05 Apr 15
11 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain"probably" here, just like it did before for me, means me being something vaguely like ~99.9% certain which I would personally call being "sure" enough. I also think "probably" that the sun will rise tomorrow even though I accept there must mathematically be a non-zero probability that the world is just a dream and I am just a brain in a nutrient tank fed with electrical impulses that give the hallucinogenic illusion of the world I think I see.
You used to be sure that GW would result in millions of deaths,
Thus I never implied/think I can rationally have absolute certainty of anything but rather usually asset things, just like most other people assert things, without stupidly pedantically prefixing the word "probably" to every single assertion without exception. Now on the one occasion I did insert "probably", you make a big deal over it pretending it means I have changed my position, which I obviously haven't (because of the above ). I can only assume you do this because you fear you have lost the argument and so you just resort to arguing over mere semantics rather than the actual arguments.
You are just ineffectively nitpicking with words.
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by humy99.9%? LOL!
"probably" here, just like it did before for me, means me being something vaguely like ~99.9% certain which I would personally call being "sure" enough. I also think "probably" that the sun will rise tomorrow even though I accept there must mathematically be a non-zero probability that the world is just a dream and I am just a brain in a nutrient tank fed with ...[text shortened]... e semantics rather than the actual arguments.
You are just ineffectively nitpicking with words.
I think you are making that up. What is your source of information?
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSometimes you make me laugh!
99.9%? LOL!
I think you are making that up. What is your source of information?
Why not just admit that you haven't read what he wrote? Or that you haven't understood it?
Or why not just admit that you have lost this debate? It makes you look better instead of committing this logical harakiri.
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"So do you think the ocean is not rising?"
So do you think the ocean is not rising? Do you think somehow things are going to magically reverse course and the arctic starts freezing again and the world's glaciers are going to start being glaciers again?
What is YOUR prediction?
Your memory is failing you. We had this discussion before in regards to that tiny island in Alaska that eroded because of man made causes unrelated to GW. 14 cm per century is very little per year.
What was the sea level rise last year? Why do millimeters alarm you?
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasI did read what he wrote. He back peddled from a certainty to probably and now he made up 99.9% out of thin air. Now I am calling his bluff. It is very simple.
Sometimes you make me laugh!
Why not just admit that you haven't read what he wrote? Or that you haven't understood it?
Or why not just admit that you have lost this debate? It makes you look better instead of committing this logical harakiri.
Now you are interjecting without providing a source of information. Why do you do that? Are you so clueless you are incapable of contributing to anything here but mindless trolling and asserting humy proved something when he did not?
Now he is saying talk to any climate scientist because he is right. If he wants to prove something tell him to find a poll or something. You do the same thing. Prove something if you can. Don't just make false assertions hoping nobody will call you on it. Grow a spine.
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou think this is important 99.9% Would you think 99.91% or 99.89% would be better?
I did read what he wrote. He back peddled from a certainty to probably and now he made up 99.9% out of thin air. Now I am calling his bluff. It is very simple.
Now you are interjecting without providing a source of information. Why do you do that? Are you so clueless you are incapable of contributing to anything here but mindless trolling and assertin ...[text shortened]... ng if you can. Don't just make false assertions hoping nobody will call you on it. Grow a spine.
Where is your information that 99.9% isn't correct? What is your source for that? Hey? Hey? LOL 😀
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasProve any percentage. I don't care. Just prove something.
You think this is important 99.9% Would you think 99.91% or 99.89% would be better?
The world will be a far different place than it is today if the the Oceans rise one or 2 meters in the next 100 years. 😀
If the Ocean levels rise 2 meters it would be far different place, but the last 100 years saw sea levels rise only 14 cm. 2 meters within 100 years is not possible. If you can prove a trend that justifies that claim I'm waiting on the edge of my seat, but not holding my breath. Don't ask me to prove a negative. Intelligent minds don't ask that.
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by FabianFnas"Where is your information that 99.9% isn't correct? What is your source for that? Hey? Hey? LOL"
You think this is important 99.9% Would you think 99.91% or 99.89% would be better?
Where is your information that 99.9% isn't correct? What is your source for that? Hey? Hey? LOL 😀
Don't ask me to prove a negative. Intelligent minds don't do that. Prove your positive assertion.
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainAgain: I don't discuss climate with you, such a discussion with you is not very interesting. I study your rhetorics, that is interesting.
Prove any percentage. I don't care. Just prove something.
If the Ocean levels rise 2 meters it would be far different place, but the last 100 years saw sea levels rise only 14 cm. 2 meters within 100 years is not possible. If you can prove a trend that justifies that claim I'm waiting on the edge of my seat, but not holding my breath. Don't ask me to prove a negative. Intelligent minds don't ask that.
I see you and creationists using the same methodology. Doesn't make you a creationist, but it doesn't make you a winner either.
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasMore psychological projection. It is you that is using the creationist methodology. Whenever I ask a creationist for proof of their claims I get the same rhetoric from them as you. FAIL!
Again: I don't discuss climate with you, such a discussion with you is not very interesting. I study your rhetorics, that is interesting.
I see you and creationists using the same methodology. Doesn't make you a creationist, but it doesn't make you a winner either.
05 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you do learn you rhetorics from the creationists? And that you admit freely? Good for you! 🙂
More psychological projection. It is you that is using the creationist methodology. Whenever I ask a creationist for proof of their claims I get the same rhetoric from them as you. FAIL!
05 Apr 15
8 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI actually said "...something vaguely like ~99.9% certain..." thus this percentage was not supposed to be from a formal mathematical calculation but merely is an expression of a personal intuitive judgement based on personal knowledge and obviously never said/implied the contrary. ALL personal judgements are "made up" so saying "I think you are making that up" is just stupid. Can you give an example of a personal judgement of certainty from no other addition source from ones own mind that is not "made up"?
99.9%? LOL!
I think you are making that up. What is your source of information?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subjective_probability.asp
In other words, in this case, my "source of information" is "one's own brain" -a concept you apparently fail to grasp here.
06 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you just ignore the fact that the melting of Antarctica is speeding up and we are losing glaciers all over the planet and the Arctic will be totally ice free in a few decades.
"So do you think the ocean is not rising?"
Your memory is failing you. We had this discussion before in regards to that tiny island in Alaska that eroded because of man made causes unrelated to GW. 14 cm per century is very little per year.
What was the sea level rise last year? Why do millimeters alarm you?
You seem to be stuck in the present unable to process future problems.
I already see changes in the ocean, my brother in law lives near Miami and has a condo on the beach but the beach is rapidly approaching his condo and they had a boat launching dock that has now been cut in two by the increase in ocean depth and storms. I don't think he can even sell his condo now.
And I can already read your response to that: Poor rich dude, gets what he deserves. It doesn't matter he got his money the hard way, big deal, rich assshole deserves it.
None of that stuff bothers you I guess, since you are stuck in the present and unable to foresee anything in the future except for your MO that climate predictions are unreliable.
Well they are reliable enough, we don't need predictions, we already see a big chunk of Antarctic ice disappearing, melting from the bottom up, forming new under ice rivers.
Nothing bothers you though, I guess your prediction is this is just another cycle and in 30 years or so everything will reverse and go back to normal. And of course you care nothing about the loss of bio-diversity, that means nothing to you also. Who gives a rats ass if polar bears disappear from the face of the Earth or the thousands of other life forms going extinct as we speak, life forms that have been here millions of years and now with the help of mankind, disappearing forever.
Big deal you say.
06 Apr 15
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-western-canada-percent-glaciers.html
"Western Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100
Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century, creating major problems for local ecosystems, power supplies, and water quality, according to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers. The study is published online in Nature Geoscience.
..."
-not a good sign.
06 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"So you just ignore the fact that the melting of Antarctica is speeding up"
So you just ignore the fact that the melting of Antarctica is speeding up and we are losing glaciers all over the planet and the Arctic will be totally ice free in a few decades.
You seem to be stuck in the present unable to process future problems.
I already see changes in the ocean, my brother in law lives near Miami and has a condo on the beach bu ...[text shortened]... e millions of years and now with the help of mankind, disappearing forever.
Big deal you say.
You mean because of the volcano under the ice? Didn't we already cover that? Your memory is not very good.
"I already see changes in the ocean, my brother in law lives near Miami and has a condo on the beach but the beach is rapidly approaching his condo and they had a boat launching dock that has now been cut in two by the increase in ocean depth and storms. I don't think he can even sell his condo now."
Darn those storms. Some people build condos too close to the ocean. Some people make mistakes. It is not the ocean depth that is his problem.
"Poor rich dude"
Well....he can afford to move. His life is not in danger. Should I feel sorry for him? Lots of people have lousy luck. Some people are homeless. Don't you feel bad for them or do you blame them for their own problems?
Climate models are unreliable, it is a fact. Should I lie to make you feel better about being right about millions of people losing their lives in the future? Why don't you welcome the fact that climate models are often wrong? Do you hope for suffering or is it just more important to be right than millions of people living instead of dying?