PDA

View Full Version : 'Put Democracy On Hold' Sez Climate Boffin



Gingersnap
03-29-2010, 05:01 PM
James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change

In his first in-depth interview since the theft of UEA emails, the scientist blames inertia and democracy for lack of action

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change, according to the British scientist James Lovelock.

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists' emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful."

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

With "I am gravely concerned" pic at the link. ;)

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change)

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 05:05 PM
I thought democracy was on hold.

Gingersnap
03-29-2010, 05:06 PM
I thought democracy was on hold.

Hold the democracy but I'll take fries with that. :p

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 05:08 PM
Hold the democracy but I'll take fries with that. :p
No transfatty oils though!

Speedy
03-29-2010, 05:22 PM
What we need to do is all of just kill ourselves for the good of the planet. Every last one of us. I will gladly volunteer to be the second one to publically commit suidide for the good of the planet. As soo as Dr. Lovelock is the first to kill himself for the good of the planet, I volunteer to be next.

FlaGator
03-29-2010, 06:48 PM
Lovelock may be in some serious trouble if they ever put arrogance on hold.

Sonnabend
03-30-2010, 08:10 AM
"Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." The AGW agenda

Money.
Power.
Deprivation.
Control.
Wealth redistribution.

This is what we drive now

http://www.carseek.com/intc/large_images/2009_toyota_corolla_s_sedan_front_driver_three_qua rter.jpg

This is what the greenies want us to have

http://www.henrystrobel.com/saintboniface/spennerbuggy.jpg

Scratch a greenie, find a luddite and a fascist.

Every single time.

wilbur
03-30-2010, 08:32 AM
I notice nobody took issue with his war comment. That in wars, we sometimes find it necessary to suspend certain rights or portions of due process. While under normal operating conditions, those things are a tremendous benefit, but under extreme circumstances can theoretically be fatally abused by enemies - at least thats how the thinking goes. Such a sentiment is hardly controversial around here (at least during the Bush administration). Why is it so unthinkable that such a line of thinking might be extended to other special case scenarios?

Under normal circumstances, the fragmentation and infighting that results from a democracy is its strength, since it lowers the probability that any one group or person will attain totalitarian power.

But democracy doesnt outperform all systems of government in all use cases. Certain war scenarios, or sufficiently far off potential future catastrophes, which require a uniformity of will and mind in the present to adequately address, are a couple glaring weaknesses. These are things that democracy just can't do well, as a consequence of its very structure. Totalitarians are free to attack such problems with far less effort, and more potency.

Of course, with such powerful vested interests on the anti-agw team, both financial and idealogical, one wonders if any other type of government would fare much better when it comes to global warming - Those interests would most likely be the ones to have the ear of the King/Dictator/Emperor, etc.

FlaGator
03-30-2010, 08:36 AM
I notice nobody took issue with his war comment. That in wars, we sometimes find it necessary to suspend certain rights or portions of due process. While under normal operating conditions, those things are a tremendous benefit, but under extreme circumstances can theoretically be fatally abused by enemies - at least thats how the thinking goes. Such a sentiment is hardly controversial around here (at least during the Bush administration). Why is it so unthinkable that such a line of thinking might be extended to other special case scenarios?

Democracy as a system does seem to have some problems dealing with certain things - it doesnt outperform all systems of government in all use cases. Certain war scenarios, or sufficiently far off potential future catastrophes that require a uniformity of will and mind to adequately address... these are things that democracy just can't do well, as a consequence of its very structure.

Of course, with such powerful vested interests on the anti-agw team, both financial and idealogical, one wonders if any other type of government would fare much better - They would most likely have the ear of the King/Dictator/Emperor, etc.

I can't speak for everyone, but I didn't take issue with it because the comparison between war and awg is so firmly established in the realm of the assinine as to make any comment on it absurd.

wilbur
03-30-2010, 08:59 AM
I can't speak for everyone, but I didn't take issue with it because the comparison between war and awg is so firmly established in the realm of the assinine as to make any comment on it absurd.

But I thought you took yourself out of global warming debates because you realized you were too ignorant on the matter? What has changed so much such that you return levying bold claims about 'absurdity', ?

FlaGator
03-30-2010, 09:51 AM
But I thought you took yourself out of global warming debates because you realized you were too ignorant on the matter? What has changed so much such that you return levying bold claims about 'absurdity', ?

