Page 126 of 161 FirstFirst ... 2676116122123124125126127128129130136 ... LastLast
Results 3,126 to 3,150 of 4001
  1. #3126
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Do you do a broad overview of scientific research and provide context for where the research papers you cite fall within the entirety the field or do you simply post papers which tend to agree with what you want?
    I compile peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm into a resource for skeptics to reference. The two main goals of the list are very simple,

    1. To prove these papers exist.
    2. To provide a resource for skeptics.

    That is the extent of the purpose of the list.
    Poptech is offline

  2. #3127
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Also, when newer research occurs that contradicts your older articles do you link to those articles in order to give an accurate assessment of what scientists are finding out?
    Any paper that has a comment published on it, the rebuttal from the original author and any relevant supplemental papers are provided. These follow the original paper on the list but are not counted.

    The purpose of the list is only for papers that support skeptic arguments so nothing else would be included. To do so would be dishonest and not accurate.
    Last edited by Poptech; 04-29-2012 at 08:14 AM.
    Poptech is offline

  3. #3128
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Yes, that is correct I used two sources not three (I meant three links) but neither is another blog. What I said was they frequently fail to cite reputable news sources for their criticisms because these rarely exist. You seem rather upset that people are not going to consider Sourcewatch reliable anymore once they are aware of it's background.


    It is not a game when those are the views held by the organization. So unless you are going to claim they do not hold anti-capitalist views this is a moot point. You seem very confused about political ideologies as I am not a conservative and was not much of a fan of the late Mr. Buckley. I am sure your stereo type has worked well for your up until this point but continuing to use it when I have explicitly stated I am a Libertarian reeks of desperation.


    Yes your math was way off as you falsely stated that 2 authors wrote 1/5 of the papers. Why do you so carelessly make false statements like this? For some highly credentialed scientists 20 papers is only a fraction of their voluminous publishing history. Why do you find that unusual? Or are you just unfamiliar with all of this?

    You also seem confused about whom you are talking to. I am well aware of every single article written about the list. There was no need to write a rebuttal to the Needlebase article because there was nothing to rebut. Nothing in their analysis is remotely unusual or in anyway invalidates the list.

    The one point about the Needlebase article you need to know is that it was outdated almost immediately after it was published since the list is dynamic and continuously updated. So why are you referencing something that is inaccurate?


    Do you even read the sources you link to? Needlebase shows 356 unique authors. That is not a small cohesive group as you falsely claim.

    Still the number of the most prolific authors in the climate science community is relatively small and if any sort of analysis was done with alarmist papers you would see even more direct associations.


    Sorry to break it to you but it is a resource despite your denial. A "resource" doesn't have to assume anything, it just needs to contain material. Nothing is being indoctrinated because nothing is being taught. Why are you intentionally stating lies?


    Nobody reads those line by lines so if you think you're going to convince anyone using that GL. You hardly convince me.

    So you criticize sourcewatch for not having legitimate sources for their claims yet use two pretty obvious partisan blogs to justify calling them communists. Lovely.

    My point about me buying some webhosting is lost on you apparently. Whats is your favorite speech?

    at you meaning links

    at not understanding 10 'unique authors' attributing for 200 of your listmeaning. What do one degree of separation mean?

    at thinking that '358 unique authors' somehow makes those 10 guys look any less specious after the expansion to six degrees. What do driving force --I do love ironic statements-- mean?

    I did like the part where you take me to task about not posting factual information though. You seem all about the double standard. Picture most definitely is worth a thousand words. You have sources, right.....

    I know that you are some guy that hosted webspace that cites other blogs and comes to a Spurs fan political board to try and justify them. I know you are the type that will ignore one point so you can belabor an entirely different one. I know you are they type that uses pictures rather than analysis to attempt to make a point. But hey you got THREE 'sources' its got to be true.

    Intentionally stating lies? Go yourself, chachi. Oh wait I forget you meant 3 LINKS.... Maybe you are familiar with how to best come to an informed decision? Giving one side of an argument and looking at pictures to draw conclusions is not it.

