• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

What will it take to convince you of climate change?

byke said:
This kind of stuff. It's angry.



And this kind of stuff, which is a little more subtle. It's like trying to solve a problem in the typical democrat/republican finger pointing fashion. Is this really the fault of folks like him? C'mon meow.

It's not that big of a deal. You're one of the very few in here educated on the topic and I know you're not obligated to anything on the interwebs, but the presentation of information is the area what's hurting the most, imo.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, interesting. Ok, I see your point. However, how many times do you need to say the same thing over and over to the same person?

But I guess I see where that could be construed as abrasive. I am trying to work on this, but I guess I have a lot more work to do. For the record, I wasn't angry at all. But it does get old when Roman (who I like a lot) throws these same one liners out despite the answer always being the same. Every single time.
 
Maybe there's a way to do both? Like, "here's this info ________ , you fucker."?
 
byke said:
Maybe there's a way to do both? Like, "here's this info ________ , you fucker."?
Click to expand...

Maybe. But I'm totally serious. Somewhere along the way, over the last few years, I've become a bit of an asshole in the way I talk to people. It's completely unintentional and I don't even see it (as evidenced here). I've been trying to change it but damn, it is not easy.

I place the full blame on me working for a horrible consulting firm for the last nine years. Ok 90%.

Someone mentioned the hamburger approach. You sandwich the bad with two goods.

For example:

I see your point in discussing the fact that since your refrigerator is still cold, global warming cannot be happening. However, I think you are a fucking moron. That said, I find morons to be incredibly cute and fun to be around. Have a great fucking day, moron.


The previous is just a joke and not meant to reflect anything I have or would say to anybody. Please don't ban me.
 
Last season vice had a episode where they did a ride along with nasa and their plane that measures the ice with a laser. Pretty interesting. Sure put all the talk that the ice was actually "growing faster than it's melting" to rest
 
KWeezyXB12 said:
Last season vice had a episode where they did a ride along with nasa and their plane that measures the ice with a laser. Pretty interesting. Sure put all the talk that the ice was actually "growing faster than it's melting" to rest
Click to expand...

Could you link that? I'd be stoked if they were using NOAA's P-3 for that study, because I was lucky enough to tour that plane and talk with the researchers manning the instruments. It's this one:

http://www.aoc.noaa.gov/aircraft_lockheed.htm
 
CoorsLight said:
Could you link that? I'd be stoked if they were using NOAA's P-3 for that study, because I was lucky enough to tour that plane and talk with the researchers manning the instruments. It's this one:

http://www.aoc.noaa.gov/aircraft_lockheed.htm
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was. https://news.vice.com/article/just-...ice-doesnt-mean-climate-change-isnt-happening

I know they have been doing some really cool studies with CCN's and clouds off the coast of Chile ( I'm sure you know all about this).
 
byke said:
You don't have anything to apologize for. That was just being a little snippy, once, not even close to losing temper. Someone gives you shit for having a BS in Meteorology with a concentration in climate science, but he knows what's up because he read some papers from Michael Crichton, and you're the bozo? Instead he'd listen to someone who went to *medical* school in the damned 1960's?? Absolutely ridiculous. I used to enjoy his skepticism in these threads, but he's silent when it's data time and all too happy to engage when it's meaningless argument time. And not to just be on team science, brokenlink screws it up for the climate people when he gets all pissed off and doesn't calmly engage with information, same as how nbean screws it up for the skeptics when he gets all pissed off and doesn't calmly engage with information. Yes, I'm guilty too, but it doesn't negate anything I said.
Click to expand...

Get real dude. I dont have time to debate people that automatically assume youre dumb if you dont totally buy agw. But yeah, youre way smarter than crichton. He only did massive research and wrote a book on the subject. Debated al gore and several climate researchers. And has multiple phds. But hes dumb cause it was in the 60s. What have you done besides pretend to be smart on the internet? I liked his paper on scientific consensus, but no thats not why i dont fully believe in global warming. Let me know when you post some actual data. Pierre pmed me. Ill send him my thoughts and any data. He can forward it to you if he wants.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
nbean16 said:
Get real dude. I dont have time to debate people that automatically assume youre dumb if you totally totally buy agw. But yeah, youre way smarter than crichton. He only did massive research and wrote a book on the subject. Debated al gore and several climate researchers. And has multiple phds. But hes dumb cause it was in the 60s. What have you done besides pretend to be smart on the internet? I liked his paper on scientific consensus, but no thats not why i dont fully believe in global warming. Let me know when you post some actual data. Pierre pmed me. Ill send him my thoughts and any data. He can forward it to you if he wants.
Click to expand...

Actually, climate science has progressed exponentially from the '60s. Science itself has progressed since the '60s. Simply gathering accurate seatemp data has made for a giant leap in understanding ocean/atmospheric interaction. I am less inclined to believe a dated Dr. than a current grad student.
We have so much more information now coupled with the ability to process that information and detect patterns.
 
ThumperX said:
Actually, climate science has progressed exponentially from the '60s. Science itself has progressed since the '60s. Simply gathering accurate seatemp data has made for a giant leap in understanding ocean/atmospheric interaction. I am less inclined to believe a dated Dr. than a current grad student.
We have so much more information now coupled with the ability to process that information and detect patterns.
Click to expand...

You think he wrote his book and debated al gore in the 60s? Or his research was done in the 60s? Or are you saying he was too old to properly gather and analyze data with todays methods?

State of fear was published in 2004. Granted that was still a while back, but im more inclined to look at his data than listen to byke. I didnt even say anyone should look at crichton data. I simply once posted a paper written by him on scientific consensus.
 
Last edited:
nbean16 said:
You think he wrote his book and debated al gore in the 60s? Or his research was done in the 60s? Or are you saying he was too old to properly gather and analyze data with todays methods?

State of fear was published in 2004. Granted that was still a while back, but im more inclined to look at his data than listen to byke. I didnt even say anyone should look at crichton data. I simply once posted a paper written by him on scientific consensus.
Click to expand...

You've been ignoring coors and pierre, as well. :dunno I mean, up until this new development today.

And why post a paper by Chrichton, if you don't want anyone to look at his data? You're either using him as a resource or not. :laughing :thumbup
 
mean dad said:
You've been ignoring coors and pierre, as well. :dunno I mean, up until this new development today.

And why post a paper by Chrichton, if you don't want anyone to look at his data? You're either using him as a resource or not. :laughing :thumbup
Click to expand...

I have not ignored coors. I read everything he has said or linked. When i came into the thread i was dismissing the idiotic notion that if you dont back agw than you are either dumb, doing it because youre a republican, or equivalent to a flat earther. I wasnt even debating climate change. Im not gonna sit here and debate with people who automatically assume youre too dumb to have an opinion before youve said anything other than your position. If coors wants me to send him the same stuff i send pierre thats fine too.

I did not use crichton as a source for anything in this thread. I did not bring up crichton. Byke did as some sort of tactic to discredit me. I posted a paper by crichton in a different thread which it appears you did not read (all while claiming im ignoring dissenting opinions). Scientific consensus was brought up. The paper had more to do with why trusting a scientific consensus was dangerous than heavy climate data. Although i did not claim him as a source he has other places in which he has posted data he analyzed and where his conclusions came from. He lists data in his debates which im sure are online somewhere. I didnt use anything he said as a source for anything. And if i did it would immediately be invalidated because its a decade old. Which already happened without me even posting it.
 
Last edited:
I cant believe people contine to cite chricton, a FICTION writer, as an actualk science paper. chriton saw that there's a massive audience for that POV, and wrote a corresponding book
 
kevin 714 said:
I cant believe people contine to cite chricton, a FICTION writer, as an actualk science paper. chriton saw that there's a massive audience for that POV, and wrote a corresponding book
Click to expand...

Who has cited him? I cited a paper on scientific consensus in another thread. Once again i didnt even bring him up in this thread. I also dont know why his thoughts and research are invalid considering the man is a genius, and has multiple phds, but because he wrote fiction books his thoughts are worthless. Dont you think theres a larger audience for a book in support of climate change?

Also pretty hilarious that some of the top climate researchers from harvard, nasa and other universities take crichtons positions seriously enough to publicly debate him, but not good enough for barf. He isnt sold on climate change , "must be a dumb republican hick. Yeah he just writes fiction books. He went to school in the 60s, what a dipshit!" :laughing

How about john christy, a contributor to ipcc reports and lead author in 2001, is an atmoshperic scientist, worked for nasa and has won awards for his research? Not necessarily an agw denier, but has some similar concerns as i do. Although i think he went to school in the 60s too, so he might be dumb now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
 
Last edited:
kevin 714 said:
I cant believe people contine to cite chricton, a FICTION writer, as an actualk science paper. chriton saw that there's a massive audience for that POV, and wrote a corresponding book
Click to expand...

"I can't believe people cite kevin_714, a carpenter, for information on motogp or MMA."

The above is tongue in cheek, of course, meant to remind you that some people aren't just one thing. Don't accept Crichton's opinions if you don't want to, but he has a deeper background in science than the average bear.
 
tzrider said:
"I can't believe people cite kevin_714, a carpenter, for information on motogp or MMA."

The above is tongue in cheek, of course, meant to remind you that some people aren't just one thing. Don't accept Crichton's opinions if you don't want to, but he has a deeper background in science than the average bear.
Click to expand...


Absolutely no one should be listening to me on motogp for anything other than entertainment :laughing:laughing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top