I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Selective Reasoning [Pic]

Hits: 11355 | Rating: (2.8) | Category: Funny | Added by: patchgrabber
Page: 1 2 3 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 387 Posts
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:44:42 PM
@UDUMASS: By their very definition, greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat (infrared radiation) in the atmosphere. If you took a little effort, *you* could be the guy in a lab coat finding this out yourself.

Just get two clear soda bottles, half filled with water, add some Alka-Seltzer to one bottle for the CO2, then seal them with a temperature probe in each, and expose them both to a heat lamp. You will note that the addition of the greenhouse gas allows the temperature to get hotter.

This is a basic demonstration that scientifically demonstrates what I was saying.

For a demonstration, see here: The Greenhouse Gas Demo

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6455 Posts
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:29:24 AM
They quote scientific nonsense to support their rejection of peer supported science. Just like the cartoon depicts.

UDUMASS
Male, 30-39, Canada
 61 Posts
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:10:39 PM
"Increased carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases increases the overall temperature of the Earth because they trap more heat in the atmosphere. You do not need any other "feedback" for that to be true."

Where's your evidence for this? And, by the way, a guy in a white coat saying "Yes, it's true" does not constitute evidence... If I were to put on a white coat and say "Everyone on IAB is a bunch of assho..." oh, wait... never mind...

HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 387 Posts
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:01:36 AM
@randomxnp: You keep using the word "feedback", but I don't think it means what you think it means. Or, at the very least, it's not as important as you seem to think it is.

Increased carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases increases the overall temperature of the Earth because they trap more heat in the atmosphere. You do not need any other "feedback" for that to be true.

This rapidly (in geologic terms) increasing heat means changes in climate that many species cannot adapt to, more extreme weather changes, increased glacial melting, and rising sea levels. This may not be "catastrophic", but it is certainly problematic, and could be avoided by making some basic changes to how we go about doing some things. The earlier the better too.

Since we do not know the full extent of the problems that further global warming will cause, reasonable caution is recommended, yes?

HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 387 Posts
Monday, June 11, 2012 11:50:08 PM
@Madest: Agreed. My favorite was how randomxnp claimed that your graph was irrelevant when he thought it disagreed with him, and then it was suddenly relevant again when he thought it agreed with him.

If that isn't selective reasoning, I don't know what is.

You can't convince people of anything when they insist on making the facts fit their beliefs, rather than letting the facts lead them to an objective conclusion.

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6455 Posts
Monday, June 11, 2012 7:58:38 PM
Selective reasoning indeed.

onoffonoffon
Male, 30-39, Western US
 1776 Posts
Monday, June 11, 2012 10:22:57 AM
I don't mind unlimited amounts being spent on research. It shouldn't be done by the government.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1066 Posts
Monday, June 11, 2012 5:28:03 AM
HiEV

"Anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is an established fact."

Yes. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, however, is a myth. It has no basis in empirical evidence. The hypothesis relies on feedback which was proved 15 years ago not to be happening. Since then we have been lied to about it, continuously and broadly by the people who have an interest in perpetuating the myth, people who gain money, influence or prestige through the myth.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1066 Posts
Monday, June 11, 2012 5:24:27 AM
... sceptical side.

Curious that, since the case is so strong for CAGW, eh?

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1066 Posts
Monday, June 11, 2012 5:22:31 AM
Madest

97% of climatologists gave exactly the same answer to a survey as I would.

You really are an idiot aren't you? You quote a (wrong) statistic either knowing nothing about it or knowing about it perpetuating the dishonesty yourself, and you think I wouldn't know?

The questions in the survey asked if the temperatures had risen and if human influence had a significant effect on this. The answers are of course yes and "it depends on what you mean by 'significant', but probably yes".

What they did not even ask about is the only point of disagreement between the True Believers in the Church of Global Catastrophe and the sceptics. That is feedback. As I said before.

So either you knew all this and are dishonest, or you did not and you are too ill-informed to discuss the issue.

Of course there has been a lot of dishonesty among those claiming CAGW. I mean a lot. No significant dishonesty at all has been shown on the sceptica

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6455 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 5:21:28 PM
Ok well, sell that to the 98% of climatologists that disagree with you. I'm gonna run with their findings over some random guy on the internet. If they agree with your findings I'm certain I'll hear about it and I promise I won't be to ashamed to apologize.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1066 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 3:41:22 PM
Madest

Sorry, I did you a disservice. Your graph is actually relevant, in that it proves that human activity has not caused the majority of global warming or of its supposed effects.

