Problems With Scientific Models For GW

[RetiredGySgt]

58% says that global warming isn't man made? Oh wait no it doesn't. Ouch you lose, yet again.

58 percent say what, WE DO NOT KNOW. IT IS NOT A FACT. Since when does 42 percent equate to a majority you idiot? 58 percent say we haven't enough evidence, we do NOT know, it is not proven, we need to study more, we need more facts, we haven't the science..... but hey don't let facts get in your way.

 

[Larkinn]

58 percent say what, WE DO NOT KNOW. IT IS NOT A FACT.

No they say they don't know. It could be because they think its not a fact, it could be because they don't consider themselves informed on the matter.

Since when does 42 percent equate to a majority you idiot? 58 percent say we haven't enough evidence, we do NOT know, it is not proven, we need to study more, we need more facts, we haven't the science..... but hey don't let facts get in your way.

Nobody said majority, you idiot. And no thats not what 58% say. But keep trying with your lies.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No they say they don't know. It could be because they think its not a fact, it could be because they don't consider themselves informed on the matter.



Nobody said majority, you idiot. And no thats not what 58% say. But keep trying with your lies.

So you are claiming that you never said 42 percent was a majority and that you believe in man made global warming because a "majority" of scientists say so?

Ok lets take you at your word. Why then is a minority of scientists correct?

And it is NOT a lie to say 58 percent of scientists DO NOT believe man is causing global warming. It does not matter why they do not believe it.

The real liar is you, I have stated I want proof, I want a known verifiable cause of man made global warming. With out said there is NO reason to make treaties to stop what we do NOT know is causing a problem. I have not said Global warming is not real. And I have NOT said we should NOT work hard to control emissions that MAY be a problem.

But do keep claiming I have.

 

[Larkinn]

So you are claiming that you never said 42 percent was a majority and that you believe in man made global warming because a "majority" of scientists say so?

I have in the past, I corrected those statements. Stay current, kid.

Ok lets take you at your word. Why then is a minority of scientists correct?

Because they are, by far, the greatest consensus that exist in an incredibly politicized climate.

And it is NOT a lie to say 58 percent of scientists DO NOT believe man is causing global warming. It does not matter why they do not believe it.

Did I say it was? Guilty conscience perhaps?

The real liar is you, I have stated I want proof,

Congrats, there isn't any.

I want a known verifiable cause of man made global warming.

It is verifiable to a certain degree.

With out said there is NO reason to make treaties to stop what we do NOT know is causing a problem.

Actually there is, but sure.

I have not said Global warming is not real. And I have NOT said we should NOT work hard to control emissions that MAY be a problem.

But do keep claiming I have.

Congratulations, I haven't been claiming you have. I don't make wild assumptions like you do.

 

[Bern80]

Considering I've never seen a liberal say they want to scare people, I came to the conclusion that there must be a secret conspiracy among all of them. Or do you think these ideas pass from liberal to liberal via ESP?

As I said before I believe there are groups of people with similar mindsets. The mindset of liberals seems to be it is a good thing to legislate difficulties out of life.

Tell me how having Bill Gates and the bum on the street so inequal is good for society?

It depends. Why is Bill Gates rich? Why is the bum a bum?

Tell me how having most of our legislators be of the same race, the same gender, and come from the same socioeconomic background is good for society?

It isn't, but that isn't what I'm talking about it.

Because working hard isn't the be all and end all to life.

That doesn't answer the question. Unless you believe it is okay for some free spirit to live off others simply because he/she doesn't want to be encumbered with such silly things like jobs.

 

[Larkinn]

As I said before I believe there are groups of people with similar mindsets. The mindset of liberals seems to be it is a good thing to legislate difficulties out of life.

If you want difficulties, give away your posessions and move to Sudan. Yes we try and help people out. I know, such a sin.

It depends. Why is Bill Gates rich? Why is the bum a bum?

I honestly don't care. Short of a violent crime there is nothing that justifies such as vast vast difference.

It isn't, but that isn't what I'm talking about it.

Well its what I'm talking about, which you are attacking.

