Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[RandomGuy]

Are you mentally deranged?

Aspergers on the other hand, is noted for an obsession with narrow topics and an overall inability to understand wider contexts.

[RandomGuy]

You are not the arbiter on the definitions of logical fallacies. Ad hominem for instance can simply mean "criticizing a person's character instead of what they are saying" (Macmillian). Thus if you respond with personal attacks about a person's character in an argument it can be considered an ad hominem.

Ah the dictionary defense. You have me quaking in my boots now.

Duelling dictionaries. Does it say anywhere there that it is an actual logical fallacy?

By your definition, I have not committed a formal logical fallacy for calling you a poopy head.

In this case, though, everytime I call you something like a warthog-faced bafoon, I always very studiously address your post.

Your provided definition uses "instead of" and not "and".

By that definition you still fail to pin me with even with when I do something like refer to you as a rat-faced fart-sniffer.

When I use the term ad hominem though, I refer very specifically to the generally accepted meaning used in most debates and formal philosophy, of flawed reasoning.

That makes it far clearer whose points and position is more supported by logical inference and factual statements, IMO.

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::

The science is settled, es!

Natural conditions, not human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, are the driving force behind California’s three-year dry spell, scientists on a federal task force concluded Monday. But the report came under fire from some experts who said it downplayed other factors that have humanity’s fingerprints on them.

The evidence suggests a naturally induced “warm patch” of water in the western Pacific helped to create a high-pressure ridge that blocked precipitation from entering California, the experts said at a news conference to release the report.

“We have been able to identify this as a mode of ocean forcing of atmospheric circulation that causes West Coast drought,” said Richard Seager, a climate model specialist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Other studies suggesting a global warming link are off the mark since they hadn’t spotted the warm patch’s influence, but that’s not to say emissions aren’t having other impacts, according to the task force assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“The report is not dismissive of global warming at all,” said Marty Hoerling, a meteorologist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Lab. “At the same time, drought is not a consequence of the warming planet to date.”

Realizing what this meant to the cause, NBC immediately turned to the least credible source they could muster to put the lie to their report...

But critics included Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth Science Center. He quickly penned a piece online, calling the report “deeply flawed” because of how it interpreted ocean and Arctic sea ice data, and focused on rainfall while paying “only the slightest lip service” to record warm temperatures in California.

[RandomGuy]

Do you have any link to any evidence in support of AGW's potentially catastrophic effects on your website or blog? Why or why not?

Do you have a list of skeptic papers supporting their arguments? Why or why not?

Since you failed to answer a fair, direct question, I will simply infer the answer from your previous post. You don't think such evidence exists.

So the universe of valid peer-reviewed science on the subject for you, is only that which is on your list.

Starting with a conclusion, accepting only evidence that is valid that supports a pre-existing conclusion. Confirmation bias, by definition.

Pseudo-science.

Confirmation bias
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Pooptech's required link

[RandomGuy]

:::bump:::

The science is settled, es!


Realizing what this meant to the cause, NBC immediately turned to the least credible source they could muster to put the lie to their report...

Science doesn't have to be fully settled to mitigate risks.

As noted here repeatedly, mitigating CO2 emissions is actively helpful to the economy.

There is certainly a total lack of evidence that mitigating CO2 emissions is harmful. Feel free to present any evidence you have on that. Economics and finance is something I am an expert on.

The economic impact of the policies sort of wonderfully bypasses most of the arguments from the economic alarmist, i.e. denier, camp.

[Poptech]

Powerpuff Girl AKA My Puppet,

[Poptech]

No evidence whatsoever exists to support the catastrophic effects of AGW.

No valid evidence exists.

So all the people saying there is are lying? How do you account for them in your milieu? Deliberately lying conspiracy?

Strawman argument.

[Poptech]

Aspergers on the other hand, is noted for an obsession with narrow topics and an overall inability to understand wider contexts.

So you are mentally deranged then.

[Poptech]

Ah the dictionary defense. You have me quaking in my boots now.

Duelling dictionaries. Does it say anywhere there that it is an actual logical fallacy?

By your definition, I have not committed a formal logical fallacy for calling you a poopy head.

In this case, though, everytime I call you something like a warthog-faced bafoon, I always very studiously address your post.

Your provided definition uses "instead of" and not "and".

By that definition you still fail to pin me with even with when I do something like refer to you as a rat-faced fart-sniffer.

When I use the term ad hominem though, I refer very specifically to the generally accepted meaning used in most debates and formal philosophy, of flawed reasoning.

That makes it far clearer whose points and position is more supported by logical inference and factual statements, IMO.

Considering you have yet to present a definition from an actual dictionary nothing can be considered "dueling". It has been well established you resort to juvenile personal attacks anytime you cannot debate someone, so there is no need for you to further demonstrate this. Last I checked you do not define the context of the words people use here. And, yes, it is quite clear my points and positions are more supported by logic and facts - this has been well established here.

[Poptech]

Since you failed to answer a fair, direct question, I will simply infer the answer from your previous post. You don't think such evidence exists.

So the universe of valid peer-reviewed science on the subject for you, is only that which is on your list.

Starting with a conclusion, accepting only evidence that is valid that supports a pre-existing conclusion. Confirmation bias, by definition.

Pseudo-science.

More libelous lies.

[Poptech]

"The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See"

[Yonivore]

Science doesn't have to be fully settled to mitigate risks.

But when one side of an argument tries to stifle debate by claiming the science is settled, they should expect to have it thrown in their face every time it turns out it isn't, in fact, settled.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Aspergers on the other hand, is noted for an obsession with narrow topics and an overall inability to understand wider contexts.

Aspergers is also noted for a lack of nuance. Everything is black and white, yes and no, or true and false.

[Yonivore]

Like I always say, I'll start believing Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a crisis when those who tell me Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a crisis start acting like Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a crisis.

Lima Climate Talks Set for Record Carbon Footprint

Now the bad news: The Lima conference is expected to have the biggest carbon footprint of any U.N. climate meeting measured to date.

At more than 50,000 metric tons of carfb/phbon dioxide, the negotiations' burden on global warming will be about 1 1/2 times the norm, said Jorge Alvarez, project coordinator for the U.N. Development Program.

Have these guys ever heard of the internet, Skype, or GoToMeeting.com?

Seriously, it kind of undermines the whole AGCC argument.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like I always say, I'll start believing Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a crisis when those who tell me Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a crisis start acting like Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a crisis.

Lima Climate Talks Set for Record Carbon Footprint


Have these guys ever heard of the internet, Skype, or GoToMeeting.com?

Seriously, it kind of undermines the whole AGCC argument.

Discussions ignorant of context: the Yoni way.

Refineries process about 300k barrels of crude daily. The low end of the CO2 emissions for that process is 100 pounds per barrel and with the additional impurities and lack of hydrogen with the shale oil you end up closer to 175. That is 14,000 metric tons per refinery per day to just produce the fuel. When that fuel is burned you are looking at about another 150 pounds per barrel. The Lima conference will last 12 days.

So IOW, a single refinery operating those same 12 days of the Lima conference will produce about 170,000 metric tons of CO2 which when consumed as gas etc will produce an additional 255,000 metric tons of CO2. There are about 140 refineries in the US and we have not considered the emissions for extraction and mining.

But wave your hands some more with a lack of context and scale.

[Yonivore]

Discussions ignorant of context: the Yoni way.

Refineries process about 300k barrels of crude daily. The low end of the CO2 emissions for that process is 100 pounds per barrel and with the additional impurities and lack of hydrogen with the shale oil you end up closer to 175. That is 14,000 metric tons per refinery per day to just produce the fuel. When that fuel is burned you are looking at about another 150 pounds per barrel. The Lima conference will last 12 days.

So IOW, a single refinery operating those same 12 days of the Lima conference will produce about 170,000 metric tons of CO2 which when consumed as gas etc will produce an additional 255,000 metric tons of CO2. There are about 140 refineries in the US and we have not considered the emissions for extraction and mining.

But wave your hands some more with a lack of context and scale.

That's not context; that's called non sequitur.

Given the low carbon footprint of internet technology; why can't they show a real commitment to the environment and do it online from where they sit?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not context; that's called non sequitur.

Given the low carbon footprint of internet technology; why can't they show a real commitment to the environment and do it online from where they sit?

The carbon emissions of other events is certainly context you decry the CO2 emissions of an arbitrary event. You just don't like what it shows.

Also you should read the article. It tells you why: Peru is the host and they had to build a venue and their energy grid is garbage. They also are bringing 11,000 people together in the southern hemisphere for the conference. Shall we compare and contrast with the numbers associated in those lists you regurgitated last month?

[Poptech]

Aspergers is also noted for a lack of nuance. Everything is black and white, yes and no, or true and false.

[Yonivore]

The carbon emissions of other events is certainly context you decry the CO2 emissions of an arbitrary event. You just don't like what it shows.

But, it's not an arbitrary event. It's an international gathering of the very people who would have you and me reduce our carbon footprints to zero -- regardless the cost to us -- so they can crow about being saviors of the world.

Also you should read the article. It tells you why: Peru is the host and they had to build a venue and their energy grid is garbage. They also are bringing 11,000 people together in the southern hemisphere for the conference. Shall we compare and contrast with the numbers associated in those lists you regurgitated last month?

Uh, that doesn't make it better, it just makes one question why they would choose to burden Peru with their carbon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't deny that I smoke pot or that I told you that I wouldn't email your admission of mental illness if you took down your 'truth' series. I sent Comedy Central, John Stewart's production company, BEST, and Muller your survey results as well. Thanks for pointing out other people you smear that deserve to know what they are dealing with.

Compare and contrast with your actions about three weeks after you posted your survey results when you deleted everything and then DENIED admitting to mental illness and a positive answer to many indicators of NPD.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But, it's not an arbitrary event. It's an international gathering of the very people who would have you and me reduce our carbon footprints to zero -- regardless the cost to us -- so they can crow about being saviors of the world.


Uh, that doesn't make it better, it just makes one question why they would choose to burden Peru with their carbon.

they are the ones bringing attention to it.

You clearly are handwaving the same argument that was used against Gore's energy usage and didn't read the article. They ran into some infrastructure problems. I liked referencing skype etc in dealing with a conference of 11k people. Shows how in tune you are with the issue.

[Poptech]

I don't deny that I smoke pot or that I told you that I wouldn't email your admission of mental illness if you took down your 'truth' series. I sent Comedy Central, John Stewart's production company, BEST, and Muller your survey results as well. Thanks for pointing out other people you smear that deserve to know what they are dealing with.

Compare and contrast with your actions about three weeks after you posted your survey results when you deleted everything and then DENIED admitting to mental illness and a positive answer to many indicators of NPD.

How does it feel to be my puppet?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How does it feel to be my puppet?

If having you meltdown and try your hardest to coverup your admission makes me your puppet then it is what it is.

It was about 2 weeks after I emailed your admission that you went back and edited all that and tried to smear me. What I want to know is what precipitated that.

That made me think that I should email your coworkers, GWPC, WUWT, Koch Industries etc with your admission. I am after all your puppet and you want me to do what I have been doing.

[Yonivore]

they are the ones bringing attention to it.

By leaving a giant carbon footprint? , I can do that.

You clearly are handwaving the same argument that was used against Gore's energy usage and didn't read the article. They ran into some infrastructure problems. I liked referencing skype etc in dealing with a conference of 11k people. Shows how in tune you are with the issue.

Why do you need to assemble 11,000 people to talk about climate? I'm just imagining all the emissions it took to get them there and then there's the problems pointed out by the article.

But, back to technology. Do all 11,000 people have time at the microphone? Because, there are online services that will broadcast seminars for that many people and allow multiple speakers to address the gathered crowd.

[Poptech]

If having you meltdown and try your hardest to coverup your admission makes me your puppet then it is what it is.

It was about 2 weeks after I emailed your admission that you went back and edited all that and tried to smear me. What I want to know is what precipitated that.

That made me think that I should email your coworkers, GWPC, WUWT, Koch Industries etc with your admission. I am after all your puppet and you want me to do what I have been doing.