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

[Wild Cobra]

Now again, I ask where were you going with the question when you interjected ice sheet, when ice sheets had nothing to do with what was being discussed at the time? We were talking about sea ice.

[MannyIsGod]

Ocean's like a soda etc etc.

[Wild Cobra]

Ocean's like a soda etc etc.
I have use a soda as a simplified example to explain how CO2 out gasses from the ocean.

Do you deny that the ocean is a CO2 source in the equatorial regions?

Do you deny that a soda holds more CO2 when cold over when it is warm?

[MannyIsGod]

I visited the tropics and the ocean went POP POP FIZZZZZZZZ

[MannyIsGod]

Just using a simplified explanation.

[Wild Cobra]

I visited the tropics and the ocean went POP POP FIZZZZZZZZ

A soda doesn't need to fizz to lose CO2.

I guess you didn't know that either.

[Wild Cobra]

How about back to the sea ice. What where you trying to say when you interjected ice sheet?

[Wild Cobra]

Just using a simplified explanation.

Yes, an experience most people have witnessed by their beer or soda going from a crisp acid taste, to a flat ... ugghh... taste. An example those not knowing these particular sciences can relate to.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, that explains why you would want to use it.

[MannyIsGod]

I explained to you why I was discussing both ice sheets and sea ice. Apparently you still haven't looked at a globe since we talked about it last. This is why I ignore your stupid questions.

http://henning.makholm.net/blog/images/tilt/Nordpol2.png

[Wild Cobra]

I explained to you why I was discussing both ice sheets and sea ice. Apparently you still haven't looked at a globe since we talked about it last. This is why I ignore your stupid questions.

You didn't explain squat that I recall, and we were talking about sea ice.

Remind me then what your explanation was please.

[MannyIsGod]

So, about that face palm emoticon....

[Wild Cobra]

So, about that face palm emoticon....
As I said, back then. I wish not to assume your intent, and you are asking me to assume your intent.

Why can't you give a strait answer? Afraid I might actually have an intelligent response?

[MannyIsGod]

I've given you countless straight answers in the past. I'm beyond the phase of slamming my head against a keyboard. I find this far more amusing now.

[RandomGuy]

[randomguy] just sidesteps [questions he doesn't like], and insists on a change of topics so he doesn't have to answer some things..

Fuck you.

Find a single question in this thread that I have "sidestepped". I also don't change topics unnecessarily.

Hell, find a single fair question that I have ever sidestepped.

I will admit to occasionally missing one or two.

[TeyshaBlue]

As I said, back then. I wish not to assume your intent, and you are asking me to assume your intent.

Why can't you give a strait answer? Afraid I might actually have an intelligent response?
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/itstimetostoppostingCat.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.

Quit using strawmen arguments to misrepresent my opinions.

[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.

Prevaricate:


Verb 1. prevaricate - be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information
beat around the bush, equivocate, palter, tergiversate
misinform, mislead - give false or misleading information to
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prevaricating

Either it is possible, or it is not.

Quibbling over semantics is evasive.

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.

Since this got lost in the shuffle, let's see if we can it answered.

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?

The reply also suggests another important question.

I will accede and agree with the statement that species can adapt to changes.

Does the rate of change matter to whether or not a species can adapt to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out?

[DarrinS]

Ocean's like a soda etc etc.

I don't get why you guys dog him about that all the time. That analogy is frequently used.

[DarrinS]

I suggest the following:

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

What is that?

[RandomGuy]

Here is another gem that PopTech probably didn't have time for.


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?

[Poptech]

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?
Just like it is possible we will not. The list is simply a resource that skeptics can use to support the argument that it will not be catastrophic but the list is not making this determination as that is not it's purpose.

[Poptech]

Here is another gem that PopTech sidestepped.

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?
This was not side-stepped, I simply watching a movie and did not answer that yet.

[Poptech]

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.
Why are you lying? Where does the list say it supports "anti-AGW"? Nor have I claimed stupidity about anything. When you have nothing left to argue you obvious resort to ad hominem and lies. You would not be this defensive now if you had took the time to read things clearly before making careless statements like you did earlier in this discussion.


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 very bad at following a conversation as I said Randomguy cherry picked (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833837&postcount=3116) not Mig and it is the Village Voice nor "Choice. The purpose of the quote was to show irrefutable evidence that even liberal publications recognize the founders of Sourcewatch to be extreme left-wing. It was not cherry picked because the context as I used it did not change with removal of the rest of the content which was irrelevant to this argument.


You are a sophist without context.
More ad hominem lies.


And no support of communism or any of the other ad hominems. It also points to their transparency.
Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?


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?
FuzzyDumbkins, we have zero donors and no association with any lobby or energy corporation. You will have to try harder.

[Poptech]

Who gives a shit what you intended? It is what it is ans at best you come across as coy.
I am well aware you have no interest in the truth.


Is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied with the list.

You should be able to read this response multiple times already.

[Poptech]

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.
FuzzyDumbkins, why do you continue to lie? I only accussed RG of cherry picking. The list is a resource of, "Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" and is all inclusive to this subject. No peer-reviewed paper that supports a skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm is excluded, therefore what is included on the list cannot be claimed to be cherry picked.

[Poptech]

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.
Then you should not read the IPCC reports. What is clear is you do not search for information that may disagree with your preconceived notion on a 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,
RG avoided my request first by asking his "question",

"Please quote where this "theory" is stated on the list. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5838282&postcount=3154)"

When he can provide this quote, I will answer his question.

Let me know if you really want to play this game of failing to answer questions because I can ask a lot of questions.

I have not posted any scientific facts that are ignorant.

[Poptech]

You would then use the list to prove that all presidents were named William, right?
This is a flawed analogy as it is not his point nor is it related to my list. His point was actually excellent and something you have no argument for.

[Poptech]

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.
Nothing has be claimed to be irrefutable and then discounted out of hand. Regardless of your denial about the purpose of the list the truth does not change.

[Poptech]

You don't even bother to read shit before you post it once again:
That is a laughable joke and barely includes any papers.

[Poptech]

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.
As you have repeatedly demonstrated in this debate you are not intellectually superior to Darrin or anyone else. It is rather pathetic to see you attempt this.

[Poptech]

Internally within some of the papers certainly.
Really? Which papers on my list claim all the presidents were named William?


Its a list that shows both sides of the argument.
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Please stop I have to be able to type without laughing so hard.

The Truth about Skeptical Science (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html)

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website founded and run by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
I do not get my science from cartoonists, why alarmists do simply amazed me.

All of my hundreds of comments were deleted from their site because they could not debate me.

[MannyIsGod]

You've posted "facts". Not facts. If they were facts, how would they be ignorant?

You avoided the question yet again.

Your posts are fairly transparent, however. Much like the list. :tu

[Poptech]

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.
The cherry picking argument in relation to which papers appear on the 900 list is invalid. The link he posted has a token amount of skeptic papers that equates to a cruel joke on the uniformed. You are informed, correct?


Compare that to PopSophists list: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
FuzzyDumbkins, please provide the comparison and show that every paper on my list is on theirs. I will wait for your failure.

[MannyIsGod]

No doubt you killed them with "irrefutable facts."

[Poptech]

Quit using strawmen arguments to misrepresent my opinions.
Is the truth relevant? Yes or No?

Can only I know the true intent of why I created the list? Yes or No?

[Poptech]

Is it 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?
Anything is possible.

Is it possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that does not harm any of the species within that ecosystem, while having some or all of the species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage? Yes or No?

Is it possible to believe an impact will be catastrophic on any given ecosystem and also believe it will harm or kill some of the species within that ecosystem and later learn this belief to be wrong? Yes or No?


Does the rate of change matter to whether or not a species can adapt to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out?
This is unknown as no such information is available for all species.

Is it possible that a species can adapt regardless of the rate of change to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out? Yes or No?

Is it possible that all species can adapt to the current rate of change? Yes or No?

Is it possible that the current rate of change is not unusual in the historic record? Yes or No?

[Poptech]

You've posted "facts". Not facts. If they were facts, how would they be ignorant?
I did not post the word facts in quotes.

[Poptech]

No doubt you killed them with "irrefutable facts."
Quote in this discussion where I used the word "irrefutable" and prove that these facts are refutable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you lying? Where does the list say it supports "anti-AGW"? Nor have I claimed stupidity about anything. When you have nothing left to argue you obvious resort to ad hominem and lies. You would not be this defensive now if you had took the time to read things clearly before making careless statements like you did earlier in this discussion.


You are very bad at following a conversation as I said Randomguy cherry picked (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833837&postcount=3116) not Mig and it is the Village Voice nor "Choice. The purpose of the quote was to show irrefutable evidence that even liberal publications recognize the founders of Sourcewatch to be extreme left-wing. It was not cherry picked because the context as I used it did not change with removal of the rest of the content which was irrelevant to this argument.


More ad hominem lies.


Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?


FuzzyDumbkins, we have zero donors and no association with any lobby or energy corporation. You will have to try harder.

Sure it was RG. Now address the hypocrisy in doing so. Is it okay for him to look at random samples of your list or is it not okay for you to pull things out of context from papers and articles?

Of course you do not address the discussion of the Village Voice quote context. I mean they only said that they were not radicals, did not resort to rhetoric and were reasonable in their approach. That is another of a foundation of calling you a sophist. You ignore good points and instead dissemble. It is not ad hominem either because it speaks to any judge of a debate as to how you debate ie you will argue a point at all cost ie your credibility.

I will address your question directly and ask for you to qualify the truth of the premise.

First where is the verifiable source that says they are anti-capitalist?

Specifically no you cannot. Very left is not by definition anti-capitalist. Very left wing can mean progressives, civil libertarians, feminists, pacifists, civil rights leaders or any other of a myriad of possibility. Even those that are against laissez faire capitalism such as those that believe in anti-trust laws and specific market regulations are not 'socialists' or 'communists.'

All of that has nothing to do with their credibility anyway. That Village Voice article spoke to their credibility but you ignore that, claim that they called them anti-capitalist --which they didn't,-- and call it a day.

Your article is unfounded shit.

Prevaricate is the term RG used. It makes sense that he would do that with you.

And I don't have to try very hard. As i said you are very transparent. When I state that you are a sophist we point to your dissembling and prevaricating nature with specific examples. If you want to claim that I am dumb on the basis of a mixup of names or recollection of numbers then feel free. It bothers me not at all.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really? Which papers on my list claim all the presidents were named William?


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Please stop I have to be able to type without laughing so hard.

The Truth about Skeptical Science (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html)

I do not get my science from cartoonists, why alarmists do simply amazed me.

All of my hundreds of comments were deleted from their site because they could not debate me.

Cherry picking data from papers that concluded that warming was a reality. You know that, either that or youre stupid. i am going to go along with the rest of your behavior of dissembling.

Its obvious at this point you know you are not winning the argument. Your takes are becoming weaker and weaker.

