Notice anything interesting?

Markovich wrote on 10/26/09 at 12:30:22:


The fact is for "four to five years" the planet has cooled and global warming has stopped (at least for this time period). This does not say anything about the future.

Quote:


This is a place for opinions, yours included.

Quote:


You seem like a very sad and angry boy in that you must rely on insults and name calling when you don't get what you want.



On a lighter note: Who is "winning" this "debate"?

Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1386/cap-and-trade-global-warming-opinion

And, like it or not, this thread IS very popular!

Regarding Bibs' request that we get back to chess: I think the chit chat section is a brilliant idea! In the early days of the internet people would gravitate to the chess site (there was pretty much only one, the Internet Chess Server) even if they didn't play chess so that they could engage in discussions with people who tend to think before we spout.   

Ok, so this site shows that chess players spout quite a bit and I'm certainly no exception.  But isn't it nice to know that most of our comments are of a much higher order than would be found on facebook or other blog sites?

Even if rdecredico's credibility is gone, his series of quotes does add to the discussion on "AGW".

Can we get back to the topic now?

Any of this tosh necessary on a chess site? Do we need chit chat?

Just distracts worthy contributors such as Markovich from the chess. Surely these folks have friends they can talk to about this. Or another forum? 

Chess...? Anyone?

This is from drkodos' reply #361 in the endless "refutation of 3.Bc4 Nf6" thread http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1230634273/360#361 (for some reason I couldn't use the standard quoting procedure, maybe because that thread is locked?)

Quote:


... and here's rdecredico just the other day:

rdecredico wrote on 10/25/09 at 08:36:12:


Not to mention:

rdecredico wrote on 10/25/09 at 16:09:38:


I think someone here is hurting their cause by being so obviously dishonest.

rdecredico may perhaps be a journalist as claimed, but I have serious doubts about it.  But being even a Pulitzer prize winning journalist would not be a qualification to opine as loftily as he does on scientific questions.  I'm an economist by profession; I've written articles in peer-reviewed professional journals;  but it doesn't quality me as an expert in everything to do with Economics, let alone climatology.  So journalist or not, there is a strong whiff of tomfoolery wafting about this rdecredico -- who most certainly is our "drkodos" of yore.  And I reckon that if he'd lie about one thing, he'd lie about another.

As for "global cooling," for 30 years the skeptics on global warming kept saying, "It's a temporary trend!" (though weather data alone pointed to a 150 years or more of warming).  But now four to five years of relative cooling is touted as evidence that the planet isn't warming!  

In any case, the fact remains that no one here is competent to judge the science behind all this.  It would completely idiotic to embark upon a policy that assumes that a large majority of experts don't know what they're talking about, particularly considering the nature of the risks involved.  This is why I wish that the wearisome belaji, who appears to think that complex questions of science can very easily be adjudicated by autodicacts, would either go away or be suppressed on grounds of blatant stupidity.  Enough with the bandwidth consuming, out-of-contexts graphics, already!

These two people are miserable trolls, and they don't deserve a forum here, for crying out loud.

rdecredico wrote on 10/25/09 at 16:11:35:


I found this brief quote from an online Q and A session. It's from 2006, so he could conceivably have changed his mind:

Quote:


Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/richard-dawkins-you-ask-the-qu...

But I'm not sure why it matters. Dawkins' fields of expertise are evolutionary biology, behavioral ecology, science and pseudoscience, and atheism. I see no reason why he should be especially qualified to advise on global warming.

It's really a disease of modern culture that once someone is famous for one thing, their opinions on everything else is automatically valued more. Save the whales because some famous actor said so! Etc. No, give experts special weight only in their field of expertise, I say.

kylemeister wrote on 10/25/09 at 16:08:33:



That does not mean I posted them, sir.

I would sign legal affidavit that I did not, since I did not.