Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willm

Climate change issue resolved?

Recommended Posts

OK, the display of arrogance is boring me. I'm done.

 

You seem to be confusing arrogance with evidence. Others are providing it, you are not. Claiming something does not make it so. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, the display of arrogance is boring me. I'm done.

 

You seem to be confusing arrogance with evidence. Others are providing it, you are not. Claiming something does not make it so. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.

 

You're kidding right? I'm not the one who refused to provide the references I claimed to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, the display of arrogance is boring me. I'm done.

 

You seem to be confusing arrogance with evidence. Others are providing it, you are not. Claiming something does not make it so. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.

 

You're kidding right? I'm not the one who refused to provide the references I claimed to have.

 

 

Links were provided. No one did what was requested.

 

And you provided no evidence to backup any of your claims. Just claimed your link contained "proof", by way of other people's claims and paranoia. Again, no proof at all. Lot of air, no substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Links were provided. No one did what was requested.

 

And you provided no evidence to backup any of your claims. Just claimed your link contained "proof", by way of other people's claims and paranoia. Again, no proof at all. Lot of air, no substance.

 

You're incorrect.

 

I provided a subsequent quote from a wiki article. The wiki article which contains many references, so even if you dispute the wiki, the references are a tad more reliable.

 

Leonid by comparison refused to provided the references he claimed to have without making people jump through hoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Links were provided. No one did what was requested.

 

And you provided no evidence to backup any of your claims. Just claimed your link contained "proof", by way of other people's claims and paranoia. Again, no proof at all. Lot of air, no substance.

 

You're incorrect.

 

I provided a subsequent quote from a wiki article. The wiki article which contains many references, so even if you dispute the wiki, the references are a tad more reliable.

 

Leonid by comparison refused to provided the references he claimed to have without making people jump through hoops.

 

 

I read his requests. They were simple. If you had the access you claimed, you could provide the info asked for. Hardly "jumping through hoops". Yet you expect him to dig for info for you just because you want. Why were you so reluctant to prove you had the access you insisted you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read his requests. They were simple. If you had the access you claimed, you could provide the info asked for. Hardly "jumping through hoops". Yet you expect him to dig for info for you just because you want. Why were you so reluctant to prove you had the access you insisted you do?

Because it's unnecessary. I have access through my university account just as he probably does. I have no need to prove this and should not be required to.

 

Besides, it doesn't matter if the person he is having the direct discussion with has an account or not. By providing the references he claimed to have then anyone following the discussion can check them out as well.

 

It's just a cop out because he couldn't substantiate his claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read his requests. They were simple. If you had the access you claimed, you could provide the info asked for. Hardly "jumping through hoops". Yet you expect him to dig for info for you just because you want. Why were you so reluctant to prove you had the access you insisted you do?

Because it's unnecessary. I have access through my university account just as he probably does. I have no need to prove this and should not be required to.

 

Besides, it doesn't matter if the person he is having the direct discussion with has an account or not. By providing the references he claimed to have then anyone following the discussion can check them out as well.

 

It's just a cop out because he couldn't substantiate his claims.

 

 

Like you claiming those against were involved in a "conspiracy"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like you claiming those against were involved in a "conspiracy"?

I never made any such claim. Can you please show me where I did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, soon as you show where the "almost the entire scientific community is in agreement" on "climate change". :>)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, another person who makes false claims :)

 

yes, yes you are. :>)

 

I was talking about you sunshine.

 

You said I made claims of a conspiracy. I made no such claim. Hence, you made a false claim :)

 

As for me backing up what I said, I have. Funny how no one has bothered to attack those references, but prefer to ignore them :)

 

Anyway, this has been fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, another person who makes false claims :)

 

yes, yes you are. :>)

 

I was talking about you sunshine.

 

You said I made claims of a conspiracy. I made no such claim. Hence, you made a false claim :)

 

As for me backing up what I said, I have. Funny how no one has bothered to attack those references, but prefer to ignore them :)

 

Anyway, this has been fun.