I don't care about your assertions as to why you were deleted. It should be noted that this position is in direct contradiction of your assertion about your 'intentions.' Nevertheless, if this debate is any indication, they deleted it because you start ignoring points, resorting to hypocrisy and all other behavior of a sophist.

You can laugh all you want. At the end of the day, their list does include papers from skeptics as well as proponents; whereas, your list only includes skeptics. You at no point address this. You posting other portions of their site are irrelevant to that truth. Nice attempt at a red herring though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The cherry picking argument in relation to which papers appear on the 900 list is invalid. The link he posted has a token amount of skeptic papers that equates to a cruel joke on the uniformed. You are informed, correct?


FuzzyDumbkins, please provide the comparison and show that every paper on my list is on theirs. I will wait for your failure.

Give me some logic as to why their list needs to include the totality of your list. Now you are being an egomaniac. The point is that their list includes arguments from both sides where yours only shows one.

I imagine if you were to talk to MiG he would say how there proponent list is missing some compelling work as well. That they are not exhaustive is besides the point.

This is quite easy to refute. Try harder.

[Wild Cobra]

What is that?
They don't know except that it is my avatar. They were using it as a new facepalm symbol.

[Wild Cobra]

I am well aware you have no interest in the truth.


This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied with the list.

You should be able to read this response multiple times already.
Don't let these ankle biters make you too angry. They latch on to irrelevant things all the time. Half the time, they don't even know why they're barking.

[Wild Cobra]

Is the truth relevant? Yes or No?

Can only I know the true intent of why I created the list? Yes or No?
LOL...

You wouldn't believe how many times these people tell me what's on my mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't let these ankle biters make you too angry. They latch on to irrelevant things all the time. Half the time, they don't even know why they're barking.

i8Djspr7lf8

[Wild Cobra]

Manny...

Do you remember how the sea ice thing started? Why do you sidestep it?

Post #2569 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5791554&postcount=2569):


Food for thought...

Non of us disagree that the norther ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?

Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern ice follows that increase pretty good.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/cryospheresouth20120415-50pct.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png)



http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/cryospherenorth20120415-50pct.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png)
What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?

LOL...

The links to the images have changed values since that post so many days back. The norther ice retreat is now at 0.173 million sq. km. and the southern ice is at a positive 0.774 million sq. km.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuck you.

Find a single question in this thread that I have "sidestepped". I also don't change topics unnecessarily.

Hell, find a single fair question that I have ever sidestepped.

I will admit to occasionally missing one or two.

Not going to go back and find any. I will remind you however, you are now on record of saying you don't. Please remember that the next time I call you on something on it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern ice follows that increase pretty good.

I'll bet if WC takes a Stanford Intelligence Test that he would score very low. Supposition inserted for fact an argument doesn't make.

Really all we need now is for him to post some more brochures for natural gas boiler generators and the cycle will be complete.

[MannyIsGod]

Holy shit! Northern ice is decreasing and southern ice is gaining since you posted the images?!?!?!?!??!!

Its like the Southern Hemisphere is headed to Winter and we're headed to Summer or something. Fucking crazy.

Really do need that facepalm icon. Badly.

[Wild Cobra]

Holy shit! Northern ice is decreasing and southern ice is gaining since you posted the images?!?!?!?!??!!

Its like the Southern Hemisphere is headed to Winter and we're headed to Summer or something. Fucking crazy.

Really do need that facepalm icon. Badly.
I see you are jumping to conclusions again.

Do you want to examine my last post to you and two attached links again so you can correct your mistake, or do I need to tell you what you're wrong about?

[Wild Cobra]

well, more than enough time that you were logged on. I see you decided to disappear before answering.

Though yes, the north is retreating and south increasing because of seasonal variations...

The graphs are in relative to daily average. Not absolute. You provided a response that would be proper for a chart in absolute values.

What I was pointing out is that the North sea ice went from a minis 380 thousand square kilometer from average to a minus 173 thousand square kilometer for their days average. In relative terms, it gained 207 thousand square kilometer. The southern sea ice went from 379 thousand square kilometer more than the days average, to 774 thousand square kilometer. In relative terms, it gained 395 thousand square kilometer.

The chart titled clearly included the word "anomaly." One has to wonder by your response if you are ignorant, or being a smart ass. Neither bodes well for a civil debate.

Maybe this will help:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/20120501northerniceretreat.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html)

[MannyIsGod]

DuiQvPLWziQ

[MannyIsGod]

One has to wonder by your response if you are ignorant, or being a smart ass. Neither bodes well for a civil debate.


:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Quit using strawmen arguments to misrepresent my opinions.



Is the truth relevant? Yes or No?

Can only I know the true intent of why I created the list? Yes or No?

Testy testy. Bold type and everything.

Remember, it is my contention that people who are skeptical of AGW are, generally speaking, little better intellectually than 9-11 truthers.

When you accuse me of logical fallacies, but can't allow me the chance to show why they are not logical fallacies by answering fair questions directly, that simply supplies me with more evidence. When you yourself commit strawman logical fallacies, you supply me with more evidence.

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

You have accused me of a specific logical fallacy, without being able to prove such, that I have seen so far. I will, eventually, get to why I have not committed an appeal to popularity. I will show, that your charactorization of what I think is a strawman logical fallacy.

To reduce your cognitive dissonance, you will convince yourself that I am dishonest, as you seem to have already done. I will withdraw any statement that I feel is not factually supported.

To answer your questions:
Yes, truth is relevant.

Yes, you are the only person who can know for certain what the intent of your list is/was.

Now answer this question:

Did the statement:



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.

..imply that the truth is irrelevant? Yes or no.

If so, please demonstrate how it implies truth is irrelevant.

If that is not something I believe, or have directly contradicted, you have committed a strawman logical fallacy.

[RandomGuy]

Anything is possible.

[1]Is it possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that does not harm any of the species within that ecosystem, while having some or all of the species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage? Yes or No?

[2]Is it possible to believe an impact will be catastrophic on any given ecosystem and also believe it will harm or kill some of the species within that ecosystem and later learn this belief to be wrong? Yes or No?


This is unknown as no such information is available for all species.

[3] Is it possible that a species can adapt regardless of the rate of change to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out? Yes or No?

[4]Is it possible that all species can adapt to the current rate of change? Yes or No?

[5]Is it possible that the current rate of change is not unusual in the historic record? Yes or No?

Weee. I like this game. :clap

"Anything is possible". The barest of admissions, but it is a pretty clear "yes" answer that can be built on.

It could also supply me, were the truth of reasonable probabilities not relevant, with yes answers to all of your questions on a similar basis.

I could be equally weasely and use that same blanket statement.

But that would be intelletually dishonest.

So without further ado:

[1]No.
My understanding of evolution and ecology is that species are generally best adapted for the conditions they exist in for any length of time. Based on this, "catastrophically impacting" that ecosystem would change the conditions of that ecosystem drastically enough that it is beyond a reasonable expectation that no species in any given ecosystem would be deliterously affected. As you yourself state, there is "no such information is available for all species".

[2]Yes.
It is possible to believe anything, no matter how foolish and silly. There are people who believe that there exists, essentially, magic men in the sky who watch them masturbate and care about that, and that libertarian ideals would make for good government. It is always possible to believe things and later to be proven wrong.

[3]Yes, it is quite possible that species can adapt to rapid changes. This is especially true of fast living organisms, and the odds go down with longer lifespans and reproductive cycles, to my understanding, as well as for immobile things like trees.

[4]No.
Given the large number of species globally, the chances of "all species" adapting to fast changes in environment is not possible, in any reasonable scenario. As you yourself point out, some will die. That is evolution.

[5]Yes,
Given the difficulties involved in measuring past rates of change, it is possible that it is entirely usual.

[RandomGuy]

Does the rate of change matter to whether or not a species can adapt to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out?



This is unknown as no such information is available for all species.

My question was not:
It is known for all species...?

I consider that evasive, so I will simply rephrase that to narrow the focus to one that you can't prevaricate about.

pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way

In general, is it more or less likely that rapid rates of change that produce deleterious effects on an organism, for any given species, will cause extinction rather than adaptation when compared to slower rates of change?

[DarrinS]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209430/Weather-supercomputer-used-predict-climate-change-Britains-worst-polluters.html#ixzz0PPPxmQF3

Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters




The computer uses 1.2 megawatts to run - enough to power 1,000 homes

The machine was hailed as the 'future of weather prediction' with the ability to produce more accurate forecasts and produce climate change modelling.

However the Met Office's HQ has now been named as one of the worst buildings in Britain for pollution - responsible for more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-0-063373D8000005DC-648_468x316.jpg



Maybe they need to beef up this computer a little more.


Prediction:
Drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/i/A3-layout-precip-AMJ.pdf




Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12

SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months. With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15% (the 197-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).

CONTEXT:
As a legacy of dry weather over many months water resources in much
of southern, eastern and central England remain at very low levels.
Winter rainfall in these areas has typically been about 70% of average,
whilst observations and current forecasts suggest that the final totals for
March will be below average here too. The Environment Agency advises
that, given the current state of soils and groundwater levels in these
areas, drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable.






Reality:
April is the wettest month for 100 years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17897982




April is the wettest month for 100 years

It has been the wettest April in the UK for over 100 years, with some areas seeing three times their usual average, figures from the Met Office show.






:lmao :lmao :lmao

[DarrinS]

In general, is it more or less likely that rapid rates of change that produce deleterious effects on an organism, for any given species, will cause extinction rather than adaptation when compared to slower rates of change?



What do you consider a rapid rate of change? 1 deg. F/century?

[boutons_deux]

Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters

For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.

Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.

Yet in recent years, the climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.

They acknowledge that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm. But they assert that clouds — which can either warm or cool the earth, depending on the type and location — will shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise and preserve the equable climate on which civilization depends.

Their theory exploits the greatest remaining mystery in climate science, the difficulty that researchers have had in predicting how clouds will change. The scientific majority believes that clouds will most likely have a neutral effect or will even amplify the warming, perhaps strongly, but the lack of unambiguous proof has left room for dissent.

“Clouds really are the biggest uncertainty,” said Andrew E. Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M. “If you listen to the credible climate skeptics, they’ve really pushed all their chips onto clouds.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Sounds like the Kock Bros, API, UCA, et al need to pay these and other "science whore" deniers more $Ms for "need more research".

[RandomGuy]

What do you consider a rapid rate of change? 1 deg. F/century?

I don't think I know enough to really answer that question effectively. The answer is "I don't know." It seems that any such overall global rate of change would have a lot of local effects that cannot be encapsulated in such a broad question. I therefore think that the question itself is not very well put together.

If you are talking about local changes, then no, that does not seem drastic. But again, it depends on the local conditions, and I do not feel I know enough about every place to give a general comment.

Darrin, I am sorry but my time is limited. I will priortize my available time to PT, and may not be able to address everything you put forth. I will try to get to your stuff in time, so you will have to be patient.

