Motorcycle Forums banner
101 - 120 of 125 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
*shrug* I explained why your arguments are incorrect -- never attacked you personally. If you take it personally, that's your problem. Unfortunately, your close-mindedness affects others, both on this forum and in spreading misinformation in the public.

If, however, someone can explain to me how I am wrong, I'll be happy to revise my views.

Peace out -- maybe we'll chat bikes at some point in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,113 Posts
Kenneth,

One only hopes some motorcycle-related signal gets through the noise in the future. If the moderators want to nut up instead of contributing lame-ass comments themselves, they can enforce a moto-only comment policy with no ad hominem.

QUOTE]

Have to part ways with you there. Even though I don't agree with 90% of the political/social views here, I'm happy to read them, and on occasion, do the back and forth. As long as everybody knows it's done with no genuine malice, which I believe to be the case.

There's plenty of room to talk about penis enlargement and HD chrome. Ok, bad example, but you get my drift.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,482 Posts
This guy really defines the word "solipsism" doesn't he?
He's also the very definition of his screen-name, in that he's bloody-well putting me to sleep.

I'll no-longer verbally parry with this joker on this thread. He is at odds with himself with his last post. Apparently, I was mistaken when I commented about his lucidity - perhaps he IS The Kook attempting yet-another end-run around the GMP-filters.

But then again - WTF do I know - being a dropout AND a certified Idiot; it's amazing I even know how to boot a computer or find my way to the same website more than once..............
 

·
Super Duper Mod Man
Joined
·
10,479 Posts
You are wrong because the very people you cite can't agree on a correct climate model. It is not an exact science, so please quit professing such. If it was then there would be then everyone would come to the EXACT same conclusion, just as everyone knows 2 + 2 = 4. There is no argument with that simple math, yet you seem to act as if there is no argument in climate modeling. Even the most knowledgeable climate scientists would admit there are many different possiblities, variables, and analysis. All have come up with different predictions for the future. How is that possible with an exact science? It isn't possible. There is argument. There are competing theories.
 

·
Aging Cafe` Racer
Joined
·
8,715 Posts
Classic, "I tried but they were just to stupid to listen?".....Speaking for myself, I think human activity has contributed to some degree of climate change. However climate change is also cyclical in nature so the oft debated "how much" is very difficult to pin down, no matter what study or computer model you can site the scope of real confirmed climate data is nothing but a pinprick in the timeline of earths history. We simply have no reliable data to go by, ice cores and other empirical data show a snap shot of what happened in a particular place at a particular time. I can say it's been colder and wetter at my house this winter, does that signify a global downturn in temperature? Climate study therefore like theology becomes a matter of faith. Obviously not pumping a ton of crap in the air is a good idea, however the volcanic activity in Chile just pretty well exceded 20 years of human involvement in what? a week?..

Still it's fun to argue and If I may quote the ever loquasious "Mr. Taggert" of Blazing Saddles fame...You use your toungue prettier than a twenty dollar wh*re...

Do continue please....as an aside we do stick to motorcycles... unless we get off on these other tangents....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
longride,

Thanks for a grown-up post, just as I was unsubscribing.

All the surviving climate models agree that human CO2 emissions are the primary factor in the current warming trend -- nothing else fits. If you know of a model that fits the data, but doesn't have human CO2 as the driver, I'd like to know about it. (An incomplete list of refuted models: solar variation/sunspots, galactic motion, cosmic rays, natural cycling, volcanic output, and weather station miscalibration.)

And, no science is exact -- every model has open questions and phenomena it fails to explain. You make inductive leaps, and see what's left standing after checking against data. (Mathematics is different, because its conclusions follow deductively from its axioms, even if the axioms are found haphazardly.)

Anyway, I am proceeding to unsubscribe from this thread. If you wish to continue the conversation, PM me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,900 Posts
Classic, "I tried but they were just to stupid to listen?".....Speaking for myself, I think human activity has contributed to some degree of climate change. However climate change is also cyclical in nature so the oft debated "how much" is very difficult to pin down, no matter what study or computer model you can site the scope of real confirmed climate data is nothing but a pinprick in the timeline of earths history. We simply have no reliable data to go by, ice cores and other empirical data show a snap shot of what happened in a particular place at a particular time. I can say it's been colder and wetter at my house this winter, does that signify a global downturn in temperature? Climate study therefore like theology becomes a matter of faith. Obviously not pumping a ton of crap in the air is a good idea, however the volcanic activity in Chile just pretty well exceded 20 years of human involvement in what? a week?..

Still it's fun to argue and If I may quote the ever loquasious "Mr. Taggert" of Blazing Saddles fame...You use your toungue prettier than a twenty dollar wh*re...

Do continue please....as an aside we do stick to motorcycles... unless we get off on these other tangents....
Well said. Best Post here!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,113 Posts
You DO know what separates a PhD from the REST of the Great Unwashed, don't you?

(other than they spent a pile of money for a three-letter appendix to their name, and drank the Left-Wing Kool-Aide)
My Dad got his Doctoral degree at the University of Florida in the mid 1970's. His first attempt to get it was at the University of Miami. He received a grant for the UM program based on work he'd done in South Carolina with learning-impaired students. Unfortunately, when we first arrived in Miami, we were dead broke. So, for about a month, the 4 of us had to live in a small motel room; waiting for the first grant check to come in. Dad got up every day and went and did day-labor jobs to earn enough for us to eat. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner consisted of bread and milk on several occasions. Dad stalled the hotel manager on the rent, and eventually the grant money came in and we were able to rent a small house near the University. For reasons I never knew, Dad failed to get his degree at UM. However, he did manage to get a job at the new State school: Florida Technological University, which later became the University of Central Florida.. We moved to the Cocoa Beach area, and he started commuting about 45 miles a day to work there.

After he began work at UCF, Dad enrolled in the Doctoral program at the University of Florida in Gainesville. For about 3 years, Dad's schedule consisted of leaving the house by 6am to get to his full-time job at UCF. Then he would leave that campus after work, and drive the 2 hours to Gainesville to attend his Doctoral classes. Classes ran till 9 or 10 pm, and Dad got home well after 1 am. He eventually got his degree, and earned the title: Dr. Kenneth T. Moore, Ed.D. which is essentially a PhD for people in the Education field.

Dad grew up very poor in the Denver area. He was a WWII vet, and used the GI Bill to it's fullest. Politically, he was very conservative, a Regan Republican is the best description for him I can think of.

My point is: making fun of PhD's is about as smart as making fun of people with High School diplomas, or less. When you stereotype, you hurt yourself the worst, because you've closed your eyes to the truth.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
You are wrong because the very people you cite can't agree on a correct climate model. It is not an exact science, so please quit professing such. If it was then there would be then everyone would come to the EXACT same conclusion, just as everyone knows 2 + 2 = 4. There is no argument with that simple math, yet you seem to act as if there is no argument in climate modeling. Even the most knowledgeable climate scientists would admit there are many different possiblities, variables, and analysis. All have come up with different predictions for the future. How is that possible with an exact science? It isn't possible. There is argument. There are competing theories.
Oh man, longride, when did you become the voice of reason? Are you trying to ruin our fun? We've been reeling in a big one here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
553 Posts
For what it's worth:

I get behind the parts of the "solution" that seem to make sense to me when removed from the propaganda that initially surrounds them. Cleaner air is a great idea, better fuel economy is a wonderful notion, a renewable energy source is the cat's meow. If all parties can agree on the end goal the vitriolic huffing and puffing seems senseless.

And in so far as the various podium thumping climate pundits are concerned... I have a universal prejudice towards anyone with a singular message. It often feels to me like anything that could be construed as clear and identifiable fact is buried beneath hyperbole, exaggeration and subjective interpretation. Even assuming there aren't any ulterior motives on the part of the person(s) presenting the "facts" the schism between opposing points of view only grows wider, more extreme, and (subsequently) less rooted in reality.

Just my two cents.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
For what it's worth:

I get behind the parts of the "solution" that seem to make sense to me when removed from the propaganda that initially surrounds them. Cleaner air is a great idea, better fuel economy is a wonderful notion, a renewable energy source is the cat's meow. If all parties can agree on the end goal the vitriolic huffing and puffing seems senseless.

And in so far as the various podium thumping climate pundits are concerned... I have a universal prejudice towards anyone with a singular message. It often feels to me like anything that could be construed as clear and identifiable fact is buried beneath hyperbole, exaggeration and subjective interpretation. Even assuming there aren't any ulterior motives on the part of the person(s) presenting the "facts" the schism between opposing points of view only grows wider, more extreme, and (subsequently) less rooted in reality.

Just my two cents.
When some of the spokespersons for the GW gang start saying that people who disagree with GW should be arrested and treated as terrorists... well, that's called a clue.
 

·
Snuggles
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
For what it's worth:

I get behind the parts of the "solution" that seem to make sense to me when removed from the propaganda that initially surrounds them. Cleaner air is a great idea, better fuel economy is a wonderful notion, a renewable energy source is the cat's meow. If all parties can agree on the end goal the vitriolic huffing and puffing seems senseless.

And in so far as the various podium thumping climate pundits are concerned... I have a universal prejudice towards anyone with a singular message. It often feels to me like anything that could be construed as clear and identifiable fact is buried beneath hyperbole, exaggeration and subjective interpretation. Even assuming there aren't any ulterior motives on the part of the person(s) presenting the "facts" the schism between opposing points of view only grows wider, more extreme, and (subsequently) less rooted in reality.

Just my two cents.
I can put a "me too" behind those staetments.
 
101 - 120 of 125 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top