
Last Post 05-27-2024, 05:48 AM |
Comment