    You can play semantics by calling it a 'resource' or whatever you like. You can try to use lame tactics to try and defend it but its transparent like no tomorrow.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  4. #3129
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Body of what "work" and using what database? There is no such number. Obtaining numerical result totals by searching databases for key words will tell you nothing other than those words appear in that number of papers. It does not give you the context the words are used.

    I hope you are not using Google Scholar as it cannot be used for this task. I very much enjoy proving people wrong when they incorrectly try to use Google Scholar this way.
    Then, by all means, provide a number you think reasonable.

    What is the total body of work on climate science? I will be happy to have any answer within an order of magnitude.

    Such a figure would be an important bit of context for someone hoping to have an comprehensive view of the actual science.

    If it turns out that what you have is a vanishingly small amount of research that, if you interpret it charitably, supports your theory, out of a very large body of research that would say something.

    How large of a body of work are we talking about?
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #3130
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    First sample? That is skipping over hundreds of papers so you can cherry pick the list.
    Ok then I picked something haphazardly.

    If the work cited supports your theory that there will be no harm, then it shouldn't matter where I start, should it?

    Would you prefer I use random.org to pull a sample?

    Random Sequence Generator

    Here is your sequence:
    154 273 371 289 325 792 29 755 386 269
    694 884 560 640 678 136 80 445 350 576
    173 518 657 88 187 680 316 521 484 45
    781 486 57 174 320 243 391 308 660 888
    691 236 593 99 245 395 820 733 209 49
    340 94 297 587 365 413 385 791 589 619
    307 462 681 109 27 189 738 889 463 84
    871 104 669 849 420 195 65 95 782 90
    581 357 825 567 120 598 197 202 615 321
    696 795 303 497 250 702 511 247 474 456
    654 665 373 282 184 139 709 134 860 388
    118 346 538 505 53 418 699 216 133 382
    152 896 450 488 550 651 234 180 732 890
    731 769 441 868 666 14 76 547 802 345
    877 580 415 254 491 20 767 750 812 145
    292 312 599 774 130 113 367 101 259 482
    529 363 158 387 674 543 898 17 91 637
    438 816 200 318 872 706 632 112 188 766
    629 333 882 490 501 748 176 132 440 470
    811 356 177 331 148 525 862 656 149 878
    469 887 534 263 513 662 344 79 2 342
    32 621 773 261 281 489 116 775 701 566
    524 473 537 434 1 341 797 404 196 102
    519 570 679 864 401 819 707 464 146 498
    353 34 63 13 777 103 533 806 644 649
    546 451 150 287 628 407 630 565 229 648
    58 175 722 364 214 4 836 424 854 208
    716 361 126 337 574 410 268 67 832 869
    564 52 207 818 507 253 645 24 808 362
    376 837 298 553 768 206 129 499 178 324
    893 38 431 745 198 6 310 300 506 530
    558 274 740 609 685 226 562 693 419 475
    467 359 726 288 389 885 169 26 622 610
    86 221 824 223 764 304 747 728 708 641
    81 411 383 153 861 765 151 855 77 875
    405 5 293 627 659 466 554 686 692 736
    286 834 430 638 698 285 689 471 92 144
    859 805 618 620 93 881 778 624 192 493
    447 752 60 246 160 267 348 852 516 715
    394 172 827 302 704 347 614 851 700 182
    573 351 222 830 233 168 734 512 71 717
    821 55 672 803 137 761 549 89 301 436
    557 255 435 737 369 844 393 829 710 100
    183 520 784 535 108 459 155 813 215 25
    718 106 886 697 793 311 396 271 739 607
    115 257 264 400 238 69 59 457 461 3
    688 596 218 408 251 380 569 368 291 714
    478 590 64 866 429 670 817 639 865 675
    528 676 107 514 804 98 713 831 468 455
    127 97 873 119 68 74 785 496 142 572
    848 771 796 402 18 870 212 336 338 617
    509 611 650 786 503 366 241 7 838 517
    201 314 21 586 425 810 213 789 40 899
    140 687 746 354 682 428 295 219 448 123
    613 374 317 78 239 667 539 612 846 842
    322 559 31 56 891 262 204 727 542 454
    406 23 427 828 43 633 166 290 756 695
    161 460 329 278 111 248 370 900 449 895
    653 96 753 61 668 602 500 790 492 741
    635 128 114 355 83 343 360 845 73 9
    179 883 15 780 399 48 799 719 171 280
    652 551 125 372 398 725 712 135 744 465
    117 705 544 548 588 46 673 284 412 87
    131 50 349 16 181 853 339 305 124 616
    879 600 422 244 22 186 157 571 193 28
    378 33 835 433 814 754 266 37 379 605
    62 326 256 541 582 783 636 199 874 270
    138 788 306 232 721 526 540 522 51 296
    711 47 749 110 294 863 147 643 608 826
    642 41 480 397 8 647 426 743 54 156
    798 876 390 592 240 384 143 75 249 220
    230 35 867 122 260 423 661 417 807 815
    597 275 563 723 283 601 510 751 36 532
    625 760 328 763 82 504 315 70 439 252
    822 358 476 787 66 332 757 225 729 327
    191 19 758 375 421 843 850 494 623 105
    683 165 162 334 762 164 857 515 677 228
    594 779 39 591 833 579 335 604 237 735
    211 634 409 265 272 377 432 10 44 568
    585 453 319 242 770 437 313 163 646 603
    584 690 801 217 485 776 309 414 392 671
    595 663 655 724 279 742 210 11 30 227
    531 12 894 442 847 545 159 477 556 897
    458 85 800 381 508 231 330 892 276 167
    235 403 759 583 577 626 527 121 552 631
    203 479 141 561 258 446 224 794 703 664
    839 720 555 185 606 772 578 730 502 452
    190 277 299 170 495 684 194 42 472 809
    823 352 483 444 72 840 880 658 205 323
    523 443 575 536 416 856 858 487 481 841

    Timestamp: 2012-04-29 20:41:19 UTC
    So let's start with paper number 154, and go down the list. No cherry picking.

    This is a statistically valid sample, so the first 30 or so would give us a useful working sample to judge whether the compiled list actually says what you say it does.

    (edit)
    Sequence was drawn from 1 to 900, randomly, in 10 columns. 2nd number will therefore be directly underneath the first and so forth. Down the first column, then over to the top of the next column, left to right.

    Since it is not numbered this will take some sussing out.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-29-2012 at 04:22 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  6. #3131
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    900 out of how many papers total?


    If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

    900/200000= 0.45%
    LOL... Random...

    Always using statistics as facts.

    How many times must I tell you. Facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  7. #3132
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672

    ...

    No one there is a "denier" as we all believe the climate changes and the holocaust happened. You should not improperly use terminology like this.

    ...

    What is considered "fair" is subjective.
    Wow. New blood for an old thread.

    Since you are obviously better able at ferreting out logical arguments than our resident deniers, and therefore not Wild Cobra's sock puppet, and since you are using the websites' logo as an avatar, I would guess you are one of that websites' administrators.

    First, welcome. I would further guess you are here because of Yonivore, or perhaps Wild Cobra.

    Second let me repeat, as I have periodically and in the OP itself, that not all people who are skeptical of AGW or whatever you want to call it, are what I would call "deniers". I allow for honest skeptics.

    I allow for the fact that the science on a complex subject not to be uniformly in support of a theory. I am perfectly content for every paper on that list to contradict the theory that AGW will have catastrophic effects. I would be happy if the science ultimately says that will be the case.

    Those are my givens.

    What *I* am is skeptical of most self-professed "skeptics". As I have shown repeatedly throughout this thread, most of them are unable to make the case for honest skepticism without resorting to flawed logic.

    That leads me to the conclusion that most of the skepticism is politically motivated drivel. Some of what has been presented as science, was really bad science.

    I think your list is valid science. I think the ultimate purpose of the list is less to get at a valid sounding of the science science, but to allow the conspiracy nutters that want to think that all climate scientists are "in on the fix" some cover. But that is my opinion.

    If you aren't about being honest and logical, that will become apparent soon enough.
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #3133
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    LOL... Random...

    Always using statistics as facts.

    How many times must I tell you. Facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.
    Spoken like someone who has never taken a formal statistics course. As an auditor it is part of my job, and one that I like, and understand better than any of my peers.
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #3134
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Any paper that has a comment published on it, the rebuttal from the original author and any relevant supplemental papers are provided. These follow the original paper on the list but are not counted.

    The purpose of the list is only for papers that support skeptic arguments so nothing else would be included. To do so would be dishonest and not accurate.
    What would be dishonest, and inaccurate, would be to represent this list as outweighing the body of work that supports the theory that AGW can potentially be catastrophic.

    Does it?

    Context is important. I could look at a parking lot full of cars, and take pictures of only the blue ones, to support my theory that all cars are blue. It would seem pretty convincing without any contravening evidence.
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #3135
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    First sample? That is skipping over hundreds of papers so you can cherry pick the list.


    That is not the argument. The argument is that increased CO2 can be beneficial to marine life. This argument is supported by this paper and even mentioned explicitly,

    "The positive relationship between growth and [CO2] found here contrasts with previous studies, most of which have shown negative effects of [CO2] on marine species, "

    There is nothing disingenuous about using peer-reviewed science to support a position on climate change that is less alarming.
    Except the people that say that AGW is going to likely produce some catastrophic consequences have not, to my knowledge ever claimed that the coming changes will be uniformly harmful to every living creature and species.

    If you are going to try and say that is their position, that itself is a strawman. You're too smart for that I would wager. Let's try an honesty test.

    My understanding of the kinds of damage we are looking at, is that some species may be helped. I would expect scientists to be able to identify which ones as well.


    It is possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage?
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #3136
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    I compile peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm into a resource for skeptics to reference. The two main goals of the list are very simple,

    1. To prove these papers exist.
    2. To provide a resource for skeptics.

    That is the extent of the purpose of the list.
    Any paper that has a comment published on it, the rebuttal from the original author and any relevant supplemental papers are provided. These follow the original paper on the list but are not counted.

    The purpose of the list is only for papers that support skeptic arguments so nothing else would be included. To do so would be dishonest and not accurate.
    Thats a pretty useless purpose, in my opinion. Anyone with access to the relevent databases can tell you that they can find research to support nearly every position possible. Taken out of context of the entirety of all scientific research these papers may seem as they make valid points but within the context of what is actually understood they don't make much of an argument.

    As an example, the permafrost article you brought up. While there may be portions of the permafrost that have not melted in any interglacial through the past 700,000 years this does not do anything to prove that those areas that DO melt will in fact release a large amount of methane into the atmosphere. Furthermore, it also ignores the fact that CO2 levels are currently far higher than at any point in the last 700,000 years and that temperatures in the next 100 are expected to exceed temps of interglacials in the past 700,000 years.

    The information you provide on marine ecosystems is equally as flawed contextually. If your goal is to prove that these papers exist then I would say you've accomplished your goal but that your goal is on par with proving that the sky is indeed blue. I do take issue with your last statement that somehow providing a full spectrum (and an accurate one) is somehow dishonest. I would argue that failing to accurately present what all the scientific research is saying because of your agenda is the absolute definition of intellectual dishonesty.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  12. #3137
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694


    Nobody reads those line by lines so if you think you're going to convince anyone using that GL. You hardly convince me.
    Reads what?

    So you criticize sourcewatch for not having legitimate sources for their claims yet use two pretty obvious partisan blogs to justify calling them communists. Lovely.
    Why do you continue to falsely state I used blogs when neither source is a blog? The justification for the image is based on the organization's anti-capitalist views which can accurately be represented as socialist/communist. Are you denying the organization holds anti-capitalist views?

    My point about me buying some webhosting is lost on you apparently. Whats is your favorite speech?
    I fully aware your analogy does not apply to your argument. Speech from whom?

    at you meaning links
    Yes I meant links, this has been acknowledged.

    at not understanding 10 'unique authors' attributing for 200 of your listmeaning. What do one degree of separation mean?
    It means that the most prolific skeptical scientists have the most papers on the list and that in such a small scientific community you can easily find casual links. There is nothing unusual about this and you would find the same statistical information if you looked at alarmist scientists.

    at thinking that '358 unique authors' somehow makes those 10 guys look any less specious after the expansion to six degrees. What do driving force --I do love ironic statements-- mean?
    The game six degrees of kevin bacon is irrelevant to the scientific credentials of any of the authors or the scientific validity of their papers. It is not evidence of anything specious.

    I did like the part where you take me to task about not posting factual information though. You seem all about the double standard. Picture most definitely is worth a thousand words. You have sources, right.....
    It is an irrefutable fact that two sources are provided. Are you denying this fact?

    I know that you are some guy that hosted webspace that cites other blogs and comes to a Spurs fan political board to try and justify them. I know you are the type that will ignore one point so you can belabor an entirely different one. I know you are they type that uses pictures rather than analysis to attempt to make a point. But hey you got THREE 'sources' its got to be true.
    No "blogs" are cited in the Sourcewatch piece, why do you keep lying about this? I came here to correct the misinformation you stated about the list. I have not ignored any point and have addressed everything you stated. Pictures are only used in relation to the content of an article, they are not subs uted for analysis or to make a point.

    Intentionally stating lies? Go yourself, chachi. Oh wait I forget you meant 3 LINKS.... Maybe you are familiar with how to best come to an informed decision? Giving one side of an argument and looking at pictures to draw conclusions is not it.
    You have stated lies about my intentions. I ask that you do not continue to misrepresent my position.

    You can play semantics by calling it a 'resource' or whatever you like. You can try to use lame tactics to try and defend it but its transparent like no tomorrow.
    It is not semantics but an irrefutable fact that you are in denial of because you again failed to properly read what you attempted to criticize. Again, I ask that you do not continue to misrepresent my position.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 12:01 AM.
    Poptech is offline

  13. #3138
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Then, by all means, provide a number you think reasonable.

    What is the total body of work on climate science? I will be happy to have any answer within an order of magnitude.

    Such a figure would be an important bit of context for someone hoping to have an comprehensive view of the actual science. [...]

    How large of a body of work are we talking about?
    I do not believe anyone has established a method to determine a reasonable number. The "context" you are seeking is both a red herring and an argumentum ad populum.

    If it turns out that what you have is a vanishingly small amount of research that, if you interpret it charitably, supports your theory, out of a very large body of research that would say something.
    This is a strawman argument as I did not present any scientific theory. The list is not a theory but a resource.
    Poptech is offline

  14. #3139
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Ok then I picked something haphazardly.

    If the work cited supports your theory that there will be no harm, then it shouldn't matter where I start, should it?
    What I personally believe is that you scrolled down until you saw a paper that you felt could be used to discredit the validity of the list. You are of course free to disagree on this but past personal experience has shown this tactic to be consistent. It is a strawman argument that I claim "there will be no harm" as this is not stated anywhere on the list nor is a scientific theory presented.

    Would you prefer I use random.org to pull a sample?

    Random Sequence Generator

    So let's start with paper number 154, and go down the list. No cherry picking.

    This is a statistically valid sample, so the first 30 or so would give us a useful working sample to judge whether the compiled list actually says what you say it does.
    Using a random number generator would generate a random sample but I have no way to confirm that is how those numbers were generated. So while in this case I believe you are being sincere, I never agree to anything I cannot verify.

    What the list claims is that all the papers, "support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm."

    You would have to demonstrate that the paper could not be used this way not simply that you disagree with it being used this way.

    Personally, I have no interest in repeating this exercise as I have done this ad nauseum for over two years.
    Poptech is offline

  15. #3140
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Wow. New blood for an old thread.

    Since you are obviously better able at ferreting out logical arguments than our resident deniers, and therefore not Wild Cobra's sock puppet, and since you are using the websites' logo as an avatar, I would guess you are one of that websites' administrators.
    This is correct.

    First, welcome. I would further guess you are here because of Yonivore, or perhaps Wild Cobra.
    I came here to correct the misinformation stated about the list by FuzzyLumpkins.

    I think the ultimate purpose of the list is less to get at a valid sounding of the science science, but to allow the conspiracy nutters that want to think that all climate scientists are "in on the fix" some cover. But that is my opinion.
    This is not the case as the list was created due to false claims of an absence of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. There was no single source for a skeptic to reference peer-reviewed papers.

    How the list is misused is out of my control. I have seen on various occasions interjected statements into scientific work relating to ACC/AGW that seemed inappropriate or irrelevant to the scientific research being discussed. It is difficult to determine if the reason for this was an honest comment by the author, added due to the peer-review process or to validate funding allocations. The funding theory does not have to be interpreted nefariously as it could be seen as a shrew method to get research funded that otherwise may not have. This is a different argument than publishing science for personal profit.

    Regardless, I do not believe in a global climate science conspiracy but rather in shared ideological beliefs by ACC/AGW Alarm proponents who have at times believed the ends justified the means. While the word "conspiracy" has been used by prominent skeptics it was not in that context. A simple example,

    A Climatology Conspiracy? (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science)
    Poptech is offline

  16. #3141
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    What would be dishonest, and inaccurate, would be to represent this list as outweighing the body of work that supports the theory that AGW can potentially be catastrophic.

    Does it?
    This is a strawman argument and an argumentum ad populum.

    Context is important. I could look at a parking lot full of cars, and take pictures of only the blue ones, to support my theory that all cars are blue. It would seem pretty convincing without any contravening evidence.
    It is a strawman argument to imply that the list is a theory.
    Poptech is offline

  17. #3142
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Except the people that say that AGW is going to likely produce some catastrophic consequences have not, to my knowledge ever claimed that the coming changes will be uniformly harmful to every living creature and species.

    If you are going to try and say that is their position, that itself is a strawman. You're too smart for that I would wager. Let's try an honesty test.
    Actually, those pushing AGW Alarm just state what they believe will be the catastrophic consequences and never qualify their statements. The authors of that paper made it a point to state what is mainly presented in the literature,

    "The positive relationship between growth and [CO2] found here contrasts with previous studies, most of which have shown negative effects of [CO2] on marine species, "

    My understanding of the kinds of damage we are looking at, is that some species may be helped. I would expect scientists to be able to identify which ones as well.

    It is possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage?
    This depends on your interpretation of "damage" and "catastrophic impacts". I believe and have seen evidence to support that most species are able to adapt to environmental changes. In a case of where a species would not survive I call that evolution.
    Poptech is offline

  18. #3143
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I do not believe anyone has established a method to determine a reasonable number. The "context" you are seeking is both a red herring and an argumentum ad populum.
    You are prevaricating, and accusatory.

    That is not a very good way to start.

    Since I am not an expert in climate science, I have to make some determination as to what to think about the subject.

    Whether or not such a list is meaningful is most definitely not a red herring, but absolutely vital to understanding the broader context. Given that one of the primary criticisms of skeptics is that they cherry pick, one would think that you would go to lengths to be fair about what the list and how much importance one should assign

    My quote is also not an argumentum ad populum. I didn't say that your list was right or wrong, or that one should be skeptical based on how many people think something.

    If it was such, then please outline exactly how. You have made a pretty specific charge.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html

    Fit what I said in that form or withdraw it.

    If it turns out that what you have is a vanishingly small amount of research that, if you interpret it charitably, supports your theory, out of a very large body of research that would say something.
    This is a strawman argument as I did not present any scientific theory. The list is not a theory but a resource.
    You have, by the very nature of the list, implied a theory. You are "skeptical" of "alarmism".

    To pretend that your precious list is just a "resource" seems less than honest to me.

    The intention is quite obvious. From the advertised list of books on the side, to the stilted way in which people you disagree with are presented.

    The rest of the website has a pretty clear point of view, and any reasonable reading of your preferred and implied theory is that "rising CO2 levels will not have any catastrophic effect"

    Is this your opinion, or not?

    It is an honest question, asked plainly. If I am to avoid misrepresenting your opinion or arguments, then you will need to spell them out so that I can understand.
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #3144
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Thats a pretty useless purpose, in my opinion. Anyone with access to the relevent databases can tell you that they can find research to support nearly every position possible. Taken out of context of the entirety of all scientific research these papers may seem as they make valid points but within the context of what is actually understood they don't make much of an argument.
    Like you said that is your opinion of which I strongly disagree as have the thousands of skeptics who have used the resource and found it very useful. This is in the "context" of the usefulness of the list.

    There is no singular "context" of all scientific research. The scientific validity of any paper on the list is not determined by any such association. For any comments that were made on any of the papers on the list, the rebuttals from the authors are included.

    As an example, the permafrost article you brought up. While there may be portions of the permafrost that have not melted in any interglacial through the past 700,000 years this does not do anything to prove that those areas that DO melt will in fact release a large amount of methane into the atmosphere. Furthermore, it also ignores the fact that CO2 levels are currently far higher than at any point in the last 700,000 years and that temperatures in the next 100 are expected to exceed temps of interglacials in the past 700,000 years.
    I did not bring it up, Randomguy did. It supports the argument that catastrophic permafrost melting is unlikely. This paper explicitly states,

    "This study highlights the resilience of permafrost to past warmer climate and suggests that permafrost and associated carbon reservoirs that are more than a few meters below the surface may be more stable than previously thought"

    I do take issue with your last statement that somehow providing a full spectrum (and an accurate one) is somehow dishonest. I would argue that failing to accurately present what all the scientific research is saying because of your agenda is the absolute definition of intellectual dishonesty.
    This is a strawman argument, where does the list claim to present all the scientific research unrelated to that which supports skeptic arguments? It can only be intellectually dishonest if the context is your strawman argument and not the purpose of the list.
    Poptech is offline

  20. #3145
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    What I personally believe is that you scrolled down until you saw a paper that you felt could be used to discredit the validity of the list. You are of course free to disagree on this but past personal experience has shown this tactic to be consistent. It is a strawman argument that I claim "there will be no harm" as this is not stated anywhere on the list nor is a scientific theory presented.


    Using a random number generator would generate a random sample but I have no way to confirm that is how those numbers were generated. So while in this case I believe you are being sincere, I never agree to anything I cannot verify.

    What the list claims is that all the papers, "support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm."

    You would have to demonstrate that the paper could not be used this way not simply that you disagree with it being used this way.

    Personally, I have no interest in repeating this exercise as I have done this ad nauseum for over two years.
    My ultimate interest is in the truth. I am not married to any given theory, and my ego is not tied to any.

    I have not examined the list ad nauseum. It is your list and it seems important to you that it is defended from all "debunking". En garde.
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #3146
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Actually, those pushing AGW Alarm just state what they believe will be the catastrophic consequences and never qualify their statements. The authors of that paper made it a point to state what is mainly presented in the literature,

    "The positive relationship between growth and [CO2] found here contrasts with previous studies, most of which have shown negative effects of [CO2] on marine species, "


    This depends on your interpretation of "damage" and "catastrophic impacts". I believe and have seen evidence to support that most species are able to adapt to environmental changes. In a case of where a species would not survive I call that evolution.
    The first statement I've highlighted is ridiculous and not really worth even talking about, but I did want to highlight it.

    As for your second, There is plenty of scientific literature showing that past changes to marine environments (and others - but I'm assuming that is the focus here) that have occurred quickly (in a geological sense - what is happening now is FAR faster) definitely does not support the idea that most species are able to adapt to that type of environmental change. There is a reason they are called MASS extinctions. Evolution is typically not a very quick process.

    Furthermore, the speed of the current extinction event is much faster than any outside of the KT event. There is no doubt this is an anthropogenic event (which reaches outside of merely climate change but most of the causes (IE deforestation) also play a role in climate change) and to dismiss the inability of species to survive as "evolution" is short sighted. Once again, if marine ecosystems fall apart, it will be to severe human detriment due to the immense populations that rely on those ecosystems for both food and economic reasons.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  22. #3147
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    This is a strawman argument and an argumentum ad populum.


    It is a strawman argument to imply that the list is a theory.
    Again with the "argumentum ad populum" charge.

    I am simply talking about amounts of evidence that either support or contradict a theory.

    I made no reference to how many people believe anything.

    As for a strawman argument, again, I refer to overall weight of evidence.

    Being a layman, I have to figure out who to believe. Your list could represent a vanishingly small amount of hte overall research.

    You do not seem interested in presenting science that does not agree with your views.

    I am looking to understand the context with which I would weigh evidence that is presented to me.

    Seeking that context is not a "strawman".
    RandomGuy is offline

  23. #3148
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It is possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage?
    This depends on your interpretation of "damage" and "catastrophic impacts". I believe and have seen evidence to support that most species are able to adapt to environmental changes. In a case of where a species would not survive I call that evolution.
    Prevaricating.

    Either it is possible, or it is not.

    Quibbling over semantics is evasive. Is that your intention?

    Please answer the question.
    RandomGuy is offline

  24. #3149
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Like you said that is your opinion of which I strongly disagree as have the thousands of skeptics who have used the resource and found it very useful. This is in the "context" of the usefulness of the list.

    There is no singular "context" of all scientific research. The scientific validity of any paper on the list is not determined by any such association. For any comments that were made on any of the papers on the list, the rebuttals from the authors are included.


    I did not bring it up, Randomguy did. It supports the argument that catastrophic permafrost melting is unlikely. This paper explicitly states,

    "This study highlights the resilience of permafrost to past warmer climate and suggests that permafrost and associated carbon reservoirs that are more than a few meters below the surface may be more stable than previously thought"


    This is a strawman argument, where does the list claim to present all the scientific research unrelated to that which supports skeptic arguments? It can only be intellectually dishonest if the context is your strawman argument and not the purpose of the list.
    The list does not need to claim something for that to be the perception of its readers. That is something you fail to understand. You continuously attempt to wash your hands of only presenting a simplified and myopic view of the science by pointing out that is your stated intent but this is an irresponsible action.

    Why not instead post an honest view of the science? Isn't that ultimately what matters?

    The permafrost study is a perfect example of this. You continue to assert that the paper supports a skeptics argument that there is no (or a limited) danger of methane release through melting permafrost which is not incorrect. However, how important is that when the vast majority of scientific research in that area says something different? In fact, there is brand new research showing that methane release from undersea permafrost is already ramping up to levels that are already having a significant effect.

    I get that your agenda is to show that skeptic arguments are support by peer reviewed science. Its just a shame you would rather focus on a narrow objective instead of actually providing an honest overview of all the research that is being done.

    To use a sports analogy, you're pointing out that the last place team beat the super bowl champions in week 4 of the NFL season. No one can deny thats the case, but it also doesn't matter much.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  25. #3150
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The list does not need to claim something for that to be the perception of its readers. That is something you fail to understand. You continuously attempt to wash your hands of only presenting a simplified and myopic view of the science by pointing out that is your stated intent but this is an irresponsible action.

    Why not instead post an honest view of the science? Isn't that ultimately what matters?

    The permafrost study is a perfect example of this. You continue to assert that the paper supports a skeptics argument that there is no (or a limited) danger of methane release through melting permafrost which is not incorrect. However, how important is that when the vast majority of scientific research in that area says something different? In fact, there is brand new research showing that methane release from undersea permafrost is already ramping up to levels that are already having a significant effect.

    I get that your agenda is to show that skeptic arguments are support by peer reviewed science. Its just a shame you would rather focus on a narrow objective instead of actually providing an honest overview of all the research that is being done.

    To use a sports analogy, you're pointing out that the last place team beat the super bowl champions in week 4 of the NFL season. No one can deny thats the case, but it also doesn't matter much.
    Bingo.

    The implied intent is clear.

    Sure the list succeeds at pointing out some decent peer reviewed science that can be used as a "resource" by "skeptics".

    It is less than credulous to think that there is no implied theory.

    Ah well, bed time. Work tomorrow and all that .
    RandomGuy is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •