Page 127 of 161 FirstFirst ... 2777117123124125126127128129130131137 ... LastLast
Results 3,151 to 3,175 of 4001
  1. #3151
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    You are prevaricating, and accusatory.
    It is not evasive to factually state I do not believe anyone has established a method to determine a reasonable number. Should I lie?

    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
    Attempting to determine the ratio of how many papers the list represents in relation to all papers that contain a common term is a red herring to the purpose of the list and the scientific validity of any of the papers on it.

    Whether the list is "meaningful", "fair" or "important" is all subjective.

    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.
    Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position? If not then you only purpose for arguing for a volume ratio is an argumentum ad populum.

    You have, by the very nature of the list, implied a theory. You are "skeptical" of "alarmism".
    Please quote where this "theory" is stated on the list.

    To pretend that your precious list is just a "resource" seems less than honest to me.
    There is nothing to pretend as this is an irrefutable fact and explicitly stated on the list. Your snide comment clearly implies you biased intent towards the list.

    The intention is quite obvious.
    The intention of the list is quite obvious because it is explicitly stated,

    Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs

    ...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.
    A strawman argument is not a valid argument. My personal position is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that the list is not my theory nor any theory and it's purpose is explicitly stated as a resource.
    Poptech is offline

  2. #3152
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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.
    You do not consider correcting misinformation important?
    Poptech is offline

  3. #3153
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Don't forget this PT. Show exactly how anything I said was an argumentum ad populum.

    EXACTLY.

    I am pretty sure I know where this is going, but hey, you want to go there, that's fine.
    RandomGuy is offline

  4. #3154
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Attempting to determine the ratio of how many papers the list represents in relation to all papers that contain a common term is a red herring to the purpose of the list and the scientific validity of any of the papers on it.
    It isn't "a red herring to the list". I don't give a rats ass about "the purpose of the list as you state".

    I don't give a rats ass about "all the papers that contain a common term".

    I want to know the wider context.

    Sure there is a list. Sure there is a stated purpose for the list. I want to know something beyond that. There are policy choices to make, based on ambiguous evidence.

    It is important? What does it mean in the wider issue?

    That is why attempting to fathom how much of the evidence it represents is meaningful.

    I am not going to read everything, nor do I have time. I can, however, make reasonable statements about what the evidence overall shows.
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #3155
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The intention of the list is quite obvious because it is explicitly stated,

    Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs


    A strawman argument is not a valid argument. My personal position is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that the list is not my theory nor any theory and it's purpose is explicitly stated as a resource.
    Once again, evasive and obfuscating. Not surprising.

    I will have to keep it simple then.

    Yes or no, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
    RandomGuy is offline

  6. #3156
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    You do not consider correcting misinformation important?
    I do consider correcting misinformation important.
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #3157
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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.

    A strawman argument is not a valid argument. My personal position is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that the list is not my theory nor any theory and it's purpose is explicitly stated as a resource.
    Strawman arguments are not valid. That is correct.

    I didn't ask you if your personal opinion was relevant to the "the irrefutable fact that the list is not my theory".

    I asked you what your personal opinion was.

    It was a yes or no question.

    Since you did not answer it, then I will ask again.

    It appears your preferred and implied theory is that "rising CO2 levels will not have any catastrophic effect"

    Is this your opinion, or not?
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #3158
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    again, past my bedtime. PT, take your time.

    I will expect answers to my questions. If you dont' intend on being honest or answering fair questions in a straightforward manner, then let me know now, so I can save myself the time.
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #3159
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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.
    It is an assumption by some that what is happening now is far faster let alone unusual at all. Extinctions are not a very quick process either,

    Extinction Turns Out to Be a Slow, Slow Process (The New York Times, October 24, 2000)

    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.
    Actually there is doubt of both a current extinction event and it being anthropogenic. I do not believe supporting evolution to be short sighted. There is scientific evidence that they will not fall apart due to climate change.
    Last edited by Poptech; 04-30-2012 at 02:47 AM.
    Poptech is offline

  10. #3160
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Again with the "argumentum ad populum" charge.

    I am simply talking about amounts of evidence that either support or contradict a theory.
    For what purpose? As volume of papers cannot be used to determine the scientific validity of a theory.

    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.
    So you believe that science is correct based on who publishes more papers?

    You do not seem interested in presenting science that does not agree with your views.
    This is incorrect as the list contains various mutually exclusive papers. The list is all inclusive to skeptic viewpoints. A purpose of the list was to provide what in many cases was not being presented at all, which makes your charge ironic.

    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".
    Your statement was a strawman argument,
    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.
    No such representation was done.
    Poptech is offline

  11. #3161
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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.
    I understand very well the possibility exists for the purpose of the list to be misinterpreted. No such "view" of the science is being presented as the list is not a theory. The existence of mutually exclusive papers on the list invalidates your charge.

    Why not instead post an honest view of the science? Isn't that ultimately what matters?
    Why are you so concerned that a scientific resource exists for skeptics that you have to continue to disingenuously try to label it a "scientific view"? Do you really think your dishonest reverse psychological argument is going to work on me? Are you that naive? Lets get this out of the way as this is tedious and a waste of time,

    This list will only ever include peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm.

    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.
    No what I accurately stated was, "It supports the argument that catastrophic permafrost melting is unlikely." It's "importance" is subjective. Skeptics believe it is important. The existence of other papers that support a different view does not change this.

    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.
    It is a lie that the list is dishonest as it does not claim to be an overview of all research. You failed attempts at disingenuously labeling the list as such is very desperate.

    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.
    I am doing no such thing.
    Poptech is offline

  12. #3162
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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.
    So when you cannot win the argument you resort to lying?
    Poptech is offline

  13. #3163
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Don't forget this PT. Show exactly how anything I said was an argumentum ad populum.

    EXACTLY.

    I am pretty sure I know where this is going, but hey, you want to go there, that's fine.
    Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position? If not then you only purpose for arguing for a volume ratio is an argumentum ad populum.
    Poptech is offline

  14. #3164
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I want to know the wider context.
    Define context and provide a source available on the Internet for the definition.

    That is why attempting to fathom how much of the evidence it represents is meaningful.
    ...for an argumentum ad populum.

    I am not going to read everything, nor do I have time. I can, however, make reasonable statements about what the evidence overall shows.
    If you are interested in an argumentum ad populum.
    Poptech is offline

  15. #3165
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I will have to keep it simple then.

    Yes or no, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
    Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied.
    Poptech is offline

  16. #3166
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I asked you what your personal opinion was.
    Yes you did but with the implication that it is an implied theory of the list which is false so I am not going to support your lie.
    Poptech is offline

  17. #3167
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I will expect answers to my questions. If you dont' intend on being honest or answering fair questions in a straightforward manner, then let me know now, so I can save myself the time.
    I will expect you to stop lying about the list.
    Poptech is offline

  18. #3168
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    So I'm the one being dishonest here? Ok. I'm not concerned at all about your list. I decided to engage you since you decided it was worth your time to post here. The internet is filled with a ton of pages that provide out of context information on subjects. Your entrance to the ranks of those webpages does affect me in the least.

    The question I posed:

    Why not make a more comprehensive list?

    has been dodged several times. I get it though. Its easy to search the web and find sites that claim to provide evidence for nearly any position on any subject. Some will even provide actual scientific articles. The actual value of these webpages is extremely limited because they only provide a narrow look.

    Its good your looking out for skeptics though. Its hard for them actually find those articles in existing databases due to the fact that when you search for climate change on those databases you're going to get all the scientific literature and not simply a small segment meant to produce an agenda. You make it easier for people like Darrin to claim they know of scientific literature and what actual research in the field is saying when in fact they're just browsing over a list of out of context research.

    Your goal has been accomplished quite well. Bravo.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  19. #3169
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    First, welcome. I would further guess you are here because of Yonivore, or perhaps Wild Cobra.
    Not because of me.
    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 don't believe you. I know you like to say that, but no matter what evidence you see to show the AGW alarmist views are in error, you never prevent yourself as skeptical.
    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.
    It's not flawed logic just because you don't understand it.

    I have said several time I mix up terminology sometimes. that does not mean I don't understand, as you continually accuse me of.

    How many times have I asked people to clarify, and asked them to ask me when I need to clarify. How many times have i pointed out people are arguing against a point I did not make, but they misconstrue it as something else?

    I hope you are ready for an honest debate with PopTech. That would be a first.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  20. #3170
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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.
    Then please.

    What were you trying to convey as a message when you pointed out the statistical percentage? Were you implying that 0.45% should be disregarded because of so many other opposing studies?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  21. #3171
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    More information regarding the effect of ENSO on global temps:

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2...ck-of-warming/


    Darrin will tell us its just a pet theory, though.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  22. #3172
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Incidently, ENSO is starting to enter an El Nino phase in April. The April temperature relative to the past few years has taken quite a climb after a relatively cool March globally. Will be very interesting to see how the rest of the year plays out regarding ENSO.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  23. #3173
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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.
    Expected to exceed... only by assumed science and modeling that they keep finding flaws in.

    We have had at least 4 periods of time with warmer temperatures than today since the last ice age alone. CO2 had nothing to do with these temperature increases.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  24. #3174
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    LOL....

    PopTech...

    You can see trying to reason with Fuzzy is useless. I have him on IGNORE because he seem to lack any integrity, and is very antagonistic towards me.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  25. #3175
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Why are you so concerned that a scientific resource exists for skeptics that you have to continue to disingenuously try to label it a "scientific view"? Do you really think your dishonest reverse psychological argument is going to work on me? Are you that naive? Lets get this out of the way as this is tedious and a waste of time,
    He does that frequently, next he will claim you don't understand a large part of science and not elaborate on why he says that.

    He is another that tries to beat down the messenger.
    Wild Cobra 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
  •