Ruh Roh Reorge! CERN, those religious zealots, are at it again&#33

[OCinBuffalo]

How cool is this?

 

Ok, yeah the article is about further evidence that AGW is NOT the primary reason for Climate Change^TM

But, let's put that on hold for a sec...These guys created an atmosphere? Now that is awesome. I don't care who you are, that's awesome. All of the political BS that is going on around this issue means practically nothing compared to "atmosphere in a can". Even if we assume the writer has a bias, the concept that we can actually create a real experiment that can really determine what's what is fascinating for me. Really. All of my usual trolling aside, this is cool.

 

Now, back to my persona: Look in the comments. See the guy who is writing in all caps? You know who else does that on message boards/comments posts? Scientologists. Yet another example of why these ALGORE clones are not serious people. This is why I call them Environtologists. Here we have perfectly reasonable information that clearly contradicts them. And, what do these assclowns do? Instead of responding rationally, with facts that can refute the findings...they do exactly what the article accuses them of: character assassinations, howling cries of "heresy", and refusal to address any of the points that were made. These emoting assclowns are literally that affected. How seriously am I supposed to take you if you can't help but behave exactly as the writer predicts, and don't even realize you are doing it?

 

Key lines:

Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible." He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory credence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

Funny how the behavior of Environtologists looks a lot more like the College of Cardinals and a lot less like Da Vinci, doesn't it?

 

It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory.

Yes, Brother Gore, we must not let the spawn of Satan build his evil machine! It's the Devil's work, I tell you, the work of the Devil!

 

 

Yes, restricting research is very "scientific" behavior.

[Gene Frenkle]

I was going to trash the website, but it actually seems pretty good. I'll have to bookmark for later.

 

That said, in this particular article, the dude has a serious bone to pick. Instead of describing the study in detail and actually analyzing the implications, he decides to make it a puff piece attacking Al Gore, environmentalists, climate scientists, etc... He makes it about conspiracy. Why? If the evidence is so overwhelming, why the personal attacks? Why not let the science stand on its own two feet? Why the need to go with the "stuff THEY don't want you to know" angle if your proof is so pure?

[DC Tom]

How cool is this?

 

Ok, yeah the article is about further evidence that AGW is NOT the primary reason for Climate Change^TM

But, let's put that on hold for a sec...These guys created an atmosphere? Now that is awesome. I don't care who you are, that's awesome. All of the political BS that is going on around this issue means practically nothing compared to "atmosphere in a can". Even if we assume the writer has a bias, the concept that we can actually create a real experiment that can really determine what's what is fascinating for me. Really. All of my usual trolling aside, this is cool.

 

Either the experiment was very badly designed, or (far more likely) that article was written by someone who's scientifically completely illiterate (the sun's magnetic field protects us from cosmic rays? What, did someone skip eighth grade earth sciences?)

 

And there's a world of difference between bombarding an "atmosphere in a can" with charged particles, and a dynamic global system. Even if it's the most elegant, perfect experiment ever performed (and I guarantee it's not), it only investigates one physical process in the atmosphere, and isn't "proof" of anything else.

 

Now, back to my persona: Look in the comments. See the guy who is writing in all caps? You know who else does that on message boards/comments posts? Scientologists. Yet another example of why these ALGORE clones are not serious people. This is why I call them Environtologists. Here we have perfectly reasonable information that clearly contradicts them. And, what do these assclowns do? Instead of responding rationally, with facts that can refute the findings...they do exactly what the article accuses them of: character assassinations, howling cries of "heresy", and refusal to address any of the points that were made. These emoting assclowns are literally that affected. How seriously am I supposed to take you if you can't help but behave exactly as the writer predicts, and don't even realize you are doing it?

 

Yep. It does prove what I've been saying for a decade: global warming isn't science, it's religion. People who call the IPCC a scientific body are idiots - it works to suppress anything that isn't dogmatic.

[Gene Frenkle]

Yes, Brother Gore, we must not let the spawn of Satan build his evil machine! It's the Devil's work, I tell you, the work of the Devil!

 

Yes, restricting research is very "scientific" behavior.

Damn, I missed that part. For someone who likes to talk about economics so much, you should be aware of the fact that research dollars are limited and that not every experiment can be funded by the government. When the experiment you want to see is kept down by the man, it's an instant conspiracy and you get all upset that we're not spending enough of the Euros' money?

 

Yep. It does prove what I've been saying for a decade: global warming isn't science, it's religion. People who call the IPCC a scientific body are idiots - it works to suppress anything that isn't dogmatic.

So for the author of this article and those like him, their anti-global warming stance and justifications for it are not like religion?

[DC Tom]

So for the author of this article and those like him, their anti-global warming stance and justifications for it are not like religion?

 

Oh, no. They are. I didn't even imply otherwise.

[Gene Frenkle]

Oh, no. They are. I didn't even imply otherwise.

So if both "sides" are like religion, what's a reasonable person to do?

[DC Tom]

So if both "sides" are like religion, what's a reasonable person to do?

 

Read the science, what's available, and come to one's own conclusions.

 

 

I don't know what you'll do, though.

[Gene Frenkle]

I don't know what you'll do, though.

That had nothing to do with the question I asked.

 

Still, wouldn't one need some in-depth knowledge of climate science in order to make reasonable conclusions?

[DC Tom]

That had nothing to do with the question I asked.

 

Like I ever miss a chance at a cheap shot...

 

Still, wouldn't one need some in-depth knowledge of climate science in order to make reasonable conclusions?

 

Really, only the ability to read and critically and impassionately evaluate and consider - anyone with half a brain and a decent amount of college-level science should be able to distinguish "correlation" and "causation", note the constants and variables in an experiment, and judge how well the results support the conclusion.

 

Sadly, this is even rarer than "in-depth knowledge". Then one has two options:

 

1) get edumacated.

2) admit one don't know ****.

 

Sadly, either of those is even rarer.

[Gene Frenkle]

Like I ever miss a chance at a cheap shot...

 

 

 

Really, only the ability to read and critically and impassionately evaluate and consider - anyone with half a brain and a decent amount of college-level science should be able to distinguish "correlation" and "causation", note the constants and variables in an experiment, and judge how well the results support the conclusion.

 

Sadly, this is even rarer than "in-depth knowledge". Then one has two options:

 

1) get edumacated.

2) admit one don't know ****.

 

Sadly, either of those is even rarer.

But SO many people are absolutely sure on both sides. I don't know **** about it except for the fact that any non-qualified individual who chooses to definitively comment on any of this has an agenda and is absolutely full of crap.

[Magox]

My unqualified opinion and hunch tells me that climate change does exist and that humans have most likely contributed to it to a certain degree. Now to what degree? I think that is highly debatable. If politicians hadn't of tried to advance their agenda through wealth distribution and taxing policies, I believe you wouldn't of seen such skepticism as what we are seeing today. So of course you got people in the right that are so entrenched in their views that they only look at it through a political scope, and it's not even about science anymore it's about politics. But again, if the left hadn't of attempted to push through some of these policies and use Climate Change as the lever to implement them, things would probably be different.

[DC Tom]

But SO many people are absolutely sure on both sides. I don't know **** about it except for the fact that any non-qualified individual who chooses to definitively comment on any of this has an agenda and is absolutely full of crap.

 

EXACTLY the reason I call it bad science.

 

And point of note: any qualified individual isn't going to definitively comment on the science. And anyone who definitively comments is almost certainly unqualified (note, IPCC and Al Gore: yes, I'm talking to you.)

[Gene Frenkle]

EXACTLY the reason I call it bad science.

 

And point of note: any qualified individual isn't going to definitively comment on the science. And anyone who definitively comments is almost certainly unqualified (note, IPCC and Al Gore: yes, I'm talking to you.)

To bring it full-circle, this certainly applies to the author of the article originally cited in this thread.

[DC Tom]

To bring it full-circle, this certainly applies to the author of the article originally cited in this thread.

 

Absolutely.

 

I'd like to read the paper in Nature...I'm going to see if I can get a copy. I'm hoping that they're not stupid enough to publish a paper that draws such broad conclusions from so narrow an experiment, and it was only the writer of the linked article that was ignorant.

 

Though Nature is the journal that published that inane Iraqi body count study five years back. So it's not like they're perfect.

[Taro T]

To bring it full-circle, this certainly applies to the author of the article originally cited in this thread.

True. The article's author certainly comes across as a dink in his article. That, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily invalidate the research. Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription to Nature to read the original article.

[OCinBuffalo]

But SO many people are absolutely sure on both sides. I don't know **** about it except for the fact that any non-qualified individual who chooses to definitively comment on any of this has an agenda and is absolutely full of crap.

Wrong. The only absolute certainty here is: that the left tried to play politics with science and are only beginning to suffer losses as a result.

 

The right simply reacted to the left's poorly concealed tactic. I am certain that you will not find many Republicans who will tell you they are convinced of anything scientifically. Instead, most would say that they simply need to see more. However, the one thing that the right is certain about is that the left has bastadized this issue, and that they are sick and tired of it.

 

This is exactly like the gay marriage issue. The arguments are weak, therefore so are the few solutions to the problems the left have identified, and the solutions they do offer cause many more new and unintended problems.

 

Just like with gay marriage, the only way that anything will get done on this is if the rational Democrats and Republicans agree to provide adult supervision of it, and that is only after we first get to down to what is truthfully, and actually, going on.

 

As far as the UN is concerned: they are all clearly motivated by the money they can make/steal on this, and we simply cannot trust them with any of it.

[Gene Frenkle]

Wrong. The only absolute certainty here is: that the left tried to play politics with science and are only beginning to suffer losses as a result.

 

The right simply reacted to the left's poorly concealed tactic. I am certain that you will not find many Republicans who will tell you they are convinced of anything scientifically. Instead, most would say that they simply need to see more. However, the one thing that the right is certain about is that the left has bastadized this issue, and that they are sick and tired of it.

 

This is exactly like the gay marriage issue. The arguments are weak, therefore so are the few solutions to the problems the left have identified, and the solutions they do offer cause many more new and unintended problems.

 

Just like with gay marriage, the only way that anything will get done on this is if the rational Democrats and Republicans agree to provide adult supervision of it, and that is only after we first get to down to what is truthfully, and actually, going on.

 

As far as the UN is concerned: they are all clearly motivated by the money they can make/steal on this, and we simply cannot trust them with any of it.

Yeah, none of that's right. Why are yours the only truly irrational posts in this thread?

[DC Tom]

Yeah, none of that's right. Why are yours the only truly irrational posts in this thread?

 

Gotta love the irony, though.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah, none of that's right. Why are yours the only truly irrational posts in this thread?

What, exactly, is not right about it?

 

Did the left not clearly begin politicizing this issue? Nope, they did. The first time I heard this become a political issue was in 1990.

Did the right not finally, after getting sick of getting beat up by this issue, not react? Nope, they did.

 

I'm not saying that the right didn't politicize it, I am saying they didn't start it. I am saying that they, because of the severe mishandling of the issue by the left, will likely be the ones that finish it. That may or may not be a good thing, but that has no bearing on the likelihood that it will happen.

 

You may not like that your friends on the left are about to get a beating for their bad behavior, just like they did for politicizing gay marriage, but your wishes mean nothing. Obama will lose. The winner will declare open season on the EPA. The EPA deserves this because the EPA has started their own schit, overstepped their bounds, and will have to pay the piper. Nobody will care to listen to the mewling. We have already heard the mewling since 2004. We were already tired of it, and now we are finding out it's probably BS.

 

You may wish this wasn't right. Doesn't Change the fact that It is. You may Hope that it isn't. But, there will be Change. Just not the Change you want.

 

Gotta love the irony, though.

 

I take it you are done looking up the word "projection"?...perhaps it's time to look up "ironic"?

 

I am merely telling the truth. You don't like it? Tough schit. The left started trouble on this, they got waaaaaay off base, and now there are consequences. Yeah...real ironic.

Edited August 30, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

What, exactly, is not right about it?

 

Did the left not clearly begin politicizing this issue? Nope, they did. The first time I heard this become a political issue was in 1990.

Did the right not finally, after getting sick of getting beat up by this issue, not react? Nope, they did.

 

I'm not saying that the right didn't politicize it, I am saying they didn't start it. I am saying that they, because of the severe mishandling of the issue by the left, will likely be the ones that finish it. That may or may not be a good thing, but that has no bearing on the likelihood that it will happen.

 

You may not like that your friends on the left are about to get a beating for their bad behavior, just like they did for politicizing gay marriage, but your wishes mean nothing. Obama will lose. The winner will declare open season on the EPA. The EPA deserves this because the EPA has started their own schit, overstepped their bounds, and will have to pay the piper. Nobody will care to listen to the mewling. We have already heard the mewling since 2004. We were already tired of it, and now we are finding out it's probably BS.

 

You may wish this wasn't right. Doesn't Change the fact that It is. You may Hope that it isn't. But, there will be Change. Just not the Change you want.

 

 

 

I take it you are done looking up the word "projection"?...perhaps it's time to look up "ironic"?

 

I am merely telling the truth. You don't like it? Tough schit. The left started trouble on this, they got waaaaaay off base, and now there are consequences. Yeah...real ironic.

 

Meta-irony.