That doesn't answer the question. Unless you believe it is okay for some free spirit to live off others simply because he/she doesn't want to be encumbered with such silly things like jobs.

Define live off of others. Should they be rich? No. Should they die of starvation? No.

 

[Bern80]

If you want difficulties, give away your posessions and move to Sudan. Yes we try and help people out. I know, such a sin.

What you don't get is that it is adversity that makes societies strong. You want everyone to be just mediocre where government tells what you can and can't achieve, fine. I think there are still a few communist countries hanging on. Go live there.

I honestly don't care. Short of a violent crime there is nothing that justifies such as vast vast difference.

You should, because the why is the most important. If Bill Gates lied and cheated his way to the top and held others down that would be one thing. If the bum truly was a victim and some segment of society was preventing his advancement that would be one thing as well. But that isn't reality. Why is Bill Gates not justified in legally makeing as much money as he likes? Are you for freedom or aren't you. Do you assume the majority of bums are victims? It has been a hard thing for every liberal on this board to accept, but people are where they are almost always by choice.

Well its what I'm talking about, which you are attacking.

They aren't analogous. There is a difference in wanting diversity and redistributing wealth.

Define live off of others. Should they be rich? No. Should they die of starvation? No.

You said that working is not the be all and all. sure it would be great if we could just live our lives and do whatever we wanted without worrying about money, but that is a pretty far stretch from our current reality. It seems you want all the rewards of life with none of the risks. So again I ask how does a society become stronger if there is no adversity to overcome? How does eliminating adversity create a better society?

 

[Larkinn]

What you don't get is that it is adversity that makes societies strong. You want everyone to be just mediocre where government tells what you can and can't achieve, fine. I think there are still a few communist countries hanging on. Go live there.

Thats ridiculous. If that were true Sudan and Burma would be the strongest countries while first world ones would be falling apart. They have much more adversity than we do, why are we so much more powerful?

You should, because the why is the most important. If Bill Gates lied and cheated his way to the top and held others down that would be one thing. If the bum truly was a victim and some segment of society was preventing his advancement that would be one thing as well. But that isn't reality. Why is Bill Gates not justified in legally makeing as much money as he likes?

Because he makes that money through luck.

Are you for freedom or aren't you.

Spare me the bullshit rhetoric. Aren't you for the freedom to have healthcare, food, housing, to choose whether to work hard, blah blah.

Do you assume the majority of bums are victims?

I don't really care. Whether they are or not, nobody deserves to live like that.

It has been a hard thing for every liberal on this board to accept, but people are where they are almost always by choice.

This is a ridiculous presupposition. People are where they are through a complex combination of who they were born (which is a HUGE part of it...its no mistake that kids from the ghetto have a hard time getting out...they aren't naturally making bad choices, they are put in a shitty situation), what intelligence they were born with, what LUCK they have, and how hard they work.

They aren't analogous. There is a difference in wanting diversity and redistributing wealth.

You turned towards redistributing wealth, I said inequality. You made the assumptions I was only talking about one of them.

You said that working is not the be all and all. sure it would be great if we could just live our lives and do whatever we wanted without worrying about money, but that is a pretty far stretch from our current reality.

I didn't say "worrying about money". Having out basic needs taken care of isn't that much to ask. You really think that Americans are so complacent that once basic needs are taken care of they will just relax, kick of their shoes and stop working? Right....

It seems you want all the rewards of life with none of the risks. So again I ask how does a society become stronger if there is no adversity to overcome? How does eliminating adversity create a better society?

I don't consider housing, food, medical care a "reward" of life. And again with the idiotic assertion that adversity somehow helps society. Remind me again how well Sudan, and Burma are doing?

 

[Bern80]

Thats ridiculous. If that were true Sudan and Burma would be the strongest countries while first world ones would be falling apart. They have much more adversity than we do, why are we so much more powerful?

Because they have corrupt governments and no infrastructure. You fundamentally do not understand human nature.

Because he makes that money through luck.

How? Please be specific.

Spare me the bullshit rhetoric. Aren't you for the freedom to have healthcare, food, housing, to choose whether to work hard, blah blah.

