Annoying Things People Do - Page 3

[vmanes]

I think you've answered your own question!

[GrimJack]

I hate it when people in some forums seem to know everything and think they're always right.

Hey! Leave me out of this! I been working 12 hour days

[GrimJack]

Using:
'basically'
'per se'
'in theory'
as fillers or contra-indicators.

er, I guess the operant word is 'do', isn't it?

I hate it when people use working 12 hours a day as an excuse

<and I hate self-referential posts, too>

[GrimJack]

and recursive posts

[~s.o.s~]

...and spam.

[GrimJack]

I agree that there is some real science going on. Most of it implicates the sun getting brighter (Venus, Mars, and Titan are showing global warming too).

Venus is showing global warming?! Venus has an ambient temperature at about the boiling point of lead (@800 degs C) - it would take quite a change to show warming. It is postulated that Venus was much more earth-like in the past and that some sort of out of control (heh,heh - dang, I just love my sense of humor) global warming raised the temp to what it is now.

On the other hand, I have caught a lot of scientists and polluticians doing bad science:

- One hack said that melting the icecap over the Arctic Ocean would raise sea level by three feet. He totally ignored the laws of floating bodies.

What the hell is laws of floating bodies? <<you do know that in ALL other liquids, when it freezes, it gets heavier and sinks to the bottom - freezing here refers to the specific transition state when a liquid turns into a solid due to lowering of temperature - one does not generally refer to 1200 degs F [transition state of glass] as freezing but...>> If you are referring specifically to the idiosyncratic behavior of water molecules forming crystals in hexagonal rings making the specific gravity of water higher than the specific gravity of ice, then what scientists are actually referring to is the ice on the Antarctic continent dropping into the ocean and displacing 'x' amount of water and the ice on the Antarctic continent melting and running into the oceans. Both of these events will raise the levels of the oceans all over the world

- The studies of air trapped in ice ignore the fact that ice is NOT a hermetic seal for CO2. It has a CO2 removal mechanism - the same one that makes caves.

I am not sure what your point is here....

- They say that global warming is a cause of glacier melting. Then they turn around and say that, because glaciers are melting, global warming must be occurring. Using that same faulty logic, I could prove that you were driving drunk solely because you were in an accident.

ditto

- The studies of temperatures over the last 200 years ignore the fact that the instruments available at the beginning of the period did not have enough accuracy to be able to report the change the study reports.

. The studies are not over just the last 200 years but what do you mean the instruments available were not accurate enough? Fahrenheit sealed mercury in a glass tube and marked where water and salt mixed froze/melted, where water froze/melted and where the mercury stabilized when held in the mouth. Oops I am running on about how blazingly simple the device is -- He did this in the 1700s and the improvements are only in really tiny fractions of a degree not in actual whole degrees

- Those same studies ignored the redefinition of the Fahrenheit scale in 1901 to be an exact conversion to and from the Celsius scale, and the fact that most US Weather Bureau (later National Weather Service) temperatures come from airports, which are increasingly being paved for safety.

no they do not ignore the redefinition of the scale.

- The predictions of warming based on CO2 in the atmosphere are based on computer models. The same kind of models predict the weather wrong every day.

The predictions of warming are not just based on CO2 (but we will ignore that for the moment) and just focus on the stupid statement about weather prediction - are you telling me that every day, it snows when they say it will be sunny; that it rains when they say it will be clear?? I am agog at the cliched bad science in that statement. You do not seem to have any idea about weather models, weather prediction and the accuracies thereof. Even the silly-*ssed tv weatherman is mostly correct (you aren't actually basing a science comment on the behavior of tv droid are you?). Twice each day 700 weather balloons are released into the atmosphere around the world taking measurements up fringe of the atmosphere. These numbers are then fed into the models which are accurate to 7 '9's for 24 hours and corrected every 12 - the fact that your local weather-droid gets it wrong about once a month is of no particular relevance.

- Too many people are basing their demands for action on the dire predictions of what "might" happen if global warming in fact occurs, instead of on whether or not global warming has been shown to be occurring.

Wow, I can only just say 'wow' - where to start --- okay, let's stick with just CO2, CO2 is a gas and it dissolves in water; gases dissolve better in cold liquids better than they do in warm liquids so as the oceans warm up, less gas is dissolved into the ocean, in fact the oceans start to give up already dissolved CO2 adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Then there are the water-vapor tests, evaporative tests (this one is really cool, kids in schools all over the world go outside and place a pan of water (a pre-measured, known amount, the same every day) out in the same spot and the water loss is measured this experiment has been going on for 50 years.

- Science does not use the words "might", "could", "can", "possibly", and other terms of unsureness in scientific conclusions.

Science almost never uses words that are absolutes; science almost always uses words like possibly, could, etc. Science is an ongoing process of testing the world and so most science uses 'weasel' words because it is understood that as soon as you use absolute terms, it stops being science and becomes dogma. If it is not falsifiable, it is not science. If you can prove the science of global warming false, do so. Remember, though, along with falsifiability goes reproducibility (if someone on the other side of the world can not duplicate your results, then your results are in question).

Sorry, time for me to climb back down off my high horse and get back to the topic at hand.

Don't you just hate it when some know-it-all comes in and spews science all over your junk?

[GrimJack]

Hey, I'm just trying to get my count up to 200 before the end of the year.

[~s.o.s~]

Then you are posting in the wrong forum. Start posting here and get your count to 200 before the end of the day...

[sneekula]

Then you are posting in the wrong forum. Start posting here and get your count to 200 before the end of the day...

"Annoying Things People Do" might just be the right forum.

Illustrative of: "Don't you just unlike posters that post only to get their post count up."

[MidiMagic]

What kind of idiot texts when driving??? I can't even climb the stairs properly when I'm texting!

The guy who knocked down the tree across the street.

[MidiMagic]

- Too many people are basing their demands for action on the dire predictions of what "might" happen if global warming in fact occurs, instead of on whether or not global warming has been shown to be occurring.

Wow, I can only just say 'wow' - where to start --- okay, let's stick with just CO2, CO2 is a gas and it dissolves in water; gases dissolve better in cold liquids better than they do in warm liquids so as the oceans warm up, less gas is dissolved into the ocean, in fact the oceans start to give up already dissolved CO2 adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Then there are the water-vapor tests, evaporative tests (this one is really cool, kids in schools all over the world go outside and place a pan of water (a pre-measured, known amount, the same every day) out in the same spot and the water loss is measured this experiment has been going on for 50 years.

This is exactly what I meant. If the warming is NOT occurring, the outcomes of these tests are irrelevant.

They are putting the cart before the horse. First find out if global warming is in fact happening, before using scare tactics based on any possible effects of the warming.

And offsetting the fact that more CO2 will be in the air is the increased efficiency of plant life in a warmer climate.

[MidiMagic]

People who hijack threads with their overly passionate beliefs.

People who are annoyed by thread hijacking. :icon_cheesygrin:

[MidiMagic]

Venus is showing global warming?! Venus has an ambient temperature at about the boiling point of lead (@800 degs C) - it would take quite a change to show warming. It is postulated that Venus was much more earth-like in the past and that some sort of out of control (heh,heh - dang, I just love my sense of humor) global warming raised the temp to what it is now.

Satellites are showing temperature increases. And the icecaps are shrinking on Mars.

What the hell is laws of floating bodies? If you are referring specifically to the idiosyncratic behavior of water molecules forming crystals in hexagonal rings making the specific gravity of water higher than the specific gravity of ice, then what scientists are actually referring to is the ice on the Antarctic continent dropping into the ocean and displacing 'x' amount of water and the ice on the Antarctic continent melting and running into the oceans. Both of these events will raise the levels of the oceans all over the world

I am referring to the statement of one global warming "expert," who stated specifically that if just the ice in the north polar cap that is over the ocean were to melt, it would raise the sea level by three feet. He is wrong. Archimedes proved that a sunken body displaces its volume in water, while a floating body displaces its weight. The floating ice and the melted water both displace the same amount of water (it is water). So the sea level would not rise at all.

And if this clown is wrong about such a fundamental and well-tested law of physics, what else is he wrong about?

Ice melting off of land would raise the sea level, but he didn't include that ice.

The studies are not over just the last 200 years but what do you mean the instruments available were not accurate enough? Fahrenheit sealed mercury in a glass tube and marked where water and salt mixed froze/melted, where water froze/melted and where the mercury stabilized when held in the mouth. Oops I am running on about how blazingly simple the device is -- He did this in the 1700s and the improvements are only in really tiny fractions of a degree not in actual whole degrees

The problem is that the instruments available to the people who kept records were not the superaccurate instruments you describe. Those were used by scientists in heat-transfer and chemistry experiments, and were way too expensive for use in weather records. Usually the king of the country was the only one able to afford them.

The commercially available thermometers used by those keeping private weather records (before there was a US weather bureau) were marked in 5 degree increments at the best (the warming claim is a half-degree change over 200 years). There was no mass production then. Thermometers came from glassblowers, and the accuracy depended on the size and uniformity of the inner bore, and the standards available to the glassblower.

There are no widespread temperature records over 250 years old, because the thermometer was not widely available to the public before then.

no they do not ignore the redefinition of the scale.

One group did ignore it - they weren't aware of it until someone asked if the correction was made. And several others make no mention of correcting for it. Any good scientist would have a large section on accuracy, with such corrections included.

One political hack said that a large number of readings could be averaged to the correct value. But that is false if standard used to make those thermometers was off, or if most of the thermometers used for the readings were off in one direction.

The reality is that farmers recorded temperature to see if their crops would be damaged, not for super accuracy. Five degrees accuracy was sufficient for the task.

The predictions of warming are not just based on CO2 (but we will ignore that for the moment) and just focus on the stupid statement about weather prediction - are you telling me that every day, it snows when they say it will be sunny; that it rains when they say it will be clear??

NO computer simulation can even approach covering all of the variables in the real world. It would take decades to write the software. The simulations these "scientists" are using cover just a few variables.

Science almost never uses words that are absolutes; science almost always uses words like possibly, could, etc. Science is an ongoing process of testing the world and so most science uses 'weasel' words because it is understood that as soon as you use absolute terms, it stops being science and becomes dogma. If it is not falsifiable, it is not science.

Those are the words of social and political scientists, not physical scientists. Social and political science techniques have no business being used in the physical sciences. And real scientists do NOT release their preliminary results to the press the way the global warming proponents do. They publish in scientific journals, and then wait for disinterested confirmation of their work before publishing to the public.

Physical scientists always express the error range in a percentage of the reading, instead of resorting to such language.

But these weasels are using words so vague that you can't tell what they are predicting. They sound like scare-tactics, not scientific predictions. Most of these "experts" have emotional reasons for making their reports, not physical reasons, because they are afraid of their own predictions.

Very scientific!

If you can prove the science of global warming false, do so.

This statement by itself is EVIDENCE of unscientific behavior. Only an unscientific person would ever say it.

It is the responsibility of those making the extraordinary claim to prove their case. They have not done so. Until they have shown their proofs, it is impossible to even try to refute them.

Such an argument is the same as the argument that the Alien UFO proponents are using to "win" their argument: "Prove to me that UFOs do not exist." Of course, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. So it is up to those who are making the Alien UFO claim to prove their case. The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.

The globbal warming proponents have presented a case which turns emotional people to their side. But they have provided very few actual facts, and they have not shown that other possible causes can't also account for the observations they have.

Their use of affirming the consequent is also evidence of unscientific behavior. No real scientist would be caught dead using it.

Remember, though, along with falsifiability goes reproducibility (if someone on the other side of the world can not duplicate your results, then your results are in question).

They haven't done that yet. No disinterested laboratories have confirmed their work - all of the confirming labs are also run by environmentalist groups with the same ax to grind. On the other hand, the disinterested labs are finding margins of error larger than the claimed results in most of the cases they test.

Most of the claims of the globbal warming proponents are so vague that they can't be tested.

"This animal might become extinct." How do you test this theory? No, that's not right, because it isn't even a theory. It's just a statement. A theory must be testable.

[GrimJack]

And the icecaps are shrinking on Mars.

It is true that Abdussamatov's theory claims that it is solar warming that is shrinking the ice caps on Mars but he has offered no support for his theory, completely dismisses any Greenhouse effect, and claims that CO2 has minimal influence on Earth's atmosphere and none on Mars'.

I am referring to the statement of one global warming "expert," who stated specifically that if just the ice in the north polar cap that is over the ocean were to melt, it would raise the sea level by three feet. He is wrong. Archimedes proved that a sunken body displaces its volume in water, while a floating body displaces its weight. The floating ice and the melted water both displace the same amount of water (it is water). So the sea level would not rise at all.

And if this clown is wrong about such a fundamental and well-tested law of physics, what else is he wrong about?

Ice melting off of land would raise the sea level, but he didn't include that ice.

Oh, you are referring to 'one, unnamed "expert"' to cast doubt on all of the science behind global warming. Sigh!

without quoting any more:
Sealing mercury in a glass tube is not rocket science, neither is marking the 2 reference points and making 100 equal-length degree lines between them; nor was the making of them so expensive that only a king could afford them. There were no scientists, per se (heh,heh more self-referencing), there were natural philosophers who were for the most part well-educated men who either had the money to pursue their interests in nature or had a noble who supported them.

You seem to be claiming that there have been no peer-reviewed articles in well-respected journals that support the global warming hypothesis where scientists use 'margin of error', error bars, and various other statistical methods with regards to their data and how it was used. Scientist, generally, use standard English when talking about their studies and thus use such words as generally, probably, statistically significant, hypothetically, etc.

Setting up straw men arguments to knock down may be a fun way to talk but does not advance discussions very much. Using 'one group', an 'expert' or any other fuzzy-thinking sort of argument certainly leaves no room for argument.

Ooh, now you are dragging in UFOs, cool!. Look the science is there, the research is there, the results have been published, now is the time to refute the science and not jump straw men.

Well, anyway I sometimes annoy myself when I respond to trollers

[GrimJack]

Then you are posting in the wrong forum. Start posting here and get your count to 200 before the end of the day...

Oops, I did not expect anyone to take that seriously - I suppose I could have used a smiley but I prefer not to. So I will explain:
I was being sardonic - I have been a member since 2004, if I wanted a high post count I would have one. I had my own, self-referential stream of posts going that I had hoped also pointed to the topic.

I have to admit that I love my own sense of humor way too much but I do hope some of it gets through to others.

[~s.o.s~]

> Oops, I did not expect anyone to take that seriously
Oh, did I sound serious? I suppose I could have used a smiley but I prefer not to. And to think we were talking about sense of humor. ;-)

> I have to admit that I love my own sense of humor way too much but I do hope some of it
> gets through to others.
Amen to that...

[Jx_Man]

people smoking makes me irritated

yes i dont like too... i m always tried to avoid them but i cant do anything if they smoking on the bus.

[sneekula]

Don't you just deplore people that write ultra long posts?

[Ene Uran]

People that wish you a "Merry Kiss-mess" to be politically incorrect.

Guys that don't open the door, cover mud puddles with their coat, or offer their seat for a lady.

[jasimp]

I would never cover a mud puddle with my coat. They can walk around it.

[Ancient Dragon]

No I don't .. and I sure didn't mean for that smiley face to show up either. I entered a simple colon-end parens ..

Before you press the Submit Reply button scroll down the page and you will find a checkbox under Miscellaneous Options to disable smilies in the post.

[vmanes]

Besides, you never know whether it's a shallow mud puddle, or an open manhole!

[~s.o.s~]

I would rather prefer to carry her and walk around the puddle. Much classy and saves my coat. :-)

[Ancient Dragon]

I would rather prefer to carry her and walk around the puddle. Much classy and saves my coat. :-)

She will give you a nasty black eye (at best) if you don't know here very well, or at all.

[GrimJack]

> Oops, I did not expect anyone to take that seriously
Oh, did I sound serious? I suppose I could have used a smiley but I prefer not to. And to think we were talking about sense of humor. ;-)

> I have to admit that I love my own sense of humor way too much but I do hope some of it
> gets through to others.
Amen to that...

Heh, heh - hoist by my own petard! (really dumb expression - sorta means blown up by my own fart, so maybe it is appropriate)

[Ene Uran]

I would rather prefer to carry her and walk around the puddle. Much classy and saves my coat. :-)

You are a true gentleman, but I like to see you carry some 300 pound lady. There are lots of those here in the US, but maybe not in India.

[vmanes]

Limos. Especially really stupid ones.

[Jade_me]

smokes around me..

[~s.o.s~]

> She will give you a nasty black eye (at best) if you don't know here very well, or at all.

> You are a true gentleman, but I like to see you carry some 300 pound lady.

I will make sure I choose my target wisely. ;-)

[sneekula]

People that complain about the gift you gave them.