 

 

No, you've not backed up your claim about the "majority of the scientific community" at all. And you seemed to follow the same line of thought as half the idiots in your links going on about everyone not on their side being part of a great conspiracy. :>)

 

I was wrong to say you stated that, I admit it. After reading though all that garbage you linked though, it isn't surprising I was having trouble keeping who said what entirely straight. But the fact is, you haven't, in any form, proven what you claimed in your opening post. It's just that, claims. No evidence at all. None. Hmmm? :>)

 

 

 

Awesome, another person who makes false claims :)

 

yes, yes you are. :>)

 

Best just leave it Barbie.

 

 

Heh, yeah, I can see I'm wasting my time, headed off down the road for pizza with some friends anyway. Have fun all. :>)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, another person who makes false claims :)

yes, yes you are. :>)

 

Best just leave it Barbie.

 

Heh, yeah, I can see I'm wasting my time, headed off down the road for pizza with some friends anyway. Have fun all. :>)

 

Save me a piece of pepperoni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid by comparison refused to provided the references he claimed to have without making people jump through hoops.

Lets recap:

- Your letter's shot down

- You don't have access to any of the articles I could provide

- You wouldn't understand what was in them anyway because you're scientifically illiterate

- You quote wiki in a discussion on science

 

If I was you, and maybe when I was 14 I would have done the same as you have in this thread, I'd hang my head in shame.

 

You were asked a simple request: show me that you can read what I will provide and I will provide it. It is no different to a credit application where you have to show that you can repay the money that you want me to lend to you.

 

Don't take it too personally though, the reason I'm asking this very reasonable demand of you is mainly because Psychonaut/tastywheat is such a complete failure at science - he too thinks political decisions such as the precautionary principle and a consensus are equivalent to science. You two are both peas from the same pod - I might have a tiny bit more respect for you if you show that you can rise above that.

 

Like you claiming those against were involved in a "conspiracy"?

I never made any such claim. Can you please show me where I did?

 

The people who disagree don't seem to be working in that field and seem to have an agenda. That makes it pretty simple for me.

Game, set, match. Scientifically illiterate, unreasonable and a conspiracist.

 

Got any other gems? Hate jews? Deny the Holocaust? Anything that exciting? or do you stop at ceding your gray matter to a political show of hands?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets recap:

- Your letter's shot down

- You don't have access to any of the articles I could provide

- You wouldn't understand what was in them anyway because you're scientifically illiterate

- You quote wiki in a discussion on science

-Letter is not shot down.

-I do have access to any articles you could provide.

-I would understand them at least as well as you do. Probably beter.

-I used wiki as an indication. The references wiki provide are reliable in their own right.

 

Oh, and then you take something I said out of context. I'm not a conspiracist, do don't try and make me look like one.

 

At the end of the day, I've provided sources showing why I've reached the conclusion I have. You haven't bothered to do so.

 

Instead, you refuse to backup your claims. Why? Because you can't. You can stay in your sandbox, I'll go back to discussing things with adults.

 

Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Letter is not shot down.

Off course not. Not in your warped mind. You said the letter was signed by 255 scientists. I pointed out that 2 of the first 20 were not scientists.

 

Do you still mean to tell me that there are 255 scientists that signed that letter?

 

-I do have access to any articles you could provide.

Prove it.

 

-I would understand them at least as well as you do. Probably beter.

Sunshine, you don't understand the scientific method, yoru hope of understanding a scientific paper is nil. We've already ascertained this time and time and time again.

 

-I used wiki as an indication. The references wiki provide are reliable in their own right.

What references? References to a consensus? That's not science.

 

Oh, and then you take something I said out of context. I'm not a conspiracist, do don't try and make me look like one.

I don't need to make you look like one - you are one. You said that people who are against sceptical of any part of climate science that you view as settled, have an agenda.

 

How does that not define a conspiracy? In fact on what warped world (yours excluded) does that not define a conspiracy?