Given that the Earth began warming in about 1850, and has risen at a steady rate since overlain by a multi-decadal oscillation; given that glacial retreat has been recorded since the early 20th century, at a fairly steady rate in many places; given that sea-klevel rise has been remarkably steady since about 1850 your graph, showing as it does very little human influence before 1940 shows that these cannot be related to the fossil carbon release graphed.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1066 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 3:36:47 PM
McBoozerilla

Actually it is the Democrats in America who are (slightly) more anti science.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1066 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 3:34:15 PM
Madest: if you can't argue with it then it is, by definition, not science. That's ironic, isn't it?

As for the graph, so what? It is not evidence for positive feedback in temperature. There is no evidence for such positive feedback. There is sound evidence that the positive feedback assumed by the climate panic industry is not happening. Without positive feedback, there is no dangerous man-made climate change.

It is all in the feedback. The rest is just a smokescreen, to fool the naive and gullible such as yourself. Seen through by many of us with degrees in real sciences.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1066 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 3:31:16 PM
Great until the last panel: global warming has little to do with oil; what little it has to do with oil is not harmful. To say otherwise is not science, it is speculation, politics and pseudo-science

mcboozerilla
Male, 30-39, Europe
 649 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 2:57:07 PM
The GOP - the anti-science party

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6455 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 2:38:22 PM
You forgot cow farts. Which has proven to cause more damage that fossil carbon emissions.
-----------
No. I didn't forget methane. But the methane that poses a threat to climate change is the methane that gets released from melting permafrost not cow farts. In fact it's been discovered that raising livestock in Siberia has helped to strengthen their permafrost.

monsterzero
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 331 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:54:40 AM
@Madest:
You forgot cow farts.
Which has proven to cause more damage that fossil carbon emissions.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 3624 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 9:36:09 AM
madest-" it's the science that you cannot argue with"

Of course you can argue with science. The only people who say 'you can't argue with science' are people who are standing by crappy science.

Just a few ideas that were 'supported by science that could not be argued with':
Geocentricity
Spontaneous Generation
Disease was caused by an imbalance of the four basic humors
Firmament (sky as a dome)
Hollow Earth
The Element Aether (ether)

madest-"unless of course you are a climate scientist."

Nope, just a research chemist. So I do know a bit about research, science and data. (as in, show me the bell curve you want and I'll give you the data to support it)

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 3624 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 9:15:01 AM
@madest

Okay, you've shown a graph of 'metric tons of carbon'. But have shown nothing to detail how it affects global climate. You just insinuate that it is 'bad'.

The mass of the atmosphere is 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) tons. So that 6,500 tones you mention is approximately 1.3 ten-billionth (0.00000000000013%) of the atmosphere.

I thing that pretty much sums up monsterzero's 'minisule' argument.

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6455 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 9:10:35 AM
MeGrendel, You can live in your bubble and make nonsense points about some perfect ice level with yourself. I don't claim to be a climate scientist but I do read about it. My opinion means nothing, it's the science that you cannot argue with unless of course you are a climate scientist. Which is clearly an impossibility.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 3624 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 9:00:31 AM
madest-"This spring was the hottest on record,"

A record that goes back for about 162 years. Out of millions of years. (Yes, scientific studys of past temperatures are available, and show that it's been hotter, and colder, since the dawn of time.)

It is not as hot as it has ever been. It will get hotter, it will get cooler.

In terms of the environment, climate change is the norm as it's a dynamic, cyclic system. The myth known as Climate Change is a political movement.

You didn't answer the question, madest: What level of glaciation is 'perfect'? What is the 'perfect' temperature. And how will you driving an electric car make the earth maintain that 'perfect' temperature. (remember, at this moment, driving a car does not lower your level of pollution, it just moves it)

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6455 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:54:16 AM
Yes it is but the fact is, man made global warming is so miniscule it's not worth arguing about.
---------
These definitive statements are only opinions and do not reflect the science.


robosnitz
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 2752 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 6:44:55 AM
Madest, a dick?? NOOOOOOO!!!!!

botfly
Male, 50-59, Eastern US
 593 Posts
Sunday, June 10, 2012 6:26:40 AM
@Madest Why must you always be such a dick?

Page: 1 2 3 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.