[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="590" id="3403015"]nd it expressly tells the government to provide for the welfare of the people,[/quote] That is not true. It says "promote the general welfare". And the welfare that it is referring to is not welfare payments. Due to the 16th amendment, it does indeed give them the right to tax. But neither that amendment nor any other place in the Constitution gives them the right to confiscate property and give it to others. 
[quote who="Ekko_Tek" reply="503" id="3402540"]Please - do show us these numerous works that don't agree with their conclusion. Please show us the "real science". Is there another "Oregon Report" you'd like to share? You have no clue what you are talking about.[/quote] See previous reply - got a link? And yes I do. I will be glad to contribute to your thread as soon as I find it.
[quote who="sjaminei" reply="496" id="3402515"]OH please please give me a critical review of the papers, and the ones you are saying that do not agree with their conclusion. Then we might finally get somewhere in this thread. [/quote] If the thread was about the source work, I would be more than happy to. However, the IPCC report is a tangent to this thread, so I see no reason in side tracking it. But I will gladly contribute to your thread discussing the IPCC report - do
[quote who="Borg999" reply="494" id="3402507"]As far as alternative fuel technologies are concerned. We seem to be locked into a chicken or the egg loop. For example, people won’t buy electric cars until there are enough “fueling” stations available. But without sufficient demand for electric cars, very few entrepreneurs are willing to open fueling stations. Same issue with the cost of electric cars…[/quote] It actually is the egg. In other words, people
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="474" id="3402328"]It covers, in substantial detail, why humans are a massive contributor to the cause and why the problem is really bad and over what term the problem is bad. And, its really just a preamble to an even more massive report thats coming out.[/quote] Actually no it does not. Many people thinks it does thing it does not. The report (or the summary since that is all that has been released) is merely a compilation of select scientifi
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="470" id="3402318"]but can be applied over a few decades.[/quote] And yet none were even within 2 std deviations of what happened. Good models can be applied. The problem is there are no good models yet. [quote who="Krazikarl" reply="470" id="3402318"]when you compare the models against the data on reasonable time frames, they have done an excellent job of predicting climate change. [/quote] No you have not.
[quote who="markgil" reply="119" id="3401585"]“Saying eating animals is “yummy” as a justification for killing them is pretty much the same argument as saying rape is okay since it feels good to the rapist. Civilized people require more than sensory pleasure to justify behaviors.”[/quote] Denying biology is the same as suicide. As long as you take no one else with you, it is your choice. Man cannot live without Vitamin B12. The only natural
[quote who="Jafo" reply="113" id="3401273"] I was being 'generic'.... I could also have said....'you have no teeth'...[/quote] Now you are peaking at my picture! ;-)
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="423" id="3400504"]What I was saying was this (as a regular member):[/quote] However the IPCC summary was just released (the thread did seem to take a "hiatus" over the summer) which makes it topical. Perhaps no ones opinion will be changed. But the expression of ideas is what the forums are all about. Conversion is secondary. Hope you had a wonderful birthday.
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="407" id="3400382"]You are using the Chewbacca defense:[/quote] Sorry no. Providing documentation showing that your statement is incorrect is not a red herring or misleading. It is how debates are won. If you can refute the evidence I have provided, please do. But creating straw men and introducing non sequiturs is not a defense. [quote who="Krazikarl" reply="407" id="3400382"]I point out all the national academies of scienc
[quote who="flagyl" reply="403" id="3400333"]It is the summary. The fourth part of the report will becoming out in 2014. If you read the pdf, you should have seen that.[/quote] I did. But the working papers did not support the opinion. Perhaps you missed those (they were leaked).
[quote who="Jafo" reply="400" id="3400326"] Quoting Dr Guy, reply 396and none of the authors have such a degree. The 'science' of grammar would have you say 'and none of the authors has such a degree'. 'none' is a contraction of 'not one' so is singular - in spite of 'authors' being plural .... ...[/quote] Thank you. My grammar (and spelling, but then spell checkers help) really suck.
[quote who="flagyl" reply="388" id="3399955"]Did you read the IPCC's summary released on the 27th? Did you see how they took the time to quantify the degree of consensus and the quality of the research? I thinks they already are.[/quote] Sure did! But then the scientist in me got my spider senses tingling. What is the basis for their certainty? They offered no supporting data, no qualifying degree. Nothing. If you read it, there is nothing there.&nb
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="367" id="3399721"] From what I can tell, he is spamming a bunch of links debunking a study that I never cited anywhere (the 97% thing). But since he can't deal with the argument that I am actually making (basically IPCC plus national academics of science and other organizations), he is moving the goalposts to the argument that he thinks he can actually debunk.[/quote] No, I am showing you that you are wrong. You stated that it was th
[quote who="flagyl" reply="366" id="3399719"](I presented you with the position statements of SCIENTIFIC associations. organizations and academies. Not Forbes and opinion articles).[/quote] No, So did I, Science organizations are not data, nor research. nor do they create one or do the other. If you bother to check the links you will find them all sourced to the appropriate papers. I suggest you check the links before you dismiss them. It
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="364" id="3399716"]You mean the petition that was signed by "Britney Spears"..multiple times?[/quote] Actually no. Britney spears name does not appear on the Oregon petition. Please stick to the facts. Trotting out tired and false accusations because you do not like a source is not debating. It is screeching.
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="347" id="3399610"] I would consider using tree ring data from 8 trees in a single forest 'cherry picking'.[/quote] Or one as the Briffa continuation had. How about turning the Tiljander data set upside down? That must be worth a few laughs. All those and more! (Don't forget "hide the decline") In the debunked hockey stick. [quote who="Krazikarl" reply="349" id="3399623"]"Scientists are 90% sur
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="346" id="3399606"]"the overwhelming majority of scientists"[/quote] Um, ever heard of the Oregon Petition? Over 31,000 is not "small percentage". And where are you getting your notes from about the "overwhelming majority"? Would that be the UMD study that showed the actual number to be only .7%? http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf Or the n
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="344" id="3399604"]There is no lull as explicitly stated in your own link and as stated in my link. The "lull" mostly comes from people cherry picking data points to do REALLY shady short term data manipulation (for example, choosing certain 17 year time frames because you know the numbers will work out to give you a result that you want ahead of time).[/quote] Again, using the wrong tool for the wrong point. I give you the tools, I ca
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="342" id="3399599"]Your own article says that temperatures have risen substantially over the last 20 years and that there has not been a lull. It is just that the measured rise is not as large as most models predict it would have been. On much shorter time scales there has not been a measureable rise, but that is not completely unexpected since its well known that climate models can't deal with year scale predictions.[/quote] Call it a lull, hiatus, pa
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="337" id="3399488"]I linked multiple well regarded scientific sources that indicated that there has been measurable warming over the last few decades that is in line with what was predicted by climate change models. That is, of course, assuming that you don't cherry pick your end points.[/quote] YOu are confusing 2 different points. point 1: There has been warming in the past 30 years. Point 2: The models predicted the cu
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="333" id="3399441"]As I showed in links about a few month ago (which you largely ignored because they were inconvenient to your argument), various models (from decades ago) based on our current theories of Climate Change have been successful in predicting current climate change.[/quote] That would be a neat trick if you could reproduce it. However since the IPCC and everyone else has acknowledged that the models DO NOT predict the current climate cha
JoeUser Forums