Healthcare is not freedom, nor is houseing. Freedoms are things you can choose to do, not things that are simply given to you. No you can not have freedom 'for' things. It doesn't even make sense gramatically.

I don't really care. Whether they are or not, nobody deserves to live like that.

Then 'deserve' is another word you don't understand. You don't just inherently deserve things. You earn or work for or make choices that determine what you deserve. If make choices that turned you into a bum, then yes, you deserve to be a bum.

This is a ridiculous presupposition. People are where they are through a complex combination of who they were born (which is a HUGE part of it...its no mistake that kids from the ghetto have a hard time getting out...they aren't naturally making bad choices, they are put in a shitty situation), what intelligence they were born with, what LUCK they have, and how hard they work.

And again you believe luck is the overriding factor, which simply isn't true in this country. Of course it's luck that doctors through medical school, or luck that got someone through law school, or luck that got Bill Gates his money (I'm sure the man has no business sense what so ever or grasp on technology at all)

You turned towards redistributing wealth, I said inequality. You made the assumptions I was only talking about one of them.

No, you tried to make an anology between economic inequality and the demographic make up of our government. Those are two pretty different things.

I didn't say "worrying about money". Having out basic needs taken care of isn't that much to ask. You really think that Americans are so complacent that once basic needs are taken care of they will just relax, kick of their shoes and stop working? Right....

Again you fundamentally don't understand human nature or what it has become. Again due to a lack of prespective. If given a choice most people will choose 'easy' every time rather put forth the effort it takes to become as wealthy as they want to be.

I don't consider housing, food, medical care a "reward" of life. And again with the idiotic assertion that adversity somehow helps society. Remind me again how well Sudan, and Burma are doing?

Unless your propossing stragith collectivism of those things, why is it fair to expect others to pay for something that one is equally capable of providing themselves? And i again remind you that whether someone has insureance or not, under the law, if they need care they must be treated.

 

[Larkinn]

Because they have corrupt governments and no infrastructure. You fundamentally do not understand human nature.

No, I don't. And neither do you. Human nature is wide, varied, and diverse. Thats what makes us humans. There are correlations which psychology has been able to study, but even those vary widely and are never, ever 100%. To say that human nature is just one thing is ludicrous. And anyway corrupt governments and no infrastructure are just more adversity. That should allow them to shine even more, right? Or is it only certain kinds of adversity that you like? Perhaps the kinds that justify ignoring the poor?

How? Please be specific.

Bill Gates? Seriously? He had the right skills and the right product at the right time. Whats the difference between him and a corporate attorney in NYC who works from 8-8 every day? Gates probably works a LOT less than the attorney.

Healthcare is not freedom, nor is houseing. Freedoms are things you can choose to do, not things that are simply given to you. No you can not have freedom 'for' things. It doesn't even make sense gramatically.

Those are opinions, not facts. Although even by your definition you are incorrect. Having the freedom to choose housing or not is a freedom. Look at the UNDHR, some of those freedoms are in there.

Then 'deserve' is another word you don't understand. You don't just inherently deserve things.

Incorrect. Its even written into our declaration of independence. "Life, liberty, and happiness". Not only deserve, but an "inalienable right".

You earn or work for or make choices that determine what you deserve. If make choices that turned you into a bum, then yes, you deserve to be a bum.

Incredibly retarded and short-sighted.

And again you believe luck is the overriding factor, which simply isn't true in this country. Of course it's luck that doctors through medical school, or luck that got someone through law school, or luck that got Bill Gates his money (I'm sure the man has no business sense what so ever or grasp on technology at all)

Luck is the overriding factor. First of all being born into a good household. How many doctors and Lawyers come from poor backgrounds? At my school most of the people here are the elite of society...they have money and "heritage". Sure work has something to do with it, but they won't be making 200k right out of law school just through work. There are plenty of factory workers and farmers in middle America who work just as hard, if not harder and will never make that kind of income in a year, much less when they are 25. Why do think all the politicians are white men? Is it because white men are the only ones willing to work that hard? Ridiculous.

No, you tried to make an anology between economic inequality and the demographic make up of our government. Those are two pretty different things.