I don't need to know a whole lot about the scientific ends and outs of global warming to read that comparison and understand that it completely lacks intelligibility. To compare an unproven scientific theory with the actually it of war is beyond absurd.

Zathras
03-30-2010, 11:11 AM
I don't need to know a whole lot about the scientific ends and outs of global warming to read that comparison and understand that it completely lacks intelligibility. To compare an unproven scientific theory with the actually it of war is beyond absurd.

Which is why the brainwashed AGW cultist Wilbur did it. Mankind has very little effect on the Earth's climate compaired to what the earth and sun does to it on their own.

wilbur
03-30-2010, 01:38 PM
I don't need to know a whole lot about the scientific ends and outs of global warming to read that comparison and understand that it completely lacks intelligibility. To compare an unproven scientific theory with the actually it of war is beyond absurd.

I think the comparison is just fine. Think about the comparison at a level removed from the theory of AGW, and in its place just consider some sort of looming (but not close enough to be considered near term) catastrophe with species wide consequences. Then consider this catastrophe to be preventable, but only by widespread, swift, concerted effort from the majority of people, and lawmakers. Such a catastrophe might actually even be a potential war. So I think the comparison works, and there's no reason to think it absurd.

And seriously, why do you continually insist to holding scientific theories to a standard they cannot meet by definition (ie "proven")?

FlaGator
03-30-2010, 02:26 PM
I think the comparison is just fine. Think about the comparison at a level removed from the theory of AGW, and in its place just consider some sort of looming (but not close enough to be considered near term) catastrophe with species wide consequences. Then consider that this catastrophe to be preventable, but only by widespread, swift, concerted effort from the majority of people, and lawmakers. Such a catastrophe might even actually be a possible war. So I think the comparison works, and there's no reason to think it absurd.

And seriously, why do you continually insist to holding scientific theories to a standard they cannot meet by definition (ie "proven")?

First of all I don't hold scientific theories to a standard that requires guarantees proof. I do demand that theories command a preponderence of the evidence to indicate the likelihood that the theory fits the facts. I think that you wilfully mischaracterize my views because I apparently require a heavier burden of proof than you do.

To go back on topic, how can the possible outcome of a situation that may or may not occur based on which side of the debate you line up on, call for the suspension of democracy as compared to a real honest to God war with people dying and it necessitating a call for a suspension of democracy? The two aren't even realistically in the same ball park. One is a theoretical maybe and the other would be a tragic fact.

You view AGW as something more than probably, I see no evidence to support that view.

wilbur
03-30-2010, 03:01 PM
First of all I don't hold scientific theories to a standard that requires guarantees proof. I do demand that theories command a preponderence of the evidence to indicate the likelihood that the theory fits the facts. I think that you wilfully mischaracterize my views because I apparently require a heavier burden of proof than you do.


Then you need to avoid phrases like "unproven scientific theory". You're misusing the term. There can be well evidenced theories and poorly evidenced theories (perhaps that have just squeaked by the hypothesis stage), but there is no such thing as a "proven" theory. All theories, by definition, are unproven. As it so happens, global warming is a well evidenced theory.



To go back on topic, how can the possible outcome of a situation that may or may not occur based on which side of the debate you line up on,


Whether global warming is occurring, is not affected by what side of the debate we individuals choose to defend.



call for the suspension of democracy as compared to a real honest to God war with people dying and it necessitating a call for a suspension of democracy? The two aren't even realistically in the same ball park. One is a theoretical maybe and the other would be a tragic fact.


Well, you have to honestly indulge the hypothetical. You seem like you keep referring back to global warming - but asked that you put that aside. If I were to say that in times of extreme global emergency or catastrophe, that the suspension of democracy might make sense, it would be pretty uncontroversial. Worldwide war could be one such type of extreme catastrophe. Some sort of nuclear terrorist threat could be another. And if you so believe that global warming will result in dire worldwide circumstances, it might also be another.

So if one is sincere in their belief that global warming is real and catastrophic, then the comparison really is good. So there's nothing absurd about the comparison per se, its just that you believe global warming is false.

So to really demonstrate anything absurd about the comparison, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that global warming is fasle - and I'm supremely confident you, nor anyone else here, can even come close.


You view AGW as something more than probably, I see no evidence to support that view.

