Thanks, Internet! Conspiracy theorists (and skeptics) thrive online

[pixelsmith]

A key facet of quack science is that it never moves on.

Your AGW/IPCC science does not follow the scientific method, it proclaims it is done "by consensus" which would be quack science.

The MWP is not contested by any reputable scientist. The MWP was why Vikings settled in GREENland... The LIA is why they left.

---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

I cannot believe how ignorant you boys are. PLEASE get some education on this stuff before you say too much more. You really are looking silly at this point.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Pixie, I'm sure bullshit and bluster is a big part of what gets you through your day, but we try to keep our discussions in the realm of actual events, real people, and so on. We realize that limits us in many ways. We can't just make up "evidence" for example, but it's really the only way to have a useful and intelligent conversation about reality. If we look silly to a bunch of nuts in tinfoil hats, well, thanks for the compliment.

 

[pixelsmith]

Pixie, I'm sure bullshit and bluster is a big part of what gets you through your day, but we try to keep our discussions in the realm of actual events, real people, and so on. We realize that limits us in many ways. We can't just make up "evidence" for example, but it's really the only way to have a useful and intelligent conversation about reality. If we look silly to a bunch of nuts in tinfoil hats, well, thanks for the compliment.

Are you saying the Vikings didnt settle in greenland when it was warm and left when it was cold?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Are you saying the Vikings didnt settle in greenland when it was warm and left when it was cold?

I'll point you to this argument.

Greenland used to be green
What the science says...

The Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years. There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon.
This argument is based on the idea that as climate has changed naturally before, current climate change must be natural also. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the main driver of climate during the Medieval Warm Period (eg - solar variations) cannot be causing global warming now. More on the "Climate's changed before" argument...
Did Greenland used to be green?

The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old. Certainly it was alive and well when the island was named around 1000 years ago. So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green. So once again, I refer you to the Climate's changed before argument.
Ancient Greenland DNA

I recommend reading what the authors are actually saying about their own study. The study connects past warming to natural variations in Earth's orbit—obliquity, or how tilted the planet is in relation to the sun. Author Martin Sharp points out "One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account." In other words, their study "really has nothing to say about the mechanisms driving the current warming."
According to author Eske Willerslev, the Greenland ice shelf "has not contributed to global sea level rise during the last interglacial. Importantly, it does not mean that we should not be worried about future global warming as the sea level rise of five to six meters during the last interglacial must have come from somewhere."
Finally, Martin Sharp warns the study "does not prove the current global warming trend is not human induced". If anything, "we may be heading for even bigger temperature increases than we previously thought".
Rebuttal written by John Cook. Last updated on 26 June 2010.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Are you saying the Vikings didnt settle in greenland when it was warm and left when it was cold?

That is such a childish tactic. Stop it, boy!

 

[pixelsmith]

That is such a childish tactic. Stop it, boy!

SkepticalScience.com.... really?

I think we are done. You know absolutely zip about the "players" in this scam.. I can't believe you even went there, it isn't even skeptical science, it is pure propaganda... SkepticalScience.com.... LMAO... The Onion of the AGW world....REALLY?! I sincerely hope you were joking about that link, if not...

Thank You for the funniest post of the year so far on this forum and for showing me without a doubt how much you really know about this subject.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

You are losing your marbles, Pixie. I have no idea why you think I posted that or any link in here. I made a general observation about the quality of your reasoning/debate/evidence and you ask me about Greenland. If I were "debating" on your level, I might have come back with something idiotic like, "So you are saying we should all be breathing diesel exhaust?"

Grow up and pay attention!

 

[pixelsmith]

You are losing your marbles, Pixie. I have no idea why you think I posted that or any link in here. I made a general observation about the quality of your reasoning/debate/evidence and you ask me about Greenland. If I were "debating" on your level, I might have come back with something idiotic like, "So you are saying we should all be breathing diesel exhaust?"

Grow up and pay attention!

Yup to many irons in the fire today... i quoted the wrong thing... sue me.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Well I have got tons done today. I can multitask.

I do indeed have staying power. I am the 3rd member to sign up here. How long have you two been here?

I'm glad you are not on my payroll.

I've heard the "great multitasker" claim too many times. Usually it turns out to mean, "I can do a crappy job of several things sort of all at once."

 

[pixelsmith]

I'll point you to this argument.

Greenland used to be green
What the science says...

The Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years. There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon.
This argument is based on the idea that as climate has changed naturally before, current climate change must be natural also. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the main driver of climate during the Medieval Warm Period (eg - solar variations) cannot be causing global warming now. More on the "Climate's changed before" argument...
Did Greenland used to be green?

The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old. Certainly it was alive and well when the island was named around 1000 years ago. So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green. So once again, I refer you to the Climate's changed before argument.
Ancient Greenland DNA

I recommend reading what the authors are actually saying about their own study. The study connects past warming to natural variations in Earth's orbit—obliquity, or how tilted the planet is in relation to the sun. Author Martin Sharp points out "One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account." In other words, their study "really has nothing to say about the mechanisms driving the current warming."
According to author Eske Willerslev, the Greenland ice shelf "has not contributed to global sea level rise during the last interglacial. Importantly, it does not mean that we should not be worried about future global warming as the sea level rise of five to six meters during the last interglacial must have come from somewhere."
Finally, Martin Sharp warns the study "does not prove the current global warming trend is not human induced". If anything, "we may be heading for even bigger temperature increases than we previously thought".
Rebuttal written by John Cook. Last updated on 26 June 2010.

Here is the post I wanted to quote.

SkepticalScience, RealClimate, ClimateProgress are all sites that have a bad reputation for posting false information and deleting posts from anyone correcting them...

A pretty good site you might be interested in is Watts Up With That? They welcome both sides of the debate and do not delete or censor comments.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Here is the post I wanted to quote.

SkepticalScience, RealClimate, ClimateProgress are all sites that have a bad reputation for posting false information and deleting posts from anyone correcting them...

A pretty good site you might be interested in is Watts Up With That? They welcome both sides of the debate and do not delete or censor comments.

As I said, any argument against your point of view will be refuted in one way or another. It's like dealing with a child.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

You just knew it was coming sooner or later.

 

[cottonzway]

I don't have the interest or time to read 18 pages, but I did read the original link posted. It's more milquetoast "debunking" picking every strawman possible and then claiming others are "crazy" because they regurgitate crap that most people don't even believe as alternate theories on some of the big geopolitical and social topics that are brought up often. It's like picking out retards that say the WTC complex wasn't hit by a plane, but it was holograms and saying "look at what these troofers think" when nobody who can dress themselves in the morning is saying such nonsense. Whatever. Any of you guys who think you can so easily take someone to task when they are rational and bring facts, well, I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn....

G'nite.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I don't have the interest or time to read 18 pages, but I did read the original link posted. It's more milquetoast "debunking" picking every strawman possible and then claiming others are "crazy" because they regurgitate crap that most people don't even believe as alternate theories on some of the big geopolitical and social topics that are brought up often. It's like picking out retards that say the WTC complex wasn't hit by a plane, but it was holograms and saying "look at what these troofers think" when nobody who can dress themselves in the morning is saying such nonsense. Whatever. Any of you guys who think you can so easily take someone to task when they are rational and bring facts, well, I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.

Which strawman are you referring to that the article brings up? They talk about people thinking Obama was born in Kenya, despite the fact that he has an American birth certificate and that he became president. And they refer to Loose Change, which is a documentary that is full of factual errors. No strawman there.

Unfortunately this thread devolved into a climate change fiasco.

 

[cottonzway]

Which strawman are you referring to that the article brings up? They talk about people thinking Obama was born in Kenya, despite the fact that he has an American birth certificate and that he became president. And they refer to Loose Change, which is a documentary that is full of factual errors. No strawman there.

Unfortunately this thread devolved into a climate change fiasco.

In general using the "Screw Loose Change" to counter Loose Change as the argument is a strawman. I personally don't support the concepts of "controlled demos" or anything of that nature when talking about the 9/11 topic. It's a poor way to "debunk" something that a lot of people don't support that talk about 9/11.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

In general using the "Screw Loose Change" to counter Loose Change as the argument is a strawman. I personally don't support the concepts of "controlled demos" or anything of that nature when talking about the 9/11 topic. It's a poor way to "debunk" something that a lot of people don't support that talk about 9/11.

The thing is, that's what "truthers" are trying to convince you of. It's not a strawman if that's what they are arguing for.
Now, if you're talking about other things and the controlled demolitions are brought in when you never mentioned them, yes, it's a strawman. Right? I sometimes get my logical fallacies messed up.

 

[cottonzway]

The thing is, that's what "truthers" are trying to convince you of. It's not a strawman if that's what they are arguing for.
Now, if you're talking about other things and the controlled demolitions are brought in when you never mentioned them, yes, it's a strawman. Right? I sometimes get my logical fallacies messed up.

The term "truther" is just as broad as using the term "government" in speculating on what may have happened during the lead up, actual events, and aftermath of 9/11. I really hate labels, but if someone wants to label me a "truther" because I have serious concerns on the topic then so be it. The problem is then if "truthers" are trying to convince you (others) that controlled demos were part of those events and I'm trying to get a better resolution to those events because I actual care about them (i.e. a truther) then how can it part of something "truthers" are trying to push? People think in stereotypes and broad generalizations. It makes for really bad discussions IMO. Do you see where I am going with this?

 

[cottonzway]

Well, if you are a truther who doesn't believe any of the MAIN tenets of the group, then fine.

But Truthers and "controlled demolition" are inseparable.
It's like saying that you are a Christian who doesn't buy any of that Jesus stuff.

Lance

I just told you that I'm a truther and don't support the controlled demo ideas. Did you even listen to me or is your mine seriously that made up to that statement? It's like you are being purposefully obtuse or trolling.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

I understand your position, Cotton. I don't think you should expect the general public to make the kinds of distinctions you are making (and I am not saying you are wrong, in fact my own opinions on the subject are in there somewhere) even without a lot of noise from both "sides." When you have people saying things like, "You have to be an idiot to buy the official story," then how can you honestly expect the ordinary person to listen to anything that comes after that? Such statements are as common as claims about the towers being demolished. It's all a big blob of crazy piled on a horrible event, so people just think it's a waste of time to even listen. Many find it offensive outright. I can't say I blame them.

Most Americans have a healthy distrust of the Establishment and know better than to believe everything they are told. Instead of the "truther movement" (or whatever it is) trying to build on that, ordinary citizens see batshit crazy people like Charlie Sheen ranting about it and tune it out. Regardless of what the truth is, you are going to have to deal with reality and that includes opinions and prejudices.