On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
wrote:

In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

[X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science

Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you

But the dog ate the evidence of it.
...

Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
in case he comes out less than favorably?

You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
bias in the process somewhere.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On 4/24/12 7:40 PM, Jacob wrote:
On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

Which is more likely...

[ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
climate research.

[X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.


Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.


Your answer has been duly recorded. Thanks for taking the test.

On Apr 25, 4:15*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/24/12 7:40 PM, Jacob wrote:

On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

Which is more likely...

[ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
climate research.

[X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.

Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.

* *Your answer has been duly recorded. Thanks for taking the test.

Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
this proposal is a science fiction denier.

So,what is the more likely -

A - That Western science has collapsed

B - That Western civilization is collapsing

C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
through restoring common sense to A

On 4/25/2012 9:38 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
wrote:

But the dog ate the evidence of it.
...

Speaking of dogs...it seems there are a couple of puppies chewing on my
pants-leg.

Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
in case he comes out less than favorably?

You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
bias in the process somewhere.

Good one Snider! Well above your standard fare! Give some lessons to R.
Kym.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:15:18 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/25/2012 9:38 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
wrote:

But the dog ate the evidence of it.
...

Speaking of dogs...it seems there are a couple of puppies chewing on my
pants-leg.

Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
in case he comes out less than favorably?

You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
bias in the process somewhere.

Good one Snider! Well above your standard fare! Give some lessons to R.
Kym.

Meanwhile, you produce no evidence to back up the BS you were
spewing. What a surprise.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

In sci.physics oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 25, 4:15?pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/24/12 7:40 PM, Jacob wrote:

On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

Which is more likely...

[ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
climate research.

[X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.

Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.

? ?Your answer has been duly recorded. Thanks for taking the test.

Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
this proposal is a science fiction denier.

So,what is the more likely -

A - That Western science has collapsed

B - That Western civilization is collapsing

C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
through restoring common sense to A

That people that have not been trained to fly a 747 can not fly a 747
and, further, most people are unable to be trained to fly a 747
due to genetic and developmental factors.

The FBI know who is responsible for these factors, but they've been
ordered by Hoover's zombie -- the one that lives in the base of
the Washington Monument -- to keep a lid on it until our alien
overlords are elected into Congress.

--
If the scientific consensus [AGW] is wrong, then what's the correct answer?
What is the correct answer to not a question?
It is the same as the answer to your thingy!
-- Will Janoschka, 21 Apr 2012 20:15:15

In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
wrote:
In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:
On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...
[X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds
[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science
Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
But the dog ate the evidence of it.
...
Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
in case he comes out less than favorably?
You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
bias in the process somewhere.

It's twice as hard when you have to fight against the unwanted facts
and also that little guy in your head that's allays trying to screw you up.

Ben knows he's spouting fallacies -- he will even tell you that when
he sees one come in from "outside".

But let's not get on Ben's back too much. It's not his fault. (wink)

A couple years back I looked at all the statements that had been
made by a particular USENET poster and tried to score them
consensus position/"other" (i.e. fallacy, fringe, plain stoooopid) JUST
for the statements that could be evaluated TRUE/FALSE.
Since there were a lot of these statements a little program needed
to be written to go through them all. (It turned out the same things
was repated over and over in different forms).

It turned out there was a huge win for the "other" column.

Something like 80% of the fellow's statements evaluated to
the equivalent of "water is dry" on a vast range of topics
from politics, through economics, philsophy and science to common
sense questions like "if you put a blanket around yourself, do
you generally feel warmer?".

Dunning et al have their ideas of competence about individual skills.
But these ideas were validated on people with way above-average intellect
to start with (90th percentile). I'm afraid if you leave the ivys
and get down in the mud it turns out if someone spouts nonsense
about one area, they likely spout nonsense about many more.

Dunning et al apparently never visited a bar.

--
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/...hp?ideaId=1907
'Liars say "I am not a crook" rather than "I am honest" '
Liars use short sentences, the past tense and negative statements
Bella DePaula, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia,
has found, in a study of 3,000 people, that the following clues are
the most useful indicators of whether somebody is lying:
# Lack of specific detail - not volunteering names of people and places
# Short answers
# Using the past tense
# Using negative statements ("not a crook" rather than "honest")
# Increased eye contact
# Higher pitched voice

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science

Damn, that's a tough question. May I thjink about it for a few
hours?


--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie

In sci.physics AGWFacts wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science

Damn, that's a tough question. May I thjink about it for a few
hours?

Go ahead and take 8 weeks. We wouldn't want any mistakes.

--
[On solving a(Ts+.001)^4 = b(Te+x)^4:]
[Y]ou can't solve a linear equation or do arithmetic.
What linear equation? Oh! The one with the fourth power
of the intended variable. Linear indeed!
[Only a 15 yo would immediately see that x = (a/b)^(1/4)(Ts+.001)-Te
and that x = .001 Te/Ts approx= 50e-6 K].
-- Will "I'm a true math genius" Janoschka, 25 Apr 2012 12:06:01 -0500

On 4/25/12 12:31 PM, oriel36 wrote:
Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
this proposal is a science fiction denier.

So,what is the more likely -

A - That Western science has collapsed

B - That Western civilization is collapsing

C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
through restoring common sense to A

There might not be any people left to answer the question.

Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...lion-years.ars


The group also examined the several mass extinctions that defined the Mesozoic—the age of dinosaurs. The boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic included a large increase in atmospheric CO2 (adding as much as 1,300 to 2,400 ppm) over a relatively short period of time, perhaps just 20,000 years. The authors write, “A calcification crisis amongst hypercalcifying taxa is inferred for this period, with reefs and scleractinian corals experiencing a near-total collapse.” Again, though, it’s unclear how much of the catastrophe can be blamed on acidification rather than warming.

Finally, we come the big one—The Great Dying. The Permian-Triassic mass extinction (about 252 million years ago) wiped out around 96 percent of marine species. Still, the rate of CO2 released to the atmosphere that drove the dangerous climate change was 10-100 times slower than current emissions.