Well, one of us is right - (hint: its me) :)

FlaGator
03-30-2010, 03:58 PM
Then you need to avoid phrases like "unproven scientific theory". You're misusing the term. There can be well evidenced theories and poorly evidenced theories (perhaps that have just squeaked by the hypothesis stage), but there is no such thing as a "proven" theory. All theories, by definition, are unproven. As it so happens, global warming is a well evidenced theory.



Whether global warming is occurring, is not affected by what side of the debate we individuals choose to defend.



Well, you have to honestly indulge the hypothetical. You seem like you keep referring back to global warming - but asked that you put that aside. If I were to say that in times of extreme global emergency or catastrophe, that the suspension of democracy might make sense, it would be pretty uncontroversial. Worldwide war could be one such type of extreme catastrophe. Some sort of nuclear terrorist threat could be another. And if you so believe that global warming will result in dire worldwide circumstances, it might also be another.

So if one is sincere in their belief that global warming is real and catastrophic, then the comparison really is good. So there's nothing absurd about the comparison per se, its just that you believe global warming is false.

So to really demonstrate anything absurd about the comparison, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that global warming is fasle - and I'm supremely confident you, nor anyone else here, can even come close.



Well, one of us is right - (hint: its me) :)

History will prove one of us right.

Sonnabend
03-30-2010, 06:29 PM
Well, one of us is right - (hint: its me)And that defines your whole stance, you're right, everyone else is wrong.So much for your claims of being open minded.


notice nobody took issue with his war comment. That in wars, we sometimes find it necessary to suspend certain rights or portions of due process. While under normal operating conditions, those things are a tremendous benefit, but under extreme circumstances can theoretically be fatally abused by enemies - at least thats how the thinking goes. Such a sentiment is hardly controversial around here (at least during the Bush administration). Why is it so unthinkable that such a line of thinking might be extended to other special case scenarios?Because there is a huge difference between the absurd lies of AGW and the reality of war with islamofascists. Oh and pray tell, what rights did you lose under President Bush? Name them please.


Under normal circumstances, the fragmentation and infighting that results from a democracy is its strength, since it lowers the probability that any one group or person will attain totalitarian powerWhereas AGW "believers" (AGW is a religion, not a fact) would like nothing more than to take sole power in the name of Mother Gaia.


But democracy doesnt outperform all systems of government in all use cases. Certain war scenarios, or sufficiently far off potential future catastrophes, which require a uniformity of will and mind in the present to adequately address, are a couple glaring weaknesses. These are things that democracy just can't do well, as a consequence of its very structure. Totalitarians are free to attack such problems with far less effort, and more potency.Like these guys?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Nazi_swastika_clean.svg/200px-Nazi_swastika_clean.svg.png


Of course, with such powerful vested interests on the anti-agw team, both financial and idealogical, one wonders if any other type of government would fare much better when it comes to global warming - Those interests would most likely be the ones to have the ear of the King/Dictator/Emperor, etc.Ah yes, this old chestnut. What "vested interests" would that be?

Megaguns91
03-30-2010, 07:06 PM
Then you need to avoid phrases like "unproven scientific theory". You're misusing the term. There can be well evidenced theories and poorly evidenced theories (perhaps that have just squeaked by the hypothesis stage), but there is no such thing as a "proven" theory. All theories, by definition, are unproven. As it so happens, global warming is a well evidenced theory.



Whether global warming is occurring, is not affected by what side of the debate we individuals choose to defend.



Well, you have to honestly indulge the hypothetical. You seem like you keep referring back to global warming - but asked that you put that aside. If I were to say that in times of extreme global emergency or catastrophe, that the suspension of democracy might make sense, it would be pretty uncontroversial. Worldwide war could be one such type of extreme catastrophe. Some sort of nuclear terrorist threat could be another. And if you so believe that global warming will result in dire worldwide circumstances, it might also be another.

So if one is sincere in their belief that global warming is real and catastrophic, then the comparison really is good. So there's nothing absurd about the comparison per se, its just that you believe global warming is false.

So to really demonstrate anything absurd about the comparison, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that global warming is fasle - and I'm supremely confident you, nor anyone else here, can even come close.



Well, one of us is right - (hint: its me) :)

Dear Wilbur,

I'm neither here nor there about global warming. I feel it's more a source of religion now than accurate science due to the outsanding current doubt. It's becoming more of a thing of personal opinion.
But apparently even NASA is admitting to some fudging up on the scientific end:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/?test=latestnews

All my best,

Megan.