 

At the end of the day, I've provided sources showing why I've reached the conclusion I have. You haven't bothered to do so.

You've provided wiki. And a letter signed by a few scientists. Neither are valid articles you can use in a scientific debate.

 

Your source count in this thread is 0.

 

Instead, you refuse to backup your claims. Why? Because you can't. You can stay in your sandbox, I'll go back to discussing things with adults.

Speaking of backing up your claims, how about backing up your claim that you have access to a single scientific journal?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah Leo.... you need to have a cup of tea mate, and chill.

Sorry. I love science and the scientific method. So when somebody comes in blazing and firing away at skepticism, negating the scientific method and using faith as proof, I get a little animated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah Leo.... you need to have a cup of tea mate, and chill.

Sorry. I love science and the scientific method. So when somebody comes in blazing and firing away at skepticism, negating the scientific method and using faith as proof, I get a little animated.

 

Hurts when someone takes a shot at something you love ay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets recap:

- Your letter's shot down

- You don't have access to any of the articles I could provide

- You wouldn't understand what was in them anyway because you're scientifically illiterate

- You quote wiki in a discussion on science

-Letter is not shot down.

-I do have access to any articles you could provide.

-I would understand them at least as well as you do. Probably beter.

-I used wiki as an indication. The references wiki provide are reliable in their own right.

 

Oh, and then you take something I said out of context. I'm not a conspiracist, do don't try and make me look like one.

 

At the end of the day, I've provided sources showing why I've reached the conclusion I have. You haven't bothered to do so.

 

Instead, you refuse to backup your claims. Why? Because you can't. You can stay in your sandbox, I'll go back to discussing things with adults.

 

Have fun.

 

I was leaving this alone for a waste of time, but I'm bored, and just finished watching the latest Bleach, so I'm in a good mood. :)

 

The "sources" you've provided show nothing you claim. Hence the reason i have politely, and repeatedly, asked for certain things. You've consistently failed to provide any. Yet demand stuff from others. Seeing the hypocrisy yet?

 

As I , and at least one other, has pointed out, verifying you have access to the articles you insist you do would be simple, and take minutes of your time, less than this back and forth arguing you seem fond of. The fact you refuse to do this extremely simple thing suggest quite strongly you simply so not have it. I have been very fair with you, and extremely polite, asking for nothing that was not reasonable, particularly considering your claims. Yet despite repeated requests, you've ignored me, or just attempted to gloss over it. Leonid is clearly frustrated with you, and I admit I am reaching the limits of my patience. Most have the politeness to at least address things put to them, especially if they are the ones making the claims, but you seem to side-step it, and keep insisting the few things you posted at the beginning counted as sufficient "proof". I do not feel as tho my requests have been in any way unreasonable. You make the claims, you support them. Yet you have not. Why? You seem to think people need to prove you wrong. This is not how it works. Agin, you make the claims, you come armed to back them up. And seriously, wikipedia is fine a s reference, but nothing more. Have you actually checked the references personally? Have you fact-checked them? I doubt it. You're falling back on it because you quite obviously have nothing of substance.

 

You've claimed those who are sceptical of climate science, as you see it, are involved in an "agenda" (which amounts to claiming a conspiracy, no matter what spin you prefer to put on it), yet , again, provide no evidence to support this claim, except the same claims from others who share your mindset. Wretchedly pathetic.

 

Leo ridicules you for your tardiness and laziness, expecting others to do your work for you. That, and you refuse to fulfill one single, solitary, easy to show caveat on proving you have access to files you claim. You just refuse. Rather than take a few minutes to prove him wrong. You sir, have nothing, and are a fraud. I have remained silent, and attempted to be reasonable, indeed, more than reasonable, despite your obvious lack of any proof, but still, you refuse to answer any reasonable requests for evidence from anyone asking for it. You have nothing. Nothing at all. If you did, you would be rubbing it in people's faces. Instead, you retreat, and demand people prove you wrong. My patience is at an end. I have more than generous. You, are nothing but hot air, and outrageous, unsubstantiated claims. You've been given multiple opportunities to prove people wrong, but keep falling back on crap, and wikipedia

, instead of actual links or evidence. You expect others to do your work for you. You are a charlatan and a fraud, and have nothing of substance whatsoever. Put up or shut up. It's that simple.

 

Good day sir. You are finished. That is all. You are done. Goodbye.

 

 

 

Woah Leo.... you need to have a cup of tea mate, and chill.

Sorry. I love science and the scientific method. So when somebody comes in blazing and firing away at skepticism, negating the scientific method and using faith as proof, I get a little animated.

 

Hurts when someone takes a shot at something you love ay?

 

 

Annoying when folk claim shit and offer nothing substantial to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I managed to find one of the studies on my drive. No point linking it as neither tastywheat nor willm have the capability to comprehend or even access it, but since it's here, easy enough:

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f5272856220314nk/

 

Lipid fractions of organisms have consistently lower C13/C12 ratios than do the whole organisms. The average difference between nonlipid and lipid materials for all organisms studied is about 0.5% and ranges in individual species from as little as several hundredths to more than 1.5%. This suggests that petroleums and other noncoaly organic matter in ancient sediments are derived from lipids, or at least from certain components of the lipid fraction. In contrast, coal deposits apparently are derived from whole plants or from the cellulosic fraction of land plants, which is the major nonlipid constituent, of plant tissues.

In the study above we get that the C12:C13 ratio is different in oils than in coals and varies in the source lipids from which oil is made. The problem is that they are all different and to work out our contribution it’s going to take some detailed accounting. Problem is, we don't seem to do that accounting. So how do we know what “our part” does to the C12:C13 ratio then?

 

We don't - that's the simple answer. No idea at all.

 

Now, if you check this PDF, you will see:

Bacteriogenic methane from Illinois generally has a C13 values in the range of -64 to -90% relative to the Peedee Belemnite ( PDB ) standard. The 11 samples from pipelines and storage reservoirs that have been analyzed have all had C13 values in the range of -40 to -46%

That basically tells you that bacteria can and do make C13 that has an identical signature to human emissions. There are giga-tons of bacteria in the world all emitting different ratios and we have no idea what they are. Do we account for that? Nope.

 

There's also this article from Science Daily you may be interested in. It cites a study (one of the ones I was going to link to) that shows that the C13:C12 ratio is broken in the geological record and that present understandings are not reconcilable with past realities.

 

Now, you really are done. Go away and find a new hobby - maybe Scientology has a consensus for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "sources" you've provided show nothing you claim. Hence the reason i have politely, and repeatedly, asked for certain things. You've consistently failed to provide any. Yet demand stuff from others. Seeing the hypocrisy yet?

 

The fact you refuse to do this extremely simple thing suggest quite strongly you simply so not have it. I have been very fair with you, and extremely polite, asking for nothing that was not reasonable, particularly considering your claims. Yet despite repeated requests, you've ignored me, or just attempted to gloss over it.

The wiki page I linked to has 9 references. 9.

 

I didn't paste them here manually, because I thought it is easy enough for you to click on the wiki link and see them referenced in context.

 

As I , and at least one other, has pointed out, verifying you have access to the articles you insist you do would be simple, and take minutes of your time, less than this back and forth arguing you seem fond of.

It doesn't matter, it's unnecessary.

 

It's a copout because he isn't willing to provide them. I am a university student, and have access through my university. I have no need to prove that. It's ridiculous to expect me to have to.

 

As I pointed out previously, it makes sense to provide the references logically, because that way anyone following the discussion can check them as well.

 

Stating you can provide references and then finding reasons not to do so is just....pathetic.

 

Leonid is clearly frustrated with you, and I admit I am reaching the limits of my patience. Most have the politeness to at least address things put to them, especially if they are the ones making the claims, but you seem to side-step it, and keep insisting the few things you posted at the beginning counted as sufficient "proof".

You really have been polite with me, and I respect and appreciate that. Leonid resorted to insults and assumptions from the get-go, which makes it hard for me to take him seriously.

 

I have provided the wiki link which has 9 references. I'm not using that as conclusive proof, but as an indication. Until I see something better, I'm leaning more towards what the wiki article indicates. Whatever you may think of wiki as a source, those particular articles are better written and sourced than anything in this discussion.

 

I do not feel as tho my requests have been in any way unreasonable. You make the claims, you support them. Yet you have not. Why? You seem to think people need to prove you wrong. This is not how it works. Agin, you make the claims, you come armed to back them up. And seriously, wikipedia is fine a s reference, but nothing more. Have you actually checked the references personally? Have you fact-checked them? I doubt it. You're falling back on it because you quite obviously have nothing of substance.

I did check the references on the wiki article I linked to. Which is why I consider them fine to rely on.

 

What you point out is reasonable, that if I make the claims the onus is on me to back them up.

 

I feel that I have done so to an extent. It's fine to dismiss or attack what I have provided, but not do so so by claiming you have evidence to the contrary and then failing to provide it.

 

At the moment, the only argument against what I provided is "hahaha wiki". Which isn't an argument, but a dismissal.

 

You've claimed those who are sceptical of climate science, as you see it, are involved in an "agenda" (which amounts to claiming a conspiracy, no matter what spin you prefer to put on it), yet , again, provide no evidence to support this claim, except the same claims from others who share your mindset. Wretchedly pathetic.

No, I never claimed a conspiracy. If you choose to what I said in that way after I've stated that wasn't the case....well....so be it.

 

Leo ridicules you for your tardiness and laziness, expecting others to do your work for you.

Not at all. Leonid resorts to insults, and nothing more.

 

That, and you refuse to fulfill one single, solitary, easy to show caveat on proving you have access to files you claim. You just refuse. Rather than take a few minutes to prove him wrong.

Yes, I refuse. Because it is unreasonable. If you have the references, provide them. It's as simple as that. He doesn't, so no problems there.

 

You sir, have nothing, and are a fraud. I have remained silent, and attempted to be reasonable, indeed, more than reasonable, despite your obvious lack of any proof, but still, you refuse to answer any reasonable requests for evidence from anyone asking for it. You have nothing. Nothing at all. If you did, you would be rubbing it in people's faces. Instead, you retreat, and demand people prove you wrong. My patience is at an end. I have more than generous. You, are nothing but hot air, and outrageous, unsubstantiated claims. You've been given multiple opportunities to prove people wrong, but keep falling back on crap, and wikipedia

, instead of actual links or evidence. You expect others to do your work for you. You are a charlatan and a fraud, and have nothing of substance whatsoever. Put up or shut up. It's that simple.

 

Good day sir. You are finished. That is all. You are done. Goodbye.

I don't know how you can maintain that you have been reasonable and then insult me in the same post. Up until this post you certainly were reasonable.

 

I don't know what else to say. The wiki article I linked to has 9 references outside of the wiki, from reliable sources. That is what I have provided.

 

It isn't correct to say I have not provided anything just because you don't agree that what I have provided is reliable.

 

 

It is entirely unreasonable for me to have to prove I have access journal articles, and I won't do it. It's a cop out, and nothing more.

 

If you want to discuss the 9 references in the wiki article I provided several posts ago, I will be happy to respond. Otherwise, there doesn't seem much point in continuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to discuss the 9 references in the wiki article I provided several posts ago, I will be happy to respond. Otherwise, there doesn't seem much point in continuing.

Your wiki article is about consensus. The 9 references in it relate purely to letter-writing and articles that state that a majority of scientists support a certain point of view or that sceptics are equal.

 

Not a one of those articles has even a slight reference to science - not one of the references is in a journal - all of those articles are an exercise in politics.

 

This is yet more proof that you are a scientific luddite.

 

Post some more, confirm the idiocy some more for us. Please.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×