RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 441 442 443 444 445 [446] 447 448 449 450 451 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,19:26   

Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 14 2007,20:21)
Humans have learned a new way to kick things out of equilibrium:

Yeah, see there you go. CO2 concentrations have risen from about 265 ppm in 1900 to about 365 ppm in 2000. So that's what 38% increase? So we shoot that much CO2 into the atmosphere over a century, that would jostle the equilibrium a bit, you'd think.

Oh, finally found a pic of the temperature/CO2 correlation. I think this is the one.




It's amazing that the total range of CO2 change is about 80 ppm.

Also, at any given period of time, you'd think that there would be roughly the same total of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean. When the temps go up or down, the total amount of CO2 over the Earth doesn't really change. But when you dig carbon out of the ground and release it into the atmosphere, you increase the total amount of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean. The ocean would become more acidic (as has been observed) and wouldn't absorb CO2 as rapidly from the atmosphere as it did before.

Since, you use oxygen to make CO2 from hydrocarbons, you'd think that you'd see a decrease in the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to correspond to the increase in CO2, but I guess since the difference is only 80-100 ppm, and O2 is about 20% of the atmosphere, it would be difficult to measure the difference.

Wait a minute, I'm supposed to be making fun of UD, not doing this!!! :angry:

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,19:32   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 15 2007,13:52)
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 14 2007,23:24)
...
Again I'm shaking my head wondering that some people here, well-schooled in the bullshit techniques of the ID crowd, would fall for such dreck...

I wouldn't go so far as to say "fell for it". Was just asking for information to counter it. Look, I don't know enough to understand the arguments they are using. I am ignorant. I would be happy to be educated.

Oh yeah. Sometimes that really pisses me off. I'll just be talking about this stuff with someone in a comments section or something, and by my action of merely asking questions about the subject, I am accused of all sorts of things. Usually I'm instantly accused of being a Bush supporter and anti-science. It never ceases to amaze me. But it has made for some very entertaining conversation.

Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 14 2007)
When the same handful of "experts" show up over and over again saying "thousands of scientists are wrong, why they don't consider solar inputs, they don't tell you CO2 lags warming, blah blah blah" your bullshit alarm should be sounding off at a deafening level.

Well, see, my problem is that I've never seen any of these people before and I haven't personally heard 1000's of scientists say anything. I've only heard politicians say that 1000's of scientists said something and I rarely believe what any politician says just because they said it. When an issue becomes politicized before I know anything about it, I am very careful about what and whom to believe.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,19:41   

Re: The "Global Warming Swindle": why does it start out just like Triumph of the Will, Dembskiists?  
Quote
The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.
Oh Jebus - anybody remember what else was attributed to "sun spots"? That's right - hauntings.

Ghosts! ;)

 
Quote
Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

But I thought the whole "global cooling" thingie was also a hoax, which shows how scientists are "wrong" today, as well?

There was "global cooling" - that disproves global warming. A scientist in Newsweek (I don't get my science from Newsweek) says the earth is cooling - he's wrong, that disproves global warming. *Renews call for an eye-roll smiley*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,19:43   

Quote (ofro @ Mar. 15 2007,17:14)
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 14 2007,19:02)

arden:
     
Quote
But what percent alcohol are you?


If you are interested in a strong beer, you may want to try this one .  20% alcohol and 120 IBUs!

####, I've got to find that !!! I wouldn't call myself a hophead, but I do love it. Sounds expensive though!!

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,19:45   

Too bad I don't dance with a sword.
This would make a great costume. (Maybe not for the kiddies, tho...)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,21:21   

Quote
I've only heard politicians say that 1000's of scientists said something and I rarely believe what any politician says just because they said it.

In other words, you've not been paying attention, and when a so-called documentary on TV (for Christ's sake!) claims that there's a "swindle" being performed by the worldwide community climate scientists why ... you keep an "open mind" and say ... "hey, they may be right!  They're all lying!".

At the risk of offending you, your google-poking and publishing of graphs and the like here reminds me a bit of the research methodology employed by the likes of Dave Scot.

GO READ REAL CLIMATE.  SPEND SEVERAL HOURS DOING SO.

If you don't trust background material written by leading climate scientists (complete with references and cites to the extremely vast peer-reviewed literature on the subject) go read the IPCC TAR 4 summary for policy makers (written, not as claimed by some denialists by politicians, but by the scientists involved in writing the full IPCC TAR that's just out/coming out soon/whatever).

