Apparently you haven’t noticed that I’m entirely uninterested in a discussion about climate. I never changed the subject; you just assume I’m even a little bit interested in what you want to discuss.
In other words, I’ll say whatever it is you feel you need me to say. Let me know, and I’ll say it. I’ll start with this:
You’re completely correct, in all respects, about everything.
We can only hope that someday you will engage in it, instead of trolling internet threads.
What’s the matter, is he cutting in on your action?
I’m a professor of philosophy, and I publish regularly on logic, epistemology and philosophy of science. I’ve forgotten more about rational discourse than you will ever know. This is a message board, not a conference of professionals, and this thread is a fucking joke.
You’re an idiot, as are your two cohorts. Come back and I’ll insult you some more.
That’s a run-on sentence, are the editors not very good where you publish?
Thankfully …
So you don’t comprehend the thread title?
Lucky for tenure, eh, otherwise you’d be out of a job. There’s just something about that last sentence that tickles me, what kind of philosophy professor would post such dribble? Why would a philosophy professor even be posting on a thread about science, and throwing random insults about?
But five sentences all put together is impressive.
…that was a very clever joke, right? Yanno, because his wasn’t a run-on sentence, while yours was?
“I’m a professor of philosophy, and I publish regularly on logic, epistemology and philosophy of science.”
Two completely different ideas lazily thrown together. The word and is complete useless in this sentence. Regularly is another waste of electrons, is it daily, weekly or every 25 years? If he meant “theory of knowledge”, then he should use theory of knowledgeand drop the epistemology and philosophy of science.
“I’m a professor of philosophy. I publish on logic and theory of knowledge.”
C’mon, this is freshman English.
Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us – and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.
Carl Sagan,
The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
It’s obvious that you, and most of the other fuckheads, actually don’t care much about anything, except yourself. It’s a defining characteristic of a fuckhead.
Technically, W m[sup]-2[/sup] is the SI measurement for any energy flux, which is the rate of flow of energy through a unit area, and not just radiative flux
We are talking about models from 1990 onward, not from 1964.
Also, don’t confuse the articles with the science papers that they discuss.
To recap, the four articles (from The Guardian, AGU, RTS, and Ars Technica) report on several science papers (two by Rahmstorf, Frame, and Foster; a fifth was, by Brysse, was mentioned by SKS). Links to the five papers are given in the articles.
Here’s an article that refers to a new study:
“Climate models on the mark, Australian-led research finds”
The study (Risbey) is linked in the article.
Thus, you should consider looking at six science papers (two by Ramstorf, Frame, Foster, Brysse, and Risbey).
As may be. It was not a run-on sentence. Yours was.
I want to thank Dopers for quoting watchwolf49 every now and then so I can enjoy his stupidity vicariously. He is in the stratified group of Dopers so stupid and annoying I’ve set them to Ignore.
Even fxmastermind and brazil84 seem to have a vague grasp of relevant science (though they are also in my Ignore list), but watchwolf49 is definitely a top paradigm of the Dunning–Kruger effect. He is one of the most pompously pretentious posters at SDMB, and simultaneously one of the most blatantly confused and ignorant. Bravo!
Nonsense, you asserted that certain peoples’ claims were vague and ever-changing. I asked you whose claims you were referring to. Rather than answer my question, you stated the following:
I’m just trying to understand your position so that I can scrutinize it. I will ask for the last time:
Whose claims were you referring to?
Just answer the question.
Also, will you agree for the sake of argument that any climate changes due to mankind’s activities will be minimal in terms of rapidity and extensiveness?
TIA
Please cite 3 of your publications. TIA.
Nice rationalization for your inability to present a substantive argument.
Be my guest. But please include cites for 3 of your claimed publications on logic, epistemology, and/or philosophy of science.
TIA
You are talking about models from 1990 onward. I am talking about models from 1880 onward. Not when they were published, but the time frame they apply to. If you want to demonstrate that a climate model is accurate for the next hundred years, you have to show it was accurate the previous hundred years.
So, the article you linked to states:
Yet the referenced paper states:
Here is an example of a newspaper article stating a claim that is not substantiated by the referenced paper. Indeed the referenced paper is about adding the ENSO as a factor to existing models and obtaining better results.
You’re claiming the models from 1990 are perfectly accurate, yet the Ribsey paper claims they are not (because the ENSO was not properly included).
I see no reason to pursue these if I’ll find the same thing. A daily newspaper is free to claim anything they want to, thus they are horribly unreliable for science news.
“provides evidence” - This is called a “counter-example” in science, not “proof against”. Ribsey acknowledges the discrepancies and has taken a step to explain why, but just one. It’s a very very long journey to rigid scientific proof, and each scientific paper is just one step. Any claim of scientific certainty today is misguided and ill-advised.
However, do we know enough today to make changes in government policy? Please vote wisely.
I do not deny the Earth is warming.
I do not deny man-kind’s activities contribute to this.
I DO deny the importance of controlling emissions, the material is much much safer after it’s burned. Today, we have fuming carboxylic acid draining out of coal seams straight into our rivers, we have floods of crude oil bubbling up in Missouri residential neighborhoods, we vent right into the atmosphere all the toxic and corrosive gases found in natural gas deposits.
Fix these problems FIRST, let the next generation worry about Global Warming.
“It was not a run-on sentence, yours was.” The comma is necessary here to provide the conjunction between the two ideas, specifically to allow the first clause to function as the object of the sentence.
But it’s funny that you’re afraid of using commas now … God forbid you should use an ellipsis.
If you must know, I was referring to the claims made by Bob, Andrea, and Elaine. You don’t know them; they’re friends of Becky’s.
Nope. Because I’m not interested in discussing climate with you.
You have got to be taking the piss now.
On the (hopefully) off-chance you aren’t, here’s a protip: if you’re trying to be pedantic, it really helps to be correct.
Ok, now please provide quotes, cites, and links for these claims. TIA.
Lol, of course not.