[Poptech]

Sure it was RG. Now address the hypocrisy in doing so. Is it okay for him to look at random samples of your list or is it not okay for you to pull things out of context from papers and articles?

Of course you do not address the discussion of the Village Voice quote context. I mean they only said that they were not radicals, did not resort to rhetoric and were reasonable in their approach. That is another of a foundation of calling you a sophist. You ignore good points and instead dissemble. It is not ad hominem either because it speaks to any judge of a debate as to how you debate ie you will argue a point at all cost ie your credibility.
Nothing was pulled out of context as they are simply arguing that while these guys are extreme-left wing it does not take away from the message in their book. The Village Voice is not arguing that they are not extreme-left wing. What you quoted in addition to my sentence is discussing the context of their book.


I will address your question directly and ask for you to qualify the truth of the premise.

First where is the verifiable source that says they are anti-capitalist? Specifically no you cannot
Rampton explicity supports Socialized Medicine (http://www.prwatch.org/node/7986) and has a category at his PRWatch website for "Social Justice (http://www.prwatch.org/topics/social-justice)".


Very left is not by definition anti-capitalist. Very left wing can mean progressives, civil libertarians, feminists, pacifists, civil rights leaders or any other of a myriad of possibility. Even those that are against laissez faire capitalism such as those that believe in anti-trust laws and specific market regulations are not 'socialists' or 'communists.'
This is a strawman argument as I made no such claim. My usage of the Village Voice quote was in support of accurately calling them "extreme-left wing". Civil libertarians are politically neither left nor right so they cannot be very left wing. The author was not refering to Rampton as a feminist, pacifist or civil rights leader. That leaves progressives who are socialists. Anti-trust laws and market regulations are socialist ideals.


All of that has nothing to do with their credibility anyway. That Village Voice article spoke to their credibility but you ignore that, claim that they called them anti-capitalist --which they didn't,-- and call it a day.
This is a lie as I made no such claim.


Your article is unfounded shit.
My article is accurate, fully cited and sourced.


Prevaricate is the term RG used. It makes sense that he would do that with you.
He did use this term but it was incorrect.


And I don't have to try very hard. As i said you are very transparent. When I state that you are a sophist we point to your dissembling and prevaricating nature with specific examples. If you want to claim that I am dumb on the basis of a mixup of names or recollection of numbers then feel free. It bothers me not at all.
I am very transparent in that I only mean what I say, not what you imagine. Your continued lies about calling me a sophist demonstrates you are desperate and must resort to ad hominem. As I have repeatedly detailed here, you are careless with your statements and it undersmines the credibility in your arguments.

[Poptech]

Cherry picking data from papers that concluded that warming was a reality. You know that, either that or youre stupid. i am going to go along with the rest of your behavior of dissembling.
This is a lie. No paper on the list through it's research concluded that AGW was a reality and alarming. Many skeptics believe global warming is a reality as they support the existence of a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. What I do know is you are incredibly dishonest.


Its obvious at this point you know you are not winning the argument. Your takes are becoming weaker and weaker.
Really? You have a fantastic imagination.


I don't care about your assertions as to why you were deleted. It should be noted that this position is in direct contradiction of your assertion about your 'intentions.' Nevertheless, if this debate is any indication, they deleted it because you start ignoring points, resorting to hypocrisy and all other behavior of a sophist.
Obviously you do not care why I was censored because you support such behavior. Explain how having a problem with being censored changes my intentions? Why do you keep lying about me ignoring points and resorting to hypocrisy. I have addressed every point here. I have just not always participated in the demand you answer any irrelevant question game. If you like I can play this game too, I just do not think you will like the outcome. Again you continue to lie about me being a sophist.


You can laugh all you want. At the end of the day, their list does include papers from skeptics as well as proponents;
Does their list include all the papers on my list? Yes or No?


whereas, your list only includes skeptics. You at no point address this. You posting other portions of their site are irrelevant to that truth. Nice attempt at a red herring though.
It is a strawman argument that my list only includes "skeptics" as the list is not a list of skeptical scientists but peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm. It is also a strawman argument that my claims to include anything but these papers. Why do you keep repeating strawman arguments?

[Poptech]

Give me some logic as to why their list needs to include the totality of your list. Now you are being an egomaniac. The point is that their list includes arguments from both sides where yours only shows one.
Now you support cherry picked lists? A handful of token papers is not including both sides. Why do you keep repeating the same strawman argument about my list only including one side of the argument?


I imagine if you were to talk to MiG he would say how there proponent list is missing some compelling work as well. That they are not exhaustive is besides the point.
Is this some sort of joke? Are you a comedian?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209430/Weather-supercomputer-used-predict-climate-change-Britains-worst-polluters.html#ixzz0PPPxmQF3

Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters

[pictures omitted for brevity]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

It would seem that you are implying there is no AGW, because the people studying it, and believe it to be the case, use a computer that is powered by electricity that ultimately emits greenhouse gases in its generation.

Is this what you are trying to say?

[Poptech]

Remember, it is my contention that people who are skeptical of AGW are, generally speaking, little better intellectually than 9-11 truthers.
I am well aware you use ad hominem instead of logical arguments. You are also predictable with your smears.


When you accuse me of logical fallacies, but can't allow me the chance to show why they are not logical fallacies by answering fair questions directly, that simply supplies me with more evidence. When you yourself commit strawman logical fallacies, you supply me with more evidence.
You have committed multiple logical fallacies in this discussion thus you have forfeited any imagined qualifications you thought you had to make these decisions.


For referenence: intellectual honesty:
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/
I do not reference blogs for definitions of phrases.


You have accused me of a specific logical fallacy, without being able to prove such, that I have seen so far. I will, eventually, get to why I have not committed an appeal to popularity. I will show, that your charactorization of what I think is a strawman logical fallacy.
You will eventually get to nothing but a self declaration of these things. Your denial of using an argumentum ad populum and strawman arguments continues to be entertaining.


To reduce your cognitive dissonance, you will convince yourself that I am dishonest, as you seem to have already done. I will withdraw any statement that I feel is not factually supported.
You have already demonstrated that you are dishonest by lying about my intentions. Now you are lying again by falsely claiming I have cognitive dissonance.


To answer your questions:
Yes, truth is relevant.

Yes, you are the only person who can know for certain what the intent of your list is/was.
Is the only intent of my list 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? Yes or No?

Am I lying about this intent? Yes or No?

Lets see if you can answer without making excuses.


Now answer this question:

Did the statement:


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.

..imply that the truth is irrelevant? Yes or no.

If so, please demonstrate how it implies truth is irrelevant.

If that is not something I believe, or have directly contradicted, you have committed a strawman logical fallacy.
Quote where I stated it was implied.

[RandomGuy]

[fuzzy lumpkins, are] you a comedian?

This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that no comedy was implied with his post.





:p:

[RandomGuy]

Not going to go back and find any. I will remind you however, you are now on record of saying you don't. Please remember that the next time I call you on something on it.

So basically you are accusing me of something, then being a punk ass bitch and not backing it up.

I will say again:

Fuck you.

I try very hard to be civil, and although I am not always successful, in this case, don't think your comment merits such.

[RandomGuy]

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?


Just like it is possible we will not. The list is simply a resource that skeptics can use to support the argument that it will not be catastrophic but the list is not making this determination as that is not it's purpose.

"just like it is possible"

Are all theories equally valid?

Your statement seems to imply this.

For example:

It is possible that pink unicorns use their magic to make my socks.
It is possible that humans, made, or caused my socks to be made.

Can it be said that the second is possible, "just like it is possible" that the first is the actual truth?

If all theories aren't equally valid, how do we distinguish between what is more probable?

Do we ask people who are more likely to be correct about those theories?

[RandomGuy]

Quote where I stated it was implied.



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.

I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

Did I miss something?

Or am I lying about my opinion again?

[Poptech]

I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

Did I miss something?

Or am I lying about my opinion again?
That is not a quote of me using the word implied.

You are lying about the intent of my list, this has been established. You are free to retract this lie at anytime.

[RandomGuy]

You will eventually get to nothing but a self declaration of these things. Your denial of using an argumentum ad populum and strawman argument continues to be entertaining.

I'm glad I can entertain you. Hopefully I can keep you around long enough for you to provide more evidence for the thesis of the OP. :toast

Are you going to allow me to tell you why they are not either of those things, or are you just going to repeat them as fact, without allowing your claims to be challenged?

That hardly seems fair. Is it your intent not to be fair?

[Poptech]

This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that no comedy was implied with his post.
Quote where I used the word implied.

[RandomGuy]

That is not a quote of me using the word implied.

You are lying about the intent of my list, this has been established. You are free to retract this lie at anytime.

So you are going to use semantics as a defense.

You stated that my statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.

I have asked twice how you get to there from what I said.

Can you do so?

[RandomGuy]

Quote where I used the word implied.

This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that no comedy was implied with his post.

[RandomGuy]

That is not a quote of me using the word implied.



No it is not.

Even complete morons know that something can be implied without being explicit.

You are not a moron.

I assume you know that things can be implied without being explicit.

Are you saying you are a moron? I'm confused.

[RandomGuy]

Quote where I stated it was implied.



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.

I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

Did I miss something?

Once again, I want to know how you got to

"using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

From what I said.

Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.

[Poptech]

So you are going to use semantics as a defense.

You stated that my statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.
Quote where I stated this.

[RandomGuy]

Remember, it is my contention that people who are skeptical of AGW are, generally speaking, little better intellectually than 9-11 truthers.


I am well aware you use ad hominem instead of logical arguments. You are also predictable with your smears.

If you feel it is a smear, then you should be fighting the jackasses giving me that impression, as it is in your interest to fight bad logic and innappropriate uses of science as well.

Ultimately, we as a species need to figure the issue out quickly, and the fact that skepticism of AGW alarmism seems to be attracting dolts who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag should concern everyone.

Just as much as I am concerned about the dolts saying things that aren't scientifically supported going off the deep end and saying the world is coming to an end because of AGW.

Given that you have come in here, guns blazing, and been what I feel less than forthcoming, you aren't changing my impression of skeptics.

[Poptech]

This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that no comedy was implied with his post.
pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way

[RandomGuy]

Quote where I stated this.

Fer fucks sake:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5839104&postcount=3212

How many times do I have to post it?

[Poptech]

Fer fucks sake:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5839104&postcount=3212

How many times do I have to post it?
That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.

[RandomGuy]

pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way

hu·mor   /ˈhyumər or, often, ˈyu-/ Show Spelled[hyoo-mer or, often, yoo-] Show IPA
noun
1. a comic, absurd, or incongruous quality causing amusement: the humor of a situation.
2. the faculty of perceiving what is amusing or comical: He is completely without humor.


sar·casm   /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled[sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

[RandomGuy]

That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.

So when you said:

Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?

