Thread: Clinton.

"strange, that same advisor who I have provided quotes from was the very advisor against the US signing the Kyoto protocol, which was Bush's first stance.

they have flip-flopped, that's why I say they are not credible. Not consistent"

The advisor is probably saying what the politicians tell him, though maybe he just realised he was wrong.

"Uh, no they aren't. I went and spoke with the people at NewScience.com before I posted what I said. I didn't make that up. In fact, you can even go to their site and find it in writing."

I don't mean to say that every theory they write about will go on to become one that is globally recognised, of course they publish articles on all manner of theories favouring those that are more extravagant (these theories can often turn out to be dead ends), i often see articles that i disagree with for that very reason. However in any article that is on such material they always have quotes from scientists both supporting and disagreeing with the ideas expressed. Furthermore on the big issues like global warming, genetic modification, stem cell research etc. they merely represent a conduit for the scientific community. There have been articles published in these magazines that do dispute global warming, just as there are scientists out there that do, but by in large the majority of articles/journal publications support it just as the majority of scientists do too.

As an example the media reaction to Wolfram's new book has been very large, but do the New Scientist publish an article fully endorsing his work, playing into public opinion? No they don't, they publish an article discussing the possible repercussions of his work and the impressions his ideas have made on the scientific community, citing proffessors from various disciplines.

"Again, you are wrong. They choose what gets published because they want subscriptions. I got news for you-- the majority of science agrees that "global warming as a man-made problem" does not exist. Again, I tell you to go look at the actual science-- hard facts, graphs, and historical proofs that exist-- but you refuse to."

You don't seem to understand how science works; you develop a hypothesis and gather data to test it, all those "hard facts" are just data being used to support or disagree with a given hypothesis, there are no "hard facts" here. Anyway the claim that the New Scientist would somehow lose subscriptions if they published more articles by the naysayers of global warming is absurd.

" Your information is based solely on faulty computer modelling of weather patterns. Nothing more"

CO2 traps heat: undisputed
CO2 levels have increased largely since the industrial revolution: undisputed

Some people dispute that the increase in CO2 levels was due to mankind...... but they are in a minority, the graphs (i know how you love graphs) of ambient CO2 levels extracted from polar ice clearly show the rise in CO2 levels coincides with the on going industrialisation process.

How the increase in CO2 will affect the climate is also disputed, different models say slightly different things.

"That simple fact remains that 80% of the earth is covered in water-- and it is the ocean which has the greatest impact on our climate. Every living plant absorbs CO2 and issues oxygen, whether it is above or under the water"

The ocean is very very stable, as in it doesnt change much. I'm well aware that plants absorb CO2, but their contribution to the slowing of global warming has recently been deemed less significant than previously thought.

"So you are a dewey-eyed college boy mislead by liberal educators brainwashed by their own arguments. You forget that college is not so much a place of teaching anymore, as it is a way to brainwash people to a certain school of thought. Seems to be working on you."

Oh i see, i shouldn't believe my environmental chemistry professors ie. the people who are WRITING the papers that get published in the journals..... I'm at one of the top British univerisities, that has an excellent reputation for teaching science, but obviously i should just ignore everything i get taught there.... riiight.

"Again, it wouldn't matter if I could only find 1 scientist that didn't believe in man-made global warming. As long as they follow accurate scientific principal and provide truthful non-biased data, they would be correct."

It would appear that you have no idea what scientific principle and "truthfull non-biased data" are. Science works via the peer-review process, thats how the scientific community forms opinions. If global warming had been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be due to purely environmental factors, the scientific community would reflect that, they don't, the kyoto agreement was drawn up based on what the scientific community advised.

"Your argument is essentially this: I (Clyde) believe all the people telling me that 2 + 2 = 5. I choose not to actually work the math out for myself and when someone else tells me 2 + 2 = 4. "

No....... my argument is this:

I (Clyde) am not a climatologist so i believe what the scientific community has to say.

I have also seen the graph of atmospheric CO2 vs. time, in regards to the ice age cycle, its looks pretty clear.

"Go ahead Clyde, keep opening your mouth-- your IQ drops by the word. "

Resorting to childish insults when your arguments get pulled apart doesn't really help you. Plus insulting my intellect really isn't the way to go either, if there is anything I am confident about that's it. Oh and I don't know about you, but i don't open my mouth with each word i type.......

"And by the way for you nit-pickers-- the key word here is "man made global warming". I don't dispute that the world might be warming a little-- Science disputes that man is the reason"

You have no clue what "Science" has to say about anything, you have a couple of articles saying man hasn't significantly affected global warming, well woopdie do, there are articles published that seem to show everything and anything, in regards to global warming the number of journal publications supporting global warming FAR outnumbers the number disputing it. That is why the scientific community has the view point it does, the attitudes expressed in New Scientist, Scientific American, Nature, Science, etc. along with articles by scientists published in Newspapers, public lectures, and by university lecturers in the field reflect this.

"Oh, I love science. Irrefutable fact."

You have no clue do you? Science "irrefuteable fact", what utter nonsense! Science does NOT offer "irrefuteable fact", it offers theories supported by evidence nothing more, nothing less. Science's GREATEST strength is that it DOESN'T consider anything to be "irrefuteable fact", nothing is beyond rethinking, scientific theories are constantly revised, updated, and even replaced if a better one comes along.

"Clyde, perhaps you should look the definition of "science" and "scientific process" up-- it might help you to understand what science is really all about. "

Yea obviously I'M the one that needs to do that.......

Since you dislike the New Scientist articles do you want me to start posting the Nature ones instead?

"Ooops, I just tore your left nut off-- going for the right if you keep this up..."

Oh i like this tactic; if you claim you are winning a debate you can fool yourself into actually believeing you are..... so... did work? Did you fool yourself?

As amusing as these posts are, maybe another forum could be created to deal with off topic posts. There, people could debate Clinton, KKK, evolution, economics, etc.
A lot of these threads degenerate into minorly relevant tit for tat ludicrous arguments. How about a forum for crackpots?

>How about a forum for crackpots?

count me in!!! wweeeeeee haha!!! BOOGERS!!!!!



im gonna refrain... from saying anything else, though theres a lot to be said.

No how it works is the percent you pay, is based on your anual income. Acording to what Sayeh belives I should pay more taxes, and he should pay less.

This is despite the fact I only make a litte more then $130 for a 40 hour week after taxes, I should only get $100 after taxes by sayeh's logic.

Well, figuring a third of your pay as taxes, you only make @ $4.25/hour. That's below minimum wage. You need a new job.

I make 5.50 an hour, but yes I do need a new job.

I just read the first couple posts, and it really is disgusting how many people are Clinton fans. Its funny how he gets credit for the economy, just because he was the president when it improved. It could have been a million different factors. Economic cycles, Republican majority in Congress in 94, etc. He is one of the worst leaders we have ever had. He lied under oath, he sold nuclear technology to the chinese for economic benefits, Ruby Ridge, Waco...the list goes on and on. It's too depressing for me to continue. *sobs* I want to go back to the Turkish coast.
BTW: Sayeh, have you ever read anything by PJ O'Rourke?