If you don't trust the work of the 2000+ scientists involved in the generation of this latest IPCC report, well, heck, you're in UD territory.

 
Quote
Yeah, see there you go. CO2 concentrations have risen from about 265 ppm in 1900 to about 365 ppm in 2000. So that's what 38% increase?


It will rise to at least 500 ppm this century even if we take drastic measures, which is a doubling in 200 years.

Why?

Ocean temps lag atmospheric temps.

As it catches up in the next decades, guess what happens?

Hint: Remember that 800 yr lag when ice ages end that people claim "proves" CO2 isn't a forcing?

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,21:22   

PaV                  
Quote
But, of course, you can do the calculation, and then tell everyone how sickle-cell anemia confirms Darwinism!

Great_ape              
Quote
Someone in you guys’ camp should probably spell this one out for PaV. I fear I lack the necessary restraint this evening.

PaV              
Quote
I haven’t the foggiest notion of how these numbers support the notion that sickle-cell anemia confers resistance to carriers.

That's because the case study you cited was based on a limited data set from the 1960's, and you didn't read it to learn, but to make a rhetorical point. If you read the lesson, you would realize that it requires statistical analysis to determine whether or not the apparent correlation is significant or just statistical noise. Even then, it is only a measure of confidence. Nevertheless, a tentative answer was important. Not only does malaria cause great suffering and death, often in children, but this early research generated valuable hypotheses for further exploration.



So then what comes next? Class? ...mumble... Class!? ...er, mumble, more data?... Very good! Hypothesis and further testing.

Allison and others have contributed important research that has been confirmed and extended in the intervening decades, much of which has profound medical benefits to the understanding and treatment of disease. Most scientists are not trying to *prove evolution*. In this case, they were trying to solve problems in epidemiology. And like most scientists, they rely on other experts, probably professional health care providers who helped collect the data for the study.

If you had to wait to have *absolute certainty*, or to *know everything*, science would never advance. Instead, scientists tease and pry answers out of the data, then use these tentative answers to frame new research to verify, contradict, solidify, or extend the initial findings.

Intelligent Design offers nothing. No valid scientific hypotheses. Not spiritual solace. Sterile. Dead.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,21:29   

Quote
Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940


This was "proven" by taking a graph from an anti-climate warming site, dishonestly claiming it came from NASA, and changing the "1980" date at the far right of the X-axis to "2000" to leave the impression that there's not been significant warming in the last 27 years.

Gosh :)

Quote
and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide

What it actually shows is that other forms of air pollution (sulfates and other aerosol compounds) along with a large volcanic eruption in the early 1970s counterbalanced the warming effect of added CO2.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,22:13   

Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 16 2007,04:29)
Quote
Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940


This was "proven" by taking a graph from an anti-climate warming site, dishonestly claiming it came from NASA, and changing the "1980" date at the far right of the X-axis to "2000" to leave the impression that there's not been significant warming in the last 27 years.

Gosh :)

 
Quote
and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide

What it actually shows is that other forms of air pollution (sulfates and other aerosol compounds) along with a large volcanic eruption in the early 1970s counterbalanced the warming effect of added CO2.

If this has already been posted please ignore
This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong

Dembski, Behe and the DI have done the world a great favor by having their claims tested where they couldn't bend the rules and couldn't lie their way past a Judge.

That cold cup of post postmodernist reality and Colbert's wedging of GWD has ended the miasma that is fundy-facism for now.


Dover has forced journalists to be more circumspect before they mindlessly parrot press releases from organizations that are set up for the express purpose of mass public deception.

Ironically the scientific method which Dembski et al have tried to demonize as 'Darwinism' has had its perceived reliability tested and increased.

I wonder what they will do for an encore?

Say Ted Haggart is straight?

HAGGART’S A STRAIGHT, HOMOS -dt

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,00:00   

Dembski moans:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....rwinism

Of course, the best way to critize a theory is to offer a better one that makes better predictions and fits historical data better. - Oh, without having to change "theory" to allow hand-waving with no mechanism. Good luck, IDers.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,01:14   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,07:00)
Dembski moans:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/criticizing-those-who-criticize-string-theory-criticizing-those-who-criticize-neo-darwinis

m/]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....rwinism[/URL]

Of course, the best way to critize a theory is to offer a better one that makes better predictions and fits historical data better. - Oh, without having to change "theory" to allow hand-waving with no mechanism. Good luck, IDers.

Taps fingers ......fiddles with navel fluff ........uh yeah.

And the point is ......ID predicts gravity, no?

DON'T BE STUPID, ID DOESN'T PREDICT GRAVITY. IT PREDICTS NOTHING. dt

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,06:29   

Richardthughes:  
Quote
Dembski moans:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....rwinism

On a slightly different subject, I loved this quote from your citation:
 
Quote

For example, one popular argument was “Okay, buster - can you do better?” The idea here seems to be that until you know a solution to the problems faced by string theory, you shouldn’t point out these problems - at least not publicly.

Sounds like the administration replying to critics of the war in Iraq.

ID's problem is that a better theory than ID was proposed in 1859 and it's gotten stronger every year.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,07:10   

scordova provides a cite supporting the effect of natural selection in human populations, while HodorH adjusts for appropriate bolding.            
Quote
Indeed, after 50 years of investigation, we can’t convincingly demonstrate selection for most of the red-blood-cell diseases, other than sickle-cell anaemia, that are probably coevolving with the strong selective force of malaria.

Gosh, not just evolving, but coevolving. Well, I guess that's settled then. Did you know that there have been more than one such mutation, and are dated to have occurred about the same time the first Homo sapiens walked out of Africa, the same time that the common ancestor of the malarial parasite evolved. Knowledge of this common ancestor may help with the development of a vaccine. Malarial Eve. Fascinating.

Genetic Studies Shed Light on Malaria Parasite's Origins and Drug Resistance
Sickle Cell Disease: History And Origin

scordova            
Quote
What may be happening with the fixing of sickle-cell anemia in the wild is the issue of the strength of selection and the other factors.

Uh, yeah.

scordova            
Quote
At some point, if the selection force is so dilute, it can not be a factor, the trait will be appropriately modeled as neutral. It’s like trying to listen to someone whispering to you across a crowded noisy room.

Or nearly neutral. It's amazing how well people can hear across a crowded noisy room, even when people are whispering  — especially if their name is mentioned and if they are the topic of conversation. I would also mention that broad spectrum technology allows the reception of signals that are below the noise floor. However, the point is taken. It requires statistical analysis which only provides a measure of confidence. Many an argument has started over a misheard word.


Travis Bickle: You talkin' to me?

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,09:53   

It is often said here that the ID movement has gotten to the point where the genuine article is virtually indistinguisable from parody. Will it please the court to recognize the Plaintiffs Exhibit No 1968.  

In this exhibit, we have a known ID proponent arguing that the theory of evolution must be a theory of abiogenesis:
   
Quote
Consider the title chosen for Darwin's famous book… "Origin of Species." I would suppose that the first form of life to appear on this planet was some species of something.

And a bit later:
   
Quote
What this all boils down to is that essentially there can be no difference between the phrases "origin of species" and "origin of life." If you explain the origin of species, you will have explained the origin of life. So, to defend Darwinism by asserting that it's not a theory about the origin of life seems rather absurd.

Okay, seriously.  Which one of you guys stole TRoutMac's password and posted this?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,10:00   

FOR THE KIDS!

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....6864891

Quote
A little googling points to the fact that jujquisp is one of THEM, and that tells me that he is not interested in the real issues surrounding this debate.

He merely gets off on being a part of those who ridicule others. It's a game for them, nothing more. They are the type of people who truly enjoy poking fun of others, and they follow DaveS around everywhere he goes. It's sick if you ask me. Stalking comes to mind.

The only reason I let them post here occassionally is because they need to read stuff written by people who are truly concerned about the issues surrounding this debate. Not all of us are out here merely to get our jollies from harrassing others.

If you're smart, you'll stay away from them.

7:05 AM



Does she want to homeschool him or somthing? Looks like JuJu has web cooties..

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,10:32   

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/criticizing-those-who-criticize-string-theory-criticizing-those-who-criticize-neo-darwinis

<br>m/]Got an URL problem there[/URL], Dembski dear. (Hey, now two HTML breaks are showing up in the URL.)

Not that I'm criticizing your URLs or anything. So stop criticizing those who criticize those who criticize string theory/anti-Dembskiism, or I'll start criticizing your criticism of those who criticize critics of evolutionary science.

Oh. And I'm a string theory critic. On y va!  ;)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,10:38   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 16 2007,08:53)
It is often said here that the ID movement has gotten to the point where the genuine article is virtually indistinguisable from parody. Will it please the court to recognize the Plaintiffs Exhibit No 1968.  

In this exhibit, we have a known ID proponent arguing that the theory of evolution must be a theory of abiogenesis:
     
Quote
Consider the title chosen for Darwin's famous book… "Origin of Species." I would suppose that the first form of life to appear on this planet was some species of something.

And a bit later:
     
Quote
What this all boils down to is that essentially there can be no difference between the phrases "origin of species" and "origin of life." If you explain the origin of species, you will have explained the origin of life. So, to defend Darwinism by asserting that it's not a theory about the origin of life seems rather absurd.

Okay, seriously.  Which one of you guys stole TRoutMac's password and posted this?

Quote
I admit that I also believe, in one sense, that humans are "related" to rocks.


http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....nt-1503

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,10:42   

Now see what I mean? Stinky link. :angry:

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,11:09   

Quote (k.e @ Mar. 15 2007,21:13)
If this has already been posted please ignore
This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong

I found this tidbit rather familiar, though I can't quite seem to remember why...

 
Quote (George Monbiot @ Tuesday November 14, 2006)
The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing "the truth".


Hmmmm....

:D

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,11:22   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 16 2007,09:38)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 16 2007,08:53)
It is often said here that the ID movement has gotten to the point where the genuine article is virtually indistinguisable from parody. Will it please the court to recognize the Plaintiffs Exhibit No 1968.  

In this exhibit, we have a known ID proponent arguing that the theory of evolution must be a theory of abiogenesis:
         
Quote
Consider the title chosen for Darwin's famous book… "Origin of Species." I would suppose that the first form of life to appear on this planet was some species of something.

And a bit later:
         
Quote
What this all boils down to is that essentially there can be no difference between the phrases "origin of species" and "origin of life." If you explain the origin of species, you will have explained the origin of life. So, to defend Darwinism by asserting that it's not a theory about the origin of life seems rather absurd.

Okay, seriously.  Which one of you guys stole TRoutMac's password and posted this?

   
Quote
I admit that I also believe, in one sense, that humans are "related" to rocks.


http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....nt-1503

The stupIDs seem to operate on the assumption that since ID is 100% right and evolution 100% wrong, any and all arguments that might support ID and/or discredit evolution are therefore correct.  No argument is too idiotic to embrace, if it can be construed to support ID.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,11:25   

Nice one PaV

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....t-98284

Quote
Your analysis just blindly looks at statistics. I won’t bother to quote Twain again.



Oops! Bye UPB! Bye Design Inference.

Thanks, Pav.

Ps - it was only popularized in the States by Twain, Disraeli is the most cited source but it was used before he said it.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,11:47   

Gil shows us why he's uncommonly dense:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

Quote
A point of interest: As a backup (in the event technical problems preclude the use of windsonde data), we program the guided-airdrop systems in advance with trajectories computed from forecast winds. These proprietary forecast winds are provided by the military and are generated with the best information available and with the best computer models. By the time we deploy on a mission, these wind forecasts are a few hours old. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don’t. In only a few hours winds can completely reverse direction or change in velocity significantly, and this is impossible to predict reliably. If wind predictions a few hours from now are hard to make, what chance do we have of accurately predicting the climate a few decades from now?


Emphasis mine.

Gil, I can't predict what number is going to roll on a die, but if you roll a thousand dice and add them I'll estimate very, very close to the aggregate by any meaningful measure (MSE, MAD, MAPE)

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,11:53   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,10:25)
Nice one PaV

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....t-98284

             
Quote
Your analysis just blindly looks at statistics. I won’t bother to quote Twain again.

PaV then adds            
Quote
Look at the numbers for S.

Do I really have to point out the irony.

PaV        
Quote
If, indeed, the S-allele has some advantage, then why in an area that is apparently being ravaged by malaria do we see no difference in infection rates?

We do see a difference. In every case, there is an advantage to having the S-allele. And there could be many reasons why the exact percentage varies; differences in data-collection techniques, other immunities not being tested, statistical noise, etc. But as great_ape pointed out, it's like rolling ten heads in a row.

So then what comes next? Class? ...silent stares... Class!? ...er, recess, heh...

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
steve_h



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,12:25   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,17:47)
Gil shows us why he's uncommonly dense:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

     
Quote
A point of interest: As a backup (in the event technical problems preclude the use of windsonde data), we program the guided-airdrop systems in advance with trajectories computed from forecast winds. These proprietary forecast winds are provided by the military and are generated with the best information available and with the best computer models. By the time we deploy on a mission, these wind forecasts are a few hours old. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don’t. In only a few hours winds can completely reverse direction or change in velocity significantly, and this is impossible to predict reliably. If wind predictions a few hours from now are hard to make, what chance do we have of accurately predicting the climate a few decades from now?


Emphasis mine.

Gil, I can't predict what number is going to roll on a die, but if you roll a thousand dice and add them I'll estimate very, very close to the aggregate by any meaningful measure (MSE, MAD, MAPE)

I expect some of his payloads drift off into space, because if you can't predict exactly where on Earth something will land, it is equally likely to miss it completely.

His computer models may improve a little, if he stands his computer in front of a big fan so that it also gets buffeted by high winds.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,13:22   

Quote (steve_h @ Mar. 16 2007,11:25)
[quote=Richardthughes,Mar. 16 2007,17:47]Gil shows us why he's uncommonly dense:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

 

Actually, this is a very interesting post at UD, in that several posters call Gil out on being a moron, and their posts haven't been Magicaly Disapeared.  Even DaveScot, the Tardmaster "hisself", has been chastised in writing!?

Maybe too much Old Bushmills for DaveScott?  (I don't want him drinking Jamesons - that for us good guys - Dave can stick with the Proddy product)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,14:34   

I have interweb cooties?  Actually, I'm the only guy with enough balls to directly stand up to DaveTard around here.  I confront the guy directly while all of you cower away into AtBC and take your potshots from afar.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,14:48   

Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 16 2007,08:34)
I have internet cooties?  Actually, I'm the only guy with enough balls to directly stand up to DaveTard around here.  I confront the guy directly while all of you cower away into AtBC and take your potshots from afar.

Do you have a link for this? Generally the problem is just about everyone is banned from the forum that Dave controls, and Dave is usually just a drive-by troll in forums that he neither controls nor is banned in. I doubt anyone here quakes in fear over an exchange with the tardmeister.

Edit: I guess I missed the irony. So is the fake web page still up and is there a link?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,14:50   

Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 15 2007,20:21)
 
Quote
I've only heard politicians say that 1000's of scientists said something and I rarely believe what any politician says just because they said it.

In other words, you've not been paying attention, and when a so-called documentary on TV (for Christ's sake!) claims that there's a "swindle" being performed by the worldwide community climate scientists why ... you keep an "open mind" and say ... "hey, they may be right!  They're all lying!".

At the risk of offending you, your google-poking and publishing of graphs and the like here reminds me a bit of the research methodology employed by the likes of Dave Scot.

GO READ REAL CLIMATE.  SPEND SEVERAL HOURS DOING SO.

If you don't trust background material written by leading climate scientists (complete with references and cites to the extremely vast peer-reviewed literature on the subject) go read the IPCC TAR 4 summary for policy makers (written, not as claimed by some denialists by politicians, but by the scientists involved in writing the full IPCC TAR that's just out/coming out soon/whatever).

If you don't trust the work of the 2000+ scientists involved in the generation of this latest IPCC report, well, heck, you're in UD territory.

   
Quote
Yeah, see there you go. CO2 concentrations have risen from about 265 ppm in 1900 to about 365 ppm in 2000. So that's what 38% increase?


It will rise to at least 500 ppm this century even if we take drastic measures, which is a doubling in 200 years.

Why?

Ocean temps lag atmospheric temps.

As it catches up in the next decades, guess what happens?

Hint: Remember that 800 yr lag when ice ages end that people claim "proves" CO2 isn't a forcing?

Calm down a bit please. I for one, do tend to pay atention to the scientific evidence if I can understand it. I doubt phonon is any different.

A few simple questions to you.
Is it true that in the historical records CO2 rises lagged temperature rises by aproximately 800 years?
Is it true that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming?
IF both previous questions are answered as yes, then why does this not result in a positive feedback loop that eventually boils the Earths oceans?

I have been reading over at realclimate but it is much harder on the eyes than this site and also apears to be as entrenched as any ID/evolution site and I don't have the relevant education to spot lies/distortions (and no, I am not saying "all climate scientists are in some conspiracy").

Couldn't simple human building projects also be causing the warming? Isn't it at least possible that paving over green land with tarmac and other syntheticaly produced material be adding to global warming?

I am not a global warming denier. I have changed some of my light sources to use less fuel intensive bulbs but read today that they are likely to require 150% more fuel to make and contain other polutants such as mercury. It is all damned confusing. My car is now off-the-road as I haven't used it in over a year because of environmental concerns. Basically I do care, I want our planet to be habitable and pleasant for my grandchildren to live on.

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,14:56   

Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 15 2007,20:21)
Quote
I've only heard politicians say that 1000's of scientists said something and I rarely believe what any politician says just because they said it.

In other words, you've not been paying attention, and when a so-called documentary on TV (for Christ's sake!) claims that there's a "swindle" being performed by the worldwide community climate scientists why ... you keep an "open mind" and say ... "hey, they may be right!  They're all lying!".

What a way to characterize the way I took the show. I understood perfectly that the show was a propaganda piece. All I was trying to do was educate myself a bit better on the topic. I never said that I believed all or any of the show. But like any propaganda piece, there are bits of truth intermingled with the distortions. I was trying to pick through those to see what's what. Like the hundreds of years lag thing. What does that mean? I was trying think it through, but doing it here where there might be someone that would fill me in (as opposed to ranting about what I do or don't believe).

Quote
At the risk of offending you, your google-poking and publishing of graphs and the like here reminds me a bit of the research methodology employed by the likes of Dave Scot.

GO READ REAL CLIMATE.  SPEND SEVERAL HOURS DOING SO.
So let me get this straight. You say that looking up information on the internet is a poor way to learn something, then you tell me that the remedy for that is to read one particular website. To tell you the truth about it, the reason I'm so ill informed about this topic is because I just don't care that much about it. But, I do feel that right now, I know more about it than most of the general public who have already made up their minds one way or another, usually based on what they saw in a TV special, a website, or a powerpoint presentation.

Quote
If you don't trust background material written by leading climate scientists (complete with references and cites to the extremely vast peer-reviewed literature on the subject) go read the IPCC TAR 4 summary for policy makers (written, not as claimed by some denialists by politicians, but by the scientists involved in writing the full IPCC TAR that's just out/coming out soon/whatever).
You act as if I have my mind made up or something. You are in full political debate mode here. It's not necessary.

Quote

If you don't trust the work of the 2000+ scientists involved in the generation of this latest IPCC report, well, heck, you're in UD territory.

You're trying to be a dick, aren't you?

Quote





   
Quote
Yeah, see there you go. CO2 concentrations have risen from about 265 ppm in 1900 to about 365 ppm in 2000. So that's what 38% increase?


It will rise to at least 500 ppm this century even if we take drastic measures, which is a doubling in 200 years.

Why?

Ocean temps lag atmospheric temps.

As it catches up in the next decades, guess what happens?

Hint: Remember that 800 yr lag when ice ages end that people claim "proves" CO2 isn't a forcing?

a forcing? Anyway, when I said that you'd think there would be pretty much the same total CO2 content over the Earth, I forgot a few things, like volcanoes, which would add CO2, and carbonate mineral formation, which would subtract it, so I was wrong there. It's a vastly complicated subject, eh?

But please, try not to assume that I hold certain preconceived opinions on this. Thanks for telling me about the IPCC report. I guess I can google it, but that might take me into UD territory.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,15:00   

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2007,12:22)
[quote=steve_h,Mar. 16 2007,11:25]
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,17:47)
Gil shows us why he's uncommonly dense:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

 

Actually, this is a very interesting post at UD, in that several posters call Gil out on being a moron, and their posts haven't been Magicaly Disapeared.  Even DaveScot, the Tardmaster "hisself", has been chastised in writing!?

Maybe too much Old Bushmills for DaveScott?  (I don't want him drinking Jamesons - that for us good guys - Dave can stick with the Proddy product)

Jesus H Christ on a crutch, I should know better by now!

All the critical comments are gone... poofed by The Designert into the same spot that AFDave's Global Flood Waters went away to.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 441 442 443 444 445 [446] 447 448 449 450 451 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]