Originally Posted By jonvn "Sigh. Obviously I'm not getting through." No, because you are not making any sense. "I was trying to make the point that this is a ridiculous standard" And you're being told that your idea is ridiculous, because that's not how science advances. You don't get that, and it's very simple, so there's not much chance of you understanding much of anything else discussed here. Go read the WSJ for some more science info. It's what everyone in the world considers the finest source for factual dissemination on the various subjects of scientific discovery.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "It's WATER. It's free. Why do people buy this?" Blame clever marketing and a gullible public who now think that they need not only be seen carrying a Razor-phone, Nordstrom's bag and Starbucks latte cup, now they need a bottle of whatever brand of water is trendiest these days. It's all about being cool, sad to say.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I provided you a climate scientist who provided quotes and a (presumably accurate) paraphrase that said there was a consensus that was what I said it was. Tiggertoo provided an even better example.>> <Sigh. Obviously I'm not getting through. Whenever a human-caused global warming skeptic brings up an article that points out some problems with the human-caused global warming theory, even if the article includes quotes from climate scientists, certain people say the article is worthless because it is not written by a climate scientist in a peer reviewed magazine. By objecting to your citation, I was trying to make the point that this is a ridiculous standard, since such articles are not often available on the web, and when they are, they tend to be overly complicated or detailed. They also tend not to back up the worst predictions of global alarmists.> Again, since no one here is an alarmist, that's a red herring. And it's quite right to point out that individual scientists making claims that are not peer-reviewed are of little value. My citation was of a scientist REFERRING TO peer-reviewed work and the consensus it has, and tiggertoo's post was even more explicit, and included endorsements from the world's leading scientific bodies on the subject. <I've got to go now. I'll try to get back to the rest of your post soon.> That will be interesting, especially hearing what your take is on what's happening, and how in the world it's closer to what Tiggertoo's quoted scientist said than what Jon said.
Originally Posted By jonvn "seen carrying a Razor-phone" The Razr is actually a pretty good phone. I had a V551, and twice, they broke on me. The Razr has worked really well. And they are now basically free with service. I think you can get an excellent phone now for nothing. When people go and spend hundreds on them, when they don't have to, that I don't understand. Nordstrom's I sometimes go to for shoes, because they have nice shoes in my size (15). But, the best place is Nordstrom's Rack. Same stuff, but on clearance, so often in my size at a MUCH cheaper rate. I own starbucks stock. Please go buy more.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>When people go and spend hundreds on them, when they don't have to, that I don't understand.<< It's called locked into a two-year contract meets the washing machine rinse cycle. Don't ask me how I know.
Originally Posted By jonvn You should have bought the insurance policy for only $4 a month. I did, and at the halfway point of my contract, I'm washing my phone.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So what's your position, and please show how it's closer to what Tiggertoo's quoted scientist said than what Jon has said, if you're going to claim such a thing.> My position is the same as yours and Tigeroo's position - that man has probably contributed to global warming. Jon's position is "that no credible science organization says anything different other than we are undergoing global warming, and that it is chiefly if not wholly human in origin." I think the difference is obvious. <And who among us has sided with the predictors of the worst predictions?> Those who said that what Richard Branson said was the consensus of climate scientists, for one. <Please show us where.> The examples are there, on any thread which touched on this subject, if you'd care to look with an open mind.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<So what's your position, and please show how it's closer to what Tiggertoo's quoted scientist said than what Jon has said, if you're going to claim such a thing.>> <My position is the same as yours and Tigeroo's position - that man has probably contributed to global warming. Jon's position is "that no credible science organization says anything different other than we are undergoing global warming,> This is true; we are... <and that it is chiefly if not wholly human in origin." I think the difference is obvious.> He may have gone overboard with "if not wholly," but he's still closer to the tiggertoo guy than anyone (and I think this would include you) who throws doubt on the idea that human activity makes up an important component. <<And who among us has sided with the predictors of the worst predictions?>> <Those who said that what Richard Branson said was the consensus of climate scientists, for one.> And who was that? <<Please show us where.>> <The examples are there, on any thread which touched on this subject, if you'd care to look with an open mind.> I can see plenty of examples of people saying that the scientific consensus is what it is. If you're saying there are alarmists on these boards, you'll have to do better and be more specific, or else I'll have to assume you're reading into people's posts alarmism that isn't there.
Originally Posted By jonvn <He may have gone overboard with "if not wholly,"> Some say it is, some say it isn't. It's being debated. The question at this point is how much and how bad, and what needs to be done. I've said that so many times now, it's gotten silly in how it is being ignored in order to foster a fake argument to obscure the truth.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He may have gone overboard with "if not wholly," but he's still closer to the tiggertoo guy than anyone (and I think this would include you) who throws doubt on the idea that human activity makes up an important component.> I agree that he may have gone overboard, but not that his opinion of what consensus is is closer to tigertoo's than mine. <And who was that?> That would be jon. You just have to go back to the thread about Richard Branson and global warming to see it. I also clearly remember ECDC saying that the consensus of scientist was that humans are responsible for global warming.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I've said that so many times now, it's gotten silly in how it is being ignored in order to foster a fake argument to obscure the truth.> Asking you to clarify a remark when you say something misleading is not obscuring the truth.
Originally Posted By jonvn The only thing I said in that thread about Richard Branson is that he wasn't the only one saying that. So, you're lying again to evade. You can't speak the truth if your life depended on it.
Originally Posted By jonvn OH, and I suppose that the Branson machine could be run by a coal burning power plant and that DlandDug was the hand of death....I also said those things there, too.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Asking you to clarify a remark when you say something misleading is not obscuring the truth." Except I'm not saying anything the least bit misleading, you are simply lying, in order to distract from the basic idea of this thread, which is all you do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<He may have gone overboard with "if not wholly," but he's still closer to the tiggertoo guy than anyone (and I think this would include you) who throws doubt on the idea that human activity makes up an important component.>> <I agree that he may have gone overboard, but not that his opinion of what consensus is is closer to tigertoo's than mine.> First, let's be clear. It's not necessarily Tiggertoo's opinion; we're talking about the scientist he linked to. And we'll have to disagree on whether you or Jon is closer to that opinion; in my view it's clearly Jon. <<And who was that?>> <That would be jon. You just have to go back to the thread about Richard Branson and global warming to see it.> According to Jon, you're mischaracterizing him. <I also clearly remember ECDC saying that the consensus of scientist was that humans are responsible for global warming.> That IS the consensus. As long as he didn't say "wholly," he's right. The only question is how much we're responsible for.
Originally Posted By jonvn "As long as he didn't say "wholly," he's right. The only question is how much we're responsible for." That's right. It's up for debate. I have read, though that it is entirely anthroprogenic. Others have said not entirely. Do I know? Of course not. Know why? I'm not one of the organizations of scientists studying this stuff. Those that are, however, have formed a consensus opinion on the matter. That's what you go by.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The only thing I said in that thread about Richard Branson is that he wasn't the only one saying that.> Well, no, you said more than that. But what you meant by what you said was unclear, and when I asked for clarification, you insulted me. Just like you're doing here. Surely, if facts were on your side, you could be less insulting and more enlightening, couldn't you?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Well, no, you said more than that." Liar. My direct quote: <<It's not Richard Branson who is saying this. Kind of an intresting idea, though. I would think such a device would be worth a lot more money if you were able to pantent it.>> That is the only thing I said on the topic, by which I meant he was not the only one saying what he was, which was in response to a separate comment: <<I certainly hope that Branson, Gore and Tickell are peer-reviewed judges. Maybe they can put this competition on tv and call it Virgin Idol>> I did leave out the word "just," because this thing has no edit feature. My next quote from that thread, liar: <<"Then who is, and where are they saying it?" About the 25 million, yes. But not about global warming, which is the idea I was responding to in post 6. Thank you for your troll.>> Which was in response to your troll post, your chief contribution to any thread. My next post in that thread, liar: <<Planting a lot of trees isn't going to help>> Next one, liar: <<Maybe he is. I don't think there's going to be a machine that cleans up the atmosphere. Someone has been reading too much science fiction.>> Next one, liar: <<Thing is a giant electric motor is going to create a lot of ozone..... And what's going to run that motor? I know, a coal burning power plant would be good.>> Next one, liar: <<Yes, except that was crazy.>> (in response to something about walt disney's epcot) Next one, liar: <<Maybe because he's dead.>> In reference to Lawrence Welk. Next one, liar: <<My god, you're like the hand of death. Don't go to any more theater's!>> Comment about another poster going to several theaters named after those who have passed on. You are nothing but a liar. You lie about nearly every subject matter you discuss, and twist what people say in order to further your false allegations. You can't argue honestly, and you evade, distract, and disrupt almost without exception because you know you can not argue from the facts of a matter. It's disgusting.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh In post 269, I asked a simple question. The answer, as we see in post 270, is "obviously not".