[RandomGuy]

Don't forget to clarify this for me Darrin. It is important.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209430/Weather-supercomputer-used-predict-climate-change-Britains-worst-polluters.html#ixzz0PPPxmQF3

Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters

[pictures omitted for brevity]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

It would seem that you are implying there is no AGW, because the people studying it, and believe it to be the case, use a computer that is powered by electricity that ultimately emits greenhouse gases in its generation.

Is this what you are trying to say?

[RandomGuy]

You have already demonstrated that you are dishonest by lying about my intentions.

Is it possible to genuinely believe something that may, in fact, be untruthful, and state that belief plainly, without an intent to lie? Yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

Lunch is over. Adios.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not going to sit there and argue as you dance around the meaning of the word left. Lets cut right to the chase.

Where is one indication that they are communist? Not Canadia... err socialized medicine, not leftist, but communist. You know something that indicates that they support Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism or something that actually is communist.

Justify putting up the Soviet flag in a picture thats as large as the two paragraphs you wrote, hack.

Why does the skeptical science list need to include the papers on your list in the context of an arbitrary argument?

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+eager+drill+Arctic+waters+answers+about +methane/6535248/story.html#ixzz1tOLxmL7T

Nothing to see here. After all, Poptech posted an article in his list that says there is permafrost older than 70,000 years!

[Wild Cobra]

DuiQvPLWziQ
Cool.

I hope you learned something from that.

Will you stop sidestepping the larger argument with terminology?

Anomaly means "deviation from normal." The proper way to use it in astronomy terms would to use a defining word before it like orbital, eccentrical, mean, gravitational, etc. The first two charts specifically say "sea ice" before anomaly, not seasonal.

The two chart you replied to was talking about relative changes. Not absolute. The first two charts were not speaking as astronomical anomalies, but the anomaly of numbers.

The next chart I provided shows there is nothing abnormal about the northern sea ice.

Why do you sidestep the point I am making about the southern sea ice being greater than normal for any particular day of the year? That the southern ice isn't dealing with soot like the norther ice is. If the ice was truly melting because of CO2m and temperature, then we should see a similar response with the southern sea ice.

You constantly insult me when it is you who either don't understand what point I am making. Or... maybe you do understand it, and have no valid response, so you resort to the sidestepping.

Are you capable of a proper response to my point?

I know you don't think must of me, but I'll bet PopTech is really being less and less impressed with you now.

[Poptech]

[1]No.
My understanding of evolution and ecology is that species are generally best adapted for the conditions they exist in for any length of time. Based on this, "catastrophically impacting" that ecosystem would change the conditions of that ecosystem drastically enough that it is beyond a reasonable expectation that no species in any given ecosystem would be deliterously affected. As you yourself state, there is "no such information is available for all species".
This is incorrect, as the words "catastrophic" and "harmful" are subjective. One can consider a forest fire "catastrophic" while it is actually beneficial to the health of the forest and the species within.


[2]Yes.
It is possible to believe anything, no matter how foolish and silly. There are people who believe that there exists, essentially, magic men in the sky who watch them masturbate and care about that, and that libertarian ideals would make for good government. It is always possible to believe things and later to be proven wrong.
Your qualification has nothing to do with the question.


[3]Yes, it is quite possible that species can adapt to rapid changes. This is especially true of fast living organisms, and the odds go down with longer lifespans and reproductive cycles, to my understanding, as well as for immobile things like trees.
Good.


[4]No.
Given the large number of species globally, the chances of "all species" adapting to fast changes in environment is not possible, in any reasonable scenario. As you yourself point out, some will die. That is evolution.
This is incorrect, I did not ask about the "chances" but if it was possible. How "fast" the current rate of change is subjective. All I pointed out was that when a species fails to adapt that can be considered evolution, I did not say they would not adapt to the current rate of change.


[5]Yes,
Given the difficulties involved in measuring past rates of change, it is possible that it is entirely usual.
Good.

We have established,

1. Those that believe the current rate of change to be catastrophic or harmful could be wrong.

2. Species could adapt to rapid rates of change.

3. The current rate of change may not be unusual.

[Wild Cobra]

So basically you are accusing me of something, then being a punk ass bitch and not backing it up.

I will say again:

Fuck you.

I try very hard to be civil, and although I am not always successful, in this case, don't think your comment merits such.
I have no desire to look back for such a trivial thing I have pointed out again and again. You ask PopTech if an opinion is a lie. Yes, it is, when you don't frame it as opinion, and then frame a premise incorrect as a result.

[Wild Cobra]

Good.

We have established,

1. Those that believe the current rate of change to be catastrophic or harmful could be wrong.

2. Species could adapt to rapid rates of change.

3. The current rate of change may not be unusual.
I wish I was as good at calling these guys out as you are.

[Poptech]

"just like it is possible"

Are all theories equally valid?
So long as they are falsifiable and tested using the scientific method.


Your statement seems to imply this.

For example:

It is possible that pink unicorns use their magic to make my socks.
It is possible that humans, made, or caused my socks to be made.

Can it be said that the second is possible, "just like it is possible" that the first is the actual truth?
These are both hypothesis, however the existence of pink unicorns and magic have both been rejected by science. While there is extensive empirical evidence of humans making socks. So the only valid theory would be the second.


If all theories aren't equally valid, how do we distinguish between what is more probable?
Based on falsifiability, observations and experiments.


Do we ask people who are more likely to be correct about those theories?
If you can determine who these are.

[Wild Cobra]

Based on falsifiability, observations and experiments.

I have stated to these people several times that proper scientists try to disprove their own ideas before calling them valid, that these AGW alarmists appear not to. They tell me falsifiability is not a part of science.

[Poptech]

So when you said:

Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.

What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?
A hypothetical exercise.

[Poptech]

I am not going to sit there and argue as you dance around the meaning of the word left. Lets cut right to the chase.
I didn't dance around anything. I supported my use of the phrase, "extreme-left".


Where is one indication that they are communist? Not Canadia... err socialized medicine, not leftist, but communist. You know something that indicates that they support Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism or something that actually is communist.
It is the flag of the U.S.S.R. which represents socialism - "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".


Justify putting up the Soviet flag in a picture thats as large as the two paragraphs you wrote, hack.
It is a standard image size used in articles on the site. Did you not read this the first time I stated this, FuzzyDumbkins?


Why does the skeptical science list need to include the papers on your list in the context of an arbitrary argument?
Otherwise they are cherry picking. There are hundreds of papers on the list that are explicit in their skepticism of ACC/AGW Alarm and they are not included on the list.

[Poptech]

Is it possible to genuinely believe something that may, in fact, be untruthful, and state that belief plainly, without an intent to lie? Yes or no?
pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way

You are avoiding these questions,

Is the only intent of my list 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? Yes or No?

Am I lying about this intent? Yes or No?

Lets see if you can answer without making excuses.

[MannyIsGod]

Cool.

I hope you learned something from that.

Will you stop sidestepping the larger argument with terminology?

Anomaly means "deviation from normal." The proper way to use it in astronomy terms would to use a defining word before it like orbital, eccentrical, mean, gravitational, etc. The first two charts specifically say "sea ice" before anomaly, not seasonal.

The two chart you replied to was talking about relative changes. Not absolute. The first two charts were not speaking as astronomical anomalies, but the anomaly of numbers.

The next chart I provided shows there is nothing abnormal about the northern sea ice.

Why do you sidestep the point I am making about the southern sea ice being greater than normal for any particular day of the year? That the southern ice isn't dealing with soot like the norther ice is. If the ice was truly melting because of CO2m and temperature, then we should see a similar response with the southern sea ice.

You constantly insult me when it is you who either don't understand what point I am making. Or... maybe you do understand it, and have no valid response, so you resort to the sidestepping.

Are you capable of a proper response to my point?

I know you don't think must of me, but I'll bet PopTech is really being less and less impressed with you now.

http://henning.makholm.net/blog/images/tilt/Nordpol2.png

PS I don't think much of Poptech. Couldn't care much less what he/she thinks of me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't dance around anything. I supported my use of the phrase, "extreme-left".


It is the flag of the U.S.S.R. which represents socialism - "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".


It is a standard image size used in articles on the site. Did you not read this the first time I stated this, FuzzyDumbkins?


Otherwise they are cherry picking. There are hundreds of papers on the list that are explicit in their skepticism of ACC/AGW Alarm and they are not included on the list.

It also says Republic as does North Korea. Your premise is stupid. The Soviets were a totalitarian state. Harping on their label as if its meaningful is fun and all I guess.

You dance around semantics at your convenience as an excuse when you have an audience. Equating socialized medicine which is pretty much the policy of all of our NATO allies with the soviets. Equating behavior of noted conservatives like Ted Roosevelt the most famous trust buster of all with the Soviets was a nice touch too.

Equating very and extreme. Equating anything not laissez faire capitalsim with communists and extremists.

Pseudo-political theory in place of political reality as if the GOP evangelicals could ever jive with American civil libertarians.

And lol at the 'standard' size of pictures. Picture books are meant for children; they use big pictures too. As if your label makes any difference. Its still as big as the article you posted.

Otherwise they are cherrypicking? Cherry picking from what set? Your set? So your list is the standard by which all skeptics should be judged? Exactly what are your scientific credentials?

You know whats an example of a set? A submitted scientific paper. when you choose particular data and ignore the context of the paper, thats cherry picking. Making a list and then trying to unilaterally hold everyone to that standard as if it should be canon is fun and all but it posits about nothing.

Labeling your list of articles a set that all lists of skeptic's works is fun and all but it just smacks of egomania as does coming to Spur's sites message board so you can argue a post I made more than a month ago.

Your a hack; its transparent Mr. Laissez Faire.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have no desire to look back for such a trivial thing I have pointed out again and again. You ask PopTech if an opinion is a lie. Yes, it is, when you don't frame it as opinion, and then frame a premise incorrect as a result.

You have pointed to it several times just now too yet you can not support it in anyway shape or form. Yet we are supposed to just accept that?

I agree with RG: go fuck yourself.

[RandomGuy]

I wish I was as good at calling these guys out as you are.

If you were, you would be competant enough not to make some of the illogical arguments that you do.

It is a double edged sword, and no one here trusts you with sharp objects.

[RandomGuy]

pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way

You are avoiding these questions,


Is the only intent of my list 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? Yes or No?

Am I lying about this intent? Yes or No?


First a bit of clarification, and a minor apology:

When I said you were "sidestepping" a question earlier, that was unfair. I have been meaning to get around to that. The conversation has been fast and one has to allow for things to be missed and not answered. I apologize for implying that you were avoiding answering it.

The answer to both questions is:

"I do not know"

I have only your word, and I am somewhat skeptical of that.

Now what?

[RandomGuy]

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.


I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

Did I miss something?

Once again, I want to know how you got to

"using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

From what I said.

Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.


That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.


So when you said:

Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?


A hypothetical exercise.

Really?

Please step me through this hypothical exercise.

[MannyIsGod]

Is it?

[RandomGuy]

We have established,

1. Those that believe the current rate of change to be catastrophic or harmful could be wrong.

2. Species could adapt to rapid rates of change.

3. The current rate of change may not be unusual.

You missed a couple:

3. 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.

4. People PhD's are more likely to be correct about theories within their field of study.

5. Is it possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage.

[RandomGuy]

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).


That is not an argumentum ad populum.

I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

That is your implication. Not mine.

I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

This also got ignored.

You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.

Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.

I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[RandomGuy]

Risk has two dimensions.

Probability and magnitude.

Statements of "possibility" on either side don't mean much. "anything is possible".

We have conflicting evidence where neither dimension is really nailed down to a great deal of certainty, but a good number of scientists and evidence indicating a potentially really bad outcome on a subject within their field of expertise, and some other scientists with evidence that it won't be so bad.

On a complex subject, one should expect uncertainty. This can be, and is managed all the time in business.

Good risk management dictates that you have to decide on a course of action when a risk exists.

"do nothing" is always an option.

"doing something" is always an option.

All options have costs.

Present a risk to any good CEO, and they will ask for available evidence. In this case, we get a lot of acrimonious finger pointing, and conflicting evidence.

So we take the worst case scenarios we can think of that are reasonably possible, based on this, and run with that.

Where does that lead?

[RandomGuy]

Is it?

I like to think so.

Call me an optimist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I like to think so.

Call me an optimist.

I believe its the proper course initially however i am about done with this phase with this guy.

I get tired of the moved goal posts, deflections, bait and switch, responses that do not address the argument, blanket dismissals, semantic tap dancing, sophistry, circular logic, claims of being beyond reproach, etc.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209430/Weather-supercomputer-used-predict-climate-change-Britains-worst-polluters.html#ixzz0PPPxmQF3

Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters

[pictures omitted for brevity]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

It would seem that you are implying there is no AGW, because the people studying it, and believe it to be the case, use a computer that is powered by electricity that ultimately emits greenhouse gases in its generation.

Is this what you are trying to say?

I would eventually like some clarification, just so I can understand your post. It was a bit unclear to me exactly what you were shooting for.

[RandomGuy]

I believe its the proper course initially however i am about done with this phase with this guy.

I get tired of the moved goal posts, deflections, bait and switch, responses that do not address the argument, blanket dismissals, semantic tap dancing, sophistry, circular logic, claims of being beyond reproach, etc.

I like him. He is new and shiny.

... and about as smart as I am, if not more so.

Therein lies the challenge.

I have been too busy with my own exchanges to keep up with yours.

Remember the stated intent of this thread. [yeah, the word choice is deliberate] The same thing that lets him compile his list, lets me compile mine, and I have some good fodder from him already.

[DarrinS]

It would seem that you are implying there is no AGW, because the people studying it, and believe it to be the case, use a computer that is powered by electricity that ultimately emits greenhouse gases in its generation.

Is this what you are trying to say?



No. Your irony detector sucks, btw.




I would eventually like some clarification, just so I can understand your post. It was a bit unclear to me exactly what you were shooting for.


General Beringer: Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks.
McKittrick: I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.
General Beringer: Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Omg computers use a lot of power!!!

In other news, water is wet!!!

[MannyIsGod]

No. Your irony detector sucks, btw.





General Beringer: Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks.
McKittrick: I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.
General Beringer: Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education.

You came to this conclusion based on a broad overview of how well the computer modeling at that facility has done, right? I mean of course you did, why am I even asking? You are an intellectually honest individual who makes informed decisions and doesn't ever jump to conclusions. Ever.

[Poptech]

It also says Republic as does North Korea. Your premise is stupid. The Soviets were a totalitarian state. Harping on their label as if its meaningful is fun and all I guess.
It was not the U.S.C.R.


You dance around semantics at your convenience as an excuse when you have an audience. Equating socialized medicine which is pretty much the policy of all of our NATO allies with the soviets. Equating behavior of noted conservatives like Ted Roosevelt the most famous trust buster of all with the Soviets was a nice touch too.
Just because other countries we are allied with have socialized healthcare does not make their healthcare policy any less socialist. Teddy Roosevelt was not a conservative but a progressive (hint: he created the Progressive Party and ran as a progressive). You are parroting political propaganda taught in public schools. Many of his policies reflected socialist ideals, including trust busting.


Equating very and extreme. Equating anything not laissez faire capitalsim with communists and extremists.
I was equating the "far side of" with extreme and support for "socialized medicine" and "social justice" with socialist.


Pseudo-political theory in place of political reality as if the GOP evangelicals could ever jive with American civil libertarians.
They usually don't but that does not make libertarians left-wing. Nor is the right defined only by GOP evangelicals, though I am well aware people such as yourself falsely believe this nonsense.


And lol at the 'standard' size of pictures. Picture books are meant for children; they use big pictures too. As if your label makes any difference. Its still as big as the article you posted.
It is not as big as the entire article, which includes the quotes and sources not the snippet for the main page.


Otherwise they are cherrypicking? Cherry picking from what set? Your set? So your list is the standard by which all skeptics should be judged? Exactly what are your scientific credentials?
Even if they try to claim ignorance on what is available, my list exists and they are well aware of this. Thus, they cherry picked papers that support skeptic arguments from the hundreds that are available. You can at anytime prove me wrong and demonstrate that all the papers on my list are on theirs. The failure of them to include all of the papers on their list means they have no interest in intellectual honesty in presenting both sides of the argument. Why are you using a site that is intellectually dishonest?


You know whats an example of a set? A submitted scientific paper. when you choose particular data and ignore the context of the paper, thats cherry picking.
The papers where particular data is used are very small such as the section where CO2 lags temperature changes (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#CO2) and the quoted data is clearly provided. That is called using a peer-reviewed paper to support your argument.

No paper is listed where the research data is concluded as evidence of AGW and found by the authors to be alarming.


Making a list and then trying to unilaterally hold everyone to that standard as if it should be canon is fun and all but it posits about nothing.
I am doing no such thing. What I did do was discredit the argument that the Skeptical Science page includes all of the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments.


Labeling your list of articles a set that all lists of skeptic's works is fun and all but it just smacks of egomania as does coming to Spur's sites message board so you can argue a post I made more than a month ago.
I do not understand the first part of this statement. It took sometime for my account to be approved so I was unable to comment earlier. The age of any misinformation I locate does not deter me from attempting to correct it.


Your a hack; its transparent Mr. Laissez Faire.
You have demonstrated no such thing. Though "hacker" could be applied.

[DarrinS]

You came to this conclusion based on a broad overview of how well the computer modeling at that facility has done, right? I mean of course you did, why am I even asking? You are an intellectually honest individual who makes informed decisions and doesn't ever jump to conclusions. Ever.

I just thought it was funny that their giant computer predicted drought and it was the wettest April in 100 years.

[DarrinS]

Omg computers use a lot of power!!!

In other news, water is wet!!!

The fact that it has a ginormous carbon footprint bothers me not. That's what you guys worry about.

[Poptech]

The answer to both questions is:

"I do not know"

I have only your word, and I am somewhat skeptical of that.

Now what?
Years ago I saw Roger Ebert's review of An Inconvenient Truth where he showed the clip of Al Gore stating,

"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people." - Al Gore

Ebert repeated this as the piece of evidence that convinced him. I of course was skeptical of a politician arguing a scientific position and implying there was zero scientific doubt about this position. I almost immediately found this was not true and began compiling these papers when I could not find such a resource online. Later, a combination of my working list being copied without my permission with false authorship assigned and getting tired of effectively being told or reading charges online that these papers do not exist did I get serious about publishing it as an article. Thus the intent was always to demonstrate these papers exist and provide a resource for skeptics.

[MannyIsGod]

I just thought it was funny that their giant computer predicted drought and it was the wettest April in 100 years.

So now you don't think think the computer sucks?

[MannyIsGod]

The fact that it has a ginormous carbon footprint bothers me not. That's what you guys worry about.

Really? How many of us were worried about it?

[RandomGuy]

Years ago I saw Roger Ebert's review of An Inconvenient Truth where he showed the clip of Al Gore stating,

"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people."

Ebert repeated this as the piece of evidence that convinced him. I of course was skeptical of a politician arguing a scientific position and implying their was zero scientific doubt about this position. I almost immediately found this was not true and began compiling these papers when I could not find such a resource online. Later, a combination of my working list being copied without my permission with false authorship assigned and getting tired of effectively being told or reading charges online that these papers do not exist did I get serious about publishing it as an article. Thus the intent was always to demonstrate these papers exist and provide a resource for skeptics.

Ok, that was civil, and refreshing.

Thank you very much.

That removes any doubt I had about your original intent.

That still leaves us with what to do about the wider issue of AGW.

How do you feel about people who might think that list was the only valid science on the subject?

[RandomGuy]

No. Your irony detector sucks, btw.





General Beringer: Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks.
McKittrick: I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.
General Beringer: Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education.

You do realize that, in pointing this out without being a bit more explicit, it could be interpreted to imply that AGW is false because some of the people researching the subject use a lot of energy?

I realize you were attempting to be ironic. I just wanted some clarity as to your point.

Don't blame me if you can't make yourself clear.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, Poptech here is a statement.

Since you have obviously read a lot of papers, I will trust that you have seen enough of the data to evaluate the following statement:


"there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate. "


Is there such proof? or alternately is there some evidence to this effect?

[DarrinS]

So now you don't think think the computer sucks?

The computer is fine. Their model sucks.

[Poptech]

You missed a couple:

4. People PhD's are more likely to be correct about theories within their field of study.
I do not see how this fits into your argument.

[MannyIsGod]

The computer is fine. Their model sucks.

Based on one forecast? Or have you done a comprehensive overview of the model?

[MannyIsGod]

Really? How many of us were worried about it?

Also, I know you are just a good as dodger as Poptech but maybe you could answer the question, Darrin.

[Poptech]

No few number of dolts will think it is the end-all be-all of the science on the subject. Some may even think it represents the only science on the subject that can or should be trusted. I[t] will be used this way far beyond the author's stated intent. I would be surprised if the author hasn't figured this out or seen it used. [...]

How do you feel about people who might think that list was the only valid science on the subject?
I have seen the list used in many ways but have no way to determine how a person arrives at believing papers on the list to be the only valid science. It is quite possible they have read papers on both sides and found these more convincing. Regardless, I do not recall seeing this argument being made. What I do see is it used as evidence of the existence of peer-reviewed papers that supports skeptic arguments. Usually as a reply to an alarmist challenging or demanding they produce such papers.

All I can do is clarify the purpose of the list or correct any misinformation stated about the list. I cannot control other people's behavior.

Various changes have been made to the list to make it's purpose more clear as well as a copious amount of notes added that has helped clear up misrepresentations. In relation to misrepresentations those criticizing the list have consistently stated misinformation about it more than those promoting it. In my experiences those promoting it are more likely to properly represent it than those criticizing it. I have noticed the clarifications have practically eliminated the few problems with those promoting it while it has had little to no effect on those criticizing it.

Some examples: one of the biggest problems was claiming the list was a list of skeptical scientists so this statement was added to the list, "The list is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics."

Another was that the list only included papers arguing against AGW and not also AGW Alarm, which requires not reading the word "Alarm" in the title. So there is not much I can do about that.

[Poptech]

Ok, Poptech here is a statement.

Since you have obviously read a lot of papers, I will trust that you have seen enough of the data to evaluate the following statement:

"there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate. "

Is there such proof? or alternately is there some evidence to this effect?
Proof can be defined more than one way. And what can be considered appreciable is subjective. That statement can be valid as stated.

Attempts at presenting evidence that humankind is having any appreciable affect on the global climate does exist but I have not found these very convincing.

I have seen more compelling evidence for things like land-use changes having an affect on a local climate.

[MannyIsGod]

Did you just attribute the rise in global temps to mostly land change?

[Poptech]

Did you just attribute the rise in global temps to mostly land change?
I did no such thing, as a local climate is not the same as the global climate and I did not qualify or quantify the "effect". It is best not to jump to conclusions without reading carefully.

[MannyIsGod]

Who jumped to a conclusion? I asked a question. Do you believe CO2 has a appreciable effect on the global climate?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see you more or less gave up on the actual USSR thing. Who cares if it didn't have the term capitalist in it. That was the whole point of brining up the term republic. This is what I am getting at when I say you just ignore arguments. its just a shitty one liner.

The point is that if you equate support of socialized medicine with communism then you equate almost all of NATO with communism. You are using the support of an individual of socialized medicine as a standard to call someone a communist. Thats what precipitated this: show some justification for calling them communists. You once again fail to keep up with the flow of the argument. Quite frankly i cannot believe that i am having to argue this. The Red Scare tactic is just lame.

I never said that libertarians were left wing. I don't really buy that you are any more of a libertarian as most GOP people that are disillusioned with the party lately anyway.

That, however, is besides the point. The US political system despite all of your obfuscation is a two party system. On the left you have the dems and the right you have the GOP. thats just conventional american vernacular. Making assumption about what the Village Voice is saying when they say 'left' on the basis of your pseudo-political theory is completely unfounded.

If you want to make the argument about the terms liberal versus conservative then that is one thing but quite frankly in terms of the american political system complete libertarians are neither on the left or the right. sure enough there is a libertarian parties even if they are marginalized institutionally they are not part of the bilateral symmetry that dominates US politics.

Argue the way the world is not the way you want it to be especially when you are the one that is on the extreme. laissez faire in the context of contemporary US political culture is extreme.

I never made the argument that their list was exhaustive. thats a strawman. It also stinks of bullshit.

and lol the list has to be exhaustive of everything that you judge to be skeptical science in order to be intellectually honest? Again what is your credibility to make such a qualification? This may come as a surprise to you but random internet guy doesn't get to be that arbiter. As I stated its just you being an egomaniac.

i would think that they do not agree with your list as being credible. The authors themselves say its not credible:


Some of the papers cited have been published in prominent peer review journals, including 34 from Nature and 33 from Science.

However, our analysis also shows that many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change - and so have little relevance to the theme of the list.

Furthermore, some of the authors featured on the list surprised us, so we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work - the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this.

Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, told the Carbon Brief when asked about the inclusion of his paper on the list:

"I've responded to similar queries over the years. No, this is not an accurate representation of my work and I've said so many times to them and in print.

"I've asked Dennis Avery of the Heartland Institute to take my name off [another similar] list four times and I've never had a response. There are 15 other Columbia colleagues on there as well ... and all want their names removed."

A paper on the list by Zeebe et al. published in the journal Nature Geoscience in 2009 studies the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which is a period of rapid temperature rise around 55 million years ago.

The authors found that feedbacks such as increases in other greenhouse gases were responsible for a substantial part of global warming, alongside the direct impact of carbon dioxide.

The lead author, Professor Richard Zeebe, University of Hawaii, said:

"Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."

These two papers contribute to the scientific consensus on climate change, rather than undermining it. Earth's climate has changed throughout geological time. Studies like the papers listed here have helped to explain why, broadening our understanding of the climate system.

It is precisely our knowledge of these processes that allows us to eliminate them as the cause of the current warming trend. Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are now the dominant factor forcing today's climate.

A paper by Meehl et al, also placed on the list, discussed how the 11-year solar cycle has an amplified effect on climate signals in the tropical Pacific. The author of the paper, Gerald Meehl, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), said:

"It's odd that our 2009 paper is on a site about global warming. Our paper addressed specifically the climate system response to the 11-year solar cycle. Thus it is about decadal timescale climate variability.

"It said nothing about long-term warming trends, and in fact, in the last sentence of the paper, we state, 'This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.'"

The inclusion of a paper studying the sun's influence on climate is in itself very odd. It's well established that solar irradiance has contributed little to warming since the 1960s, whilst the Earth's temperature has risen. For example, a paper by Scafetta & West (2006) says:

"Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading

I mean why should they post all of your links to scientists with an obvious conflict of interest like Idso?

[MannyIsGod]

Like I said, context.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who jumped to a conclusion? I asked a question. Do you believe CO2 has a appreciable effect on the global climate?

He won't take a stand on anything when you try to get right down to it.

I find land-use changes to be more compelling.

So you attribute most of the change to land changes?

I never said that.


Its probably to the point now where you treat him like Chump does the 9/11 truthers.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, I was mostly ignoring him regarding the discussion of the list because it seems he's incapable of addressing things out of cone he's obviously gotten used to framing it within. Everything outside of that envelope is irrelevant to him and he just ignores it or dodges the question.

But I LOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when people say that humans don't have an appreciable affect on the global climate. Its just laughable to me when that is said and I love to pick apart that foolish argument.

[Poptech]

I see you more or less gave up on the actual USSR thing. Who cares if it didn't have the term capitalist in it. That was the whole point of brining up the term republic. This is what I am getting at when I say you just ignore arguments. its just a shitty one liner.
I have not given up on anything. Are you denying that the U.S.S.R. was a socialist state? The word "Republic" was used to show they were not a monarchy and had a socialist constitution.


The point is that if you equate support of socialized medicine with communism then you equate almost all of NATO with communism. You are using the support of an individual of socialized medicine as a standard to call someone a communist.
Your point is a lie as I equated no such thing. I correctly equated socialized medicine with socialism. You lie again that I equate almost all of NATO with communism. Again I equated those countries who have socialized medicine with socialism.


Thats what precipitated this: show some justification for calling them communists. You once again fail to keep up with the flow of the argument. Quite frankly i cannot believe that i am having to argue this. The Red Scare tactic is just lame.
Quote from the article where I call them communists. I have had no problem keeping up with the argument. Your obsession with the "Red Scare" is obviously a personal problem with you.


I never said that libertarians were left wing. I don't really buy that you are any more of a libertarian as most GOP people that are disillusioned with the party lately anyway.
Of course you wouldn't as you have perpetually tried to accuse me of lying. It is an irrefutable fact that I voted for the Libertarian party in the 2008 election.


That, however, is besides the point. The US political system despite all of your obfuscation is a two party system. On the left you have the dems and the right you have the GOP. thats just conventional american vernacular. Making assumption about what the Village Voice is saying when they say 'left' on the basis of your pseudo-political theory is completely unfounded.
An undisputed liberal (left-wing) publication, the Village Vioce called them "from the far side of liberal." They did not simply call them "left". This article is simply used to support my correct usage of the phrase, "extreme-left wing" to describe them.


If you want to make the argument about the terms liberal versus conservative then that is one thing but quite frankly in terms of the american political system complete libertarians are neither on the left or the right. sure enough there is a libertarian parties even if they are marginalized institutionally they are not part of the bilateral symmetry that dominates US politics.
My argument about Libertarians was in relation to your use of the phrase "civil libertarians" and had nothing to do with nor was it related to either of the two main political parties in the U.S. I already said Libertarians were neither on the left or the right. Libertarians are clearly a part of the U.S. Political system with the Libertarian party (http://www.lp.org/). Just because the U.S. Political system is dominated by the two main parties does not change these facts.


Argue the way the world is not the way you want it to be especially when you are the one that is on the extreme. laissez faire in the context of contemporary US political culture is extreme.
It can be considered this by some, this does not change the fact that socialist policies are also considered extreme.


I never made the argument that their list was exhaustive. thats a strawman. It also stinks of bullshit.
So you admit that the Skeptical Science link does not include most of the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments on my list?


and lol the list has to be exhaustive of everything that you judge to be skeptical science in order to be intellectually honest?
Do you consider a list that claims to present both sides of an argument on a website, where the administration is aware of peer-reviewed papers for one side of the argument but fails to include these papers on their list, to be intellectually honest in their presentation of both sides of an argument?


Again what is your credibility to make such a qualification? This may come as a surprise to you but random internet guy doesn't get to be that arbiter.
I make no claims to be but remember this applies to you and your fellow commentators here.


As I stated its just you being an egomaniac.
Yes you have stated this nonsense.


i would think that they do not agree with your list as being credible. The authors themselves say its not credible:
An author making a false statement does not make it true. Why do the author's believe their papers were listed?


http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading
It helps if you read the list,

Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4034)

In Part II of his desperate attack on the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list, Christian lists "comments" from three authors without providing the question he asked them. Based on his false statements about why papers were included on the list, the question was likely based on a strawman argument intended to mislead the authors. This tactic has been tried in the past by alarmists since asking a legitimate question based on the truth would not get the response they hoped for. All the papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW alarm defined as, "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." It is made explicitly clear in the disclaimer that the list has nothing to do with any of the personal positions of the authors,

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm.


I mean why should they post all of your links to scientists with an obvious conflict of interest like Idso?
Dr. Idso is a credentialed scientist who's papers were peer-reviewed,

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

He holds not conflict of interest,

"I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented -- and continue to present -- what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write." - Sherwood Idso

Is Dr. Idso lying? Yes or No

Do not dodge the question.

[Poptech]

He won't take a stand on anything when you try to get right down to it.

I find land-use changes to be more compelling.

So you attribute most of the change to land changes?

I never said that.

Its probably to the point now where you treat him like Chump does the 9/11 truthers.
Your inability to read clearly is amazing. You delusionally read into things I never said and take them widely out of context to create strawman arguments. I explicitly said,

"I have seen more compelling evidence for things like land-use changes having an affect on a local climate."

This was in the context of the evidence that is compelling to show an affect, it was not on what I believe to be the most compelling to explain changes in the global climate. Land use change could have an affect on a local climate and still not explain 99.9% of the change. This is irrelevant to the global climate.

[Poptech]

Do you believe CO2 has a appreciable effect on the global climate?
I believe the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has an affect on the global climate. I do not believe CO2 is a climate driver.

[Poptech]

Well, I was mostly ignoring him regarding the discussion of the list because it seems he's incapable of addressing things out of cone he's obviously gotten used to framing it within. Everything outside of that envelope is irrelevant to him and he just ignores it or dodges the question.
I have addressed every point that is brought up.

[MannyIsGod]

I believe the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has an affect on the global climate. I do not believe CO2 is a climate driver.

Care to elaborate?

Do you believe the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic in nature?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yay more canned answers!

You also equated socialism with the Soviets and communism.

Where is the independent verified source that claims they are communist?

Also your Red Scare tactics are hardly my concern alone. Not resorting to it has been a cornerstone of intellectual conservatism since 1962:


Nonetheless, in February 1962 National Review ran a six-page editorial against Welch, arguing that he was damaging the anti-Communist cause by “distorting reality” and failing to distinguish between an “active pro-Communist” and an “ineffectually anti-Communist liberal.” It would be several years before Buckley excommunicated all Birchers from the conservative movement, but his editorial emphasized that “There are bounds to the dictum, Anyone on the right is my ally.”

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102241/what-william-buckley-american-conservatism


How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points . . . so far removed from common sense? That dilemma weighs on conservatives across America. . . . The underlying problem is whether conservatives can continue to acquiesce quietly in a rendition of the causes of the decline of the Republic and the entire Western world which is false, and, besides that, crucially different in practical emphasis from their own.

Even Bill would have thought you a hack.

I vote for the libertarian party all the time as I have not voted for either of the two parties in any election since 1998 and I vote in every national election. I always vote third party; many times that has been the libertarian party. Does that make me a libertarian?

Supporting a particular socialist policy neither makes one extreme nor socialist. Most Americans --myself included-- believe in a mixed economy. The acceptance of the notion of socialized medicine is pretty well split along party lines:


'. Historically, the phrase socialized medicine has been used to attack health reform proposals in the U.S. However, a new poll by the Harvard Opinion Research Program at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Harris Interactive finds that Americans are split on whether a socialized medical system would be better or worse than the current system. Among those who say they have at least some understanding of the phrase (82%), a plurality (45%) says such a system would be better while 39 percent say it would be worse. Twelve percent say they do not know and four percent say about the same.

The poll shows striking differences by party identification. Seventy percent of Republicans say that socialized medicine would be worse than our current system. The same percentage of Democrats (70%) say that a socialized medical system would be better than our current system. Independents are more evenly split with 43% saying socialized medicine would be better and 38% worse.

"These results suggest how polarizing the issue of health care will be in the general election," says Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The phrase ‘socialized medicine' really resonates as a pejorative with Republicans. However, that so many Democrats believe that socialized medicine would be an improvement is an indication of their dissatisfaction with our current system. Independents, who are the key swing group in this election, are split like the country as a whole."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/poll-americans-split-by-political-party-over-socialized-medicine.html

Further antitrust laws have been a foundation of american economic policy for over a century. At the same time most american's -myself included-- support our incarnation of property laws and subsequent liberty in forming our own businesses.

Contrast that with the laissez faire political view: the libertarian party. They have never had a representative in the US congress nor have they received over 1.1% of the popular vote.

So those authors make false statements but you still went ahead and took their work? its cherry picking plain and simple. You just pick and choose to please your confirmation bias. the whole papers were peer reviewed not just the parts that you like.

You do not get to arbiter what is considered the totality of what is considered an acceptable skeptics paper nor have i heard any decent argument why either list needs to be exhaustive.

Will you please quit asking the stupid question if I think their list is exhaustive or not. I do not contend that either the pro or the con arguments are exhaustive. Perhaps you will have a point at some point.

As for Idso, did he or did he not accept money from Exxon?

Oh and as to your edit, I am not in a position to know whether or not he is lying. I certainly can see cause as to why he would be deceptive to their influence over him but that is nothing more than supposition.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your inability to read clearly is amazing. You delusionally read into things I never said and take them widely out of context to create strawman arguments. I explicitly said,

"I have seen more compelling evidence for things like land-use changes having an affect on a local climate."

This was in the context of the evidence that is compelling to show an affect, it was not on what I believe to be the most compelling to explain changes in the global climate. Land use change could have an affect on a local climate and still not explain 99.9% of the change. This is irrelevant to the global climate.

Oh i can read just fine, dissembler.

[MannyIsGod]

Its irrelevant. Yet, he brought it up.

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have addressed every point that is brought up.

You give canned answers in your line by lines for the most part. its pretty obvious that you are practiced at arguments concerning your list. that is not the same thing as addressing every argument.

[Wild Cobra]

http://henning.makholm.net/blog/images/tilt/Nordpol2.png

PS I don't think much of Poptech. Couldn't care much less what he/she thinks of me.
Do you realize how many things you might be refering to from that?

Again, stop making me guess. I'm not playing your silly game. Put it in words.

[Wild Cobra]

If you were, you would be competant enough not to make some of the illogical arguments that you do.

It is a double edged sword, and no one here trusts you with sharp objects.
I see...

It's not my explanations you disagree with, it's that I don't speak like a snob, like you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see...

It's not my explanations you disagree with, it's that I don't speak like a snob, like you.

Logical arguments have nothing to do with arrogance except according to those intimidated by intelligence, dolt.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you realize how many things you might be refering to from that?

Again, stop making me guess. I'm not playing your silly game. Put it in words.

I put it in words for you. I gave you pictures. Videos maybe?

Its funny though because you act like I give a shit whether you understand. We're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that point.

[Wild Cobra]

I put it in words for you. I gave you pictures. Videos maybe?

Its funny though because you act like I give a shit whether you understand. We're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that point.
What does that have in your favor for sea ice? Much of the sea ice of Antarctica is outside the Antarctic Circle. Virtually none of the Arctic ice is outside the Arctic Circle.

What are you trying to say?

Am I to assume you realized you point was invalid, so you won't tell me?

[MannyIsGod]

Assume what you'd like!

[Wild Cobra]

Assume what you'd like!
That's just it. I want a strait question. I will not assume.

[Wild Cobra]

OK... I will assume that you agree that I have a point when I point our that since you agree that observation equals causality, that soot is why the average northern sea ice is in retreat while the Southern sea ice isn't. And I'm not speaking of seasonal variations, but the long term changes.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, you do that!

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, you do that!
Since you're not man enough to say what's on your mind, I will. Wanting me to be a mind reader. Shit... That's what women do to us.

[MannyIsGod]

If you're as bad at reading women as you are at reading English then I'm not surprised you'd have issues there.

[Wild Cobra]

If you're as bad at reading women as you are at reading English then I'm not surprised you'd have issues there.
I get it Manny. You're tired of me always proving you wrong. That's why you want me to guess.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats it.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll tell you what. let's try this again.

Non of us disagree that the norther sea ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern sea ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?

Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern sea ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther sea ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern sea ice follows that increase pretty good.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/cryospheresouth20120415-50pct.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png)



http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/cryospherenorth20120415-50pct.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png)[/QUOTE]
What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?

[Poptech]

You also equated socialism with the Soviets and communism.

Where is the independent verified source that claims they are communist?
This is a lie. Where is the quote from the article of me claiming they are communists?


Also your Red Scare tactics are hardly my concern alone. Not resorting to it has been a cornerstone of intellectual conservatism since 1962:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102241/what-william-buckley-american-conservatism

Even Bill would have thought you a hack.
In the context of my article they are yours alone as my article has nothing to do with the, "Red Scare". I have never referenced Buckley to support an argument. Your obsession with him is entertaining though.


I vote for the libertarian party all the time as I have not voted for either of the two parties in any election since 1998 and I vote in every national election. I always vote third party; many times that has been the libertarian party.
I have a REAL hard time believing you vote for the Libertarian party, they are not the only third party on most ballots. The Green Party would fit your views better than the Libertarian party.


Does that make me a libertarian?
No but if you do not share a majority of their views, it makes you confused.


Supporting a particular socialist policy neither makes one extreme nor socialist. Most Americans --myself included-- believe in a mixed economy. The acceptance of the notion of socialized medicine is pretty well split along party lines:
Yes, it makes you a socialist. Supporters of a mixed economy are socialists. It is irrelevant to how well it is split across party lines as both parties contain socialists. Medicare Part D was socialist, so was the bailouts of the financial sector and the auto industry.


Further antitrust laws have been a foundation of american economic policy for over a century. At the same time most american's -myself included-- support our incarnation of property laws and subsequent liberty in forming our own businesses.
The length that socialist laws have existed does not make them any less socialist. Property laws are part of the frame work for a capitalist economic system.


Contrast that with the laissez faire political view: the libertarian party. They have never had a representative in the US congress nor have they received over 1.1% of the popular vote.
This is true which is why I believe it is more effective to be a Libertarian in the Republican party. While the Libertarian political party has not had much success, Libertarians effectively have with Libertarian Republicans; Senator Rand Paul, Representative Ron Paul, Former Representative Mark Sanford and Former Senator Barry Goldwater among others.


So those authors make false statements but you still went ahead and took their work? its cherry picking plain and simple. You just pick and choose to please your confirmation bias. the whole papers were peer reviewed not just the parts that you like.
You really have a reading comprehension problem. My comment about them making false statements was in relation to why their paper was listed.

You have dodged this,

Why do the author's believe their papers were listed?


You do not get to arbiter what is considered the totality of what is considered an acceptable skeptics paper nor have i heard any decent argument why either list needs to be exhaustive.
Where am I claiming to be the arbiter of anything outside of what I actually think?


Will you please quit asking the stupid question if I think their list is exhaustive or not. I do not contend that either the pro or the con arguments are exhaustive. Perhaps you will have a point at some point.
You have dodged this,

Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?


As for Idso, did he or did he not accept money from Exxon?
ExxonMobil has given unsolicited donations to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which he is president. None of which has changed his position on the issue,

"Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully examining the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their declarations, which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue. [...]

That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that." - Sherwood Idso

His objections to AGW Alarm date back to 1980 in the peer-reviewed literature, long before the center existed.


Oh and as to your edit, I am not in a position to know whether or not he is lying. I certainly can see cause as to why he would be deceptive to their influence over him but that is nothing more than supposition.
Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?

[Poptech]

Do you believe the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic in nature?
I believe there is evidence to show it has had an anthropogenic component.

[Wild Cobra]

Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?
These libtards do this all the time. They dismiss any paper, article, etc. if they can loosely attach an energy company to it.

[Poptech]

Its irrelevant. Yet, he brought it up.
I brought it up as comparison to something that I have seen more compelling evidence for not as compelling evidence for global climate change.

[Poptech]

You give canned answers in your line by lines for the most part. its pretty obvious that you are practiced at arguments concerning your list. that is not the same thing as addressing every argument.
If you could come up with an original argument that has not been refuted about the list I would not be forced to repeat myself. Regardless, I am typing every reply here except for the quotes and links. I have addressed every argument about the list ad nauseum.

