| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
4505 |
|
|
Date: December 03, 2013 at 20:23:38
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Has JTRIV Lost His Way? (NT) |
URL: Articles on Climate Change Effects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4506] [4511] [4512] [4524] [4526] [4527] [4528] [4529] [4530] |
|
4506 |
|
|
Date: December 03, 2013 at 22:51:50
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Has dib Lost His Mind?? |
|
|
Hi dib,
Have you lost your mind or what?? A bunch of news articles by the NYTimes green report Justin Gillis?? On "temperature rising"?? Is that supposed to relate to the science of climate change in some way?
dib you can find a number of environmental reporters that will articles that you agree with your opinion. There are a number of liberal blogs that will do the same. Try following the science of climate change.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4511] [4512] [4524] [4526] [4527] [4528] [4529] [4530] |
|
4511 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 08:22:35
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Has dib Lost His Mind?? |
|
|
|
Lol. Just a joke to get you all riled up, JTRIV. Btw, the NYTimes is the most credible newspaper in the country. You should read it occasionally to get past your one-note propaganda against world warming. How about that, I coined a new term, World Warming. Not that I expect you to change your one note symphony, but fess up, do you get paid by the word, or by the message? Don't get all riled up again, that was a rhetorical question, but i do realize that you must have a reason for your incessant bleat against that 97% of scientists who believe that we have a problem with global warming, so fess up, JTRIV, what is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4512] [4524] [4526] [4527] [4528] [4529] [4530] |
|
4512 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 09:05:52
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Has dib Lost His Mind?? |
|
|
Hi dib,
I have no problem with the NY Times. Although I do prefer Andrew Revkin to Justin Gillis as Gillis is just such an alarmist whereas Revkin looks at all sides. He believes in AGW, but has been know to point out flaws that have upset the all alarmism, all the time crowd.
I once read about the effect of criticising a newspaper for getting something utterly wrong about your own field but being still prepared to believe the rest of the newspaper on subjects you know less about. I find it often better to go right to the actual research the media is talking about. After all, we know what spin Justin Gillis will put on it without reading his column... so do we learn anything from reading his column? Not really, but if someone wants to reinforce their beliefs a writer like Gillis is who you should read.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4524] [4526] [4527] [4528] [4529] [4530] |
|
4524 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 18:24:13
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Has dib Lost His Mind?? |
|
|
Isn't it amazing that the 97 percent of the scientific crowd that takes global warming seriously are all deluded liberal alarmists, whereas your 3 percent are all noble, unbiased, caring, intelligent scientists. Did I leave out anything on that 3%? Oh, yes, I did. Your crowd is saintly. Sorry for forgetting that.
Damn, I hate calling you JTRIV, it's so declasse. Sounds kind of like 15th-Century English Aristocracy, give or take a few Centuries. Mind if I call you Lord Jim instead?
Ok, so Lord Jim, I still have the sneaking feeling that you are a shill for the energy boyz. Mind if I ask you a couple of quesions? Ok, thanks.
Are you paid by anyone to post anti-warmer messages on any chat or message boards, such as EB?
Are you employed by any company that has a direct connection to an energy company or companies, or would be impacted by a decline in energy commodities, or do you own stock in any energy companies, or any companies that would be so impacted, or is there any reason that you might be biased in any way in favor of energy companies? Sorry, should have asked my son to check that for the correct legal wording, but he charges too much.
So here's my argument, Lord Jim: You won't lie about it, so if the answer is Yes, then you will not answer the question yes or no, you will fudge out of it, because you won't want to lie. That's so cool, isn't it? I predict you will refuse to answer yes or no, in which case, I will petition mr bopp to kick you off his boards. The thing is, that you are a gotdam genius in space info, but your one-sided, single-mindedness, relentless propagandizing has got to have more to it than just wanting to get to the truth of the matter. Sorry, Lord Jim, but that's the way I see it.
Answer the question yes or no and, if no, I promise never to bug you again. Deal?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4526] [4527] [4528] [4529] [4530] |
|
4526 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 20:10:11
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Has dib Lost His Mind?? |
|
|
Hi dib,
> Isn't it amazing that the 97 percent of the scientific crowd that takes
> global warming seriously are all deluded liberal alarmists, whereas
> your 3 percent are all noble, unbiased, caring, intelligent scientists.
