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

Temp Refusing To Follow AGW Predictions [Pic+]

Hits: 7199 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: Science | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 68 9 10 11 12 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:16:41 PM
Hey, how much do you get paid to go on websites and spread the fearmongering propaganda?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:16:28 PM
@An-egg: That was an impressive little temper-tantrum there, friend. Get back to me when you're willing to discuss science like an adult.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:13:57 PM
Oh, so is the graph from the Mail wrong too? Remember you have a 0 for 1 on discrediting journalists. Also, you linked to it so I don't trust the source.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:11:25 PM
4. sorry, the correct answer was Real Scientists

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:11:12 PM
@An-egg: Oh my goodness. Someone's upset. We begin to discuss science (finally) and now you've put your fingers in your ears and declare that you refuse to look at any links, aka data, that I provide.

Well, that's an impressive way to discuss a topic. Which PhD program taught you that technique, my "physicist" friend?

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:10:08 PM
3. you didn't actually make a point

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:08:54 PM
2. Nope. I am pleased that there are many models, less pleased that the powers that be cherry pick to meet their goals

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:06:05 PM
!. I didn't look at your link because

a) You are a credentialed liar and;
b) you lie about newspaper articles and;
c) the source was the UN and the Met office, both of which are reputable, your links are now meaningless because you disseminate lies.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:37:12 PM
(Cont'd)

4. "Who designs all the satellites and equipment, and formulates the math that climate 'scientists' use when they are not just spreading propaganda." Oh, this one's easy: THE ILLUMINATI! Everyone knows they keep "formulating the math" to confuse everyone.

Seriously, friend: You're awesome. A living, breathing embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

'Night. =^.^=

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:35:15 PM
(Cont'd)

3. *What* obviously flawed results? Seriously: the funniest thing about this *Mail* article is that it claims the chart shows that the estimates were "a spectacular miscalculation" when, in fact, the chart shows just the opposite: the trend line is tracking within the predicted range. I could insert an annotated screenshot here to point this out to you, but you're a professional physicist so I'm sure you can read the chart on your own. Err... wait: Come to think of it, you *did* read the chart on your own and didn't understand it correctly. Weird.

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33:38 PM
@An-egg:

1. I have already provided a link to an analysis that throroughly skewers the warped interpretation of the data in this hilarious *Mail* article. I guess you missed that, so here you go.

2. That's odd: I thought you said earlier that you were "glad" there are hundreds of models of AGW being tested. Apparently, you've changed your mind. Well, I certainly can't convince you that any of the models are "worth a penny of [your"> money." That's a value judgment that only you can make. I do find it curious that someone who claims to be a physicist is so opposed to the work of other professional scientists.

(Cont'd next post)

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:10:22 PM
Actually, I have another few minutes. Like I said, it is a thread about a newspaper article. If you feel the urge to talk about science then feel free to show how that graph based on data from the UN and the Met Office demonstrates that
1. we are in a period of continued global warming;
2. that the models trusted by the UN (20 I believe were used for this) are worth a penny of my money;
3. anyone should consider climate change a credible science when it has produced such obviously flawed results;

and a bonus question
4. Who designs all the satellites and equipment, and formulates the math that climate 'scientists' use when they are not just spreading propaganda.

I'll give you a clue R___ S_________

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:58:14 PM
An-egg: "Laters."

Annnnnd he's gone. Interesting how averse our "physicist" appears to be to actually discussing science.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:54:24 PM
"it's a lot easier to talk about movies and newspaper articles than to discuss, say, monotonic functions"

Yes, that's because this is a thread about a newspaper article.

Laters.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:45:18 PM
@An-egg: Alrighty then: I should not have called the *Telegraph* hatchet job "entirely untrue." I should have called it "a gross distortion of what happened in court, designed to deceive the gullible."

Are you happy now? I certainly hope so.

Now, can you explain to me why you, who claim to be a physicist, have little to nothing to say about the science of AGW but want to talk about a movie all night?

Seriously: I can put off dinner for you. Let's hear you address some science, for a change.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:36:08 PM
I also have to go, but when you tell a lie in an argument and get caught on it, it is usually best to change the subject.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:34:23 PM
So here we have it. I demonstrate that you lied. You then restate that I am a liar with no proof. And you expect people to listen to a word you say?

And I thought you didn't have a sense of humor?

You also missed the part about the judge calling it a political film which could only be shown with guidance that it was one sided.



Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:29:45 PM
@An-egg: Do you really have anything to say regarding the science of AGW on here? Or are you simply going to talk about Al Gore's movie all night? Yes, for someone pretending to be a physicist, it's a lot easier to talk about movies and newspaper articles than to discuss, say, monotonic functions--but seriously: Is there any aspect of the science you'd care to discuss?

* * *

And a heads-up to all: I'm hitting the shower and going out for dinner, so it could be awhile before I participate further. You'll forgive me, I hope, for having a social life. =^.^=

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:22:09 PM
@An-Egg: You haven't even spent ten minutes on the NASA website, have you? I know, I know: Real science is just so annoying, huh? =^.^=

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:20:24 PM
@An-egg: Awww. You're cute when you're in a pique. I like the way you come online, lie about being a physicist, and then paint yourself as the Defender of the Truth.

Again, since you didn't seem to understand it the first time:

@An-egg: Lastly, regarding *An Inconvenient Truth* and the lawsuit: It appears to escape you, but the judge found for the DEFENDANT, ruled that there was no reason to bar the showing of the film in classrooms, and found the film "broadly accurate." In short: Your side LOST.

Did the judge find that the 96-minute film contained a handful of inaccuracies? Yes, absolutely. Does the finding of a handful of inaccuracies in an hour-and-a-half film judged to be "broadly accurate"--a film made by a politician and not a scientist--somehow invalidate a mountain of scientific work, spanning decades, that makes the case for anthropogenic global warming?

Only on FOX News--and, apparently, in your ill-informed mind.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:15:56 PM
Also, you said, and I quote once again, "entirely untrue". You see how your arguments change when they are honestly challenged.

Had I not been here, people might have believed you when you said that the article was "entirely untrue", but now they know that you just didn't like the way they presented the entirely truthful information.

Expect anyone to believe anything else you say?

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:10:34 PM
I said, "inaccurate predictions with great publicity". The mail article shows evidence from the UN and the Met Office of inaccurate predictions. There are not Micky Mouse organizations. An inconvenient truth was undoubtedly great publicity. It too contained factual inaccuracies, distortions of the truth and outright lies (like the evacuation of Polynesian Islanders)

Which part did I get wrong again?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 3:47:25 PM
@An-egg: An honest journalistic approach to the story would have started with the headline, "Judge Upholds Showing of Al Gore Movie in Schools, Calling it 'Broadly Accurate.'" As a subhead, or two or three grafs into the story, the journalist would have included the statement, "In the course of making his decision, the judge found the film contained a handful of errors."

Instead, what the *Telegraph* article did was to misrepresent the findings of the judge in order to influence gullible people like yourself into thinking that, somehow, all of AGW science had just been discredited in open court. Clearly, they succeeded: You cited the article yourself under just such a delusion.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 3:29:46 PM
So, a thing that is "entirely untrue" cites a judges findings and says, basically, the same thing you did after saying it was "entirely untrue". Is this how your scientific method works?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 3:27:40 PM
@Ollie: LOL! You noticed that too. Thanks for adding some levity here. =^.^=

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 68 9 10 11 12 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.