I said inequality. YOU made the inference I was talking solely about economic inequality.

Again you fundamentally don't understand human nature or what it has become. Again due to a lack of prespective. If given a choice most people will choose 'easy' every time rather put forth the effort it takes to become as wealthy as they want to be.

So tell me why so many people choose to become doctors, lawyers, and other extremely stressful positions that are, in no sense, easy so that they can make more money? Your whole "human nature" theme has some huge holes in it.

Unless your propossing stragith collectivism of those things, why is it fair to expect others to pay for something that one is equally capable of providing themselves? And i again remind you that whether someone has insureance or not, under the law, if they need care they must be treated.

You are wrong. If someone needs emergency care, they must be treated. That is a hell of a lot different than care.

 

[Angel Heart]

It's "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Or did you forget that part. There is no promise of happiness. You have to achieve happiness for yourself.

 

[Shogun]

Because he makes that money through luck.


uh, well, that and buying the rights to produce the DOS operating system. Do you think These guys:

were just "lucky"? I think they helped facilitate the user compatibility with computers which was a prerequisite to get to this wonderful internet stage. Bill Gates deserves every penny that his operating systems rake in due to his talent in computers and business AND his example of innovative ideas put to a market. Sure, MS goes on to test the boundaries of antitrust laws but, considering the importance of his products to end user computers, I think your luck argument is running on stubby legs.

 

[Angel Heart]

They made that money by making wise choices at the right times. Buying DOS was one of many. How about giving stock to employees instead of pay raises? Or buying of the mouse programing that was made by Xerox? That wasn't luck, it was wise choices at key times.

Why do so many hate the rich? Acting like they stole the money.

 

[Larkinn]

Because he makes that money through luck.


uh, well, that and buying the rights to produce the DOS operating system. Do you think These guys:

were just "lucky"? I think they helped facilitate the user compatibility with computers which was a prerequisite to get to this wonderful internet stage. Bill Gates deserves every penny that his operating systems rake in due to his talent in computers and business AND his example of innovative ideas put to a market. Sure, MS goes on to test the boundaries of antitrust laws but, considering the importance of his products to end user computers, I think your luck argument is running on stubby legs.

No, they weren't just lucky, but that was a big part of it. You think that group were the only ones talented enough to form something like that? Its often the case that new and innovative technologies come from several sources and only one of them gets all the credit. See Facebook and all the people suing Zuckerberg for an example of that.

 

[Larkinn]

They made that money by making wise choices at the right times.

Look at right times...as I said it takes a lot of luck to be in the right times when your particular brand of wisdom works well. Warren Buffett said something about this, that he was lucky that he had the chance to work in investments. If he was born in Africa, he would have been a total failure.

Buying DOS was one of many. How about giving stock to employees instead of pay raises? Or buying of the mouse programing that was made by Xerox? That wasn't luck, it was wise choices at key times.

They give stock to employees instead of pay raises because they didn't have any money. That wasn't a wise choice, it was a necessity.

Why do so many hate the rich? Acting like they stole the money.

Nice overstatement there. Nobody is "hating the rich". Stating that it has to do a lot with getting lucky is not hating them.

 

[MtnBiker]

The computer models are unreliable, inconsisitant and basically meaningless. So, we should base government policy on "what ifs"?

 

[Larkinn]

The computer models are unreliable, inconsisitant and basically meaningless. So, we should base government policy on "what ifs"?

Naah, what ifs are useless. We should probably disband the military as well...I mean guessing that we might need it in the future is just another "what if", right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Naah, what ifs are useless. We should probably disband the military as well...I mean guessing that we might need it in the future is just another "what if", right?

Your ignorant as hell. So smart your stupid.

 

[Larkinn]

Your ignorant as hell. So smart your stupid.

Grow up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Grow up.

Get some common sense and learn how to construct arguments. Comparing the need for the military ( something we know for a fact we need) to the need to destroy our economy on an unproven unsubstantiated whim is about as retarded as you get.

Did you happen to notice Mr Mensa that 4 of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930?s And only 3 were in the last 20 years? Ya so much for man made global warming.