Boston Globe peddling AGW "Truth"

BenBurch said:
How about somebody who WAS one starting in 1976 when I worked on Roger McBride's campaign. It was 1999 before I came to my senses. That enough research for you, buckaroo?
Click to expand...
Working for an ex-Republican is not understanding the difference. Especially when your comments clearly show a lack of understanding.

technoextreme said:
God you have no clue what the hell an argument from authority is do you?
Click to expand...
It is what the AGW proponents make all the time.
 
technoextreme said:
God you have no clue what the hell an argument from authority is do you?
Click to expand...
It means you can simply dismiss anyone with a Ph.D if they don't say what you want to hear, I guess.

technoextreme said:
You didn't bother to read anything did you? Yes tell me why I should listen to some idiot who's entire argument is that the ****ing climate changes. That is the stupidest rational I have ever heard.
Click to expand...
I'll bet that idiot at least knows the difference between "who's" and "whose". But it's obvious you just want to slap on labels to relieve yourself of any need to engage in a discussion based on facts and evidence, so there's no need for either of us to waste any more time with each other.
 
technoextreme said:
Can you read? Its because they cite authorities who have no real authority to actually make any claims. Jesus christ why is this so dam hard for people to understand. Just because you are smart doesn't mean your opinion is relevant in all cases. It would be like if I (An electrical engineer) were to give you advise on whether or not you have cancer or that my scientific opinion on global warming actually mattered.
Click to expand...
I see a Professor of Atmospheric Science and a Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA in that list.

Now, I have no idea whether those descriptions are accurate, or what these particular scientists had to say, but it seems to me that simply dismissing them out of hand as bogus authorities suggests that your mind is made up, and you refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary.
 
I almost forgot.

Credentials of the Alarmists:

Al Gore, B.A. Government, Divinity and Law School Dropout
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
John P. Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman)
 
BenBurch said:
Working for an ex-Republican? I suppose that covered it when I worked on the campaigns of Ed Clark, and Ron Paul, and Andre Marrou, huh?
Click to expand...
So you now are a Progressive or a Socialist? Did you vote for Obama?
 
Poptech said:
Credentials of Scientists:...
Click to expand...

Two points

1) If there's a critical flaw in the AGW hypothesis it won’t take hundred scientists to prove it – it will take just one.

2) Putting Fred Singer in any list of this type does nothing for your credibility – and this is coming from a confirmed skeptic.
 
Now, I am an AMERICAN. And who I voted for is not your business.
Click to expand...
That is a yes. So you either now consider yourself a progressive or a socialist.

Ben, Socialism or Capitalism?
 
Last edited:
DogB said:
Two points

1) If there's a critical flaw in the AGW hypothesis it won’t take hundred scientists to prove it – it will take just one.

2) Putting Fred Singer in any list of this type does nothing for your credibility – and this is coming from a confirmed skeptic.
Click to expand...
The critical flaw in the AGW hypothethis is it's solely based on computer models and yes that does not take hundreds of scientists but I was merely commenting on the OP's question in relation to the article.

There is nothing wrong with Dr. Singer's credibility, except of course if you reference left-wing smear sites.
 
Last edited:
bokonon said:
It means you can simply dismiss anyone with a Ph.D if they don't say what you want to hear, I guess.
Click to expand...
No. It means I can dismiss engineers because I know for a fact that they have no ****ing clue what the hell they are talking. The bad science part is going to be a pain in the )(* for me to do because that would entail me trying to condense down a year and a half of course material into something everyone can understand.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
No. It means I can dismiss engineers because I know for a fact that they have no ****ing clue what the hell they are talking. Lets just ignore the part where I actually gave an example of an argument of authority. But you know sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalallaal I can't hear you is so much better.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I can think of a dozen times in my life when engineers I have worked with made a stupid call, and I knew it, and said so. And some of these ARE guys with PhD after their names. A degree means only that you did your coursework and bluffed your way through a defense.
 
BenBurch said:
Ditto. I can think of a dozen times in my life when engineers I have worked with made a stupid call, and I knew it, and said so. And some of these ARE guys with PhD after their names. A degree means only that you did your coursework and bluffed your way through a defense.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It MAY mean that you mastered a lot of specialized information that those without the Ph.D have not.

I don't have a Ph.D after my name, and I'm not in awe of those who do.

Obviously, there are more people with Ph.Ds after their names who argue we need to be doing something about AGW than who are arguing the other side.

Simply dismissing them all with an "Argument from authority" wave of the hand is easy, but it doesn't really solve anything. Granted, authorities can be wrong, and non-authorities can be right. The key isn't the Ph.D, but who has the best explanation of the evidence.
 
bokonon said:
Obviously, there are more people with Ph.Ds after their names who argue we need to be doing something about AGW than who are arguing the other side.
Click to expand...
Actually this is not true. The mythical "consensus" is just that.
 
BenBurch said:
Ditto. I can think of a dozen times in my life when engineers I have worked with made a stupid call, and I knew it, and said so. And some of these ARE guys with PhD after their names. A degree means only that you did your coursework and bluffed your way through a defense.
Click to expand...
Well I wasn't really trying to say they are morons in the sense that they aren't smart. Its more like the analogy that I gave about going to your doctor for cancer treatment versus anyone else who has a PHD. Also, are economist considered scientists?
 
bokonon said:
More nonsense.

Other possible causes include increased insolation produced by cyclical or chaotic variations in the earth's orbit or inclination,
Click to expand...

You've brought this up before in other threads. WTF!!!! What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!?! What changes in the Earths inclination?!? Orbit!?! Talk about NONSENSE!!
 
Economists are social scientists. But you may want to look at the credentials of the "alarmists" I posted as you theory does not deal in reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom