Crazy old lady, Lindsay Graham, hates the constitution

[SpaceCadet]

You are of course, wrong about that. However, thanks for confirming what I said earlier.

Look, how many people over there do you suppose are competent to discuss quantum entanglement?  How many do you suppose have any idea what it is?  There might be 1 or 2 who have some idea of what it is.  Does that mean they are, in general, stupid and incompetent?  No, it means that they don't have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, or have otherwise studied it in an informal manner in depth.

Likewise, they are not competent to discuss the science behind GW.  They have only a very dim view of the scope and depth of the science.  Rather, they simply post slanted BS from one political side or the other.  I'll bet that their not being competent to discuss quantum theory does not bother you nearly as much as the assertion that they're not competent to discuss GW science.  I'd also bet that's because the former has not become a politically charged issue as has the latter.

They can discuss the political aspects of GW all they want.  That's a useful thing to do, and organizations like the Pentagon and NCAR are studying that as well.  But for someone like Bean to try and argue the science?  Give me a break.

[SpaceCadet]

i appreciate your comments here.  i hope you do know that in spite of our disagreements, i do appreciate your contributions here.  Emphasis on contributions.

Pointing out the lack of integrity of an organization like MoveOn is a contribution.   

[johnhp]

Pointing out the lack of integrity of an organization like MoveOn is a contribution.   

Oh, you misunderstand.  i meant contributions for which there is, you know, evidence.

[Velleity]

Likewise, they are not competent to discuss the science behind GW.  They have only a very dim view of the scope and depth of the science.  Rather, they simply post slanted BS from one political side or the other. 

Observer is better than any one of them, and he has only a very dim view of the scope and depth of anything.

Of course you know that already. I am not in your head and I'm not about to do an Observer on you and tell you what you think. It seems to me (which means that I am telling you what I think you're thinking) that you're getting a little defensive and you're allowing Observer to have an undeserved and unearned edge in your "discussion" with him.

You have absolutely nothing to be defensive about. You have done nothing wrong. Observer is way out of line and over the top. He is utterly ridiculous.

I suggest you think of him as a disaffected, delinquent youth--if you don't already do that. As a fall back understand that no one is listening to him anyway. That peanut gallery that he always seems to be playing to isn't real, and when he refers to himself as "we" or "us", well, that's just plain old weird.

[Observer]

Look, how many people over there do you suppose are competent to discuss quantum entanglement?  How many do you suppose have any idea what it is?  There might be 1 or 2 who have some idea of what it is.  Does that mean they are, in general, stupid and incompetent?  No, it means that they don't have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, or have otherwise studied it in an informal manner in depth.

Likewise, they are not competent to discuss the science behind GW.  They have only a very dim view of the scope and depth of the science.

How do you know? There has been much written on the subject that explains the science behind the theory quite well in lay terms.

  Rather, they simply post slanted BS from one political side or the other.

Actually, I saw a lot of figures, statistics, and analysis being posted. Most of it came from within the scientific community itself. What you did however was something you will of course deny, but you did nonetheless... You approached the problem, having already reached your conclusion, and simply dismissed any evidence or findings which conflicted with your preconceptions.

  I'll bet that their not being competent to discuss quantum theory does not bother you nearly as much as the assertion that they're not competent to discuss GW science.  I'd also bet that's because the former has not become a politically charged issue as has the latter.

That is a bet you would win. If and when members of government start using unprovable and highly disputed studies into quantum theory as tools to institute oppressive controls over the People, you can place another bet that I will care about whether people become competent to discuss the issue.

They can discuss the political aspects of GW all they want.  That's a useful thing to do, and organizations like the Pentagon and NCAR are studying that as well.  But for someone like Bean to try and argue the science?  Give me a break.

What is your field of specialization? Are you a climate specialist? From what you have said over the years, I do not believe you are.

You are no more qualified to discuss it than anyone else. Perhaps a better way to express that would be to say the people whose opinions you dismiss so easily are no LESS qualified to discuss that issue than you are.

Contrary to what you and some others, whose numbers are dwindling daily, want to believe, the issue of Anthropomorphic Global Warming is not settled. It is far from settled.

[Observer]

Vel, when you get tired of launching gratuitous personal attacks, let me know.

You are beginning to remind me a teenager who got dumped by her boyfriend and retaliates by talking trash about him wherever and to whomever she can.

[Velleity]

Vel, when you get tired of launching gratuitous personal attacks, let me know.

Out of one side of the mouth, and then. . .

You are beginning to remind me a teenager who got dumped by her boyfriend and retaliates by talking traash about wherever and to whomever she can.

. . . out the other.

[SpaceCadet]

How do you know? There has been much written on the subject that explains the science behind the theory quite well in lay terms. 

From having discussed it with them, of course.  They've read what some political pseudoscientific hacks have written on the subject, slanted to a certain political leaning, and that's it.

Actually, I saw a lot of figures, statistics, and analysis being posted. Most of it came from within the scientific community itself. What you did however was something you will of course deny, but you did nonetheless... You approached the problem, having already reached your conclusion, and simply dismissed any evidence or findings which conflicted with your preconceptions.

That's not true at all.  I actually learned quite a bit from some of the stuff posted by Bean, for example, and it was a springboard toward more investigation on my part.

That is a bet you would win. If and when members of government start using unprovable and highly disputed studies into quantum theory as tools to institute oppressive controls over the People, you can place another bet that I will care about whether people become competent to discuss the issue.

What is your field of specialization? Are you a climate specialist? From what you have said over the years, I do not believe you are.

But you don't care whether or not people become competent to discuss the issue.  You only care about finding some way of dismissing it if you happen to perceive it as a threat.  Fundamentally, you're no different from Young-Earth Creationists, or legislators who want to "legislate" the value of pi to be 3.0, because they don't really understand what it means that pi is irrational or simply because it's "messy".  Like Rudy, over there, who thought there was something wrong with scientists who believe in irrational numbers, taking that term to have the more usual nonmathematical meaning of being crazy or being nonsensical.  ROTLMAO!!

I'm not a climate scientist, which I stated early on in the debate, and that is why I tend to align more with the people who are, and who are actually doing the work.  When something came up from the political hacks that challenged me, I ran over to NCAR on a couple of occasions to talk to an actual climate scientist about it.  Do you think anyone like Bean has done that?

I'm a theoretical physicist, btw, and no, that doesn't mean that I'm a physicist only in my own mind!   

You are no more qualified to discuss it than anyone else. Perhaps a better way to express that would be to say the people whose opinions you dismiss so easily are no LESS qualified to discuss that issue than you are. 

I respectfully disagree.  At least I'm trained as a scientist, and I've spent quite a bit of time visiting a climate research center, and I've read much of the actual scientific papers, rather than reading politically-based denials.

Contrary to what you and some others, whose numbers are dwindling daily, want to believe, the issue of Anthropomorphic Global Warming is not settled. It is far from settled.

<sigh> I've said, many times, that it's not settled.  But it doesn't matter how many times I say something.  You, and your ilk, will continue to believe what you want to believe about what I have and have not said.  The reality of what I've said doesn't matter.  Reality, in general, doesn't matter.

[SpaceCadet]

Also, Observer, really think hard for a moment about what you said earlier, that what really "killed" me at NoPC was my "unequivocal support of Human Caused Global Warming and your stated opinion that anyone who does not support that largely debunked theory is not competent to even discuss it".  ...  just a moment please ...

Sorry, I had to take a moment to stifle the laughter.   

Let's pretend for a moment that I gave a crap.  First, you are saying that my having an unequivocal opinion, that is contrary to the mainstream thought on that board - a discussion board no less, is what "killed" me there.  That is one of the main reasons for my leaving.  Secondly, it's not as if I refused to discuss it.  We went on to discuss it for months.  They are competent to discuss the political aspects of it, and we did that.  We, at least Rich and myself, even developed an alternative way of looking at the politics of it.  We discovered that there are many more ways to tackle it than merely arguing over cap-and-trade, or no cap-and-trade.  There are many more possibilities for ways of dealing with it, whether it's human-caused or not. 

What they are not competent to discuss is the science, unless they undertake to earnestly study the actual science first.

[IM2]

NOPC is a place that is populated mostly by incompetent nincompoops. It was once a decent forum, but then newsmax shut down and those nutjobs invaded NOPC and ruined it.

Global Warming has nothing to do with the fact that republicans want to overturn the 14th amendment. The party of freedom wants to reduce rights. The party of no government intervention wants to intrude. Here again we see the lie exposed.