Rockntractor
03-30-2010, 07:45 PM
But I thought you took yourself out of global warming debates because you realized you were too ignorant on the matter? What has changed so much such that you return levying bold claims about 'absurdity', ?
Complete ignorance has never stopped you from commenting on anything drone!:rolleyes:

patriot45
03-30-2010, 07:51 PM
Complete ignorance has never stopped you from commenting on anything drone!:rolleyes:

You just watch Rock, 10 years while we are arguing this it will switch back to glowball cooling.The story keeps changing!

I say lets keep the silly arguements going without spending our money on the so called problem, and then we will play the next game of chance!

Rockntractor
03-30-2010, 07:55 PM
You just watch Rock, 10 years while we are arguing this it will switch back to glowball cooling.The story keeps changing!

I say lets keep the silly arguements going without spending our money on the so called problem, and then we will play the next game of chance!
I'm afraid as long as we have these high concentrations of idiot commie drones, we are in a lot of trouble.

Zathras
03-30-2010, 08:11 PM
Complete ignorance has never stopped you from commenting on anything drone!:rolleyes:

In fact the complete ignorance of the brainwashed AGW cultist actually encourages him to post. He can't help but show just what an ignorant buffoon he really is on a daily basis.

Sonnabend
03-31-2010, 08:41 AM
This is the moron who says germs are "a theory" :rolleyes:

wilbur
03-31-2010, 11:16 PM
This is the moron who says germs are "a theory" :rolleyes:

Still havent figured out what a theory is eh? Its not really a hard concept to grasp - not sure why you and others completely fail at it, over and over again. Oh yea - its because you are a stupid, scientifically illiterate buffoon. Which is also precisely why you get global warming theory so absurdly wrong - you don't even know what a theory is, and you especially do not understand their significance.

* I've never said "germs are theories" - the germ theory of disease states that microbes can be a cause of disease - and yes, despite the theory being so well evidenced that we can reliably think of it as fact, it will still actually remain an "unproven theory" forever. Such is the nature of a scientific theory.

Rockntractor
03-31-2010, 11:24 PM
Still havent figured out what a theory is eh? Its not really a hard concept to grasp - not sure why you and others completely fail at it, over and over again. Oh yea - its because you are a stupid, scientifically illiterate buffoon. Which is also precisely why you get global warming theory so absurdly wrong - you don't even know what a theory is, and you especially do not understand their significance.

* I've never said "germs are theories" - the germ theory of disease states that microbes can be a cause of disease - and yes, despite the theory being so well evidenced that we can reliably think of it as fact, it will still actually remain an "unproven theory" forever. Such is the nature of a scientific theory.
I have a theory that you are actually a program that exists inside a five year old apple computer that once belonged to Greenpeace. If that is true it would prove that true artificial intelligence does not yet exist!

Sonnabend
03-31-2010, 11:33 PM
Still havent figured out what a theory is eh? Its not really a hard concept to grasp - not sure why you and others completely fail at it, over and over again. Oh yea - its because you are a stupid, scientifically illiterate buffoon. Which is also precisely why you get global warming theory so absurdly wrong - you don't even know what a theory is, and you especially do not understand their significance.Theory = guess. Germs = fact.


* I've never said "germs are theories" - the germ theory of disease states that microbes can be a cause of disease - and yes, despite the theory being so well evidenced that we can reliably think of it as fact, it will still actually remain an "unproven theory" forever. Such is the nature of a scientific theory.Not can be. Are.

Bacteria, virii, medical fact. You are welcome to go infect yourself and see what happens

BTW: as for "scientifically illiterate"...what are your degrees in climate science?

wilbur
03-31-2010, 11:43 PM
Theory = guess. Germs = fact.



Not can be. Are.

Bacteria, virii, medical fact. Yiou are welcome to go infect yourself and see what happens

<facepalm>

Rockntractor
03-31-2010, 11:47 PM
<facepalm>

Syphilis could well explain your posting Wilbur!

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 12:50 AM
A virus is a theory.

Right.

AIDS. Flu.

Millions dead.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

wilbur
04-01-2010, 01:34 AM
A virus is a theory.

Right.

AIDS. Flu.

Millions dead.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

You're partly right - the truth of the claim that germs kill people is pretty cut and dry. Had you been earnestly trying to understand my point, you would realize I am not claiming otherwise, that no germs cause disease. Nevertheless, the idea that some germs cause disease is still, and will forever remain, a theory. Theories are often "cut and dry", just like germ theory (e.g. atomic theory, evolution, etc). In other words, theories arent just "wild guesses".

You don't understand what theory means. By your skewed definition, you believe I am saying that we are uncertain about germs' role in disease because I say "its just a theory", because you are under the mistaken impression that a theory is just a "wild ass guess" - but that's not what a theory is, dumbass. A theory is not a wild ass guess, it can be something as certain as the idea that germs can cause disease.

Get it?

* Of course you don't.

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 01:46 AM
You're partly right - the truth of the claim that germs kill people is pretty cut and dry. Had you been earnestly trying to understand my point, you would realize I am not claiming otherwise, that no germs cause disease. Nevertheless, the idea that some germs cause disease is still, and will forever remain, a theory. Theories are often "cut and dry", just like germ theory (e.g. atomic theory, evolution, etc). In other words, theories arent just "wild guesses".

Semantics.:rolleyes:

You don't understand what theory means. By your skewed definition, you believe I am saying that we are uncertain about germs' role in disease because I say "its just a theory" - but that's not what a theory is, dumbass. A theory is not a wild ass guess, it can be something as certain as the idea that germs can cause disease.

Get it?

* Of course you don't.

More semantics. :rolleyes:

wilbur
04-01-2010, 01:57 AM
Semantics.:rolleyes:


More semantics. :rolleyes:

Such an abuse of language is more than a semantic quirk - its called the fallacy of equivocation:

"It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."

You try to trade off the fact that global warming is "just a theory", by imposing upon it the more common, non-scientific use of the term, which carries strong connotations of uncertainty. But this is wrong. Global warming (along with germ theory, atomic theory, etc) are theories according to the scientific definition of the term which you apparently do not know and have basically chosen willfully ignore. And the scientific definition comes with far greater amounts of certainty, and empirical support - (ala germ theory).

I mean good grief, how early on in grade school do we learn that some words have more than one meaning? Kindergarten?

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 02:22 AM
Such an abuse of language is more than a semantic quirk - its called the fallacy of equivocation:

As opposed to the fallacy of AGW.....


"It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."

Linda, your apprentice is misbehaving again.......


You try to trade off the fact that global warming is "just a theory", by imposing upon it the more common, non-scientific use of the term, which carries strong connotations of uncertainty. But this is wrong. Global warming (along with germ theory, atomic theory, etc) are theories according to the scientific definition of the term which you apparently do not know and have basically chosen willfully ignore. And the scientific definition comes with far greater amounts of certainty, and empirical support - (ala germ theory).

Theory, wild assed guess, scam, lie, hoax, alarmist propaganda....they all fit the AGW mantra.


I mean good grief, how early on in grade school do we learn that some words have more than one meaning? Kindergarten?

You never did tell me how you come to the conclusion I am "scientifically illiterate"..your argument comes down to "I am right, and you are stupid".

That about covers it.

wilbur
04-01-2010, 02:36 AM
You never did tell me how you come to the conclusion I am "scientifically illiterate"..your argument comes down to "I am right, and you are stupid".

That about covers it.

Isnt it obvious? You have no clue what a theory is, or what the term means - that pretty much disqualifies you from any science discussion, period.

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 02:38 AM
Isnt it obvious? You have no clue what a theory is, or what the term means - that pretty much disqualifies you from any science discussion, period.

...still waiting to hear just what your scientific qualifications are. You have degrees...in what?

FlaGator
04-01-2010, 06:10 AM
Semantics.:rolleyes:


More semantics. :rolleyes:

Actually he is right, it is not mere semantics.

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 06:52 AM
Actually he is right, it is not mere semantics.

FlaGator, Seeing as you are an epic fail when it comes to the area of communications, I will simply state in reply that with wilbur, it is semantics.

His accusation of me being "scientifically illiterate" will be accepted, when, and only when, he tells me just what his qualifications are. On what basis does he make that judgement?

I am also curious as to where he gets his assertions that he is 100% right on so called "climate change" and we are all wrong.

FlaGator
04-01-2010, 07:55 AM
FlaGator, Seeing as you are an epic fail when it comes to the area of communications, I will simply state in reply that with wilbur, it is semantics.

