myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 215, 216, 217 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5581

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to NW30's site. CNS news, founded by L. Brent Bozell because Fox news is too moderate. We already knew that NW had no interest in facts or credibility. It just gets sadder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4344

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
I know a few of you arent good with postive , feel good news but this might help.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/On-the-way-home-boater-rescues-dog-from-SF-Bay-4727557.php


Oh that's nice news! Is is possible that that was "Winddoggie"? I want to adopt that dog along with Elian Gozalez!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1919
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Back to NW30's site. CNS news, founded by L. Brent Bozell because Fox news is too moderate. We already knew that NW had no interest in facts or credibility. It just gets sadder.

Touche' Jose.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1413

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it sad that discussions here always end in 'nah nah na nah na', my source is better than your source nonsense.

I couldn't care less who (left, right, extreme left, extreme right) states what, if the claims made can be verified as fact. Arctic ice either IS thicker this year, or it is NOT. The politics of the source making the statement is irrelevant.

Everybody cherry picks to bolster their beliefs, and nobody is better at doing so than the dedicated (my new religion) global warmer. Events which have occured or are happening are verifiable. The certainty that nothing will arise that changes things in the future is an arrogant position to take.

For pro global warmers (not climate change) to dismiss any possibility they are getting it wrong when they have already made so many stupid predictions in the very recent past (the classic children won't know what snow is!) makes a mockery of what they claim to be 'settled science'.

Add me to the growing band of doubters ( not the same as deniers) who prefer the solar cooling phase over the next couple of centuries scenario. Those making that prediction have not been proven wrong by the so called consensus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1107

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
I think it sad that discussions here always end in 'nah nah na nah na', my source is better than your source nonsense.

I couldn't care less who (left, right, extreme left, extreme right) states what, if the claims made can be verified as fact. Arctic ice either IS thicker this year, or it is NOT. The politics of the source making the statement is irrelevant.

Everybody cherry picks to bolster their beliefs, and nobody is better at doing so than the dedicated (my new religion) global warmer. Events which have occured or are happening are verifiable. The certainty that nothing will arise that changes things in the future is an arrogant position to take.

GT,
I'm wondering is this an American thing? I'd like to think not but their media certainly plays on this attitude. This is not an attitude or approach you would encounter often in Canada. It's the same as your comment about the screeching alley cats you made earlier. I guess its "Freedom of Speech" but if I don't agree with what you say then shut up.
Seeing the majority of regular contributors here seem to be retired I would have thought that they'd be happier, but it appears more like a pissing match of crotchety old farts who probably pass their time screaming at the neighbour's kids to stay off their lawn. Laughing and spewking all over eachother on here. Some people on here are starting to remind me off my mother's boyfriend. He would argue the sky is not blue just for the sake of arguing. We now all refer to him as the human dimmer switch.



mac wrote:

This is nonsense. Scientists don't predict the future, they model scenarios--lots of them. Those scenarios represent different sets of assumptions--and they use assumptions because they don't know factors, yet. Calling this work predictions, and then using it to discredit scientific work as in this comment is disingenuous at best.

You are exactly right. They make assumptions and then what they are left with are theories, not facts, theories like so much of science really is. Read this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory . I think I saw the word prediction in that definition somewhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1413

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reinerehiers.

I agree with much of your first half, but your final burst ('they (scientists) make assumptions and what they are left with is theories') shows a willful ignorance of proper scientific research, and is patent nonsense. (Except in earlier global warming circles where evangelism and tin foil hats were seemingly compulsory.)

In the sciences, theories are formed to explain observable facts, and experimental results. These theories are then further tested and, if found not to accord with further research, are either discarded or modified to fit results. ASSUMPTION plays no part in this, OTHER than in formation of the original theoretical starting point. Einstein postulated relativety theory and it has been rigourously tested since its inception, and, despite fantastically more knowledge of the universe and its oddities, has so far never been found wanting in explanation why these things happen.

When you comment on the field of scientific research and knowledge it is YOU who are making assumptions, to fit a preconcieved agenda. Proper science never should do that.

(Which is why so much of global warming dogma is increasingly coming under general scorn, at least in our country. ('No snow in our time!', anybody?))
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1107

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
Reinerehiers.

I agree with much of your first half, but your final burst ('they (scientists) make assumptions and what they are left with is theories') shows a willful ignorance of proper scientific research, and is patent nonsense. (Except in earlier global warming circles where evangelism and tin foil hats were seemingly compulsory.)
I'm not being ignorant to proper scientific research. I recognise its importance, but even scientists will tell you the science is theory until it is "proven" a fact. I find it interesting that you can discredit the global warming people though and I love the back handed derrogatory comment exposing your own prejudices. So let me get this straight, they shouldn't squabble over right and left views but your comments are somehow better? Those darn screeching cats.

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
In the sciences, theories are formed to explain observable facts, and experimental results. These theories are then further tested and, if found not to accord with further research, are either discarded or modified to fit results. ASSUMPTION plays no part in this, OTHER than in formation of the original theoretical starting point. Einstein postulated relativety theory and it has been rigourously tested since its inception, and, despite fantastically more knowledge of the universe and its oddities, has so far never been found wanting in explanation why these things happen.

When you comment on the field of scientific research and knowledge it is YOU who are making assumptions, to fit a preconcieved agenda. Proper science never should do that.

(Which is why so much of global warming dogma is increasingly coming under general scorn, at least in our country. ('No snow in our time!', anybody?))
I agree with most of your statement. I am wondering what the preconcieved agenda might be, but I have a feeling it might tie into your prejudiced comment earlier. Tin foil hats are cool! They reflect all those harmful rays that are making their way through the depleted ozone layer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1413

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My perception is that you are a creationist who chooses to believe the world is only a few thousand years old.

Perhaps you'd either confirm or deny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1107

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll confirm that I believe in creation but not just a "few" thousand years old. I'll also confirm I'm not interested in partaking in any part of dialogue on the subject. The reason for this would be outlined in your post made this morning and the screeching cats comment you made before. I do not see that being a fruitful dialogue given the environment / approach you noted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3539

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT I don't understand what you mean about evangelists. In my experience they are strong deniers simply because they are largely conservatives.[/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 215, 216, 217 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 216 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group