Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:20 pm

and this:

,,, and the science is (...) that world wide catastrophe is less than 100 years into the future.
:D

...what I believe is off topic.
:lol:
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:38 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:There is hardly a huge debate regarding climate sensitivity when 97% of qualified scientists reviewed agree co2 is the driving force and 100% of organized scientific groups agree.

Then you should have no trouble telling us what the climate sensitivity number is. Before you can go any further in this conversation, you must now tell us what that number is that you claim 97 percent of scientists agree it is. It's possible you do not have this number memorized, so I'll wait while you go look it up.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Every "known" variable is put into the models.

That's an ambiguous claim. Why the scare quotes around the word "known". What exactly does that mean? Are you saying all factors that affect climate are in the models? That would be false. Are you saying that all the factors that are in the models have been given values agreed upon by 97 percent of the scientists? That too would be false. What exactly is your claim here, and please be specific?

For example, what percentage of Arctic sea ice melting is due to global warming versus carbon soot deposits on the ice? Please tell us the number for that "variable" in all the models.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:56 pm

The sensitivity number is: we are all gonna die in 100-200 years if we don't get off carbon.

Known: everything thought significant that is known. Thats why even with the worlds fastest super computer....climate modelers want an even faster one.

Precision is not the hallmark of climate science...its all too chaotic. Think more of general directions....and we are all gonna die.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:30 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The sensitivity number is: we are all gonna die in 100-200 years if we don't get off carbon.


What a stupid paranoid buffoon!! Proof bobbo is nothing more than another ignorant sniping troll like stuperviter.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:49 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The sensitivity number is: we are all gonna die in 100-200 years if we don't get off carbon.

Known: everything thought significant that is known. Thats why even with the worlds fastest super computer....climate modelers want an even faster one.

Precision is not the hallmark of climate science...its all too chaotic. Think more of general directions....and we are all gonna die.

This thread should have been a poll thread; Poe or No poe? I think one did appear.
Last edited by SweetPea on Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:56 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The sensitivity number is: we are all gonna die in 100-200 years if we don't get off carbon.


What a stupid paranoid buffoon!! Proof bobbo is nothing more than another ignorant sniping troll like stuperviter.


Say JS==would you reject the advice of the doctor because he couldn't tell you "exactly" how many days longer you would live if you submitted to treatment? You know: your sensitivity number to treatment.

I'm a bit flip because your emphasis on precision is wholly misplaced.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:04 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The sensitivity number is: we are all gonna die in 100-200 years if we don't get off carbon.

Translation: You do not know what the number is despite your claim to understand the science involved. Sorry, bobbo but you just undermined your entire position with that admission of ignorance.

Until you can tell us what the number is for co2 climate sensitivity — a number you claim is agreed upon by 97 percent of scientists — I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt that your opinions are based on fact.

You can wave your arms about all you want and say things like "we are all going to die in 200 years", but I prefer to base my understanding on facts, not rhetoric.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:16 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I'm a bit flip because your emphasis on precision is wholly misplaced.


More BS from bobbo! I am not demanding misplaced precision, I have simply educated you that there is no consensus on sensitivity. BUt you keep trying to bullish*t us that there is no debate regards sensitivity. But you reveal that you know jacksh*t about climate sensitivity. Your "a bit flip" only because you try to hide your friggin stupidity about climate science! Your just an ignorant paranoid!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:23 pm

We are all going to die in 100-200 years if we keep burning carbon, probably even if we do.....so what difference does sensitivity make?....and why isn't 100-200 to disaster just exactly a sensitivity measure although not in the units you are demanding.

Yes.... you ARE demanding misplaced precision. Sensitivity matters in that it sets the time frame when co2 loading will cause certain temperatures to be reached. Why is 100-200 years not precise enough for you?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:27 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Say JS==would you reject the advice of the doctor because he couldn't tell you "exactly" how many days longer you would live if you submitted to treatment? You know: your sensitivity number to treatment.



Just more alarmist tripe and the same tired doctor analogies. A more appropriate analogy is that models have failed to simulate past climate even though they know the results. The real question Bobbo, is why would you trust doctors' diagnoses when they have badly misdiagnosed their previous patients!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:36 pm

Ha! Excellent counter. I could quibble but lets stay on point. Every "bad prediction" I have read about is simply what we are talking about now: the critics, with nothing better to advance, calling a model defective because it wasn't precise enough.... very often confusing weather for climate.... if not IN EVERY CASE.

Do you have a glaring example of the models being wrong that go to the validity of the theory as opposed to its precision?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:45 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:We are all going to die in 100-200 years if we keep burning carbon, probably even if we do.....so what difference does sensitivity make?....and why isn't 100-200 to disaster just exactly a sensitivity measure although not in the units you are demanding.

Yes.... you ARE demanding misplaced precision. Sensitivity matters in that it sets the time frame when co2 loading will cause certain temperatures to be reached. Why is 100-200 years not precise enough for you?


ROTFLMAO your name should be bobbo-the friggin-stupid-paranoid! First stop your drivel about we are ll going to die. How stupid can you be??? Take a deep look inside and ask yourself what makes you so sniveling fearful. Does the increase in growing season since the LIttle Ice Age make you think we are going to die? LOL

Did you know during the LIttle Ice Age trees stopped growing. Or that advancing glaciers in the alps wiped out farms and villages? Warming has been a good thing for all. Your paranoid ass should fear any return to Little Ice Age conditions. And with the sun approaching similar low levels, I suggest you hope and pray that CO2 can offset any cold.

Second sensitivity is not measured in years. Again your reveal your scientific ignorance.You must be Stupervitor's twin! Sensitivity is a measure of changes in temperature due to a doubling of CO2. And researchers are increasingly suggesting lower sensitivity. Then before you can intelligently rant "we are all gonna die" you need to show how a 1 degree warming would kill any species. Try reading some real science. Based on your completely ignorant comments you too must get your info from wikipedia.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:21 pm

So what example of model failure do you have?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:41 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:We are all going to die in 100-200 years if we keep burning carbon, probably even if we do.....so what difference does sensitivity make?....and why isn't 100-200 to disaster just exactly a sensitivity measure although not in the units you are demanding.

Yes.... you ARE demanding misplaced precision. Sensitivity matters in that it sets the time frame when co2 loading will cause certain temperatures to be reached. Why is 100-200 years not precise enough for you?

That's a very nice misunderstanding of my questions to you.

The point of my questions was to trick you into revealing that you do not really know what you are talking about.

Which you did quite handily.

You can excuse your lack of knowledge any way you like, but it is now evident that your claims are not based on a clear understanding of the science. (Which is fine, unless you are claiming an expertise you do not have.)

For example, the notion of climate sensitivity, as others have already said, has a very specific and exact scientific definition and is not measured in units of time. It has other units of measure. You should have known that if you truly understand the science as you claim.

Contrary to your accusation, I was not asking for any "misplaced accuracy". I was asking you to back up your claim of knowledge about the science. Which you did not do, even after repeated opportunities and hints.

Anyone who knows what climate sensitivity means and how it is measured would have given a reasonable explanation why there is no general agreement among scientists about what number should be used in climate models.

You did not do that.

Instead you engaged in rhetoric, misdirection, and claims of phony consensus about that number.

My questions to you about climate sensitivity would be seen as obviously trick questions by anyone who knows what they are talking about. But you did not see that and got tripped up in your failure to answer them properly.

Sorry, bobbo, but I expected better than that from someone who claims to understand the science, and unfortunately, I can no longer take your opinions seriously. I prefer to base my understanding on the science, thank you.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:21 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ha! Excellent counter. I could quibble but lets stay on point. Every "bad prediction" I have read about is simply what we are talking about now: the critics, with nothing better to advance, calling a model defective because it wasn't precise enough.... very often confusing weather for climate.... if not IN EVERY CASE.

Do you have a glaring example of the models being wrong that go to the validity of the theory as opposed to its precision?


Start with models predicting declining sea ice in Antarctica while Antarctic sea ice has grown to historic maximums. Or look at how models simulate droughts in North America. Models totally failed to simulate observed historic droughts of the 30s and 50s, illustrated in red, and recent droughts in black. However the models do show horribly increasing droughts in the future, when no one can test their bogus predictions. Yet those dire predictions ensnare the ignorant paranoids. Why would anyone trust pHd predictions of devastating future droughts when these geniuses can not simulate 20 century drought.
You've been duped bobbo!


Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:28 pm

xouper wrote:Anyone who knows what climate sensitivity means and how it is measured would have given a reasonable explanation why there is no general agreement among scientists about what number should be used in climate models.

You did not do that.

Instead you engaged in rhetoric, misdirection, and claims of phony consensus about that number.

My questions to you about climate sensitivity would be seen as obviously trick questions by anyone who knows what they are talking about. But you did not see that and got tripped up in your failure to answer them properly.

Sorry, bobbo, but I expected better than that from someone who claims to understand the science, and unfortunately, I can no longer take your opinions seriously. I prefer to base my understanding on the science, thank you.


Well said Xouper! bobbo's total ignorance and trolling is as transparent as stupervitor's!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:35 am

Well, you are both wrong.

I purposefully kept the discussion POINTED at why the issue is so important===something you two appear to be totally oblivious to.

I expressly stated the import of co2 sensitivity and that it was expressed in different units.

I've never said or implied that I was an expert, just a reader of the field.

I've never claimed to understand the science, I'm just a reader in the field and accept the major findings, recommendations, and concerns of the IPCC. The opinions expressed are not "mine" so much as they are the opinions as best as I can understand them of the IPCC.

JS--those are excellent examples. They demonstrate the models were wrong about sea ice, not that the underpinning theory or concern is wrong. The drought data just may be too quick and occurence, same with the sea ice as CLIMATE refers to general trends or events lasting 30 years of so. Not the few year events of ice and drought. Now I don't call sea ice or droughts "weather" but according to IPCC, they just might be.

The sea ice issue is actually pretty interesting. From memory its all about the effect of fresh water increasing on the surface of the ocean thereby increasing the formation of ice while the body of water overall continued to heat. Entirely consistent with CC and a minor feedback loop not understood. Kinda like a flash flood in the desert, a trap for the ignorant which the IPCC on that subject was. Mistakes made, lessons learned, onward with scientific understanding.

You take great joy in finding the co2 sensitivity issue. I say its a misplaced demand for precision that is inconsequential. Its like ignoring that doctors advice for really stupid reasons. In point of fact, the only "errors" in the doctors previous practice were similar stupid demands for precision. Medicine isn't that precise, thats why its called an art. Same with climate.

I did want to confirm my understanding of sensitivity though, so I googled and the first hit from a reputable website as opposed to a single blogger that I found was: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15858603 reporting on results published in Science: The study is the latest to derive a value for "climate sensitivity" - the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations - from palaeontology. It concludeds: "....the results do not mean that the threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously.." but only that we may have slightly more time to stop pushing co2 into the atmosphere. IE==>ITS ALL ABOUT PRECISION, very analogous to the doctor hypo.

Elsewhere: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
which states: re Climate Myth...

Models are unreliable---"This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events." /// Hey--JUST WHAT I SAID and you two ignore.

"All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise,"

You deniers...... its a trip.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:40 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I've never said or implied that I was an expert, just a reader of the field..


No worries. It was blatantly obvious you were not an expert, or even moderately well informed poster. It was however very clear that you are just a paranoid troll!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:47 am

First fixated on precision, now fixated on calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll.

Sad..... looks like you have potential.... walk towards the light.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:12 am

What a clown.
A least he found a study. No, at least he found an article.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:14 am

You see Sweetpea.... you claim co2 is a green house gas that will warm the earth. Why then so negative regarding the science that says the same thing? You make no sense.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:First fixated on precision, now fixated on calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll.


Who other than bobbo the clown is fixated on precision?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby xouper » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:16 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I've never claimed to understand the science, . . .

You have implied it when you repeatedly accused others of failing to understand the science, a criticism that you are not qualified to make if you do not also understand the science yourself.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I'm just a reader in the field and accept the major findings, recommendations, and concerns of the IPCC. The opinions expressed are not "mine" so much as they are the opinions as best as I can understand them of the IPCC.

Thank you for clarifying that. If that is indeed your position, then you are not qualified to be so aggressive in your criticisms of other people about their level of understanding of the science.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You take great joy in finding the co2 sensitivity issue. I say its a misplaced demand for precision that is inconsequential. Its like ignoring that doctors advice for really stupid reasons. In point of fact, the only "errors" in the doctors previous practice were similar stupid demands for precision. Medicine isn't that precise, thats why its called an art. Same with climate.

Except I never made that argument, I have never denied any climate model for lack of precision of the climate sensitivity number, nor did I intend to make such an argument.

Contrary to your (misguided) accusation, my purpose in asking you to explain climate sensitivity was not to justify my position on climate science, it was a test to see whether you understood what it is. And you failed the test. You had several opportunities to give the correct answer and you failed, even after I suggested you go look it up before replying.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You deniers...... its a trip.

Since you already know I am not a climate denier, I assume that comment was not intended for me.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You see Sweetpea.... you claim co2 is a green house gas that will warm the earth. Why then so negative regarding the science that says the same thing? You make no sense.
I didn't say anything negative about the paper. It 's probably a bit on the high side for the the lower boundary, and the mean, but hey, at least you found something, right?

So time for you to relax, now that you know you were way off base. Thanks for clowning, too. It wasn't a great performance, but you tried.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:54 am

1. You have implied it when you repeatedly accused others of failing to understand the science, a criticism that you are not qualified to make if you do not also understand the science yourself. /// I'm not a mathematician, but 2+2 is four according to google. Same with most of my comments: ripped from the headlines. I'm not an evolutionary geneticist but I can still point out that man did not evolve from apes. Simple basic stuff denied by the deniers.

2.
Thank you for clarifying that. If that is indeed your position, then you are not qualified to be so aggressive in your criticisms of other people about their level of understanding of the science. /// Ha. ha. More demands for precision not relevant to the issue addressed. If what I say is wrong, link to a source showing it. Attacking me for lack of qualification is ineffective and a logical fallacy of ad hominem attack. Bad form.

3. Except I never made that argument, /// Clearly directed at JS.

4. it was a test to see whether you understood what it (Climate Sensitvity) is. And you failed the test. /// One hallmark of a calcified brain is the requirement to be spoon fed all discussions. I have twice now pointed out the issue of climate sensitivity is important because it sets the time for tipping points and catastrophic climate change to occur==about 100-200 years from now. Its really the same issue. Perhaps you can flex to this point?

5. Since you already know I am not a climate denier /// I don't care what you think you are, only what you post. I am fact and issue oriented, perhaps too easily sidetracked, but thats my goal. Try it.

Note: I found this in my browser history. Thought I had posted before Sweetpeas repetition.

You girls host a very restrictive tea party.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: One hallmark of a calcified brain is the requirement to be spoon fed all discussions. I have twice now pointed out the issue of climate sensitivity is important because it sets the time for tipping points and catastrophic climate change to occur==about 100-200 years from now. Its really the same issue.


What a crock of sh*t!!! Bobbo has only shown is his total ignorance regards climate sensitivity!

bobbo's BS demonstrates why he is not a person of integrity nor someone to ever take seriously!!!!

boobo is just a stupid troll!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:08 am

I'm not an evolutionary geneticist but I can still point out that man did not evolve from apes.
Oh goody! It's The bobbo Show!
Do tell, bobbo. What kind of animal did humans evolve from?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:10 am

A common ancestor to both groups. A basic fact 12 year olds should know.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:12 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:A common ancestor to both groups. A basic fact 12 year olds should know.
The bobbo Show!!!!

bobbo, are humans apes?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:22 am

bobbo, do you mind if I create a thread called "The bobbo Show!!!", and we continue this discussion there? It could be a good platform for you.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:30 am

Do you ever respond on point?

Start a thread..... I'll look at it. I'm not interested in priming hissyfits, but if you want to demonstrate inconsistencies or conflicts or errors or anything factually related, with links, I'd probably contribute.

...........but I won't hold my breath.

Please confirm: are you really this ignorant regarding evolution? In my short time here, I have seen you post too informed to be so dismally ignorant. I put it down to (lack of) personality.

Prove me wrong: be honest, direct, responsive.

If a cat has five legs, how many tails does it have? ((Ha, ha.... I crack myself up, linguistically speaking)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:42 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Do you ever respond on point?


ROTFLMO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Does bobbo the clown ever respond to the science or the evidence?????
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:52 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Do you ever respond on point?

Start a thread..... I'll look at it. I'm not interested in priming hissyfits, but if you want to demonstrate inconsistencies or conflicts or errors or anything factually related, with links, I'd probably contribute.

...........but I won't hold my breath.
OK, it's set up. viewtopic.php?f=80&t=25961&p=479728#p479728
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:13 pm

Haw haw, check out the thread.
Bobbo argued all the way, then capitulated and blamed his stupidity on my not understanding his wisdom.
Argued pointing to COMMON ancestor of all apes, to draw the discussion that way.
Finally:
Last time Sweetpea: our most recent ancestor was an ape per scientific taxonomy. Our Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangs (does any one ever include Gibbons?) also apes where NEVER our ancestors.

End of this subject for me unless you raise some other aspect.
:lol: Great clown.
Why else would I have taken him to town?
Last edited by SweetPea on Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:18 pm

SweetPea wrote:Haw haw, check out the thread.
Bobbo argued all the way, then capitulated and blamed his stupidity on my not understanding his wisdom.


Au contraire: I argued 3/4ths of the way, identified one source of potential confusion, accept my responsibility, and pointed out how you could have prevented it all. Stop posing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Haw haw, check out the thread.
Bobbo argued all the way, then capitulated and blamed his stupidity on my not understanding his wisdom.


Au contraire: I argued 3/4ths of the way, identified one source of potential confusion, accept my responsibility, and pointed out how you could have prevented it all. Stop posing.

YOUR ignorance. You tried to lead the discussion to common ancestor, so that we would be looking further back.
I immediately showed you the charts showing that all members were apes. That didn't stop you. Showing you the scientific terms and taxonomy didn't stop you. Somehow, you thought, in there was a non ape that humans were descended from.
Haw haw.
Now it's my fault for not stopping you. How could I stop you until I proved the point over and over this way and that, until you knew you couldn't weasel your way out?
bobbo, the lying clown.

Of course, I gave you rope. :lol: bobbo. exposed.


bobbo wrote:
SweetPea wrote:What kind of animal did humans evolve from?

A common ancestor to both groups.
ah ahahahahahaa
Last edited by SweetPea on Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:28 pm

Backl to lying again huh?

Derp.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:31 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Backl to lying again huh?

Derp.

what's the lie?
bobbo. Haw haw.

bobbo wrote:
SweetPea wrote: What kind of animal did humans evolve from?
A common ancestor to both groups.

hmmmm? what lie?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:37 pm

Oh, the common ancestor was not an ape? hmmm? Is that one ya wanna try?
You're saying it was because of the ignorant deniers that you said what you said. They think it's an argument of if we came from chimps or not. Would you like to enlighten some more, bobbo? bobberisms for all?
HAW HAW. bobbo.

You could have said humans are not descended from chimps or gorillas. But you didn't. You thought you had it right. Face it and stop lying.
Last edited by SweetPea on Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Postby SweetPea » Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:11 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Haw haw, check out the thread.
Bobbo argued all the way, then capitulated and blamed his stupidity on my not understanding his wisdom.


Au contraire: I argued 3/4ths of the way, identified one source of potential confusion, accept my responsibility, and pointed out how you could have prevented it all. Stop posing.


oh, bobbo.

The problem for you and arguing on the forum, is that it's on record.

Look at what you claimed. NOTE that it's not about potential language difficulty or about technical terms vs plain English words and it's therefore just a misunderstanding of language use and so partly my fault - as you're now dishonestly claiming:

bobbo wrote:The group I mentioned were apes and humans. so I asked you to google (What makes up the ape family) to show you that apes and humans are of the same family hence humans did not evolve from apes but rather they share a common ancestor


You thought that if all were in the same group, it's impossible that one can come from another within the group.
apes and humans are of the same family hence humans did not evolve from apes


Gotcha. You loooooose again, and lying can't unbury you.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SemrushBot and 2 guests