His accusation of me being "scientifically illiterate" will be accepted, when, and only when, he tells me just what his qualifications are. On what basis does he make that judgement?

I am also curious as to where he gets his assertions that he is 100% right on so called "climate change" and we are all wrong.

It would seem to me that you are the "epic fail" when you are unable to engage in any conversation with just about anyone on CU without it becoming an argument. You have no desire for communication. Your desire is to argue. You attack everyone who disagrees with your opinion and now you want to insult me because I happen to think that you are wrong and wilbur is right in the defintion of theory. You are unable to play well with others.

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 08:57 AM
It would seem to me that you are the "epic fail" when you are unable to engage in any conversation with just about anyone on CU without it becoming an argumentThis is a discussion board. There are always contradictory opinions.

What I take exception to, is the "holier than thou" attitude of wilbur and his ilk, whom when confronted by someone who refuses to just toe the line, resorts to the old liberal schtick "You're stupid"

Ann Coulter accentuated this in at least one of her books. My stance is science by consensus ranks up there with "If all your friends jump off a cliff, would you jump too?"

Any don't ever presume to lecture me. Speaking of "holier than thou"...looked in a mirror recently?

There is no "consensus", the scientific community is deeply divided on the issue, the "science is not settled", and wilbur apes his buddy Al Gore, both of whom are deathly afraid and refuse to ever admit the famous words of anyone with any iota of wisdom...the words "I could be wrong".

When someone takes the stance that they are right and everyone else is wrong, it's proof positive that they cannot sustain an argument with facts, resorting to old and tired liberal cliches.

Gore is a liar. Jones is a liar and has conspired with others to cover up facts that poke massive holes in their AGW fantasies.


You have no desire for communication.I have plenty of desire...what I will not tolerate is anyone who decides they are "morally superior" and treat others who will not simply kowtow as those of lesser intellect. It's demeaning, it's insulting, and yet another liberal tactic.


Your desire is to argue. You attack everyone who disagrees with your opinion and now you want to insult me because I happen to think that you are wrong and wilbur is right in the definition of theory. You are unable to play well with others.What are you.,..a kindergarten teacher? I am an adult and quite frankly, do not ever bow to another's opinion on the basis "because I say so".

I am well aware of the definition of what a theory is. As a matter of fact, FlaGator, my dictionary has SIX separate and distinct definitions for the word.

Allow me to elucidate


A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

That definition, the last one, contradicts wilbur directly, in that germs, bacteria, virii, spirochetes, filoviruses (you know what these are?The ones that cause Ebola?) are not "conjecture" they are SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACT.

AGW also fits that last description perfectly, the difference being that AGW is a wild assed guess based on models of questionable provenance, of whom the original data has long since been destroyed, said models cannot be verified in any way shape or form, unless you happen to be H.G.Wells, hence the conclusions themselves are highly dubious, bordering on laughable...here's another scientific term for you....non repeatable results.

When any experiment or any published result is non repeatable, it is junked, because the data cannot be independently verified. CRU and Jone's "results" cannot be independently verified. They would have been, but the emails he sent confirm that much of the data that could very well have proved him wrong was destroyed with malicious intent.

I am just supposed to "take his word for it?

No.

FlaGator
04-01-2010, 09:52 AM
I have plenty of desire...what I will not tolerate is anyone who decides they are "morally superior" and treat others who will not simply kowtow as those of lesser intellect. It's demeaning, it's insulting, and yet another liberal tactic.


This is exactly what you do. You are claiming that you don't like someone acting morally superior by acting morally superior. Its not just a liberal tactic, it is your tactic as well. You treat everyone horribly who disagrees with you. I'm not just referring to wilbur, I mean anybody who doesn't see things eye to eye with you. I know that this has been pointed out to you by other members and on other message boards. You do not want a dialog. I don't even think you want people to agree with you. You want people to argue with. Once you decide you don't like someones opinion you become nasty and take things way too far. Almost all your your posts end up with you insulting people and name calling.

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 10:16 AM
See above.

FlaGator
04-01-2010, 12:30 PM
See above.

I see my own post pointing out to you that you behave exactly like those you attack so you are just as bad as you claim they are.

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 06:43 PM
I see my own post pointing out to you that you behave exactly like those you attack so you are just as bad as you claim they are.You seem to need glasses. I refer specifically to the SIX definitions of the word "theory".

Go back and read it again. And then leave me the hell alone.

If I have to, I will speak to SR about mod harassment.

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 08:39 PM
wilbur


but that's not what a theory is, dumbass

wilbur


I mean good grief, how early on in grade school do we learn that some words have more than one meaning? Kindergarten?

wilbur


Scientifically illiterate

Which one of us is


insulting people and name calling.

Hm? Or didnt you see that?

Big Guy
04-01-2010, 08:54 PM
I say that Wilbur is plenty "Book Smart" and he can put sentences and paragraphs together well. But my overall theory it that WILBUR IS STUPID IN ACTUAL COMMON SENSE.

i'm willing to bet that he can put down in writing the do's and dont's about how to grow a good garden but can't actuall do it.

I'll bet he can tell you how to build a dog house, but can't actually do it.

Hey Wilbur, tell me this without looking it up; What's a Pokeamaters?

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 09:31 PM
I can honestly say that you are a waste of time and you can speak to who ever you want to about what ever you want to. I will say this, I now understand why you got the life ban from CC. When then I talked to some people over there about things I thought they had over reacted. I now see that they didn't.SR asked me not to get into this on CU. I will abide by his wishes.

Now leave me the hell alone

Rockntractor
04-01-2010, 09:40 PM
I see my own post pointing out to you that you behave exactly like those you attack so you are just as bad as you claim they are.
You are making a personal judgment based on your values and ideas. You have stated you are a pacifist, don't expect the rest of us to follow in your footsteps!

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 09:43 PM
You are making a personal judgment based on your values and ideas. You have stated you are a pacifist, don't expect the rest of us to follow in your footsteps!

I may be many things, but a liar isnt one of them....unlike some I could mention. Wonder what his position on "thou shalt not bear false witness" is?

Gingersnap
04-01-2010, 09:45 PM
Let's get back to whatever the original topic was. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
04-01-2010, 09:46 PM
You are making a personal judgment based on your values and ideas. You have stated you are a pacifist, don't expect the rest of us to follow in your footsteps!

So I cannot verbally defend myself when insulted?

I don't expect anyone to follow in my footsteps. I have walked a very dark road that I ashamed to admit I could have avoided. But I guess I am not allowed to act human and get mad and respond when someone hurts my feelings.

FlaGator
04-01-2010, 09:46 PM
I may be many things, but a liar isnt one of them....unlike some I could mention. Wonder what his position on "thou shalt not bear false witness" is?

Show me a lie?

Sonnabend
04-01-2010, 09:50 PM
Show me a lie?I promised SR and I am not breaking my word. Nice try.

We can continue this by PM, if I had any assurance you would actually listen. My last word on the topic as I dont want SR dragged into this.

I'm done in this thread.

wilbur
04-01-2010, 11:56 PM
I am well aware of the definition of what a theory is. As a matter of fact, FlaGator, my dictionary has SIX separate and distinct definitions for the word.

Allow me to elucidate


A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

That definition, the last one, contradicts wilbur directly, in that germs, bacteria, virii, spirochetes, filoviruses (you know what these are?The ones that cause Ebola?) are not "conjecture" they are SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACT.


Sonna, we are all obviously well aware how the term theory is often used in the common parlance, to refer to some highly speculative conjecture or contrived idea. Seriously, we get it.

But that one definition (you selectively plucked out of six or seven) has no bearing what-so-ever on the meaning of theory, when referring to a scientific theory - at all. Homonyms.... look them up. And pay special attention to the first definition on your list:



A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

wilbur
04-02-2010, 12:01 AM
wilbur



wilbur



wilbur



Which one of us is



Hm? Or didnt you see that?

Aww you poor guy - how horrible for you to suffer such vicious attacks...

* Meanwhile, in general discussions, you hyper link swastikas under my quotes, insinuating I am a Nazi.

Rockntractor
04-02-2010, 12:03 AM
Homonyms.... look them up.
http://mysistersjar.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/hominy.jpg

Hominy nums?:confused:

FlaGator
04-02-2010, 12:04 AM
http://mysistersjar.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/hominy.jpg

Hominy nums?:confused:

That's funny, I don't care who you are.

Sonnabend
04-02-2010, 12:25 AM
* Meanwhile, in general discussions, you hyper link swastikas under my quotes, insinuating I am a Nazi.

No. :rolleyes: