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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

For the last time, and I truly mean it this time, your comments about the insurance industry were not germane to the conversation in which I was engaged.

It was irrelevant. I didn't even read the comments.

Your comments about the insurance industry said absolutely nothing about whether or not the media and the White House misrepresented or exaggerated what was said in the report in question.

Let go, man.

You were bringing up that same line then about how 'you had no one to trust' then.

I am going to belabor the point because it shows just how full of shit you are. Its a false dilemma and thats a fallacy.

We cannot believe them so noone is right.

[DarrinS]

I got throught he Ayn Rand part all the way which said that the person that questioned her had not given her a fair premise. I then went to there little flowchart where they 'recreate' the AGW argument. Thats a strawman but lets lecture people on how Rand demands a reasonable premise. You know when you characterize what the other sides argument and then argue that instead of addressing what the argument is.


Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, not really.

Get the media and world organizations that want me to be alarmed about AGCC and be convinced it is real, that it's bad, and that I can do something about it to FIND an anthropogenic global climate change proponent with credibility and an ability to communicate complicated science in a easy way.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, for instance. He might could be a good spokesperson -- even though he's not a climate scientist -- for the AGCC crowd to develop into a credible, reasonable messenger.


Wait! There are people saying they're wrong again and, quite frankly, they make a more compelling argument, to me -- a simple lay person, not involved in climate science -- that Al Gore, you, or any of the white papers you've linked in here.


Then I'll wait for the certainty.

In the meantime quit taking away oil, dumping my money into green energy, and, for God's sake, quit these annoying blockbuster parties masquerading as climate summits...take Al Gore's Nobel and microphone away...and find someone that will report the science reasonably and responsibly.

And, you can keep your backhanded compliment.

You call Moerner a hack now. I doubt hacks achieve the level of success he has. He simply disagrees with your position so, it's best to hurl insults in an attempt to discredit.

Were all the other scientists I quoted and linked -- way back a few pages ago -- hacks, as well?

God you are full of shit. Looking for someone with credibility? You choose who has credibility by what they conclude and not how they concude it is the only thing that is certain.

[DarrinS]

And can't speak for all AGW skeptics, but the conclusion in that article is well articulated statement of why I'm a skeptic.





So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.

[Wild Cobra]

And can't speak for all AGW skeptics, but the conclusion in that article is well articulated statement of why I'm a skeptic.
So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
That sums up my reasons as a proper scientific skeptic, but I have learned to accept the term "denier" just like I have "parts changer."

[Yonivore]

Well, RandomGuy? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?


So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?

I don't make a gross generalization so your not going to pigeonhole me to one. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, there have been tens of thousands of papers. Trying to sum them up as one viewpoint on feedback is fun and all but oversimplification is meaningless in my eyes.

So how did you like the Obama part? Obama used models. IPCC uses models. AL GORE! Fuck he literally equates the two:


What the Administration did was this: they took a computer model, the same one that originally said the stimulus would be effective, and plugged in the actual spending numbers to get a modeled job creation number. As political messaging, this made perfect sense. As science, the notion of checking a theoretical model’s output with additional runs of the same model, rather than observational data, certainly leaves something to be desired. But to be fair, it’s a tough problem – how does one sort out the effect of changing one variable in a complex system where hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of other variables are changing simultaneously?

This is the problem scientists face in trying to determine the causes of the 0.7C warming over the last century.

Its a mindless hack job but I am glad you go to Forbes for your take on climate science.

[DarrinS]

I don't make a gross generalization so your not going to pigeonhole me to one. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, there have been tens of thousands of papers. Trying to sum them up as one viewpoint on feedback is fun and all but oversimplification is meaningless in my eyes.

So how did you like the Obama part? Obama used models. IPCC uses models. AL GORE! Fuck he literally equates the two:



Its a mindless hack job but I am glad you go to Forbes for your take on climate science.


Fuzzy fails.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy fails.
It's that fuzzy logic.

[Th'Pusher]

For the last time, and I truly mean it this time, your comments about the insurance industry were not germane to the conversation in which I was engaged.

It was irrelevant. I didn't even read the comments.

Your comments about the insurance industry said absolutely nothing about whether or not the media and the White House misrepresented or exaggerated what was said in the report in question.

Let go, man.

Ok. So what are you thoughts on the fact that the insurance industry is accounting for global warming in their cost of service?

[DarrinS]

Ok. So what are you thoughts on the fact that the insurance industry is accounting for global warming in their cost of service?


Maybe they are using it as a good excuse to raise premiums. I'm sure their losses for property damage from hurricanes have increased over the years, but that has a lot to do with increased amount of coastal development.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy fails.

Oh no you don't get to asssert

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/files/2012/02/gw1_500.gif

as valid. Then claim ask:


Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?

And that means that your little flowchart remains true. its not my burden to justify climate in 3 easy steps. Its your or the authors. You fail to meet the burden to prove your asertion i do not have to offer a counterplan. Sorry thats just not how argumentation works.

You are disingenuous as a matter of course.

You have comment on the Obama jobs comparison?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy fails.


Maybe they are using it as a good excuse to raise premiums. I'm sure their losses for property damage from hurricanes have increased over the years, but that has a lot to do with increased amount of coastal development.

All insurers in all 50 states have to present their claims and actuarial data to the state in which they want to do business. Rates are determined on a per capita basis. they cannot just raise rates without justifying it to the insurance committee.

They have also sent people before congress to plead their case about GW and human cause being attributable to their actions. I guess they are all lying.

In FL they are pulling out of the HO market and not just raising premiums.

But hey you have climate in 3 easy steps.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

I was reading Darrin's post until it came up with a 15 year temp record. Same old shit, different day.

[Yonivore]

All insurers in all 50 states have to present their claims and actuarial data to the state in which they want to do business. Rates are determined on a per capita basis. they cannot just raise rates without justifying it to the insurance committee.

They have also sent people before congress to plead their case about GW and human cause being attributable to their actions. I guess they are all lying.
Companies never lie to make money. Companies never adopt a position in order to make money. They only ever base their decisions on what the science actually says.


In FL they are pulling out of the HO market and not just raising premiums.
I wouldn't insure homes in Florida either. I saw Homestead after Hurricane Andrew.


But hey you have climate in 3 easy steps.
Well, they wouldn't exactly say, "Hey, we don't believe this stuff but, damn, it makes such a good excuse to raise rates and exit losing markets in Florida that it's worth buying into the theory as a way to do just that."

No, you just could just act like the buy the science and set about adjusting your industry in a way consistent with your public assertions.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

I was reading Darrin's post until it came up with a 15 year temp record. Same old shit, different day.
And how is that unlike the stuff you provide?

Do you want to gain some of our confidence of your viewpoint on this topic? If so, then please find something that is reasonable. Something that takes into account the items a layperson like myself can discredit them for. I don't think I ask for too much. Show me something that takes proper account of solar and BC forcing, and still makes the claims that CO2 is as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Companies never lie to make money. Companies never adopt a position in order to make money. They only ever base their decisions on what the science actually says.


I wouldn't insure homes in Florida either. I saw Homestead after Hurricane Andrew.


Well, they wouldn't exactly say, "Hey, we don't believe this stuff but, damn, it makes such a good excuse to raise rates and exit losing markets in Florida that it's worth buying into the theory as a way to do just that."

No, you just could just act like the buy the science and set about adjusting your industry in a way consistent with your public assertions.

Are you even going to address the oversight of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation?

Here is there mission statement:


Mission Statement

To ensure that insurance companies licensed to do business in Florida are financially viable, operating within the laws and regulations governing the insurance industry; and offering insurance policy products at fair and adequate rates which do not unfairly discriminate against the buying public.

http://www.floir.com/Office/MissionStatement.aspx

Its actually big deal within the industry and the rank and file of employees know this. So they are all stupid? All the scientists are liars. The insurance industry and all their regulating bodies in each of the 50 states are either co-opted. inept or lying.

Why can you not use this exact same logic about the energy lobby?

What do CONFIRMATION BIAS mean?

You need to stop talking about finding people that you can trust because you're full of shit.

[MannyIsGod]

And how is that unlike the stuff you provide?

Do you want to gain some of our confidence of your viewpoint on this topic? If so, then please find something that is reasonable. Something that takes into account the items a layperson like myself can discredit them for. I don't think I ask for too much. Show me something that takes proper account of solar and BC forcing, and still makes the claims that CO2 is as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed.

Can't talk now, too busy proving tropospheric combustion and the great flood for publication.

[Wild Cobra]

Can't talk now, too busy proving tropospheric combustion and the great flood for publication.
Well, good luck with the troposphere. Spinning your wheels. It ain't happening.

[Yonivore]

Well, good luck with the troposphere. Spinning your wheels. It ain't happening.
But, if it is, that means Manny has actually put a stop to all the AGCC nonsense by finding a more immediate existential threat over which to worry and about which it may be too late to do anything about.

Go Manny!

[Wild Cobra]

But, if it is, that means Manny has actually put a stop to all the AGCC nonsense by finding a more immediate existential threat over which to worry and about which it may be too late to do anything about.

Go Manny!
Does that mean we should support his efforts?

I'd just be happy if someone can provide a study that has proper assessments of solar and black carbon included.

[RandomGuy]

What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.


Well, RandomGuy? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?

As written, no.

Blanket denials on complex subjects are stupid.

That said, let's be fair, and not focus on the nitpicky details. Re-word it a bit:


What they doubt is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is quite possibly greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously doubting that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.

That is quite reasonable.

It is fine to have some doubts and some skepticism to claims of catastrophe.


What I doubt is the catastrophe — I argue that the theory of strong negative economic feedback from limiting CO2 emissions is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of economic damage we will see from reducing our emissions of CO2.

Well, Yonivore? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?

[RandomGuy]

:lol

I was reading Darrin's post until it came up with a 15 year temp record. Same old shit, different day.

Try this shorthand:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=1625

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, good luck with the troposphere. Spinning your wheels. It ain't happening.

You're right its the exosphere! No, its the thermosphere!

[MannyIsGod]

I will be citing the Bible in this work. They did some great work about the great flood in there.

[Wild Cobra]

I will be citing the Bible in this work. They did some great work about the great flood in there.
Only because the Sons of God saw that the Daughters of man were beautiful.

[DarrinS]

:lol

I was reading Darrin's post until it came up with a 15 year temp record. Same old shit, different day.

Then you missed






When looking at the historic temperature record, skeptics today tend to focus more on the fact that temperatures have leveled off over the last 10-15 years. Both sides of the debate play annoying games with cherry-picked end-points and graph scales to try to support their arguments, but most reasonable people look at the graph above of the last 15 years and will agree temperatures have been relatively flat. Even more important for scientists (since the oceans are a much larger heat reservoir than the atmosphere) is the fact that the new ARGO floating temperature stations have measured little or no increase in ocean heat content since they were put in service in 2003.

These facts actually lead to one of my favorite examples of the two sides in the debate talking past each other (this example actually played out in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal over the past several weeks). Skeptics will say, “temperatures have been flat for 10-15 years.” Global warming advocates will respond, “the last decade has seen some of the hottest temperatures in the last 100 years.” Both statements are actually correct.

[DarrinS]

All insurers in all 50 states have to present their claims and actuarial data to the state in which they want to do business. Rates are determined on a per capita basis. they cannot just raise rates without justifying it to the insurance committee.

Like I said, they may be using AGW to JUSTIFY raising rates, even though their increased property damage claims are simply due to more coastal property.

I also think any data on hurricane/tornado frequency and intensity are suspect because we NOW have better technology to detect and measure these storms.

[Yonivore]

Well, Yonivore? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?
Yes.

Now, which theory costs me the most money, right now?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like I said, they may be using AGW to JUSTIFY raising rates, even though their increased property damage claims are simply due to more coastal property.

I also think any data on hurricane/tornado frequency and intensity are suspect because we NOW have better technology to detect and measure these storms.

Claims are claims and rates are determined on a policy by policy basis. If there is more property then there are going to be more insurance policies for said property. when they raise rates its because they are saying per policy claims are higher. Its also not going to see them pull out of the market because their bogus hikes are denied.

And who gives a shit about the latter part? I know you are going to parrot your blog arguments but science not being able to properly measure the power of a storm that blew somone's house down 10 years ago does not mean he isn't going to put in a claim for it.

Its interesting to see that when your stock arguments as told by your overlords do not fit you lack the critical thinking skills to think of anything else.

Scientist are conspiracists and they couldn't measure storms properly. So must be insurers.

This major industry is bad but the mining and energy industries, those guys we can trust.

DIAF

[DarrinS]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/americans-connecting-extreme-weather-to-climate-change-8210575?click=pm_latest


Relates to some poll results Manny posted and defended earlier in this thread.

And it sucks that Gavin Schmidt is on PM's Editorial Board of Advisers. Oh well, at least he gave some candid answers to these questions.




Americans Connecting 2012's Extreme Weather to Climate Change
Yesterday The New York Times covered a new poll showing that an increasing number of Americans are linking the extreme weather events of the past few years—including the extremely warm March 2012, droughts, and hurricanes—to climate change. We asked Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher at NASA’s Goddard Institute and a member of PM’s Editorial Board of Advisers, why he thinks this shift is happening, and if it means that policy changes could be on the horizon.


Q: What’s your first reaction to these polling numbers?


A: I am not really surprised. Most people don’t have a very sophisticated grasp of what climate change is, which is completely understandable. But people do have a visceral connection to weather; they talk about it, understand it, and they’re very fond of extremes in weather (in a conversational way.)


Q: What’s it like to see these recent extreme events as a climate scientist? You look at the long term, but it’s these short- and medium-term events that seem to be swaying the public.


A: The psychology is that people know climate change is out there, and they’re trying to make it real to them. So you have a situation where there’s all this talk about climate change, and then seemingly weird things happen like a huge heat wave or a big snow dump, and I think people just naturally associate these things. They want to be able to see something that they can point to and say, "Ah, that’s what these people are talking about." We experience weather all the time. It’s harder to have a good grasp of what climate is.


Q: Do you agree with the researchers’ "close to home" idea—that is, these extreme events are making climate change and its effects more real for Americans, who previously viewed it as something off in the future or something for other countries to worry about?


A: Yes, this is a very normal psychological thing that we do — we see things and then we associate them. So when there’s a weird heat wave, like we had here in March, people will naturally gravitate toward thinking that’s what climate change looks like. It’s not that anybody’s telling them that, but these things just become associated.

People can tell us general things, but we always look for specific things to make them more concrete. People are not being told the wrong thing; they’re just trying to make connections between the general and the specific.


Q: The last few years have certainly felt strange, in an anecdotal sense. But is it possible to quantify how strange it’s actually been to have all these things together—warmest March ever, so many early tornadoes, droughts, etc.?


A: We often talk about extreme weather events like they’re all one thing—that they’re all increasing or decreasing. But the physics of why you get a tornado or a drought or a hurricane are completely different, and the idea that they all are touched by climate change equally is very wrong.

We’ve done more work in the last 10 years on how climate change gets expressed in weather extremes—as seen in the number of heat waves that are clearly increasing in number and intensity all over the world—and we expect this as we shift the mean toward warmer conditions. But when people talk about ice storms or a single hurricane—there the connection to climate change is much more tenuous. A lot of times the science hasn’t been done on any specific extreme, and because they’re all unique, we need to have more serious data. (we need to have more serious data -- I like that)


Q: Do you think the public’s misunderstanding of weather versus climate is a good or bad thing?


(this answer was a little revealing)
A: Obviously as a scientist, you want the public to know as much as you do, but I think realistically that’s impossible. So . . . it’s not, "Oh my God, people are confused." It’s more about, "Does this provide an opening? Does this provide a way to talk about the science and have people get a better understanding of what’s going on?"

And I think the answer is yes. These poll results provide an opportunity to talk about how climate science is related to weather extremes and where we’re going and where the difficulty is—this notion of science as a process. There are good things here, because whether or not people are convinced or agree or disagree on climate change, it opens up a space for communication.


Q: There’s an interesting note in the Times story that public acceptance of climate change hit a high point just before the recession, then waned, but now is on the rise again. How big of a factor do you think the economy is in the public’s acceptance of climate change and particularly in moving climate policy forward?


A: The question presumes that climate policy is predicated on the idea that individual people have to make individual sacrifices for climate change, which is not the case at all. The best climate policy is one that nobody notices. If we have to rely on everybody to think about every action they make, it will never happen, so any climate policy has to address the problem without having people think about it.


Q: Do you think more weird weather events in the U.S. will continue to increase public acceptance of human-induced climate change?


A: Probably, yes. If you look at some of the previous polling, the other big spike when people felt climate change was happening was in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. And it wasn’t because scientists were telling them that Katrina was caused by climate change—it was just an obvious demonstration that we are vulnerable to weather events and therefore to climate change.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/americans-connecting-extreme-weather-to-climate-change-8210575?click=pm_latest


Relates to some poll results Manny posted and defended earlier in this thread.

And it sucks that Gavin Schmidt is on PM's Editorial Board of Advisers. Oh well, at least he gave some candid answers to these questions.
Is Gavin actually starting to back down from his hysterical cries?

Wow...

[RandomGuy]

Yes.

Now, which theory costs me the most money, right now?

Doing nothing. Net Present Value of doing nothing far, far outweighs any costs of limiting CO2 emissions.

The problem is those costs will not be readily apparent to you. They will be hidden in all the goods and services you buy, at every moment going forward from this day until you die.

Those costs will continue to be borne by your kids and their kids, and by people in other countries who you have never met. Every year we wait, the cost of doing nothing goes up. You shift the costs of your standard of living to them.

I guess if "right now, how does it affect me" is how you want to make your decisions, then I can't really argue with that, as myopic and immoral as it strikes me.

"Doing nothing" represents, in a very real sense, a theft.

[Wild Cobra]

"Doing nothing" represents, in a very real sense, a theft.

So you are convinced that CO2 is a serious threat.

What about those of us who disagree?

I'll tell you what. You and all your like minded buddies pay for it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At least we have gotten to the point to where they admit they're cheap and selfish.

lol conservative.

[DarrinS]

Doing nothing. Net Present Value of doing nothing far, far outweighs any costs of limiting CO2 emissions.

The problem is those costs will not be readily apparent to you. They will be hidden in all the goods and services you buy, at every moment going forward from this day until you die.

Those costs will continue to be borne by your kids and their kids, and by people in other countries who you have never met. Every year we wait, the cost of doing nothing goes up. You shift the costs of your standard of living to them.

I guess if "right now, how does it affect me" is how you want to make your decisions, then I can't really argue with that, as myopic and immoral as it strikes me.

"Doing nothing" represents, in a very real sense, a theft.



The envirochondriacs of California have done something -- ruin their economy.





Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus A leading U.S. demographer and 'Truman Democrat' talks about what is driving the middle class out of the Golden State.

'California is God's best moment," says Joel Kotkin. "It's the best place in the world to live." Or at least it used to be.

Mr. Kotkin, one of the nation's premier demographers, left his native New York City in 1971 to enroll at the University of California, Berkeley. The state was a far-out paradise for hipsters who had grown up listening to the Mamas & the Papas' iconic "California Dreamin'" and the Beach Boys' "California Girls." But it also attracted young, ambitious people "who had a lot of dreams, wanted to build big companies." Think Intel, Apple and Hewlett-Packard.

Now, however, the Golden State's fastest-growing entity is government and its biggest product is red tape. The first thing that comes to many American minds when you mention California isn't Hollywood or tanned girls on a beach, but Greece. Many progressives in California take that as a compliment since Greeks are ostensibly happier. But as Mr. Kotkin notes, Californians are increasingly pursuing happiness elsewhere.

Nearly four million more people have left the Golden State in the last two decades than have come from other states. This is a sharp reversal from the 1980s, when 100,000 more Americans were settling in California each year than were leaving. According to Mr. Kotkin, most of those leaving are between the ages of 5 and 14 or 34 to 45. In other words, young families.

The scruffy-looking urban studies professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., has been studying and writing on demographic and geographic trends for 30 years. Part of California's dysfunction, he says, stems from state and local government restrictions on development. These policies have artificially limited housing supply and put a premium on real estate in coastal regions.

"Basically, if you don't own a piece of Facebook or Google and you haven't robbed a bank and don't have rich parents, then your chances of being able to buy a house or raise a family in the Bay Area or in most of coastal California is pretty weak," says Mr. Kotkin.

While many middle-class families have moved inland, those regions don't have the same allure or amenities as the coast. People might as well move to Nevada or Texas, where housing and everything else is cheaper and there's no income tax.

And things will only get worse in the coming years as Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and his green cadre implement their "smart growth" plans to cram the proletariat into high-density housing. "What I find reprehensible beyond belief is that the people pushing [high-density housing] themselves live in single-family homes and often drive very fancy cars, but want everyone else to live like my grandmother did in Brownsville in Brooklyn in the 1920s," Mr. Kotkin declares.

"The new regime"—his name for progressive apparatchiks who run California's government—"wants to destroy the essential reason why people move to California in order to protect their own lifestyles."

Housing is merely one front of what he calls the "progressive war on the middle class." Another is the cap-and-trade law AB32, which will raise the cost of energy and drive out manufacturing jobs without making even a dent in global carbon emissions. Then there are the renewable portfolio standards, which mandate that a third of the state's energy come from renewable sources like wind and the sun by 2020. California's electricity prices are already 50% higher than the national average.

Oh, and don't forget the $100 billion bullet train. Mr. Kotkin calls the runaway-cost train "classic California." "Where [Brown] with the state going bankrupt is even thinking about an expenditure like this is beyond comprehension. When the schools are falling apart, when the roads are falling apart, the bridges are unsafe, the state economy is in free fall. We're still doing much worse than the rest of the country, we've got this growing permanent welfare class, and high-speed rail is going to solve this?"

Mr. Kotkin describes himself as an old-fashioned Truman Democrat. In fact, he voted for Mr. Brown—who previously served as governor, secretary of state and attorney general—because he believed Mr. Brown "was interesting and thought outside the box."

But "Jerry's been a big disappointment," Mr. Kotkin says. "I've known Jerry for 35 years, and he's smart, but he just can't seem to be a paradigm breaker. And of course, it's because he really believes in this green stuff."

In the governor's dreams, green jobs will replace all of the "tangible jobs" that the state's losing in agriculture, manufacturing, warehousing and construction. But "green energy doesn't create enough energy!" Mr. Kotkin exclaims. "And it drives up the price of energy, which then drives out other things." Notwithstanding all of the subsidies the state lavishes on renewables, green jobs only make up about 2% of California's private-sector work force—no more than they do in Texas.

Of course, there are plenty of jobs to be had in energy, just not the type the new California regime wants. An estimated 25 billion barrels of oil are sitting untapped in the vast Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits. "You see the great tragedy of California is that we have all this oil and gas, we won't use it," Mr. Kotkin says. "We have the richest farm land in the world, and we're trying to strangle it." He's referring to how water restrictions aimed at protecting the delta smelt fish are endangering Central Valley farmers.

Meanwhile, taxes are harming the private economy. According to the Tax Foundation, California has the 48th-worst business tax climate. Its income tax is steeply progressive. Millionaires pay a top rate of 10.3%, the third-highest in the country. But middle-class workers—those who earn more than $48,000—pay a top rate of 9.3%, which is higher than what millionaires pay in 47 states.


And Democrats want to raise taxes even more. Mind you, the November ballot initiative that Mr. Brown is spearheading would primarily hit those whom Democrats call "millionaires" (i.e., people who make more than $250,000 a year). Some Republicans have warned that it will cause a millionaire march out of the state, but Mr. Kotkin says that "people who are at the very high end of the food chain, they're still going to be in Napa. They're still going to be in Silicon Valley. They're still going to be in West L.A."

That said, "It's really going to hit the small business owners and the young family that's trying to accumulate enough to raise a family, maybe send their kids to private school. It'll kick them in the teeth."

A worker in Wichita might not consider those earning $250,000 a year middle class, but "if you're a guy working for a Silicon Valley company and you're married and you're thinking about having your first kid, and your family makes 250-k a year, you can't buy a closet in the Bay Area," Mr. Kotkin says. "But for 250-k a year, you can live pretty damn well in Salt Lake City. And you might be able to send your kids to public schools and own a three-bedroom, four-bath house."

According to Mr. Kotkin, these upwardly mobile families are fleeing in droves. As a result, California is turning into a two-and-a-half-class society. On top are the "entrenched incumbents" who inherited their wealth or came to California early and made their money. Then there's a shrunken middle class of public employees and, miles below, a permanent welfare class. As it stands today, about 40% of Californians don't pay any income tax and a quarter are on Medicaid.

It's "a very scary political dynamic," he says. "One day somebody's going to put on the ballot, let's take every penny over $100,000 a year, and you'll get it through because there's no real restraint. What you've done by exempting people from paying taxes is that they feel no responsibility. That's certainly a big part of it.

And the welfare recipients, he emphasizes, "aren't leaving. Why would they? They get much better benefits in California or New York than if they go to Texas. In Texas the expectation is that people work."

California used to be more like Texas—a jobs magnet. What happened? For one, says the demographer, Californians are now voting more based on social issues and less on fiscal ones than they did when Ronald Reagan was governor 40 years ago. Environmentalists are also more powerful than they used to be. And Mr. Brown facilitated the public-union takeover of the statehouse by allowing state workers to collectively bargain during his first stint as governor in 1977.

Mr. Kotkin also notes that demographic changes are playing a role. As progressive policies drive out moderate and conservative members of the middle class, California's politics become even more left-wing. It's a classic case of natural selection, and increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending. In a nutshell, "the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees."

So if California's no longer the Golden land of opportunity for middle-class dreamers, what is?

Mr. Kotkin lists four "growth corridors": the Gulf Coast, the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, and the Southeast. All of these regions have lower costs of living, lower taxes, relatively relaxed regulatory environments, and critical natural resources such as oil and natural gas.

Take Salt Lake City. "Almost all of the major tech companies have moved stuff to Salt Lake City." That includes Twitter, Adobe, eBay and Oracle.

Then there's Texas, which is on a mission to steal California's tech hegemony. Apple just announced that it's building a $304 million campus and adding 3,600 jobs in Austin. Facebook established operations there last year, and eBay plans to add 1,000 new jobs there too.


Even Hollywood is doing more of its filming on the Gulf Coast. "New Orleans is supposedly going to pass New York as the second-largest film center. They have great incentives, and New Orleans is the best bargain for urban living in the United States. It's got great food, great music, and it's inexpensive."

What about the Midwest and the Rust Belt? Can they recover from their manufacturing losses?

"What those areas have is they've got a good work ethic," Mr. Kotkin says. "There's an established skill base for industry. They're very affordable, and they've got some nice places to live. Indianapolis has become a very nice city." He concedes that such places will have a hard time eclipsing California or Texas because they're not as well endowed by nature. But as the Golden State is proving, natural endowments do not guarantee permanent prosperity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That article talked about people not being able to afford housing and then concludes that its social and environmental issues driving thejob exodus. Talk about a knockoff of a partisan nonsequitor.

I sure that the CA food stamps program is just jacking up those housing prices in San Jose....

What are the relative tax rates in CA? To national averages?

[DarrinS]

'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change




By Ian Johnston, msnbc.com

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.

He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."

The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy, following his earlier works, “Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity,” and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can.”

The new book will discuss how humanity can change the way it acts in order to help regulate the Earth’s natural systems, performing a role similar to the harmonious one played by plants when they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.

Climate's 'usual tricks'
It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

In 2007, Time magazine named Lovelock as one of 13 leaders and visionaries in an article on “Heroes of the Environment,” which also included Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert Redford.

“Jim Lovelock has no university, no research institute, no students. His almost unparalleled influence in environmental science is based instead on a particular way of seeing things,” Oliver Morton, of the journal Nature wrote in Time. “Humble, stubborn, charming, visionary, proud and generous, his ideas about Gaia have started a change in the conception of biology that may serve as a vital complement to the revolution that brought us the structures of DNA and proteins and the genetic code.”

NYT: Most tie extreme weather to global warming, poll finds

Lovelock also won the U.K.’s Geological Society’s Wollaston Medal in 2006. In a posting on its website, the society said it was “rare to be able to say that the recipient has opened up a whole new field of Earth science study” – referring to the Gaia theory of the planet as single complex system.

However Lovelock, who works alone at his home in Devon, England, has fallen out with the green movement in the past, particularly after saying countries should build nuclear power stations to help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by coal and oil.

'Perfect recipe' for wildfires as season starts early

Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.” :lol

He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.

“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.

He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.

“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.

'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.

Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.

Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.

And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models.

However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models.

...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, Darrin, its difficult to tell whether you are a denier of the whole thing or just skeptical of the impacts as much as you vacillate between positions. I see that more of you being an intellectually lazy fuck that doesn't read what you post and a lack of accountability or responsibility in telling the truth. Minion.

[JoeChalupa]

I watched the entire "Frozen Planet" series on Discovery and it had some pretty interesting information regarding global warming and that at some time in the near future there will be parts of the Arctic Ocean that will not be frozen for the first time in recorded history.

[Wild Cobra]

I watched the entire "Frozen Planet" series on Discovery and it had some pretty interesting information regarding global warming and that at some time in the near future there will be parts of the Arctic Ocean that will not be frozen for the first time in recorded history.
I went to see if that was available on Netflix. Didn't find it. Oh well...

[RandomGuy]

Yes.

Now, which theory costs me the most money, right now?


Persistently high oil prices would clearly lead to substitution (electric cars, natural-gas-powered trucks) but the transition costs could be significant.

http://www.economist.com/node/21553034

As stated before, the cost in terms of present value is greater doing nothing.

This is a very clear, certain market trend.

You have asked the wrong question, and one that seems to me to be irrational.


At this point we have gotten to:

Yoni has doubts about the dangers of CO2, but admits he could be wrong.
RG has doubts about the economic catastrophe of limiting CO2, but hey, I could be wrong.

So we are left with the reasoning of this guy, yet again:

mF_anaVcCXg

We must choose which, if true, would be worse. The potential worst-case scenarios for AGW far exceed even the worst-case alarmism of people who claim limiting CO2 would send our economy into a tizzy.

Add in economic data that says we will be incurring some pretty substantial transition costs even if we do nothing, we will not be avoiding any of the bad aspects of limiting CO2.


Even if the world can find more oil—in the Arctic or tar sands, say—the longer-term question is whether the era of “cheap energy” is over and how the world can adjust if it is. Developed economies are built on easy access to cheap energy, importing goods that are transported from around the world, with consumers driving many miles to work in air-conditioned offices and then flying off to sunny climes for their annual holidays. Persistently high oil prices would clearly lead to substitution (electric cars, natural-gas-powered trucks) but the transition costs could be significant.

http://www.economist.com/node/21553034

This cost will be the same between scenarios. As such, it becomes logically irrelevant.

Do nothing, and you still will be limiting your CO2 emissions, WHATEVER effects that has.

The only logical solution I see is to prudently start mitigating your emissions now, while energy is cheaper, and the costs are lower.

[RandomGuy]

The "free-market" capitalism doesn't tend to think very long term, and focuses on short-term profits.

That may be all well and good for this quarters' shareholder dividend, but when it comes to finding solutions for long-term problems where costs down the road are looming, it is a piss-poor way to run a country, IMO.

[Wild Cobra]

Random.

There is no need to act now, especially if the rest of the world isn't on board, especially Asia. There isn't enough evidence to show that CO2 is a problem. We currently do not have the technology in large availability, especially at an affordable price.

The AGW community has made a mockery of the scientific process. They claim CO2 is the culprit, yet cannot rule out other causes for what see in climate change. There are also those studies that make the claim CO2 is far less a warming gas, and those that show at the levels it is in the atmosphere actually cools as well.

In science, if there really was good evidence, you would not have other scientists claiming the opposite.

[RandomGuy]

Random.

There is no need to act now, especially if the rest of the world isn't on board, especially Asia. There isn't enough evidence to show that CO2 is a problem. We currently do not have the technology in large availability, especially at an affordable price.

The AGW community has made a mockery of the scientific process. They claim CO2 is the culprit, yet cannot rule out other causes for what see in climate change. There are also those studies that make the claim CO2 is far less a warming gas, and those that show at the levels it is in the atmosphere actually cools as well.

In science, if there really was good evidence, you would not have other scientists claiming the opposite.

Logically irrelevant.

I have explained to you why it is logically irrelevent.

You have, illogically, claimed that you are right, and everybody else is wrong, to a degree of certainty that strains credulity, and certainly one to which no credible scientist will ever lay hands on.

Real scientists always admit for the possibility of error. You don't.

The logical problem is that if you do admit the possibility that you are wrong, you have to admit the possibility that the scientists are right.

You have then fully accepted the logic in that video.

So, either you are 100% without a doubt certain, and therefore not credible, or you have accepted that we must take action.

There are no logical alternatives.

Take your pick.

[boutons_deux]

"piss-poor way to run a country"

and since stock-price-driven UCA runs the country, the USA is run piss poor.

Ethanol industry now pushing the 10% ethanol "mandate" (a Repug mandate) to 15%.

In a huge reversal, more corn is turned into 200 proof moonshine than is fed to cows.

[Wild Cobra]

Logically irrelevant.

I have explained to you why it is logically irrelevent.

You have, illogically, claimed that you are right, and everybody else is wrong, to a degree of certainty that strains credulity, and certainly one to which no credible scientist will ever lay hands on.

That's not true. I have only stated that I know that AGW is not as severe as it is being claimed to be. I suspect CO2 is only around 10% of the claim. i do not set any specific levels, because I know I would not be able to.


Real scientists always admit for the possibility of error. You don't.

Example please.


The logical problem is that if you do admit the possibility that you are wrong, you have to admit the possibility that the scientists are right.

That's your biased assumption.


You have then fully accepted the logic in that video.

I don't know if that's the same one, or a new one. I know where they guy's coming from, and I think he did a good job before. I did not watch that video because of the length, and figured it's the same one one I already saw. If there is a relevant point you wish me to see, give me a time index. I have better things to do that waste 10 minutes of my day.


So, either you are 100% without a doubt certain, and therefore not credible, or you have accepted that we must take action.

There are no logical alternatives.

Take your pick.
Third option.

You're assuming out your ass.

[Wild Cobra]

"piss-poor way to run a country"

and since stock-price-driven UCA runs the country, the USA is run piss poor.

Ethanol industry now pushing the 10% ethanol "mandate" (a Repug mandate) to 15%.

In a huge reversal, more corn is turned into 200 proof moonshine than is fed to cows.
I think the ethanol as a fuel is stupid, but anything we do in that regard, all subsidies need to be removed.

If it's mandated, why worry about the cost? There's a captive market for it.

[RandomGuy]

That's not true. I have only stated that I know that AGW is not as severe as it is being claimed to be. I suspect CO2 is only around 10% of the claim. i do not set any specific levels, because I know I would not be able to.

So, you suspect the scientists are wrong, but cannot provide any alternate figures.

So you allow for the possibility that you are wrong.

Again, you are taking the first steps along the logical chain established by the guy in the funny hat, playing devils advocate.

That logical chain allows for decision making in the face of ambiguity. One does not have to be certain either way to make a decision about what to do.

Indeed, since we are in the testtube, the experiment runs no matteer what we think the value for CO2 is.

[Wild Cobra]

So, you suspect the scientists are wrong, but cannot provide any alternate figures.

So you allow for the possibility that you are wrong.

Again, you are taking the first steps along the logical chain established by the guy in the funny hat, playing devils advocate.

That logical chain allows for decision making in the face of ambiguity. One does not have to be certain either way to make a decision about what to do.

Indeed, since we are in the testtube, the experiment runs no matteer what we think the value for CO2 is.

No...

Read that again.

I know the warming caused by CO2 cannot be as much as the alarmists claim. I believe the alarmists claims about as much as I believe in pink unicorns. I can't help it that you believe in pink unicorns.

You continually disregard things I say that don't fit your biased opinion of me.

Must I repeat myself?

Yes... CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, it causes warming. That does not mean it is dangerous.

My God....

You are worried about a glass overflowing by adding a few drops. There are more serious reasons why the earth has been warming, and it isn't CO2.

Just because of the nature of solubility of a gas in water alone, if we were to some how, magically stop all man made CO2, the levels will not decrease back to pre 1800 levels. Warmer ocean equals more atmospheric CO2. Period. Proven known science. Unless you can somehow reduce the oceans temperature, CO2 levels will not decrease. The 0.18% solar increase since the 1700's is a tremendous amount of extra energy in the earth's energy budget.

[RandomGuy]

The logical problem is that if you do admit the possibility that you are wrong, you have to admit the possibility that the scientists are right.


That's your biased assumption.

If you are wrong, then the value for warming must be something other than what you think.

Within that realm of possibilities lies that of the scientists who are studying the problem.

What assumption have I made in making this statement, and what bias affected those assumptions and how?

Be specific.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you are wrong, then the value for warming must be something other than what you think.

Within that realm of possibilities lies that of the scientists who are studying the problem.

What assumption have I made in making this statement, and what bias affected those assumptions and how?

Be specific.

You can get to the heart of his stupidity by just asking him what he thinks the other 90% of warming comes from. Then prepare for a full discourse on soot.

[RandomGuy]

Just because of the nature of solubility of a gas in water alone, if we were to some how, magically stop all man made CO2, the levels will not decrease back to pre 1800 levels. Warmer ocean equals more atmospheric CO2. Period. Proven known science. Unless you can somehow reduce the oceans temperature, CO2 levels will not decrease. The 0.18% solar increase since the 1700's is a tremendous amount of extra energy in the earth's energy budget.

The people studying this didn't take any of this into account?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The people studying this didn't take any of this into account?

Ask him to post his solubility charts. You are just arguing the exact same things that he didn't respond ot the refutations last time. I seriously thinking about starting a WC's stupidity post so it can just be updated and linked whenever he repeats the same drivel.

[RandomGuy]

Yes... CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, it causes warming. That does not mean it is dangerous.


... and if it is?

[Wild Cobra]

... and if it is?
What if...

If we spend money on every "what if" we would run out of money so fast.

[Wild Cobra]

The people studying this didn't take any of this into account?
They hide it. Those who don't are ganged up against and ridiculed. Have you never considered a word I have said about it in past threads? Remember me point out the IPCC only considers "direct" solar forcing in their radiative forcing numbers? What about the "indirect" forcing? You see, they hide it in the increased CO2 forcing. They say all the increase if from greenhouse gasses. Remember this. Greenhouse gasses provide positive feedback from the direct solar heating of the surface. Increase this direct surface heating increases upward radiation which is then added to the energy that the greenhouse effect gets it's downward forcing from.

I have to leave in 2 minutes. This is my last post today. I suggest you stop dismissing things said if you wish to enlighten yourself.

[RandomGuy]

Ask him to post his solubility charts. You are just arguing the exact same things that he didn't respond ot the refutations last time. I seriously thinking about starting a WC's stupidity post so it can just be updated and linked whenever he repeats the same drivel.

I do not have to engage in any detailed discussion about solubility.

His position is illogical, and this can be demonstrated without detailed discussions.

Break things down to get at the underlying assumptions, examine them to see if they are logical, and if they are, they can be accepted, and should be.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch that way. You can't claim to be a logical person, then simply hand wave logical things because you don't like the conclusions one reaches using that logic.

Dismissing something as "biased" without being able to say how, is mere hand waving. That is the kind of thing that mouse does to evidence about "evolution", and simply makes the case of the OP.

Remember, I'm not here to prove/disprove AGW. I am here to prove the people who seem most skeptical are illogical.

Hand waving, obfuscation, strawmen, ignoring honest questions, and "you know they are lying" conspiracy theories are what I want. The fact that I can catch the scientists that sceptics like to hang their hat on doing arguably shitty science is a bonus.

[RandomGuy]

What if...

If we spend money on every "what if" we would run out of money so fast.

We are not talking about "every what if". False equivalence and rejected.

Answer the question.

What if CO2 ultimately proves to be more dangerous than you think it is?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He is still stuck in 2004. I read the astrophysics papers back then. I have a friend that at the time was an aide to a GOP senator that made sure to show them to me. They were quite compelling at the time and hardly ridiculed.

They have since been reviewed and measured and discounted and even the astrophysicists no longer make those claims but he is going to continue to claim it anyway.

I am surprised he made it that far tbqh with all the 70s technology that hes posted thinking that it was relevant.

[RandomGuy]

They hide it. Those who don't are ganged up against and ridiculed. Have you never considered a word I have said about it in past threads? Remember me point out the IPCC only considers "direct" solar forcing in their radiative forcing numbers? What about the "indirect" forcing? You see, they hide it in the increased CO2 forcing. They say all the increase if from greenhouse gasses. Remember this. Greenhouse gasses provide positive feedback from the direct solar heating of the surface. Increase this direct surface heating increases upward radiation which is then added to the energy that the greenhouse effect gets it's downward forcing from.

I have to leave in 2 minutes. This is my last post today. I suggest you stop dismissing things said if you wish to enlighten yourself.

"They hide it"

So they aren't ignoring it, they are hiding it.

Why would they hide it? What is their motivation, and what is your proof of this?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do not have to engage in any detailed discussion about solubility.

His position is illogical, and this can be demonstrated without detailed discussions.

Break things down to get at the underlying assumptions, examine them to see if they are logical, and if they are, they can be accepted, and should be.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch that way. You can't claim to be a logical person, then simply hand wave logical things because you don't like the conclusions one reaches using that logic.

Dismissing something as "biased" without being able to say how, is mere hand waving. That is the kind of thing that mouse does to evidence about "evolution", and simply makes the case of the OP.

Remember, I'm not here to prove/disprove AGW. I am here to prove the people who seem most skeptical are illogical.

Hand waving, obfuscation, strawmen, ignoring honest questions, and "you know they are lying" conspiracy theories are what I want. The fact that I can catch the scientists that sceptics like to hang their hat on doing arguably shitty science is a bonus.

Believe me i know man. The thing is after more than a year going around in circles with him I don't think you are going to get him to be intellectually honest.

You definitely do not need to get into a discussion of solubility with him but it goes a long way to how asinine his position is. He literally combines a solubility chart with napkin math and uses that to make claims on the behavior of the ocean to warming. He is very diligent in his use of scientific notation.

[RandomGuy]

I suggest you stop dismissing things said if you wish to enlighten yourself.

Do you realize how much like mouse you sound when you post things like this?


Scientist make sure only they're views are in the school books.

yes I have, sorry brah but your slow tonight and it may really take another page or two before your realize it.

I think your like a wounded camel in the desert and I am the Baking Sun burning your right through your paper thin theories like a new employee at Churches chicken burns the hash browns ......
to be honest I kinda feel guilty... like I should offer you a lifeline we all make mistakes.

I don't have to dismiss the things you say. I can accept that there exists a possibility that you are correct.

I must, however, weigh that against the possibility that you are wrong.

You might not admit that possibility, but I must consider it.

[RandomGuy]

Believe me i know man. The thing is after more than a year going around in circles with him I don't think you are going to get him to be intellectually honest.

You definitely do not need to get into a discussion of solubility with him but it goes a long way to how asinine his position is. He literally combines a solubility chart with napkin math and uses that to make claims on the behavior of the ocean to warming. He is very diligent in his use of scientific notation.

My first experience with him was dealing with a news article about the fact that the CBO had decided to include more comprehensive measures of the effects of air pollution in their calculations of the impact of legislation.

It boiled down to "the reporter made a mistake, and that proves they are too biased to be believed."

He hung his "biased media" claim on what amounted to a typo, then went on to obfuscate about the science of smog, when the underlying point was how reasonable it is to include avoided respitory desease and death in the benefits of anti-air pollution legislation.

Hung up on a technicality, unable to see the larger picture, and disingenuously trying to cover for the fact that the issue was ultimately an accounting one, not whether a reporter said "oxides" when she should have said "oxide".


If you want a nifty treat, scroll back to the part of this thread were we were talking about ice melting. I actually went so far as to email the scientist about it for feed back. That was neat.

[DarrinS]

Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn't Happen

67dcK5sjHsE


EDIT> They will probably need to update this list in 20 years to include AGW.

[RandomGuy]

Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn't Happen

EDIT> They will probably need to update this list in 20 years to include AGW.

"these other theories were wrong, so this one must be wrong" ???

I don't need any more of your flawed logic to prove the OP.

Why do you feel the need to post stupid shit like this?

[DarrinS]

"these other theories were wrong, so this one must be wrong" ???

I don't need any more of your flawed logic to prove the OP.

Why do you feel the need to post stupid shit like this?



Predictions of environmental catastrophe have a pretty shitty track record.





That logical chain allows for decision making in the face of ambiguity. One does not have to be certain either way to make a decision about what to do.



We don't have to be certain -- just way more certain than we are now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Predictions of environmental catastrophe have a pretty shitty track record.




We don't have to be certain -- just way more certain than we are now.

MiG has pointed out a whole bunch of predictions that actually came to pass. He normally does that when you make this same argument. I would say that hes probably done it 4 times or so this year alone.

Once again you repeat yourself after ignoring refutation for a week or so. It seems intellectual dishonesty is in your blood.

[RandomGuy]

Predictions of environmental catastrophe have a pretty shitty track record.


Predictions of men in heavier than air flying machines had a pretty shitty track record too.

Quit being a dumbass. The science gets better as time goes on.

[RandomGuy]

MiG has pointed out a whole bunch of predictions that actually came to pass. He normally does that when you make this same argument. I would say that hes probably done it 4 times or so this year alone.

Once again you repeat yourself after ignoring refutation for a week or so. It seems intellectual dishonesty is in your blood.

It is kind of like arguing with mouse.

No matter how many times you try to explain why his shit is wrong, he comes back to it constantly.

(shrugs)

It all boils down to a conspiracy theory. The people may be a bit different than in the 9-11 threads, but the shitty logic, bad science, and paranoia are right on target.

[boutons_deux]

The World's Insurers Brace For Climate Change -- Except In America

Given that insurers are likely to be among the first companies affected by climate change, you might expect the industry to be better prepared than most.

But that is not how it appears to many analysts, regulators, and industry representatives, who say insurers are showing a lack of urgency on the twin threats of massive future damage claims from weather-related events, and the prospect of growing climate change-related litigation.

A report published last September by Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of investors and environmental groups, puts it starkly. Surveying the disclosures of 88 U.S. insurance companies to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), it found that only 11 had formal climate change policies and that just 60 percent were assessing climate risks.

http://www.alternet.org/visions/155164/the_world%27s_insurers_brace_for_climate_change_--_except__in_america?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

[Wild Cobra]

Remember, I'm not here to prove/disprove AGW. I am here to prove the people who seem most skeptical are illogical.

You set your sights higher than you can achieve. Since you do not try to understand what is being said, you have failed. You are the illogical one. There are certain aspects of these sciences that have very solid foundations that are being ignored.

[Wild Cobra]

We are not talking about "every what if". False equivalence and rejected.

Answer the question.

What if CO2 ultimately proves to be more dangerous than you think it is?
It might be slightly more than i thing it is, but not as much as the alarmists say. that is an utter joke, and had no bases in good science to say that CO2 is as dangerous as they claim. It's just a bunch of hot air.

[Wild Cobra]

"They hide it"

So they aren't ignoring it, they are hiding it.

Why would they hide it? What is their motivation, and what is your proof of this?
I have explained this in the past. I explained it a few posts back. They are counting increased indirect solar components as being cause by CO2 rather than the sun.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you realize how much like mouse you sound when you post things like this?

Do you realize that is an uninformed dismissal of what I say, instead of attempting to understand what I say and disprove it rationally?

[Wild Cobra]

My first experience with him was dealing with a news article about the fact that the CBO had decided to include more comprehensive measures of the effects of air pollution in their calculations of the impact of legislation.

It boiled down to "the reporter made a mistake, and that proves they are too biased to be believed."

He hung his "biased media" claim on what amounted to a typo, then went on to obfuscate about the science of smog, when the underlying point was how reasonable it is to include avoided respitory desease and death in the benefits of anti-air pollution legislation.

Hung up on a technicality, unable to see the larger picture, and disingenuously trying to cover for the fact that the issue was ultimately an accounting one, not whether a reporter said "oxides" when she should have said "oxide".


If you want a nifty treat, scroll back to the part of this thread were we were talking about ice melting. I actually went so far as to email the scientist about it for feed back. That was neat.
You mean this thread, right:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92708)

I recall you being confused on that thread rather than me, but please... which post.

[RandomGuy]

You mean this thread, right:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92708)

I recall you being refused on that thread rather than me, but please... which post.

I am rarely refused about issues.

The last page of that thread pretty much sums it up.

"the scientists are wrong, the republicans were right, the reporter is biased, so I can dismiss everything that the people who dont' agree with me say".

GMAFB.

[RandomGuy]

Do you realize that is an uninformed dismissal of what I say, instead of attempting to understand what I say and disprove it rationally?

I realize reading comprehension isn't your strong point, but you seem to have confused an observation about the tenor of your arguments with a dismissal.

I don't, and won't, outright dimiss you because you are a hack. I will however, assign a commensurately smaller weight to your statements of fact or interpretations of science, if I am unable to fully evaluate them.

This is about weighing evidence and credibility. People with PhDs in relevant fields, who spend decades doing actual research are far more credible than you are.

If you don't like that, get out and get a PhD, and do actual research. I will be happy to assign your interpretations more weight at that time.

[RandomGuy]

They hide it"

So they aren't ignoring it, they are hiding it.

Why would they hide it? What is their motivation, and what is your proof of this?



I have explained this in the past. I explained it a few posts back. They are counting increased indirect solar components as being cause by CO2 rather than the sun.

I went back 5 pages. It isn't "a few posts back".

Quit being lazy and answer the question. I want it as clear as possible, so you can't provaricate, as you always do.

[RandomGuy]

Remember, I'm not here to prove/disprove AGW. I am here to prove the people who seem most skeptical are illogical.


You set your sights higher than you can achieve. Since you do not try to understand what is being said, you have failed. You are the illogical one. There are certain aspects of these sciences that have very solid foundations that are being ignored.

-----------------------------------------------------------


Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner


1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

-------------------------------------------------------


I quit bothering to keep track of the shitty science, and bad logic you and yours have presented here months back. I have proven what I set out to prove, sophist.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol WC always thinks the scientists are wrong in nearly every thread. Its amazing.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol WC always thinks the scientists are wrong in nearly every thread. Its amazing.

[Yonivore]

Remember, I'm not here to prove/disprove AGW. I am here to prove the people who seem most skeptical are illogical.
But, when compared to AGCC's most fervent proponents, even the most "illogical" skeptic can seem like a genius.

I give you Bill Whittle, for example...

rnEsI2fTaJo

[RandomGuy]

:lol WC always thinks the scientists are wrong in nearly every thread. Its amazing.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/the-dunning-kruger-effect-deniers-may-take-down-what-they-dont-understand-but-at-heart-they-are-curious/


The “Dunning-Kruger effect” is a form of cognitive bias which – put simply – states that unskilled people overestimate their own abilities. First published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999, the authors hypothesis is best summed up on Wikipedia:

1.Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4.If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

Read the link. It explains a lot, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

But, when compared to AGCC's most fervent proponents, even the most "illogical" skeptic can seem like a genius.

I give you Bill Whittle, for example...

rnEsI2fTaJo

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825841&postcount=3045

What do you think about the possibility of the price of oil doubling in the next decade?

I would point out the reason you don't want to lower CO2 emissions is that it will hurt our economy.

As I have pointed out in several places and times our economy will be hurt by higher oil prices anyway.

Since we will have to bear the costs of lowering CO2 either way, it then becomes removed from any professional cost analysis. The timeline for this rapid ahistorical run up in prices is now. The world has changed from the way things have always been.

You cannot, therefore, logically use it as a reason not to reduce CO2 now.

[Wild Cobra]

I am rarely refused about issues.

The last page of that thread pretty much sums it up.

"the scientists are wrong, the republicans were right, the reporter is biased, so I can dismiss everything that the people who dont' agree with me say".

GMAFB.
Remember how I kept saying you were confusing ozone and smog? I didn't trust the article, etc. There is a link within a link that does mix the smog into the ozone argument, and they are using the smog death statistics and calling it ozone. But you never noticed that.

Smog is not ozone, but ozone is a component of smog. You cannot take smog related statics of fatalities and say ozone is to blame.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825841&postcount=3045

What do you think about the possibility of the price of oil doubling in the next decade?

I would point out the reason you don't want to lower CO2 emissions is that it will hurt our economy.

As I have pointed out in several places and times our economy will be hurt by higher oil prices anyway.

Since we will have to bear the costs of lowering CO2 either way, it then becomes removed from any professional cost analysis. The timeline for this rapid ahistorical run up in prices is now. The world has changed from the way things have always been.

You cannot, therefore, logically use it as a reason not to reduce CO2 now.
You keep coming up with false arguments, forgetting some basic physics and chemistry. Again, if we immediately stopped CO2 releases, it would not make any significant change in CO2 levels. We don't have that much power over nature. You need to cool the oceans.

[Yonivore]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825841&postcount=3045

What do you think about the possibility of the price of oil doubling in the next decade?
I think there's a possibility it won't double.

Does that make the rest of your argument moot?

[DarrinS]

The “Dunning-Kruger effect” is a form of cognitive bias which – put simply – states that unskilled people overestimate their own abilities. First published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999, the authors hypothesis is best summed up on Wikipedia:

1.Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4.If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.





About the author of "Watching the Deniers" blog




I’m Mike, a 40+ year old living in Melbourne. I work as an information manager for a large professional services firm. I have no affiliations with any political parties, NGOs or activist groups. My politics could be best described as “centre left” or “centrist” (I’m pro-market, but supportive of liberal social policies).

This blog is my small contribution to trying to address the issue of climate change.

And no, I’m not a scientist. But I’ve worked as a researcher for private industry for years. It has been my job to evaluate the quality of information and pass that on to senior decision makers in industry.




Does this dude suffer from the dreaded “Dunning-Kruger effect”?



I suppose it is much easier to attack the character of people and discredit them than it is to address their ideas. (e.g. "denier", "racist", "Islamophobe", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam).


"Why I think Climate Change Denial is little moer than pseudo..." blah blah blah -- you get the idea.

[RandomGuy]

I think there's a possibility it won't double.

Does that make the rest of your argument moot?

Ok, I'll bite.

It does not.

How great is the possibility that it won't double, and on what do you base this thought?

[RandomGuy]

About the author of "Watching the Deniers" blog

Does this dude suffer from the dreaded “Dunning-Kruger effect”?
I suppose it is much easier to attack the character of people and discredit them than it is to address their ideas. (e.g. "denier", "racist", "Islamophobe", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam).
"Why I think Climate Change Denial is little moer than pseudo..." blah blah blah -- you get the idea.

Donning-Kruger effect is a paper on psychology that exists outside of any skeptic debunking site. Dismissing it, simply because it is on a website is another ad hominem logical fallacy.


"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."

If the above paragraph is generally true for incompetant people, what does it say that I can easily point out your repeated usage of logical fallacies, and that you continue to use them after they have been pointed out as logical fallacies?

[MannyIsGod]

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/the-dunning-kruger-effect-deniers-may-take-down-what-they-dont-understand-but-at-heart-they-are-curious/



Read the link. It explains a lot, IMO.

I posted a link to that effect a few pages back. WC came immediately to mind when I first saw it.

[RandomGuy]

It has been my job to evaluate the quality of information and pass that on to senior decision makers in industry.


About the author of "Watching the Deniers" blog

Does this dude suffer from the dreaded “Dunning-Kruger effect”?



Oddly enough, I would say that my job is roughly similar. I evaluate the quality of information, summarize that, and pass it along.

What does it say that both of us seem to think that skeptics are full of shit?

[DarrinS]

Donning-Kruger effect is a paper on psychology that exists outside of any skeptic debunking site. Dismissing it, simply because it is on a website is another ad hominem logical fallacy.



Your entire thread is based on an ad hominem attack on people you disagree with. For example -- see thread title.

:lmao

[DarrinS]

Unlike you, RG, I don't think people who believe in AGW are bad people. I just disagree with their pet theory.

[MannyIsGod]

Poor Darrin. I'm not sure how he makes it through this thread when all he wants to do is debate the science but everyone around him is just busy making character judgements. Keep up the good fight, Darrin!

[MannyIsGod]

Unlike you, RG, I don't think people who believe in AGW are bad people. I just disagree with their pet theory.

No but really, I'm glad you are just here to discuss the science. Its refreshing you don't make character judgements. :tu

[DarrinS]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/article/Research-shows-Texas-is-not-warming-3498409.php#ixzz1se4V0iO7

Research shows Texas is not warming




http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/12/65/63/2841810/7/628x471.jpg

In the early days of this column, concerned readers sent many questions about the earth's ozone layer, which I began measuring in 1990. Today, public interest in the ozone layer has been replaced by concern about global warming.

Answering questions about global warming requires considerably more space than this 437-word column. So let's focus in on the temperature history of Texas for now.

The 2011 Texas drought was exacerbated by the highest temperatures since 1895 during June, July and August. Several prominent climate scientists have blamed these record highs on global warming. These claims are puzzling because, in spite of the 2011 record highs, Texas records going back more than a century show slightly more cooling than warming. So I visited the National Climatic Data Center website to review Texas temperature records. The NCDC provides monthly temperature records for 10 Texas regions going back to 1895.

It also provides the average temperature for the entire state. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=1&year=2011&filter= 1&state=41&div=0)

I retrieved all 12 months of data for each year since 1895 and plotted the average annual temperatures on a chart along with their trend. As shown in the chart, the average temperature of Texas barely changed between 1895 and 2011. The total warming during those 116 years was a statistically insignificant 0.046 degree Fahrenheit. If the record highs of 2011 are omitted, Texas cooled 0.055 degree from 1895 to 2010.

The NCDC temperature data do not fully account for the enhanced warming of weather stations that have become surrounded by buildings and pavement. This is the heat island effect. Dr. Daniel Boice of the Southwest Research Foundation studied the temperature at New Braunfels and San Antonio from 1946 to 1990. (www.swri.org/3pubs/ttoday/fall97/heat.htm)

He found that San Antonio has warmed when compared with its smaller neighbor. San Antonio might be several degrees cooler today than in 1885 if no new buildings and roads had been constructed. Why do some scientists insist that Texas is warming when the data show a negligible increase? I don't know. But I do know that a National Science Foundation program officer told me that applications for atmospheric science grants that do not include a global warming theme stand little chance of acceptance.

Climate scientists are right to be concerned about droughts, especially since no Texas drought since precipitation records were begun around 1870 matches the megadroughts revealed in the rings of bald cypress trees. Those droughts occurred hundreds of years before SUVs and power plants began pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a process blamed for global warming that has not yet arrived in Texas.



Forrest Mims III, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was named one of the 50 Best Brains in Science by Discover Magazine. His science is featured at www.forrestmims.org. Email him at [email protected].

[DarrinS]

What do you do when your pet theory doesn't comport with reality?

Invent a new pet theory to explain why.


"Warming hole" delayed climate change over eastern United States

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/warming-hole-delayed-climate-change-over-eastern-united-states


http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/warming-hole-delayed-climate-change-over-eastern-united-states/image_mini





50-year model suggests regional pollution obscured a global trend

Cambridge, Mass. - April 26, 2012 - Climate scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have discovered that particulate pollution in the late 20th century created a "warming hole" over the eastern United States—that is, a cold patch where the effects of global warming were temporarily obscured.

...

[MannyIsGod]

Bravo, Darrin! I love how you tore apart that Harvard study based upon the science! Really, your scientific prowess is unmatched.

[Wild Cobra]

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/the-dunning-kruger-effect-deniers-may-take-down-what-they-dont-understand-but-at-heart-they-are-curious/



Read the link. It explains a lot, IMO.I posted a link to that effect a few pages back. WC came immediately to mind when I first saw it.
Yes, it explains people like the two of you well.

Keep this in mind a couple decades out when you are proved to be wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

About the author of "Watching the Deniers" blog




Does this dude suffer from the dreaded “Dunning-Kruger effect”?



I suppose it is much easier to attack the character of people and discredit them than it is to address their ideas. (e.g. "denier", "racist", "Islamophobe", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam).


"Why I think Climate Change Denial is little moer than pseudo..." blah blah blah -- you get the idea.

If only you would once take similar effort to evaluate your own sources when you post your mailers and blogs. Introspection is important.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your entire thread is based on an ad hominem attack on people you disagree with. For example -- see thread title.

:lmao

Pointing out logical fallacies is not ad hominem. Calling you out for logical consistency as a basis for argument is not ad hominem. Its called a refutation which you typically just ignore.

[Poptech]

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Thats nice they come to their own conclusions.
This is incorrect. The conclusions do not change, just the argument that the paper is used to support, which may not be an argument the author supports but is still valid.


Also that site certainly likes calling people communists. The Red Scare all over again. I really wish Buckley was still around. The right has gone back to the 1950s.

They also seem to enjoy accusing people of being communists. There 'write-up' on sourcewatch had the hammer and sickle emblazoned at the top.

And this observation is based on what? A single image? The site is not right-wing as I am a Libertarian. The information on Sourcewatch is accurate,

The Truth about SourceWatch (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html)

SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.


Whats interesting is that the people that run the site only use their first names and its unknown who they are or what they come from. It does not surprise me that you consider them credible considering your deceptive nature. I found it interesting that they criticized wikipedia for lack of transparency.
It is irrelevant if you consider the editors credible as they did not write the papers. The authors of the papers however are credentialed. Wikipedia is criticized not for a lack of transparency but for the fact that the information on it cannot be trusted due to it's flawed design.


http://www.needlebase.com/blog/217-agw-skepticism
That really does not tell you anything relevant. As the game six degrees of Kevin Bacon is not relevant in the climate science community due to it's small size.


and this where they talk about the papers on the list many of which were refuted in the peer review process.
This is incorrect, if they were refuted in the peer-review process they would have failed peer-review and not of been published.


http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/
This has been completely refuted,

Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers" (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3595)

Greenfyre's rambling blog post of lies is something alarmists find when they desperately Google for anything to discredit the list. They ignorantly believe that because a criticism is posted online it must be true. As demonstrated below, absolutely nothing in his post is factually accurate. Many of these corrections to his nonsense were made in the comment section to his blog post but Greenfyre dishonestly refused to make any corrections. Instead he hopes people will reject the list based on his propaganda.

About the author:

The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)

Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.

All of these rebuttals are included on the list.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The 'truth' about sourcewatch is from the same blog. it is unsubstantiated. Even wikipedia does a better job citing where they get their material from.

I have a nice idea. How about I get some web-hosting and start blogging about how the members of Poptech are known facists that like the little Hitler mustaches and reenact Hitler's speeches.

As for your 'picture.' It was what? Two paragraphs and a huge picture of the hammer and sickle. So what may be 400 words? Do I really need to quote the cliche?

Your 'truths' are ad hominem. Its the same thing that i was referencing about Buckley. Your red scare may play with the rednecks and those who replace reason with faith but it rings hollow here.

I read the first few lines of your 'refutation' but at the moment I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all of that. I found it interesting that you invoked the Holocaust right off the bat though. Not so much that you have somewhat of a point but rather in context to your scaremongering of the red menace.

It tells me that you are very aware of who your audience and you would rather be a demagogue than a man of reason. The entire notion of the list is straight up intellectual laziness or rather the appeal to others to resort to intellectual laziness.

Here is a list of things that you know most of your readers will never read beyond your post. Knowing this instead of trying to make anything resembling an argument or synthesis of what it all 'means' you label them as the gross generalization 'anti-AGW' and call it a day.

You even admit that many of the authors themselves do not conclude that in their works. But hey you have your label. I don't really care what you call yourself.

As for the 6-degrees argument. Please explain to me why over a fifth of the 'skeptic' papers were written by two guys. that what precipitated the idea of expanding it beyond ONE degree of separation because one looked so limited in diversity.

But hey lets ignore the original premise of the blog. Instead lets just go with a blanket dismissal and claims of relative size and call them Communists too.

Its transparent. But thanks for stopping by.

[Poptech]

The 'truth' about sourcewatch is from the same blog. it is unsubstantiated. Even wikipedia does a better job citing where they get their material from.
The material is fully cited to two sources. Did you not actually scroll down?


I have a nice idea. How about I get some web-hosting and start blogging about how the members of Poptech are known facists that like the little Hitler mustaches and reenact Hitler's speeches.
Except Hitler is not mentioned anywhere on the page nor implied. Libertarian positions are the exact opposite of fascist ones.


As for your 'picture.' It was what? Two paragraphs and a huge picture of the hammer and sickle. So what may be 400 words? Do I really need to quote the cliche?

Your 'truths' are ad hominem. Its the same thing that i was referencing about Buckley. Your red scare may play with the rednecks and those who replace reason with faith but it rings hollow here.
No it is a fact that Sourcewatch is edited by ordinary web users and funded by the Center for Media and Democracy. The positions taken by the Center for Media and Democracy can accurately be classified as "extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate". Anti-capitalists can accurately be referred to as communists, thus the image. Your feelings about these facts does not change them. It is also a fact that they frequently fail to cite reputable news sources for their criticisms since they rarely exist.


I read the first few lines of your 'refutation' but at the moment I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all of that. I found it interesting that you invoked the Holocaust right off the bat though. Not so much that you have somewhat of a point but rather in context to your scaremongering of the red menace.
The rebuttal is very thorough so it also properly addresses the Ad hominem attacks made against the list. Your laziness in failing to read further is not of my concern. This does not change the facts that all his lies, misinformation and strawman arguments are fully refuted.


It tells me that you are very aware of who your audience and you would rather be a demagogue than a man of reason. The entire notion of the list is straight up intellectual laziness or rather the appeal to others to resort to intellectual laziness.
That is just absurd. The entire notion of the list is as a resource for skeptics. If you are such a man of reason, answer one simple question,

Are Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers counted on the list? Greenfyre claims they are.

This is just one of many things I irrefutably demonstrate he is wrong about.


Here is a list of things that you know most of your readers will never read beyond your post. Knowing this instead of trying to make anything resembling an argument or synthesis of what it all 'means' you label them as the gross generalization 'anti-AGW' and call it a day.
This is a strawman argument. The list is explicitly titled: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm not "anti-AGW". The purpose of the list 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


You even admit that many of the authors themselves do not conclude that in their works. But hey you have your label. I don't really care what you call yourself.
You seem really confused by basic logic. Harold Brooks for instance believes in ACC/AGW yet his papers can be used to support skeptic arguments that tornadoes or damage from tornadoes are not getting worse due to ACC/AGW. The disclaimer is there for authors like him who mistakenly state why their papers are listed. His papers clearly support this argument. The ACC/AGW debate can be very nuanced and is not always so black and white, just like skeptic arguments against Alarm.


As for the 6-degrees argument. Please explain to me why over a fifth of the 'skeptic' papers were written by two guys. that what precipitated the idea of expanding it beyond ONE degree of separation because one looked so limited in diversity.
What are you talking about? Over 180 of the papers on the list were not written by two authors, what kind of poor math is this? The needlebase site explicitly states "Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso". It is the same flawed argument and irrelevant to the authors being credentialed and their papers being peer-reviewed.

I suggest doing better research next time.

[RandomGuy]

Your entire thread is based on an ad hominem attack on people you disagree with. For example -- see thread title.

:lmao


Dunning-Kruger as a Vicious Cycle

Dunning and Kruger often refer to a "double curse" when interpreting their findings: People fail to grasp their own incompetence, precisely because they are so incompetent. And since, overcoming their incompetence would first require the ability to distinguish competence form incompetence people get stuck in a vicious cycle.

"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."

[RandomGuy]

This is a strawman argument. The list is explicitly titled: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm not "anti-AGW". The purpose of the list 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

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%

[RandomGuy]

I suggest doing better research next time.

List on Poptech.
Let's take the first sample:


Ocean Acidification:

Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase the growth of a keystone echinoderm
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Issue 23, pp. 9316-9321, June 2009)
- Rebecca A. Gooding et al.

"Our findings demonstrate that increased [CO2] will not have direct negative effects on all marine invertebrates,"

This study is used to show how increased levels of CO2 "won't be that bad".

Unfortunately, the animals studied don't form the basis of the aquatic food chain. The damage from ocean acidification comes from killing off plankton species, and coral not starfish.

Disinenguous use of science #1

[RandomGuy]

Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification
(Geology, Volume 37, Number 12, pp. 1131-1134, December 2009)
- Justin B. Ries et




We show that 10 of the 18 species studied exhibited reduced rates of net calcification and, in some cases, net dissolution under elevated pCO2. However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all.

So only 10 of 18 species studied actually were harmed. Nothing to worry about, right?

Seriously? that is supposed to be less alarming?

It is about what one would expect in a complex ecosystem. Ask any good biologist if losing 50% of an ecosystems divsersity is not going to harm things.

[RandomGuy]

Permafrost:

Ancient Permafrost and a Future, Warmer Arctic
(Science, Volume 321, Number 5896, pp. 1648, September 2008)
- Duane G. Froese, John A. Westgate, Alberto V. Reyes, Randolph J. Enkin, Shari J. Preece

"We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation."

More cherry picking. "look the permafrost in this one area is really old, nad has survived past warm spells" with the implication "artic permafrost won't go away if it gets warm"


Climate models predict extensive and severe degradation of permafrost in response to global warming, with a potential for release of large volumes of stored carbon. However, the accuracy of these models is difficult to evaluate because little is known of the history of permafrost and its response to past warm intervals of climate. We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation.

Again, not quite the smoking gun that poptech seems to want to make it out to be.

Seems to be a pretty definite pattern.

Scientists are saying "this is complex and requires more information"

The deniers running Poptechs website have cherry picked papers to make their case, at the expense of all the rest of the science that doesn't.

I guess if you want a thin fig leaf of credibility for a pseudoscientific political movement, that will suffice.

If you want reality, or a more fair view of the science involved, not so much.

[Poptech]

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%
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.

[Poptech]

List on Poptech.
Let's take the first sample:
First sample? That is skipping over hundreds of papers so you can cherry pick the list.


This study is used to show how increased levels of CO2 "won't be that bad".

Unfortunately, the animals studied don't form the basis of the aquatic food chain. The damage from ocean acidification comes from killing off plankton species, and coral not starfish.

Disinenguous use of science #1
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.


So only 10 of 18 species studied actually were harmed. Nothing to worry about, right?

Seriously? that is supposed to be less alarming?

It is about what one would expect in a complex ecosystem. Ask any good biologist if losing 50% of an ecosystems divsersity is not going to harm things.
Now you are exaggerating, they never stated they were "lost" but this is irrelevant to the main point of the paper,

"However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all. These varied responses may reflect differences amongst organisms in their ability to regulate pH at the site of calcification, in the extent to which their outer shell layer is protected by an organic covering, in the solubility of their shell or skeletal mineral, and in the extent to which they utilize photosynthesis. Whatever the specific mechanism(s) involved, our results suggest that the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO2 on marine calcification is more varied than previously thought."

Contrary to alarmist claims increased CO2 is not necessarily harmful to marine life.


More cherry picking. "look the permafrost in this one area is really old, nad has survived past warm spells" with the implication "artic permafrost won't go away if it gets warm"

Again, not quite the smoking gun that poptech seems to want to make it out to be.
It is a strawman argument that any of the papers are claimed to be "smoking guns" as you will not find this term used anywhere on the list.

That paper clearly provides evidence of permafrost that survived for over 700,000 years during a longer and warmer climate. This clearly supports skeptic arguments for a reduction in alarmist claims to the potentional extent of permafrost melting.


Seems to be a pretty definite pattern.

Scientists are saying "this is complex and requires more information"

The deniers running Poptechs website have cherry picked papers to make their case, at the expense of all the rest of the science that doesn't.

I guess if you want a thin fig leaf of credibility for a pseudoscientific political movement, that will suffice.

If you want reality, or a more fair view of the science involved, not so much.
It would be dishonest to include peer-reviewed papers that did not support skeptic arguments on a list explicitly titled this, thus the papers cannot be "cherry picked".

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.

Yes if you want real peer-reviewed science to support skeptic arguments you use real peer-reviewed science.

What is considered "fair" is subjective.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The material is fully cited to three sources. Did you not actually scroll down?


Except Hitler is not mentioned anywhere on the page nor implied. Libertarian positions are the exact opposite of fascist ones.


No it is a fact that Sourcewatch is edited by ordinary web users and funded by the Center for Media and Democracy. The positions taken by the Center for Media and Democracy can accurately be classified as "extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate". Anti-capitalists can accurately be referred to as communists, thus the image. Your feelings about these facts does not change them. It is also a fact that they frequently fail to cite reputable news sources for their criticisms since they rarely exist.


The rebuttal is very thorough so it also properly addresses the Ad hominem attacks made against the list. Your laziness in failing to read further is not of my concern. This does not change the facts that all his lies, misinformation and strawman arguments are fully refuted.


That is just absurd. The entire notion of the list is as a resource for skeptics. If you are such a man of reason, answer one simple question,

Are Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers counted on the list? Greenfyre claims they are.

This is just one of many things I irrefutably demonstrate he is wrong about.


This is a strawman argument. The list is explicitly titled: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm not "anti-AGW". The purpose of the list 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


You seem really confused by basic logic. Harold Brooks for instance believes in ACC/AGW yet his papers can be used to support skeptic arguments that tornadoes or damage from tornadoes are not getting worse due to ACC/AGW. The disclaimer is there for authors like him who mistakenly state whey their papers are listed. His papers clearly support this argument. The ACC/AGW debate can be very nuanced and is not always so black and white, just like skeptic arguments against Alarm.


What are you talking about? Over 180 of the papers on the list were not written by two authors, what kind of poor math is this? The needlebase site explicitly states "Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso". It is the same flawed argument and irrelevant to the authors being credentialed and their papers being peer-reviewed.

I suggest doing better research next time.

Its funny that you hold sourcewatch accountable because they supposedly never use third party sources then use two source that you claim to be three that do exactly the same thing. Which is it going to be? Posting other blogs that claim what your blog says is fun and all but its tantamount to a circle jerk. If you are going to take sourcewatch to task for lacking independent verification the very least you could do is the same yourself.

As for the picture. Way to dissemble. Anyone can play the facist/communist ad hominem tactic. That was my point. If you want to sit there and justify name-calling and putting up gratuitous pictures so you can play as a demagogue then go right ahead. Its not like its an even remotely new tactic. The 'conservative' movement in the US misses Mr. Buckley so much.


At the end of this process, though, I could at least start to have Needle give us some more-definite answers. Needle can do a lot of interesting analytical things, but pretty much all analysis begins with counting. Christian thought the top 10 authors contributed 186 of the papers. Needle's query now shows 200. Christian discovered that #3 author Bruce Kimball's 28 papers were all co-authored with #1 author Sherwood Idso. I saw so many connections that I had Needle calculate a Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso rating, which shows that 308 of these papers can be connected to Idso through just co-authorship of things listed here.

10 authors did 200 of them. Your right my math was off. So TEN people contributed to over 20% of the papers at that time. That is zero degrees of separation. 10 guys and over 20% of the total. i would suggest you read needlebase before making claims entirely off of the title as if that was the totality of each step of the approach.

You don't even deny that its a small cohesive group that is writing your papers but that the overall comunity is small. You fail to even quantify that.

As for the last all I have to say is:

:lol resource.

A resource doesn't assume the argument. Youre indoctrinating. that much is transparent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Holocaust!! Communist!! Look at me!! Get outraged!!! Holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!

[Wild Cobra]

List on Poptech.
Let's take the first sample:



This study is used to show how increased levels of CO2 "won't be that bad".

Unfortunately, the animals studied don't form the basis of the aquatic food chain. The damage from ocean acidification comes from killing off plankton species, and coral not starfish.

Disinenguous use of science #1
You clearly missed the point. That doesn't surprise me and I don't expect I can enlighten you either.

[MannyIsGod]

That paper clearly provides evidence of permafrost that survived for over 700,000 years during a longer and warmer climate. This clearly supports skeptic arguments for a reduction in alarmist claims to the potentional extent of permafrost melting.


.

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?

[MannyIsGod]

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?

[Wild Cobra]

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?
Why are you asking for a standard you don't get from the alarmists?

[Winehole23]

Why are you using the allegedly low standards of your adversaries as an excuse not to do any better?

[Wild Cobra]

Why are you using the allegedly low standards of your adversaries as an excuse not to do any better?
Me?

or Manny...

I was basically asking him that, but in different words. I didn't say it was acceptable.

You are missing a point also I think. Care to guess what I mean? I'd like to see if Random can figure it out, but I think it's over his head. Besides, my post to him can't be more than several minutes old right now. I'd like to see what he has to say.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Me?

or Manny...

I was basically asking him that, but in different words. I didn't say it was acceptable.

You are missing a point also I think. Care to guess what I mean? I'd like to see if Random can figure it out, but I think it's over his head. Besides, my post to him can't be more than several minutes old right now. I'd like to see what he has to say.

You hes calling you a hypocrite. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out but subtlety is typically lost on you.

[Wild Cobra]

Cl4Pz1mwBao

[Wild Cobra]

Only read a little bit so far, but this looks interesting:

INFERENCE OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE VARIABILITY FROM TERRESTRIAL TEMPERATURE
CHANGES, 1880 - 1993 (http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/472/2/891/pdf/0004-637X_472_2_891.pdf)

Part of summary:

Optimized cases imply total irradiance changes during 1880 - 1993 in the range
0.18% - 0.77%.
I've used 0.18% for 1750 to 2004, since I've been comfortable with that as a conservative estimate. 0.77% though.... Wow...

I don't think it would be more than 0.24% though.

[Poptech]

Its funny that you hold sourcewatch accountable because they supposedly never use third party sources then use two source that you claim to be three that do exactly the same thing. Which is it going to be? Posting other blogs that claim what your blog says is fun and all but its tantamount to a circle jerk. If you are going to take sourcewatch to task for lacking independent verification the very least you could do is the same yourself.
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.


As for the picture. Way to dissemble. Anyone can play the facist/communist ad hominem tactic. That was my point. If you want to sit there and justify name-calling and putting up gratuitous pictures so you can play as a demagogue then go right ahead. Its not like its an even remotely new tactic. The 'conservative' movement in the US misses Mr. Buckley so much.
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.


10 authors did 200 of them. Your right my math was off. So TEN people contributed to over 20% of the papers at that time. That is zero degrees of separation. 10 guys and over 20% of the total. i would suggest you read needlebase before making claims entirely off of the title as if that was the totality of each step of the approach.
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?


You don't even deny that its a small cohesive group that is writing your papers but that the overall comunity is small. You fail to even quantify that.
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.


:lol resource.

A resource doesn't assume the argument. Youre indoctrinating. that much is transparent.
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?

[Poptech]

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]

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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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?

:lol

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?

:lol at you meaning links

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

:lol 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 fuck 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.

[RandomGuy]

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]

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.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[RandomGuy]

...

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]

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]

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]

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?

[MannyIsGod]

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.

[Poptech]

:lol

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?


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


:lol 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.


:lol 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 substituted for analysis or to make a point.


Intentionally stating lies? Go fuck 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.

[Poptech]

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]

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]

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? (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.htm) (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science)

[Poptech]

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]

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.

[RandomGuy]

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/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.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.

[Poptech]

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.

[RandomGuy]

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. :toast

[MannyIsGod]

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.

[RandomGuy]

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]

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.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

[RandomGuy]

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 .

[Poptech]

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]

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. :toast
You do not consider correcting misinformation important?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5838121&postcount=3146

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]

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]

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]

You do not consider correcting misinformation important?

I do consider correcting misinformation important.

[RandomGuy]

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]

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.

[Poptech]

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 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEFDB1731F937A15753C1A9669C8B 63) (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.

[Poptech]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

[Wild Cobra]

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]

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?

[MannyIsGod]

More information regarding the effect of ENSO on global temps:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/


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

[MannyIsGod]

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.

[Wild Cobra]

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]

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]

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]

So when you cannot win the argument you resort to lying?
That's the status quo here. RG, Manny, Fuzzy, ElNono, etc. etc. etc.

[Poptech]

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.
Yes you are being dishonest and continue to. The list is not out of context because all of the papers on it relate to the subject of the list, "Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm".

However, using your logic every page on the Internet about climate change that does not include all the papers on my list is "out of context".


Why not make a more comprehensive list?
This is being done as the list attempts to be a comprehensive resource of, "Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm".


The question I posed: [...] 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.
Nothing has been dodged, as you are making a strawman argument in relation to the purpose of the list. Actually it is not easy to compile all of these papers as quite a bit of research was required and is on going. "Value" is subjective but the list is very valuable for skeptics. The list provides a very wide view of papers that support skeptic arguments.


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.
Actually when you search a database you will simply get all of the results that include the terms used in your search. These terms can be found in papers that have nothing to do with climate change, are not scientific or even peer-reviewed. No database is comprehensive of the entire scientific literature either.

Since you clearly do not have an agenda I look forward to you making sure any discussion of the peer-reviewed literature on climate change in the future includes these papers.

I am glad to see skeptic's like Darrin referencing the peer-reviewed literature to support his arguments.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Reads what?


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?


I fully aware your analogy does not apply to your argument. Speech from whom?


Yes I meant links, this has been acknowledged.


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.


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.


It is an irrefutable fact that two sources are provided. Are you denying this fact?


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 substituted for analysis or to make a point.


You have stated lies about my intentions. I ask that you do not continue to misrepresent my position.


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.

I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that you are resorting to ad hominem and discrediting the site on a basis of no third party confirmation when all you have is some random .org. That designation does not even require a corp filed as a nonprofit with the state.

The term blog was meant to simply indicate that it was a random website. This is not the National Review, New Republic, Washington Times, Economist or any other legitimate website. It was a random location that states in their about us that they are watchdogs of the 'left.'

Its quite ironic that a website that claims that it is watching the left is accusing someone of watching the right. The articles you posted are just smears that point to no specific individuals actions or anything. Its just a nice vague smear that you were more than happy to latch onto with your confirmation bias.

Do I need to get a .org domain to make my point?

Dear god you are evasive. The analogy was that you wrote two paragraphs and the size of the picture was about the same size as those two paragraphs. A picture is worth a thousand words: you get it yet? And lol analysis. Lets do this: how about you quote the part of that 'article' that you consider analysis.

Irrefutable fact? Spare me. Psoturing in place of analysis, bravo. Ad hominem and hypocrisy seems to be the popwatch motto.

As for the 'six degrees' thing: I am not going to even address your attempt to move the goalposts. 10 authors were responsible for 1/5th of the links on your blog. That is no degree of separation. It points to a lack of diversity of opinion in your list. What seems to be a large body of work by a wide range of people is not.

You can continue to try and label me whatever ad hominem over my mistake that you like.

Further a member here that actually studies climatology estimated that there were about 200k total papers on the subject of climate. You once again resorted to specious arguments assuming how he formed the basis of the figure and as you typically do, a blanket dismissal.

Its been quite amusing watching the 'skeptic' movement evolve. Now that its been proven that it is actually warming, now you have moved onto trying to mitigate the impact of said warming. Its funny how the 'skeptic' position always seems to fall in line with what helps the energy industry's bottom line.

As for you intentions, that is besides the point. I am more interested in what it does. The lay person that would view your blog is going to be the likes of Darrin. Most people are at best intellectually lazy.

Take WC, here. Have you had the privilege of reading about him trying to describe the behavior of all the oceans of the world with a solubility chart? Whether or not you intend it for use by legitimate scientists and intellectuals is besides the point. the point is that it is misleading to the layman as all it does is present one side of the argument and tries to do so in 'grandiose' terms: LOOKIE HERE NINE HUNDRED PAPERS THAT SHOW AGW IS FALSE!!!

i will ask you the same thing that MiG asked: why not even an attempt to make a more comprehensive list.

in·doc·tri·na·tion
  [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn]
noun
the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:

[Yonivore]

Holy Conundrum, Batman!

Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html)

[RandomGuy]

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.

Once again, I did not ask you about whether you think it is relevant to something.

My question was simple, and made no reference to whether you think something is refutable or not.

I asked a question simply, and plainly. Twice.

I will ask a third time. Then I will simply have to assume the answer is yes, if you cannot, or will not answer it.

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

[RandomGuy]

Define context and provide a source available on the Internet for the definition.


...for an argumentum ad populum.


If you are interested in an argumentum ad populum.
(edit) Since you ask for a definition:
Context:
2. the conditions and circumstances that are relevant to an event, fact, etc.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/context

That seems about as good as any other.
(end edit)


Again with broken record.

It is not an argumentum ad populum.

Since you want to go here, let's go there. I will ask a series of direct questions, and construct a logical argument, based on your responses.

If you fail to answer any direct question, we must assume that the answer is the one that does not support your charge. The principles of intellectual honesty require direct answers. Remember, you have made a positive claim. It is your burden of proof. The default position is to reject it, as any good skeptic would know.


Yes or no, are people who earn PhD's in a subject more knowledgeable about that subject that people who do not study it?

[RandomGuy]

That's the status quo here. RG, Manny, Fuzzy, ElNono, etc. etc. etc.

Show me where I have lied. I am very committed to not doing so.

There is a vast gulf between a difference of opinion, and falsehood.

[RandomGuy]

It's not flawed logic just because you don't understand it.

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

I understand you and Darrin's "arguments" all to well. That is your problem.

Please do not insult my intelligence.

[DarrinS]

I understand you and Darrin's "arguments" all to well. That is your problem.

Please do not insult my intelligence.



.

[RandomGuy]

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.

To be clear:

No, it does not.

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument.

This, of course, sets aside the irony of someone working hard to populate a list of " 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" accusing someone else of "counting evidence. That is a little funny.

I will ask you the same question then.

Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?

[RandomGuy]

.

The problem is that was not your argument.

The shit that gets you the merit badge for stupidity, is when you attempt to support that with ad hominems accusing people of lying, or having a motive to lie without addressing underlying claims. That may sound harsh, but you keep repeating these ad hominems even after being clearly shown that they are flawed logic. That is just stupid.

[DarrinS]

The problem is that was not your argument.

The shit that gets you the merit badge for stupidity, is when you attempt to support that with ad hominems accusing people of lying, or having a motive to lie without addressing underlying claims. That may sound harsh, but you keep repeating these ad hominems even after being clearly shown that they are flawed logic. That is just stupid.


I had misread your post that I was resonding to and redacted my post with a ".". Settle down there Sparky.

[DarrinS]

To be clear:

No, it does not.

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument.

This, of course, sets aside the irony of someone working hard to populate a list of " 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" accusing someone else of "counting evidence. That is a little funny.

I will ask you the same question then.

Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?


Perhaps not, but it does destroy this claim from your OP.




Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

[DarrinS]

Have to admit, I have enjoyed the last few pages of this thread.

:corn:

[RandomGuy]

Perhaps not, but it does destroy this claim from your OP.

(facepalm)

No it does not. No offense, but I think you are going to be a bit over your head here. You might want to stop.

[RandomGuy]

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 again.

Either it is possible, or it is not.

Quibbling over semantics is evasive. Is that your intention?

Please answer the question. If you like, provide definitions that you feel appropriate. The question hinges on overall principles, and is directly relevant to how much that paper supports what you call "skeptical" arguments.

[Poptech]

I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that you are resorting to ad hominem and discrediting the site on a basis of no third party confirmation when all you have is some random .org. That designation does not even require a corp filed as a nonprofit with the state.
The third party sources used are Discover the Networks and ActivistCash both are legitimate sites. Discover the Networks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gghYKKwkWz4) is run by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. ActivistCash is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgNFsnqNsB8). Both are legitimate websites and neither are blogs.


The term blog was meant to simply indicate that it was a random website. This is not the National Review, New Republic, Washington Times, Economist or any other legitimate website. It was a random location that states in their about us that they are watchdogs of the 'left.'
That is an improper use of the term. The word "blog (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/blog.html)" is defined as, "Short for Web log, a blog is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author." Neither website fits this description.


Its quite ironic that a website that claims that it is watching the left is accusing someone of watching the right. The articles you posted are just smears that point to no specific individuals actions or anything. Its just a nice vague smear that you were more than happy to latch onto with your confirmation bias.
It is not a smear that Sourcewatch is written and edited by ordinary web users and is funded by the Center for Media and Democracy which holds extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate views. The village voice is hardly a conservative publication and they explicitly stated this about Sourcewatch's founders,

"These guys come from the far side of liberal. (http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-04-10/books/the-flack-catchers/1/)" - VillageVoice, 2001


Dear god you are evasive. The analogy was that you wrote two paragraphs and the size of the picture was about the same size as those two paragraphs. A picture is worth a thousand words: you get it yet? And lol analysis. Lets do this: how about you quote the part of that 'article' that you consider analysis.
The picture size and paragraph size is pure coincidence as I attempt to use roughly the same image size with all articles. You are confusing the shortened article snippet for the main page with the actual length of the article that includes extensive quotes from the two sources. That paragraph is a concise summary of my analysis, feel free to read the three provided links for more detailed information.


Irrefutable fact? Spare me. Psoturing in place of analysis, bravo. Ad hominem and hypocrisy seems to be the popwatch motto.
All articles are fully cited and sourced, there is no posturing, ad hominem or hypocrisy.


As for the 'six degrees' thing: I am not going to even address your attempt to move the goalposts. 10 authors were responsible for 1/5th of the links on your blog. That is no degree of separation. It points to a lack of diversity of opinion in your list. What seems to be a large body of work by a wide range of people is not.
No goal posts have been moved. There is nothing revealing about ten of the most prolific scientists listed having roughly 20 papers on the list when their entire publishing history is much larger than this. Your pop-culture Kevin Bacon game has no bearing on their credentials or the scientific validity of their work. Your counting exercise is not even an argument in relation to your pop-culture Kevin Bacon game of "degrees of separation". It is a strawman argument that the list is presenting your subjective criteria of a "diversity of opinion", "by a wide range of people". It is an irrefutable fact that the over 900 peer-reviewed papers on the list were written by over 350 unique authors.


Further a member here that actually studies climatology estimated that there were about 200k total papers on the subject of climate. You once again resorted to specious arguments assuming how he formed the basis of the figure and as you typically do, a blanket dismissal.
That was a total bullshit claim that cannot be verified. He most likely attempted to use Google Scholar for this flawed exercise and if he tried to use this to justify his number, I could shred it in a matter of minutes as I have done extensively when the Google Scholar illiterates at Skeptical Science did the same thing. None of which is specious. I thoroughly enjoy embarrassing those who try to use Google Scholar like this, please feel free to entertain me.


Its been quite amusing watching the 'skeptic' movement evolve. Now that its been proven that it is actually warming, now you have moved onto trying to mitigate the impact of said warming. Its funny how the 'skeptic' position always seems to fall in line with what helps the energy industry's bottom line.
Skeptics have never denied that there has been a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. The debate is over how much if any of that is due to man's activities. They also play devils advocate and make mitigation arguments under the presumption that human's do play a significant role. This should not be confused with acceptance of this position.

It is always funny how alarmists believe in energy industry conspiracies while attempting to criticize skeptics for conspiratorial beliefs.


As for you intentions, that is besides the point. I am more interested in what it does. The lay person that would view your blog is going to be the likes of Darrin. Most people are at best intellectually lazy.
This is incorrect as most of the emails I receive about this list are from actual scientists and policy analysts thanking me for compiling it. The fact that Darrin is citing the peer-reviewed literature to make his arguments demonstrates he is not intellectually lazy at all.


Whether or not you intend it for use by legitimate scientists and intellectuals is besides the point. the point is that it is misleading to the layman as all it does is present one side of the argument and tries to do so in 'grandiose' terms: LOOKIE HERE NINE HUNDRED PAPERS THAT SHOW AGW IS FALSE!!!
It is only misleading if you misread the list. The list does include papers arguing against ACC/AGW in addition to ACC/AGW Alarm. So it is accurate to state that papers on the list make this claim just not the entire list.


i will ask you the same thing that MiG asked: why not even an attempt to make a more comprehensive list.
The list is attempting to be a comprehensive list for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm.


in·doc·tri·na·tion
  [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn]
noun
the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:
Nothing is being indoctrinated outside of learning that these papers do exist.

[Poptech]

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

[Poptech]

Again with broken record.

It is not an argumentum ad populum.
This (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111) is an argumentum ad populum,


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%
Your denial of this is quite entertaining.


Since you want to go here, let's go there. I will ask a series of direct questions, and construct a logical argument, based on your responses.

If you fail to answer any direct question, we must assume that the answer is the one that does not support your charge. The principles of intellectual honesty require direct answers. Remember, you have made a positive claim. It is your burden of proof. The default position is to reject it, as any good skeptic would know.
This is rather amusing your claims of "intellectual" honesty when you continued to state lies about the list.


Yes or no, are people who earn PhD's in a subject more knowledgeable about that subject that people who do not study it?
This is not a yes or no question. Worded that they "can be" and are "more likely to be" would warrant a "yes" answer.

[Poptech]

Show me where I have lied. I am very committed to not doing so.

There is a vast gulf between a difference of opinion, and falsehood.
You have lied here (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5838271&postcount=3153),

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.
You are of course free to stop repeating this lie at any time.

[Poptech]

To be clear:

No, it does not.

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument.

This, of course, sets aside the irony of someone working hard to populate a list of " 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" accusing someone else of "counting evidence. That is a little funny.
There is no irony as the numerical total of the list is factual. No argument is made that this is more or less than something else as you did with your argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111).


I will ask you the same question then.

Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?
Obviously not.

[RandomGuy]

You have, by the very nature of the list, implied a theory. You are "skeptical" of "alarmism".


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


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?


Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied.


Once again, I did not ask you about whether you think it is relevant to something.

My question was simple, and made no reference to whether you think something is refutable or not.
I asked a question simply, and plainly. Twice.

I will ask a third time. Then I will simply have to assume the answer is yes, if you cannot, or will not answer it.

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


Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied with the list.

So it would seem that you aren't interested in intellectual honesty.
Intellectual honesty requires answering questions and admitting things you might not like.


Figures. In that case, you have proven the point of the OP, and validated my theory. I had hoped for better.


In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.



10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/

[Poptech]

So it would seem that you aren't interested in intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty requires answering questions and admitting things you might not like.
This tactic may work on others but not I so stop wasting your time as the answer to your game has been given. I will rephrase it and give it again,

It is an irrefutable fact that there never was any intent to imply anything other then what is explicitly stated on the list about the list.

Stating otherwise is a lie.

The only thing intellectually dishonest is to keep on this line of argument when the answer (you obviously do not like) was given to you the first time.

[RandomGuy]

This (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111) is an argumentum ad populum,


Your denial of this is quite entertaining.


This is rather amusing your claims of "intellectual" honesty when you continued to state lies about the list.

Fair enough. I don't consider that to be a lie, but if you object, then I will withdraw the statement, if only to get you to stop bitching about your list.

Better:

It is my opinion that there is an underlying subtext inherent to the list. This subtext is, in my opinion, similar to other "in languages" for any cultural subgroup. The underlying message of this language is plain to insiders, and reflects a common understanding.

[Poptech]

It is my opinion that there is an underlying subtext inherent to the list. This subtext is, in my opinion, similar to other "in languages" for any cultural subgroup. The underlying message of this language is plain to insiders, and reflects a common understanding.
This is again a lie in relation to the list.

[RandomGuy]

This tactic may work on others but not I so stop wasting your time as the answer to your game has been given. I will rephrase it and give it again,

It is an irrefutable fact that there never was any intent to imply anything other then what is explicitly stated on the list about the list.

Stating otherwise is a lie.

The only thing intellectually dishonest is to keep on this line of argument when the answer (you obviously do not like) was given to you the first time.

How is it intellectually dishonest?

My question was general in nature. You were the one that added the implication that I was talking about your list. Quit lying that I was implying it was about your list.

No where was that explicit in the question:

Is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?

If you want to whine about it, let's add a word for clarification, and I will ask for a fourth time:

"In general, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?"

Can you answer this question?

[RandomGuy]

It is my opinion


This is again a lie in relation to the list.

I am lying about what my opinion is now?

Do tell.

[RandomGuy]

Yes or no, are people who earn PhD's in a subject more knowledgeable about that subject that people who do not study it?


This is not a yes or no question. Worded that they "can be" and are "more likely to be" would warrant a "yes" answer.

Ok then.

We can agree, that people who earn PhD's in a subject can be more knowledgeable about that subject than people who do not study it.

Fair?

[Poptech]

How is it intellectually dishonest?

My question was general in nature. You were the one that added the implication that I was talking about your list. Quit lying that I was implying it was about your list.
Oh please, does this really work on people you talk to? Now you are insulting my intelligence. The answer you are going to get has been given.

[Poptech]

I am lying about what my opinion is now?

Do tell.
It has been stated to you repeatedly that there is nothing implied about the list so stating otherwise in another form and claiming it is an "opinion" still makes it a lie.

[Poptech]

Ok then.

We can agree, that people who earn PhD's in a subject can be more knowledgeable about that subject than people who do not study it.

Fair?
Yes

[RandomGuy]

Oh please, does this really work on people you talk to? Now you are insulting my intelligence. The answer you are going to get has been given.

So, we can then assume that yes, it is possible, generally to imply things without explicitly stating them.

Even idiots can understand that. I mean, one would have to be an idiot not to acknowledge that things can be implied without being explicit.

See how that works? Notice I didn't call you an idiot. You are not an idiot.

I am only saying that one has to be a complete moron not to be able to grasp that things can be implied without being explicit.

[RandomGuy]

It has been stated to you repeatedly that there is nothing implied about the list so stating otherwise in another form and claiming it is an "opinion" still makes it a lie.

No. It makes it my opinion.

You might think my opinion is incorrect.

I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.

If you would follow along with honest answers to my questions, I could show you why I think that.

While it does make me a bit sad that I can't seem to get them, I am somewhat comforted by the fact that evasiveness to such questions supports the OP.

And with that.. lunch is over.

[Poptech]

No. It makes it my opinion.

You might think my opinion is incorrect.

I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.

[RandomGuy]

Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?


Obviously not.

So, with 900 papers all supporting the skepticism of a catastrophic outcome from AGW, it is still possible that we could see catastrophic outcomes from AGW?

[DarrinS]

So, with 900 papers all supporting the skepticism of a catastrophic outcome from AGW, it is still possible that we could see catastrophic outcomes from AGW?


It's possible. It's also possible that Earth experiences catastrophic climate change due to non-anthropogenic causes. At least there is some historical precedent for that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its like hes Darrin's twin. The list says it supports one thing "anti-AGW" and then he claims stupidty about 'irrefutable facts.' He is a hack and a shitty one at that.

Oh and as for the Village Choice:


There isn't likely to be much corporate support there. These guys come from the far side of liberal. Saying so is not to detract from their exhaustively detailed reportage and calmly convincing tone; indeed, the book is generally light on rhetoric, and there's hardly a radical quoted. But the public stranglehold of corrupt experts is framed as a crisis of "democracy," which the authors see as not just freedom from having your mind messed with, but also a level of engagement that drives citizens to become their own experts. And in their conclusion, Rampton and Stauber reveal the depth of their colors: "Activism enriches our lives in multiple ways. It brings us into personal contact with other people who are informed, passionate, and altruistic. . . . It is a path to enlightenment."

its interesting how you accuse MiG of cherry picking and then cherry pick within the papers you cite and this article right here. Only quote the conclusions you agree with right?

You are a sophist without context.

And no support of communism or any of the other ad hominems. It also points to their transparency.

So popwatch do you or any of your 'contributors' have any corporate or lobby donors or work for and energy-industry corporations or political lobbys?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This tactic may work on others but not I so stop wasting your time as the answer to your game has been given. I will rephrase it and give it again,

It is an irrefutable fact that there never was any intent to imply anything other then what is explicitly stated on the list about the list.

Stating otherwise is a lie.

The only thing intellectually dishonest is to keep on this line of argument when the answer (you obviously do not like) was given to you the first time.

Who gives a shit what you intended? It is what it is ans at best you come across as coy.

Is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?

[DarrinS]

Its like hes Darrin's twin. The list says it supports one thing "anti-AGW" and then he claims stupidty about 'irrefutable facts.' He is a hack and a shitty one at that.


You guys sure are upset about the existence of a peer-reviewed list of papers that are non-alarmist.




its interesting how you accuse MiG of cherry picking and then cherry pick within the papers you cite and this article right here. Only quote the conclusions you agree with right?


Kind of hard to make such a list WIHOUT cherry-picking them, no? It's hilarious that you guys think there's some nefarious motive behind this list when its purpose is stated EXPLICITLY.




So popwatch do you or any of your 'contributors' have any corporate or lobby donors or work for and energy-industry corporations or political lobbys?

This shit, again? Please.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You guys sure are upset about the existence of a peer-reviewed list of papers that are non-alarmist.




Kind of hard to make such a list WIHOUT cherry-picking them, no? It's hilarious that you guys think there's some nefarious motive behind this list when its purpose is stated EXPLICITLY.




This shit, again? Please.

Who gives a shit if its difficult. Its difficult to fly without mechanical assistance too. The point is that PopularSophist accused RG and MiG of cherry picking and all that entails then turns around and cherry picks internally of papers within the list and conclusions of articles.

What becomes clear at that point is that the interest much with you is winning the argument and a blatant disregard for the truth.

How about we hear more circular logic as to whats irrefutable?

And what shit again? I haven't asked that about you but hes some random individual with a random cite.

Why is asking if there is a conflict of interest shit? It certainly speaks to credibility that you dissemble from it.

[DarrinS]

Is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?


What is it you and RG think is implied?

When I go to a site like skepticalscience, I take them at their word that their mission in life is to give "deniers" the what-for. There doesn't appear to be a more sinister :devil motive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is it you and RG think is implied?

When I go to a site like skepticalscience, I take them at their word that their mission in life is to give "deniers" the what-for. There doesn't appear to be a more sinister :devil motive.

You will have to ask RG that but i think its a reasonable question adn that he avoids answering it like the plague speaks volumes.

[Wild Cobra]

I understand you and Darrin's "arguments" all to well. That is your problem.

Please do not insult my intelligence.
I don't believe you.

[DarrinS]

Fuzzy,


Create a list of US presidents with the first name "William".

Remember, no cherry picking.


:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Have to admit, I have enjoyed the last few pages of this thread.

:corn:
So have I.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think they have a sinister motive. I think its a fairly worthless motive. When I try to learn about a subject, I don't only search for information on the subject that happens to agree with a preconceived notion of the subject.


I do think that Poptech avoided a direct question several times and it appears he or she is very adapt at doing so. I also think some of the scientific "facts" Poptech has posted are fairly ignorant,

Enjoy the list, Darrin. Needing a list like that is fairly telling, in my opinion.

[Wild Cobra]

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied with the list.
Sidestepping is another tactic he uses. He will lock you up in unimportant things and claim victory.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sidestepping is another tactic he uses. He will lock you up in unimportant things and claim victory.

Yeah because claiming something to be irrefutable and then discounting it out of hand isn't sidestepping....

Why is it irrefutable? Because i said so.

[MannyIsGod]

Fuzzy,


Create a list of US presidents with the first name "William".

Remember, no cherry picking.


:lmao

You would then use the list to prove that all presidents were named William, right?

[MannyIsGod]

RG will answer every question directed at him. I've never seen him avoid a question or term it irrelevant.

I find it hilarious he's the one being accused of dancing here.

[DarrinS]

I don't think they have a sinister motive. I think its a fairly worthless motive. When I try to learn about a subject, I don't only search for information on the subject that happens to agree with a preconceived notion of the subject.

I do think that Poptech avoided a direct question several times and it appears he or she is very adapt at doing so. I also think some of the scientific "facts" Poptech has posted are fairly ignorant,

Enjoy the list, Darrin. Needing a list like that is fairly telling, in my opinion.


Enjoy your list, Manny.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/database-of-peer-reviewed-papers-on-climate-change.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Enjoy your list, Manny.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/database-of-peer-reviewed-papers-on-climate-change.html

You don't even bother to read shit before you post it once again:


Global Warming Links, sorted by argument

Sort by argument | Peer-Review | Last week | Last month

Number of pro-AGW links are indicated in green, skeptic links in red.

[DarrinS]

You would then use the list to prove that all presidents were named William, right?


That's what the PopTech list claimed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You would then use the list to prove that all presidents were named William, right?

:toast

[MannyIsGod]

Is that my list?

I don't think I've ever posted it.

I have journal access and I live with a masters holding librarian. I don't need lists prepared by others as I'm more than capable of finding information on the subject. Pretty damn sure I've read more papers on climate science in the past week than you've read...ever.

Keep telling yourself that I'm at the level you are, Darrin, and that I need others to make lists for me.

[DarrinS]

You don't even bother to read shit before you post it once again:




Number of pro-AGW links are indicated in green, skeptic links in red.



:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's what the PopTech list claimed?

Internally within some of the papers certainly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

Its a list that shows both sides of the argument.

[DarrinS]

Is that my list?

I don't think I've ever posted it.

I have journal access and I live with a masters holding librarian.


<in Napolean Dynomite voice> Lucky!

Does she wear those glasses, too?

[MannyIsGod]

That's what the PopTech list claimed?

No, thats how you have used the Poptech list. You in the past have claimed the papers I have posted were bad science while holding those on that list as correct. (An example of your excellent mastery of the science behind the subject)

[Wild Cobra]

RG will answer every question directed at him. I've never seen him avoid a question or term it irrelevant.

I find it hilarious he's the one being accused of dancing here.
He just sidesteps it, and insists on a change of topics so he doesn't have to answer some things.

You flat put ignore important questions when they are too tough for you.

You never clarified with me where you were going with the ice cap, ice sheet thing, and seemed completely silent when I reminded you geothermal activity also plays a roll with ice sheets. I think I completely blew away a victory you though you had, and will not admit it.

[MannyIsGod]

I ignore your questions because you're an idiot and you don't understand what you're talking about. Tell me again where ice sheets form? On the ocean, right? Tell me again how the ocean is behind the warming? Tell me again how AGW theory says that CO2 is somehow creating new energy.

The list of your idiocies goes on. THATS why I ignore your questions. You're more than welcome to believe you have scored victories on me.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't get what the big deal is about with these peer reviewed papers.

I haven't looked at very many yet, but it appears simply as a resource. Not all of them necessarily claim to refute the AGW alarmist viewpoints, but have good studies that can and be used.

[MannyIsGod]

<in Napolean Dynomite voice> Lucky!

Does she wear those glasses, too?

She does. She's pretty hot, TBH. Its very awesome to have a person who's job is to find information willing to help me out when I need it (and I need it quite often).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

<in Napolean Dynomite voice> Lucky!

Does she wear those glasses, too?

The argument has been about cherry picking. You just posted a site that supports AGW theory that posts articles that support both positions: skeptic and that of most of the scientific community.

Compare that to PopSophists list: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

ueZ6tvqhk8U

Critical thinking skills. All of that.

[Wild Cobra]

I ignore your questions because you're an idiot and you don't understand what you're talking about. Tell me again where ice sheets form? On the ocean, right? Tell me again how the ocean is behind the warming? Tell me again how AGW theory says that CO2 is somehow creating new energy.

The list of your idiocies goes on. THATS why I ignore your questions. You're more than welcome to believe you have scored victories on me.
My God...

I confuse the terminology once, correct myself, and you are locked into believing what I said wrong and later revised.

Ice sheets form on land, and some can flow into the sea. Glaciers.

Now we were talking about sea ice when you brought that up, and never responded back when I asked for clarification of what you were implying.

Why type of ethics do you have to lie, and claim I don't know what it is when I almost immediately corrected my mistake? Yes, I get terminology wrong sometimes.

I see it as a way for you to discontinue a point you are losing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ice sheets form on land, and some can flow into the sea. Glaciers.

:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

:facepalm

[TeyshaBlue]

We really, really need a facepalm emoticon

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, you only messed up one time WC. You constantly display a mastery of well - everything? I am being completely unreasonable here.

[MannyIsGod]

We really, really need a facepalm emoticon

I suggest the following:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/image.php?u=8523&dateline=1324101243

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.reversedesigns.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm_smiley%20(1).gif

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me again how the ocean is behind the warming?
What part don't you understand?

I never claimed it was behind [the] warming, but plays a large role. That the extra sun has increased in output twice since the 1700's. This last time from about 1900 to about 1950. The oceans get warmer and move, solubility factors change, precipitation changes, everything changes. But it takes time for the effects.

Tell me again how AGW theory says that CO2 is somehow creating new energy.I never said that. It is your failure to understand how the greenhouse effect works. It is your assumption that you turn around, and lie to others of what I say. I used the same modeling you don't dispute from peer reviewed studies, and when I show the number changes with extra solar energy as the source power, and how the greenhouse gasses, as a feedback mechanism respond to extra input, you fail to understand what is going on. You claim I don't understand thermodynamics. It is you who don't understand what is happening.

Energy is not created. It's just like extra greenhouse gasses trap energy making higher temperatures. However, what I was explaining is how extra input to the system also warms, and has the effective amplification by the positive feedback of the greenhouse effect.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, you only messed up one time WC. You constantly display a mastery of well - everything? I am being completely unreasonable here.
Tell me why I'm wrong then.

Am I wrong because I left out a part?

Does leaving out a minimum size make it wrong?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What part don't you understand?

I never claimed it was behind [the] warming, but plays a large role. That the extra sun has increased in output twice since the 1700's. This last time from about 1900 to about 1950. The oceans get warmer and move, solubility factors change, precipitation changes, everything changes. But it takes time for the effects.
I never said that. It is your failure to understand how the greenhouse effect works. It is your assumption that you turn around, and lie to others of what I say. I used the same modeling you don't dispute from peer reviewed studies, and when I show the number changes with extra solar energy as the source power, and how the greenhouse gasses, as a feedback mechanism respond to extra input, you fail to understand what is going on. You claim I don't understand thermodynamics. It is you who don't understand what is happening.

Energy is not created. It's just like extra greenhouse gasses trap energy making higher temperatures. However, what I was explaining is how extra input to the system also warms, and has the effective amplification by the positive feedback of the greenhouse effect.

:lol Woot more thermodynamics and solubility! These questions were never addressed the other 5 times just this year you brought them up. Just like the solar output wasn't ever responded to.