You like to throw around that 97% figure a lot, but you ignore where it
originates. This number comes from a study, Doran and Zimmerman
2009. They sent out 10,000 invitations to answer their 2 question
survey, received 3,000 responses and of this they determined 79
were from climate scientists who are actively publishing. So the
whole 97% come from just 79 people who answered a questionaire.
And 97% of them agreed "human activity is a significant contributing
factor in changing mean global temperatures". The answer wasn't
about doom, act now or humanity ends. It wasn't even if CO2 was
the dominant part of this human influence.
Of course the liberal media like to stress the 97% number as if the
science is settled. But this is simple an over simplification of a very
complex issue.
Now dib I realize you are a bit old and senile, but do you not
remember giving me the 3rd degree on if I work in any energy related
occupation. And my answer on those several previous occasions and
my current answer is no, I don't work in any such field. At this time
I'm an IT Project Manager for a Fortune 500 company that is not in
any way energy related.
I think the question is why do you keep focusing on this? You are
behaving like the wackos who accuse anyone of who points out the
issues of being a paid shill from the evil powers that be. Is this
because you just can't accept that a reasonably intelligent, well
grounded person doesn't agree with what you read in the liberal
media? You have admitted on numerous occasions that you don't
follow the science. And from experience I can't imagine you read
anything but the liberal, our greed is causing the problem type
articles.
So why don't you give me the benifit of the doubt? You certainly don't
have to agree with me, but is it possible for you to at least realize I
followed the science and haven't formed my opinion based on
personal or financial reasons? You don't have to answer.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4527] [4528] [4529] [4530] |
|
4527 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 21:48:03
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Has dib Lost His Mind?? |
|
|
>>Hi dib,
Hello Lord Jim,
> Isn't it amazing that the 97 percent of the scientific crowd that takes global warming seriously are all deluded liberal alarmists, whereas your 3 percent are all noble, unbiased, caring, intelligent scientists.
>>You like to throw around that 97% figure a lot, but you ignore where it
originates. This number comes from a study, Doran and Zimmerman
2009. They sent out 10,000 invitations to answer their 2 question
survey, received 3,000 responses and of this they determined 79
were from climate scientists who are actively publishing. So the
whole 97% come from just 79 people who answered a questionaire.
And 97% of them agreed "human activity is a significant contributing
factor in changing mean global temperatures". The answer wasn't
about doom, act now or humanity ends. It wasn't even if CO2 was
the dominant part of this human influence.
Well now, Lord Jim, I didn't actually "throw it around", I mentioned it as a statistic that indicates that 97% of responding scientists is a lot higher than 3%, or to put it in mathematical terms, over 32 TIMES higher. I would say that's a consensus of opinion in that poll, regardless of your attempt to pretend that it's meaningless. And to pretend that it doesn't have anything to do with a warning, is, well, kind of a shallow attempt at redirecting the issue?
>>Of course the liberal media...
Lol. You sure like to throw that "liberal" term around as if it was a dirty word. Guess what, Lord Jim, I don't consider "liberal" to be a dirty word. In fact, you can call me a liberal squared if you want, and yes, indeed, this wide liberal/conservative gap, as you undoubtedly know, is primarily the result of conservatives fearing that doing something about it will hit them in the wallet, and to them, greed is more important, so to hell with it, let the future generations suffer through it. Who cares about the environment anyway, I've got my air conditioned office, my billions earning megabucks, full steam ahead. Lose a few ducks here and there, what do I care?
>>...like to stress the 97% number as if the
science is settled. But this is simple an over simplification of a very
complex issue.
Not true, so that amounts to a lie and you know it. Tsk, tsk, Lord Jim, those are the kinds of statements that reveal your bias quite clearly.
>>Now dib I realize you are a bit old and senile, but do you not remember giving me the 3rd degree on if I work in any energy related occupation. And my answer on those several previous occasions and my current answer is no, I don't work in any such field. At this time I'm an IT Project Manager for a Fortune 500 company that is not in any way energy related.
I'll let you get away with the insults, because they happen to have some truth to them, in contrast to the rest of your message, but as far as answering my questions, I remember you giving the IT spiel, but all you said was that your state, Tennessee, iirc, had no oil, and when I mentioned ITechs doing a lot of work for coal miners, you didn't deny it. However, I will accept your denial you gave in this message, and this will be my last response to you.
>>I think the question is why do you keep focusing on this? You are
behaving like the wackos who accuse anyone of who points out the
issues of being a paid shill from the evil powers that be. Is this
because you just can't accept that a reasonably intelligent, well
grounded person doesn't agree with what you read in the liberal
media? You have admitted on numerous occasions that you don't
follow the science. And from experience I can't imagine you read
anything but the liberal, our greed is causing the problem type
articles.
Funny that you just can't get the fact that I will let the scientists who work on the problem decide the issue for me. The fact that you think you know more than they do is what convinces me that you are lying about not having any vested interest in the outcome of this issue, so if not directly involved in coal or oil, or having any other biased interest, I can only conclude that you are an insufferable egotist if you think you can out-think a consensus of scientists on global warming.
>>So why don't you give me the benifit of the doubt? You certainly don't
have to agree with me, but is it possible for you to at least realize I
followed the science and haven't formed my opinion based on
personal or financial reasons? You don't have to answer.
For the simple reason that you are not a climate scientist, and you will never convince me that you do not have irons in the pot somehow, somewhere, for some reason, because you are behaving like a propaganda puppet. Final contact. EOM.
>>Cheers
Humbug
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4528] [4529] [4530] |
|
4528 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 22:19:19
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Has dib Lost His Mind?? |
|
|
Hi dib,
> Well now, Lord Jim, I didn't actually "throw it around",
Actually it's the 3rd or 4th time in the past week you've brought up that 97%. Yet you don't know the origin of the number or even what the 97& agreed to.
> Lol. You sure like to throw that "liberal" term around as if it was a dirty word.
Just a label that shows what type of bias is displayed. Conservative media is just as bad. The point is you read a biased version.
> I'll let you get away with the insults, because they happen to have some truth to them
No insult intended dib. You tend to repeat the same questions with no memory that we've been down that road before. I still find it odd that your tendency is to question my motivation (over and over) just like the wackos do regarding Planet X, catastrophism, etc. I would have thought someone who speaks up for the virtues of science would be above such behavior.
> Funny that you just can't get the fact that I will let the scientists who work on the problem decide the issue for me.
You mean you will let the liberal media tell you their version of what the scientists are saying about this issue. Big difference. The science is ongoing, but the liberal media gives the impression the science is settled. And they won't tell you that climate sensitivity is being revised downward, that climate models are failing, or any of the other issues with climate science. Hell they won't even admit that we've had 15 years without global warming while atmospheric CO2 is rapidly climbing. They just keep saying 6th warmest, 8th warmest, 4th warmest year on record.
> The fact that you think you know more than they do is what convinces me that you are lying about not
> having any vested interest in the outcome of this issue, so if not directly involved in coal or oil, or
> having any other biased interest, I can only conclude that you are an insufferable egotist if you
> think you can out-think a consensus of scientists on global warming.
Very strange attitudes for someone who claims to be science based.
> For the simple reason that you are not a climate scientist, and you will never convince me that you do
> not have irons in the pot somehow, somewhere, for some reason, because you are behaving like a
> propaganda puppet. Final contact. EOM.
Your behavior is so much like the kooks and wackos we see on the internet. Like them you can't accept someone could possibly disagree with your beliefs without some nefarious motive. I have my opinions, I state my case based on the scientific evidence regardless of the subject being astronomy, physics or climate change.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4529] [4530] |
|
4529 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 22:32:00
From: db, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Has dib Lost His Mind?? |
|
|
|
Ok, one last line, so sue me: you have just proved my point that you are an insufferable egotist.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4530] |
|
4530 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 22:40:15
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Is dib actually Logan?? |
URL: http://earthboppin.net/talkshop/space/messages/24339.html |
|
Hi dib,
Or should I say Logan? Are you one and the same person?
I'm curious because Logan over on skywatchers seems to think I must be paid because I disagree with him(you). And over here you(him) seem to think I must be paid because I disagree with you(him).
Ok, Ok, so maybe that's a stretch, but I bet you never thought of yourself as having the same thought process as the CT nuts. Try reading some of Logan's posts and check out the view in that mirror!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |