quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
I cannot believe that I just read a conspiracy theory involving MLA article cite formatting, the CATO institute, and the authors of a science white paper. Wow. Joether, you are a twit.

I cannot believe they (collarspace) still allow your lame ass attitude on the forum. The pile of insults and attacks. So if its 'OK' for you to attack me, its 'OK" for me to attack you, lame excuse for a person! Can't keep up with my thought process, which is plainly observed here, so attack me directly you will. Like Sanity, your ALSO easy to predict. Unlike Sanity, you can not behave like a mature adult.

quote:

Finally this article by Thomas R. Karl1,*, Anthony Arguez1, Boyin Huang1, Jay H. Lawrimore1, James R. McMahon2, Matthew J. Menne1, Thomas C. Peterson1, Russell S. Vose1, Huai-Min Zhang1, Is the summary and conclusion. It is not the full document of research. Something else the CATO 'article' leaves out on purpose. Notice the number of authors above. Does the CATO 'article' give proper credit to all the authors?

No.......

It uses just 'Karl', because 'Karl', is like 'Karl Marx'. An we all know who 'Karl Marx' is and his 'reputation' by conservatives and libertarians, right? That is.....WHY.....the CATO Institute uses that name. It sounds like a conspiracy, until you realize that is what the CATO Institute is pushing. That some guy named 'Karl' is saying Climate Change is on vacation (i.e. its not happening), and all the scientists are wrong; but doesn't give any evidence to support the claim. But again, the CATO Institute is not trying to tell someone like me this information, but someone like you. An I say this very compassionately and sincerely; your not a scientist nor one with the 'very basic level' of knowledge for this subject. Be very wary of.....ANYTHING....from the CATO Institute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
I cannot believe that I just read a conspiracy theory involving MLA article cite formatting, the CATO institute, and the authors of a science white paper. Wow. Joether, you are a twit.

I cannot believe they (collarspace) still allow your lame ass attitude on the forum. The pile of insults and attacks. So if its 'OK' for you to attack me, its 'OK" for me to attack you, lame excuse for a person! Can't keep up with my thought process, which is plainly observed here, so attack me directly you will. Like Sanity, your ALSO easy to predict. Unlike Sanity, you can not behave like a mature adult.

Yes it's observed. It why nobody plays with you. Just as happened to you on the school yard and the rest of your life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
I cannot believe that I just read a conspiracy theory involving MLA article cite formatting, the CATO institute, and the authors of a science white paper. Wow. Joether, you are a twit.

I cannot believe they (collarspace) still allow your lame ass attitude on the forum. The pile of insults and attacks. So if its 'OK' for you to attack me, its 'OK" for me to attack you, lame excuse for a person! Can't keep up with my thought process, which is plainly observed here, so attack me directly you will. Like Sanity, your ALSO easy to predict. Unlike Sanity, you can not behave like a mature adult.

Yes it's observed. It why nobody plays with you. Just as happened to you on the school yard and the rest of your life.

Dude, I've schooled your 'environmental engineer' mindset in the past on a few concepts. The reason you and other conservatives/libertarians can not play, is because we operate on different levels. I expect you to rise up to my level; and you demand (with insults) to bring me down to your level.

I've dealt with many engineers of many disciplines (chemical, civil, demo, environmental, electrical, etc.). Would say they are more likely to be intelligent and informed not just on their area of expertise, but on many other areas. Because physics in environmental studies operates on the same fucking concepts as in demolitions. With chemistry (which you would be required to take an an environmental engineer at a college level for the past 40 years), the scientific understanding of how molecules operate in construction materials, also holds up to how molecules might handle under differing levels of stress due to environmental conditions.

I'm not telling you: 'you must accept Climate Change'. But it seems weird for an 'environmental engineer' not to know the basic understanding of Climate Change, let alone the very advanced stuff; just like it would be weird for an Epidemiologist to not know about The Theory of Evolution.

That you don't accept Climate Change, not for the facts but for the fantasy projected by conservatives and libertarians, because your political viewpoints. That you can not even consider having a liberal view on anything. Which is amusing since most people in the USA, be they liberal, moderate, or conservative, hold liberal, moderate, and conservative viewpoints on a wide range of topics. Stuff that we consider a 'liberal' stance is really a conservative one (i.e. gun control). The root word for the word 'Liberal' is 'Liberalis', which is Latin for 'Freedom'. That your often against those liberals, means your against freedom. That you hate the 'Liberalis Media' is often a source of amusement; because I've ask if people are in favor of a free media and always gets many 'yes's' from conservatives.

I fully understand that you and others can not handle the dialogue I'm giving to you on this and other topics. I know that you will need to dumb down the information to 'your level' of understanding. An thereby give up the critical sources of information that can not be dumb downed. Since what you cant dumb down, you ignore. It shows in your words....

I can take your little paragraphs and debate them fully with ease at my level. When your response is either: A ) a one sentence reply or B ) a small paragraph, to what I state. I know that you could not debate nor discuss concepts and ideas at my level. That you 'give up' and try to keep things simple. You'll do this again and again in the future. There are people on here that will go 'toe to toe' with me in an intelligent discussion and are conservative (or they believe they are conservative). Like DS or BamaD (both of whom I respect and like).

The argument that I see myself as more intelligent and educated is actually a misunderstanding concept. You and others on here have, for one reason or another (to what causes it I dont know) been dumb down in your thinking and reasoning abilities/skills. That is perhaps the fascination I have in viewing you and some of the others (i.e. Aylee or Kirata). What is the cause(s) of the dumbing down. As I've met many conservatives whom are very intelligent and studied on a variety of subjects (they dislike President Obama's stances, but understand why he has those stances through his reasoning and thought process). Having a few more on here would be nice. Guess I'm asking to much of you to 'grow the fun up', 'be an adult', and 'sound like your an actual engineer from an accredited university/college.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

NOAA’s Climate Data Center says the climate models the scients are using are worng.

http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all?utm_content=buffer6d2c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/

more complete info here


http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2015/06/05/no-slowdown-in-global-warming-experts-respond/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I can take your little paragraphs and debate them fully with ease at my level.

That would be an undergraduate Business degree, right?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I can take your little paragraphs and debate them fully with ease at my level.

That would be an undergraduate Business degree, right?

K.

And he did NOT recognize MLA format? Sad. Very sad. He should ask for a refund.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Right. Reasonable balance. Being more responsible about the damage we do to the environment when we can easily prevent it. Especially as technology advances.

Doesn't sound like a difficult concept to embrace.

"Easily prevent it".

Define that please. How is the United States not responsible? We have fairly strict environmental laws, strict enough to severely hamper industry and send most of our jobs overseas. We treat our sewage, we recycle. We bury what we cant recycle. We strive for improvements in land management and farm runoff, but we cant eliminate every trace of humanity completely and still have the products and energy we require at costs that are affordable for the poorest among us

Where are we so terribly deficient in your mind. How are we such ogres, especially when compared to China and India etc

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Joe Just because I added a link from Cato, did you bother to read the article in Science Magazine? They aren't a part of Cato. Additionally, it does say that global warming exists, just at a different rate than is being generally used in models. If that makes Cato wrong, then global warming is wrong.

I am usually quite wary of information put up by the CATO Institute. Meaning, I check the information given before accepting it as 'legit'. For an organization that thinks its 'polished' this 'paper' feels more like 'journalistic quality from FOX news' than either actual journalism or scientific study. The author is pushing a political viewpoint onto an audience that doesn't understand the basic material in science, let alone the more advanced concepts of the subject material (i.e. Climate Change).

To many believers, not enough studying the evidence. That is the problem with Climate Change from a political perspective. That there are people on both sides that believe in one or more concepts regarding Climate Change, but afraid to have their viewpoints tested with the actual evidence. Because it takes time and effort to learn the basics before proceeding onto the advanced concepts. Much easier to be spoon fed 'information' that sounds 'legit', right? Particularly if it supports your political views?

That sort of 'lazy' existence has not more harm to this nation than anything else. A people accepting what they are told, rather than seeking out the correct and true information. Right now, more conservatives and libertarians in this nation behave that way than in years past (pre-1990s). So we have a body of people that are not only lazy on the facts but very easy to manipulate with total lies. Liberty, or the concept of it, dies, when a people surrender their own free will to an ideology that is based on nothing good (i.e. support the concept of the Devil). Nor will any good come from its existence (i.e. making deals with said Devil).

'Global Warming' was a concept scientists first used in political dialogue back in the late 90s to mid 2000's. They tried to explain the concept to Americans prior to that time. Believing Americans were intellect and informed enough to handle such advanced concepts and ideas. They were wrong. So they retooled the 'understanding' and tried to give a dumb-downed version of Climate Change, 'Global Warming'. Even then, that did not exactly translate into the 'common mind' of the American people all to well. So now, they have taken lessons from educators in K-12, and 'talk to the individual at their educational level'. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. Bill Nye approached the FOX 'news' anchor from the default position: high school education. When Mr. Nye realized this person doesn't have that, he dumb down the projection of information to a lower grade level (i.e. making it easier to understand).

As I stated, Climate Change as a concept, is a very advanced idea in the sciences. Most people do not have the basics (i.e. high school physics, chemistry, biology); either because they never took the course work, or have forgotten much of it with the passage of time. Would be like explaining how light reacts to black holes. Most people believe (notice that word), that all light gets sucked into black holes. The science on the topic is quite more interesting if not very in-depth stuff. If I'm wrong, then I should be able to walk into the worst performing high schools in America, and see each and every pupil reading the latest Stephen Hawking's book on astrophysics and fully understanding its content.

For the CATO Institute to be wrong, takes very little in the way of information. That they have been debunked many times previously with people not only giving the facts, but explaining the evidence with the 'rubish' the CATO puts out. When lies are projected by organizations, it takes time to look the information over, figure out what is 'true', 'semi-true' and 'bullshit', then create a document or video to which the correct information can be given to the audience minus the political drama and bullshit. So why doesnt the CATO Institute do this from the beginning? Since the lies have to be debunked and it costs people time and money to debunk the crap; why not just published the facts and truth for an organization...THAT HATES WASTE....in the first place? Because they push a political ideology (an that makes them a hypocrite).

The white paper that you linked was quite interesting to read, btw. Just too limited....

Provide links to CATO being debunked on global warming. I provided links to the paper KenDucky posted being debunked. It's all over the press that everyone reviewing the paper thinks it's not only poor work but politically motivated. Oh no! A paper on global warming from NOAA debunked as politically motivated? Well that takes at least a masters degree in science (which is all Bill Nye has and uses for entertainment only) so how will you understand it with only high school chemistry and physics?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Joe Just because I added a link from Cato, did you bother to read the article in Science Magazine? They aren't a part of Cato. Additionally, it does say that global warming exists, just at a different rate than is being generally used in models. If that makes Cato wrong, then global warming is wrong.

I am usually quite wary of information put up by the CATO Institute. Meaning, I check the information given before accepting it as 'legit'. For an organization that thinks its 'polished' this 'paper' feels more like 'journalistic quality from FOX news' than either actual journalism or scientific study. The author is pushing a political viewpoint onto an audience that doesn't understand the basic material in science, let alone the more advanced concepts of the subject material (i.e. Climate Change).

To many believers, not enough studying the evidence. That is the problem with Climate Change from a political perspective. That there are people on both sides that believe in one or more concepts regarding Climate Change, but afraid to have their viewpoints tested with the actual evidence. Because it takes time and effort to learn the basics before proceeding onto the advanced concepts. Much easier to be spoon fed 'information' that sounds 'legit', right? Particularly if it supports your political views?

That sort of 'lazy' existence has not more harm to this nation than anything else. A people accepting what they are told, rather than seeking out the correct and true information. Right now, more conservatives and libertarians in this nation behave that way than in years past (pre-1990s). So we have a body of people that are not only lazy on the facts but very easy to manipulate with total lies. Liberty, or the concept of it, dies, when a people surrender their own free will to an ideology that is based on nothing good (i.e. support the concept of the Devil). Nor will any good come from its existence (i.e. making deals with said Devil).

'Global Warming' was a concept scientists first used in political dialogue back in the late 90s to mid 2000's. They tried to explain the concept to Americans prior to that time. Believing Americans were intellect and informed enough to handle such advanced concepts and ideas. They were wrong. So they retooled the 'understanding' and tried to give a dumb-downed version of Climate Change, 'Global Warming'. Even then, that did not exactly translate into the 'common mind' of the American people all to well. So now, they have taken lessons from educators in K-12, and 'talk to the individual at their educational level'. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. Bill Nye approached the FOX 'news' anchor from the default position: high school education. When Mr. Nye realized this person doesn't have that, he dumb down the projection of information to a lower grade level (i.e. making it easier to understand).

As I stated, Climate Change as a concept, is a very advanced idea in the sciences. Most people do not have the basics (i.e. high school physics, chemistry, biology); either because they never took the course work, or have forgotten much of it with the passage of time. Would be like explaining how light reacts to black holes. Most people believe (notice that word), that all light gets sucked into black holes. The science on the topic is quite more interesting if not very in-depth stuff. If I'm wrong, then I should be able to walk into the worst performing high schools in America, and see each and every pupil reading the latest Stephen Hawking's book on astrophysics and fully understanding its content.

For the CATO Institute to be wrong, takes very little in the way of information. That they have been debunked many times previously with people not only giving the facts, but explaining the evidence with the 'rubish' the CATO puts out. When lies are projected by organizations, it takes time to look the information over, figure out what is 'true', 'semi-true' and 'bullshit', then create a document or video to which the correct information can be given to the audience minus the political drama and bullshit. So why doesnt the CATO Institute do this from the beginning? Since the lies have to be debunked and it costs people time and money to debunk the crap; why not just published the facts and truth for an organization...THAT HATES WASTE....in the first place? Because they push a political ideology (an that makes them a hypocrite).

The white paper that you linked was quite interesting to read, btw. Just too limited....

Provide links to CATO being debunked on global warming. I provided links to the paper KenDucky posted being debunked. It's all over the press that everyone reviewing the paper thinks it's not only poor work but politically motivated. Oh no! A paper on global warming from NOAA debunked as politically motivated? Well that takes at least a masters degree in science (which is all Bill Nye has and uses for entertainment only) so how will you understand it with only high school chemistry and physics?

Could it be said that one is sometimes judged by the company they keep? Those whom they feel are friend and like-minded? If that is true, than Mr. Nye hang around individuals with more college degrees than most conservatives had 'A's' on high school level science classes. There have been many forums to which Bill Nye has been apart of that also had on the same stage, individuals with many degrees. Often the audience is full of scientific minded individuals from high school on up to PhD's. The guy has been in many different sci-fi TV shows like Stargate:SG-1 (an episode of the actors characters next to the real life scientists).

Likewise, I've known individuals whom hold on a Bachelors in Science, and doing better work than some of the actual PhDs. All a college degree (or high school diploma) states is: This person has met the minimal requirements for this educational level. I've seen one PhD. in nuclear physics become a theater director, just as I've met a brilliant woman with a BS in biochemistry handling stuff the medical doctors do not know. Albert Einstein had problems with simply mathematics, yet, could do complex equations in physics (which require complete mathematics). Stephen Hawkings is curse with a horrible condition, yet, one of the most brilliant minds on astrophysics on the planet.

You can do your best to down play Mr. Nye's ability and accomplishments to date. I'm stating your viewpoint still needs more 'ironing out'.

One only has to do a search string in Google, Bing, or any other search engine: "Cato Institute" + "Global Warming" + debunk (or using the word debunked).

In previous threads on this and similar topics, some conservatives/libertarians have used work from individuals that had been debunked. Often the 'researchers' on this forum (i.e. Lucy and Tweak) will show the evidence of the debunking. I would not be surprised to see a few pieces debunked as it concerns the CATO Institute in those threads.

That said, you need some actual examples. Make not of the 'date of publishing'. Obviously if the paper was printed in 2009, it would not have the 'latest and greatest' knowledge on 2015 information and knowledge.

SOURCE # 1

SOURCE # 2

SOURCE # 3

SOURCE # 4

I like Source # 4, in that it explains the political and financial motivation to lie to the public with heaps of disinformation. As I stated, these organizations...KNOW....their target audience very well. Their audience, without being aware of the correct information or evidence then start spreading this crap like a plague. When the good and correct information is given, these people resist. Why? Its a normal and well observed behavior that humans will ignore reality and fact rather than admit they have been fooled by someone else.

Much of the scientific concepts in Climate Change, are used else where in science. That engineers often used that scientific knowledge to construct products that are sold to people around the world. To say that all of Climate Change is wrong, would mean most people's smartphones could not operate. As I look around, each and every day, I see quite a huge number of Americans using smart phones. So the scientific knowledge in Climate Change, that directly/indirectly relates to smartphones as well....works and is true.

I feel rather 'dumb' for having to explain what should be 'the basics' to an environmental engineer....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


The MLA style guide is the generally preferred format in the Humanities. There are other style guides for general publishing and for professional papers in the sciences, engineering, business, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_style_guide_abbreviations

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I can take your little paragraphs and debate them fully with ease at my level.

That would be an undergraduate Business degree, right?

K.

And he did NOT recognize MLA format? Sad. Very sad. He should ask for a refund.

Last October while I was elk hunting in Montana, my hunting bud spent the evenings writing papers and submitting them via email and Internet, neither of which existed when I was in college and real real happy to get access to an electric typewriter to do papers on. It seems that students, now a days, have to submit papers electronically through a plagiarism software routine. It was strange to me so I split my time following what he was doing, watching the three or four bucks out feeding on the motel lawn and watching the World Series on TV.

What I learned is that now all of the students have to submit papers in a specific format. The prof selects the format and MLA format is one of the selectable formats. Who knew? Never having submitted a paper for publication, generally only submitting to clients, government agencies, peers or staff, I've always used the format I was taught in the science department at university.

But, while I admit I didn't know there is a thing, a "MLA" format that acedemia uses, there is no reason Joe, who schools me all of the time, shouldn't have know...or is there? Now I'm in a quandary. If Aylee knows it and needs to be schooled by watching Joe think; and I admit I'd never heard of it until last October; and Joe doesn't understand it, where do I turn to for schooling I apparently so badly need. I can't turn to Aylee, because Joe says she needs to school by watching him. I admit my ignorance here. Joe doesn't know, and he says he knows everything. So, am I doomed to ignorance forever?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Right. Reasonable balance. Being more responsible about the damage we do to the environment when we can easily prevent it. Especially as technology advances.

Doesn't sound like a difficult concept to embrace.

"Easily prevent it".

Define that please. How is the United States not responsible? We have fairly strict environmental laws, strict enough to severely hamper industry and send most of our jobs overseas. We treat our sewage, we recycle. We bury what we cant recycle. We strive for improvements in land management and farm runoff, but we cant eliminate every trace of humanity completely and still have the products and energy we require at costs that are affordable for the poorest among us

Where are we so terribly deficient in your mind. How are we such ogres, especially when compared to China and India etc

Our jobs get shipped overseas as much because of labor standards & wages, if not more.

Is China supposed to be the standard the world follows? In anything? What good does it do to make a comparison?

I say "we should do better where we can" and you see that as demonizing America in some way. But I'm not overly critical of our environmental policies as a whole. I've seen great lengths being taken to correct damage that we've done when we didn't know any better.

And that's likely where China & India will be in the coming years/decades. Hopefully before they have no choice in the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

There are three major style guides: MLA (Modern Language Association), Chicago style, and APA (American Psychological Association). College English classes use MLA. If he attained a bachelors' degree in business, he took English classes, and had to cite using MLA format. He also likely had to purchase a writer's handbook of some sort which has the "how to cite" information in it. I think one of mine had all three styles in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: forcefantasy83

Aylee, you're a boss!

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The reason you and other conservatives/libertarians can not play

That you don't accept Climate Change, not for the facts but for the fantasy projected by conservatives and libertarians, because your political viewpoints. That you can not even consider having a liberal view on anything. Which is amusing since most people in the USA, be they liberal, moderate, or conservative, hold liberal, moderate, and conservative viewpoints on a wide range of topics. Stuff that we consider a 'liberal' stance is really a conservative one (i.e. gun control).

There are people on here that will go 'toe to toe' with me in an intelligent discussion and are conservative (or they believe they are conservative).

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
You and others on here have, for one reason or another (to what causes it I dont know) been dumb down in your thinking and reasoning abilities/skills. That is perhaps the fascination I have in viewing you and some of the others (i.e. Aylee or Kirata).

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
What is the cause(s) of the dumbing down. As I've met many conservatives whom are very intelligent and studied on a variety of subjects

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Much of the scientific concepts in Climate Change, are used else where in science. That engineers often used that scientific knowledge to construct products that are sold to people around the world. To say that all of Climate Change is wrong, would mean most people's smartphones could not operate.