| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Old Gil wrote: |
| How does one winter's worth of cold and snow--that happened to fall in heavily populated and media saturated regions of the world--cast doubt on global warming? If you look at the data it's still ridiculously hot in the lesser populated areas of the world, the only thing is that there's no one living there to entice ad dollars. |
Record cold and record snowfall is spread this winter across North America, Europe and Asia.
But, I guess you're saying it's hot in the Southern Hemisphere right now. (Maybe because it's summer there.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Old Gil wrote: |
| If you look at the data it's still ridiculously hot |
No it isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Snowfall in no way disproves global warming. If it's 0 degrees Farenheit, you can get snow. If it warms up to 15 degrees Farenheit -- a substantial change -- you can still get snow. If it warms up again to 25 degrees Farenheit, you can still get snow. Anyone saying lots of snow disproves Global Warming is engaging in some pretty solid anti-intellectual behavior. Indeed, overall higher temperatures would be expected to produce more snow, due to more evaporation.
Temperatures, on the other hand, are a different matter, but again, anyone remotely intelligent realizes this year is merely a data point in what must be a much, much larger body of data. One year -- or even one decade -- is of little importance (which also means that the last decade being atypically hot also doesn't prove anything in and of itself). We need to look at multi-decade trends, not individual years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| We need to look at multi-decade trends |
Let's extrapolate that idea to include multi-centennial/millenial trends. Does the AGW idea still hold much water? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| We need to look at multi-decade trends |
Let's extrapolate that idea to include multi-centennial/millenial trends. Does the AGW idea still hold much water? |
The span of data required to confirm a pattern in no way interacts with the question of whether or not that pattern actually exists. A slow trend towards warming over centuries could be just as devestating in the long run, and is just as worthy of concern as a trend that occurs merely over decades. But the anti-AGW crowd doesn't care about that. AGW doesn't mesh with their political views, and as such it was dismissed before it was even seriously considered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Gil
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
I'm not going to watch it.
...
GB is an anti-establishment (though useful for the Republicans) firestarter. He's good on the banks, inflation and the rest. But he has too much fear in him. It makes him seem unhinged. I agree with him that the family is the basis of civilization (not the state). I agree about global warming. I agree with him about inflation, the fed, civil liberties.
Both are useless for any meaningful discussion about the impending funding crisis. RM will not understand that top and bottom vs the middle is killing the country. GB frets about the New World Order and similar.
It is like Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant. Kinda interesting but ultimately pointless. |
An excellent post about Beck and his niche (and shortcomings) in the media. I like that Beck talks about things going on that need to be talked about (in my opinion). But I can't really appreciate his mode of delivery.
I believe it was in an interview with Time where Beck explained his role on Fox to be that of a political rodeo clown. Surely no more apt an appraisal exists.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| We need to look at multi-decade trends |
Let's extrapolate that idea to include multi-centennial/millenial trends. Does the AGW idea still hold much water? |
The span of data required to confirm a pattern in no way interacts with the question of whether or not that pattern actually exists. A slow trend towards warming over centuries could be just as devestating in the long run, and is just as worthy of concern as a trend that occurs merely over decades. But the anti-AGW crowd doesn't care about that. AGW doesn't mesh with their political views, and as such it was dismissed before it was even seriously considered. |
I'm with you on the data analysis idea, I'm just still stuck in the phase of trying to figure out which side is slinging more crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You actually expect to me read over something called "Jeff's Wunder Blog"? Is it a joke? It even quotes the IPCC report  which has been debunked ad nauseum and shown to be a total fraud, complete with deliberately fudged data. This has been admitted (have you been living under a rock to not know that?).
Even mainstream news is being forced to report on it now. Phil Jones has even admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming around the world.
| Quote: |
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
The academic at the centre of the �Climategate� affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble �keeping track� of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is �not as good as it should be�.
The data is crucial to the famous �hockey stick graph� used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now � suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no �statistically significant� warming. |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Maddow didn't lie - her IQ is so low that intellectual discourse coupled with ironic humor is beyond her ken. She's too stupid to understand the meaning of the words that were spoken |
Maddow's stupid? From Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
| A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University. Her doctoral thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons. |
Lots of people don't trust The Daily Mail either; it's rather similar to Fox News in its reportage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Maddow didn't lie - her IQ is so low that intellectual discourse coupled with ironic humor is beyond her ken. She's too stupid to understand the meaning of the words that were spoken |
Maddow's stupid? From Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
| A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University. Her doctoral thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons. |
|
You need to remember that to ontheway and his ilk, the sole measure of intelligence is reading, memorizing, and adhering to a certain economics-focused ideology. It's like a Christian saying someone's IQ is low because they don't believe in the Bible. We shouldn't take such people seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Maddow didn't lie - her IQ is so low that intellectual discourse coupled with ironic humor is beyond her ken. She's too stupid to understand the meaning of the words that were spoken |
Maddow's stupid? From Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
| A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University. Her doctoral thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons. |
Lots of people don't trust The Daily Mail either; it's rather similar to Fox News in its reportage. |
I wouldn't call Maddow stupid, but I also wouldn't try to argue someone is exceptionally intelligent by citing his or her achievements in higher education. There's no shortage of incredibly stupid people who've thrived in the academic arena. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I agree with your statement, I think you picked a bad example. The congresswoman at your link voted against TARP. How stupid can she be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
While I agree with your statement, I think you picked a bad example. The congresswoman at your link voted against TARP. How stupid can she be? |
You can only vote "yes" or "no." Would you design an IQ test that gave the test taker a 50-50 shot at being labeled "smart" or "stupid?"
In fact, I'm sure there are many more politicians I have a poor opinion of overall who've voted the way I would've wanted them to on at least one particular issue than there are politicians I admire who've done the same.
Here's my favorite Virginia Foxx moment:
| Virginia Foxx wrote: |
| In a recent article, conservative commentator Thomas Sowell, an African American, examined some of President Obama's claims about the health care reform legislation moving through the Congress. I wanted to quote some excerpts from his column that I found insightful. |
| Quote: |
| Foxx went on to cite several of Sowell's concerns -- none of which had anything to do with race. Apparently, Sowell's blackness was supposed to be compelling on its own. |
EDIT: In case it isn't obvious, there's a big difference between her invoking Sowell specifically because he's black and you citing Marek Edelman in that you were rebutting claims of antisemitism while Foxx's dispute with health care had nothing to do with race until she brought it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blockhead confidence
Joined: 02 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Watched the video, seemed that Maddow was playing with the meaning of 'disprove'.
I don't really care what Beck meant, but he could plausibly argue that what he said meant 'the snowstorm weakens the case for global warming'.
But I agree with the other posters, they seem to deserve each other as enemies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