[MannyIsGod]

I believe there is evidence to show it has had an anthropogenic component.

How large of a component?

[MannyIsGod]

Also, you failed to elaborate on CO2's affect on the climate and what you meant by it not being a driver.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll tell you what. let's try this again.

Non of us disagree that the norther sea ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern sea ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?

Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern sea ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther sea ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern sea ice follows that increase pretty good.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/cryospheresouth20120415-50pct.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png)



http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/cryospherenorth20120415-50pct.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png)
What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?[/QUOTE]

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Also, you failed to elaborate on CO2's affect on the climate and what you meant by it not being a driver.
The sun is the driver. Other factors are feedbacks.

[Poptech]

These libtards do this all the time. They dismiss any paper, article, etc. if they can loosely attach an energy company to it.
It is a typical propaganda tactic to smear credentialed scientists they emotionally refuse to accept simply do not agree with them scientifically. To them if a scientist does not believe in AGW Alarm they are obviously corrupt and "evil". If they did not believe this they would have to rationally consider their arguments and that would actually cause cognitive dissonance.

It is emotionally easier for them to believe climate skeptics are all either conspiracy theorists, creationists, religious zealots, right-wing partisans, corrupt or evil.

[MannyIsGod]

It is a typical propaganda tactic to smear credentialed scientists they emotionally refuse to accept simply do not agree with them scientifically. To them if a scientist does not believe in AGW Alarm they are obviously corrupt and "evil". If they did not believe this they would have to rationally consider their arguments and that would actually cause cognitive dissonance.

It is emotionally easier for them to believe climate skeptics are all either conspiracy theorists, creationists, religious zealots, right-wing partisans, corrupt or evil.

Is this an irrefutable fact?

[Wild Cobra]

What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?

:lol
We've been over this before, but you didn't participate:

Black Carbon Global Warming (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109885)

[Wild Cobra]

Is this an irrefutable fact?
My opinion is it is observed to the point that the opinion has very relevant statistical significance.

[MannyIsGod]

We've been over this before, but you didn't participate:

Black Carbon Global Warming (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109885)

:lol

[Poptech]

How large of a component?
Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined. I am aware of the papers on this subject.

[MannyIsGod]

Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined. I am aware of the papers on this subject.

What do you believe is the range? What are other possible sources for the CO2 increase?

What do you believe to be the affect of that CO2 on the climate system?

[Poptech]

Also, you failed to elaborate on CO2's affect on the climate and what you meant by it not being a driver.
The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.

Changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not the cause of climate cycles.

[MannyIsGod]

Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?

[Wild Cobra]

Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
Oregon between the cascade and coastal mountains would be like Germany.

Oh wait...

It already is...

[Wild Cobra]

Using Hansen's formula in TAR (or was it SAR?), this is what CO2 looks like according to the IPCC AR4:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SeriesGCO2slope.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SeriesGCO2.jpg

edit add:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/IPCCformulasedited.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
Without any CO2?

We would never know, and life as we know it on this planet wouldn't exist.

As for climate temperatures... There are several periods of time the climate has been hotter with lower levels of CO2:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation-wit.jpg

not only do we have at least four periods of time in the last 12,000 years that are warmer, we have warmer at about 128,000, 238,000, 322,000, and 408,000 years ago.

Did we have this many civilizations rise and fall, creating SUV's to pollute the earth?

[MannyIsGod]

Without any CO2?

We would never know, and life as we know it on this planet wouldn't exist.

As for climate temperatures... There are several periods of time the climate has been hotter with lower levels of CO2:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation-wit.jpg

not only do we have at least four periods of time in the last 12,000 years that are warmer, we have warmer at about 128,000, 238,000, 322,000, and 408,000 years ago.

Did we have this many civilizations rise and fall, creating SUV's to pollute the earth?

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmm wonder where i got the idea from. Wait maybe it was:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s1600/USSR_Flag_500.gif

or


I have not given up on anything. Are you denying that the U.S.S.R. was a socialist state? The word "Republic" was used to show they were not a monarchy and had a socialist constitution.

or


Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?

or


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?

or


Anti-capitalists can accurately be referred to as communists, thus the image. Your feelings about these facts does not change them.

Yeah why would anyone think that you equate 'anti-capitalism,' 'socialism,' and 'communism?'

Also considering your standards then the vast majority of Americans support some facet of a mixed economy, which means they can be labeled as anti-capitalist, which means they can be labeled as socialist/communist. Most Americans for over a century merit the hammer and sickle treatment. Lovely.

You certainly like calling me dishonest. You claim no relevance to the Red Scare yet you choose the Soviet sickle and hammer and then try and dissemble like this. Quit being an intellectual coward.

As for you not believing i would vote for the Libertarian Party, i really don't care. As I stated I support the notion of a third party not the parties particular platform. I try giving political capital to third parties because I think our political system lacks plurality. i want more voices to be heard so I vote for the other voices trying to be heard.

I often find libertarian to be the only alternative option. Unfortunately I all too often find only the existing two parties and turn in an unfilled ballot.

As for your question about what their list includes in total in regards your list the answer is obvious. I am not going to play your shitty psuedo-Socratic method game. Call it avoidance all you want. Try to find a person other than yourself who cares. If you have a point then make one.

I also never claimed you made an argument based on Buckley. I am just saying that the most respected conservative intellectual of the twentieth century found your tactics reprehensible. The point in that is its a widely held view across the political spectrum that the Red Scare tactic is lame.

As for being an arbiter. Its that you extend your standard of what you think to how everyone else should think or behave. Are you really that dumb? Why is your list the standard by which their list should be judged? Because you 'think' something just lacks vehemence and credibility.

Their comments from that blog post indicates why they don't want their papers on your list. I am not going to play your shitty attempt at socratic method. they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism. They went so far in some of those papers to anticipate your kind and made disclaimers of their own.

I also have no idea when his particular association with the energy lobby began. What we know is that he does have one and despite your claims to the contrary it does display a conflict of interest. As does his work with the coal industry. Skepticism is merited in my view.

You can sit there and claim cognitive dissonance all you want. However i see no contradiction in skepticism towards behavior that was exhibited with the tobacco industry and their scientists 50 years ago.

I know its a stretch but maybe people advocate for people that pay them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and I want to make one more comment. Asking loaded questions that affirm what you consider part of your argument is fallacious. You do it again and again and then act as if its significant when you do not get an answer.

When you lack knowledge and are trying to obtain it that is one thing. At that point it makes sense to point to the evasiveness as it demonstrates a desire to hide something.

Thats not the game you are playing here. You are asking questions that if answered you can crow 'see I told you so.' Its a weak tactic and shows nothing other than the need to appeal to dramatics.

[RandomGuy]

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.


I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

Did I miss something?

Once again, I want to know how you got to

"using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

From what I said.

Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.


That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.


So when you said:

Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?


A hypothetical exercise.

Really?

Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[RandomGuy]

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).


That is not an argumentum ad populum.

I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

That is your implication. Not mine.

I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

This also got ignored.

You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.

Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.

I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[RandomGuy]

Without any CO2?

We would never know, and life as we know it on this planet wouldn't exist.

As for climate temperatures... There are several periods of time the climate has been hotter with lower levels of CO2:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation-wit.jpg

not only do we have at least four periods of time in the last 12,000 years that are warmer, we have warmer at about 128,000, 238,000, 322,000, and 408,000 years ago.

Did we have this many civilizations rise and fall, creating SUV's to pollute the earth?

Do scientists claim that natural oscillations don't exist, or that natural climate change doesn't exist?

No one here has ever claimed that is the case, either, as far as I know.

What you have here is, in essence, an appeal to ridicule.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

One could alternately construe it as a strawman argument, since there are no scientists to my knowledge that claim natural oscillations don't exist, or that natural climate change doesn't exist.

Which are you going for, appeal to ridicule or strawman? Please elaborate.

[RandomGuy]

Oh and I want to make one more comment. Asking loaded questions that affirm what you consider part of your argument is fallacious. You do it again and again and then act as if its significant when you do not get an answer.

When you lack knowledge and are trying to obtain it that is one thing. At that point it makes sense to point to the evasiveness as it demonstrates a desire to hide something.

Thats not the game you are playing here. You are asking questions that if answered you can crow 'see I told you so.' Its a weak tactic and shows nothing other than the need to appeal to dramatics.

It is perfectly fair to ask loaded questions, and it is significant when they are not honestly answered.

The trick is to find your own loaded questions.

If an argument is weak, that kind of thing will find it out.

However, he is evasive, and does not admit that anyone might make a good point, and accedes as little as possible. That is not a hallmark of intellectual honesty, but one of bias, if your goal is to get at what is true. If you can't accede someone you disagree with has a point, that provides more proof that skeptics tend to act like 9-11 truthers. I have *never* seen Cosmored, Dan, or Mouse, Parker2112, or any other of our own resident twoofers accede anything, or admit that their weak ass shit has been thoroughly debunked.

[RandomGuy]

I often find libertarian to be the only alternative option.

Libertarianism looks good on paper, but would fail to provide a workable government for a large country, as it does not do anything to overcome resource assymetry, to my knowledge. That is a huge problem, when it comes to running things fairly.

In this, it is much like communism, IMO.

Don't take my word for it. Some critiques of libertarianism are out there. Read them and decide for yourself.

To be clear:

I do think a lot of the principles are good, and am not unsympathetic, and I do share your frustration with our current system as well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Libertarianism looks good on paper, but would fail to provide a workable government for a large country, as it does not do anything to overcome resource assymetry, to my knowledge. That is a huge problem, when it comes to running things fairly.

In this, it is much like communism, IMO.

Don't take my word for it. Some critiques of libertarianism are out there. Read them and decide for yourself.

To be clear:

I do think a lot of the principles are good, and am not unsympathetic, and I do share your frustration with our current system as well.

If I felt that a third party actually had a shot to get elected then I would legitimately weigh the issues.

As to the asking of questions: questions do not make an argument. Asking questions in an effort to affirm or appear to affirm a part of your premise is fallacious. The refusal to answer your question in no way shape or form makes the premise more valid. Neither does them answering your question.

Its a tactic that I see around here a lot but it proves nothing and quite frankly wastes a lot of time. State your premise and move on. When they do not acknowledge the argument then you point it out and press the issue. All you are doing is asking someone else to make your argument for you.

[RandomGuy]

The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.

Changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not the cause of climate cycles.

... and while we are at it, the Nets? Really? That's what you are going with?

:flag: :flag: :flag: :flag:

:lobt: :lobt: :lobt: :lobt: (gonna add a fifth... I can feel it...)

[RandomGuy]

If I felt that a third party actually had a shot to get elected then I would legitimately weigh the issues.

As to the asking of questions: questions do not make an argument. Asking questions in an effort to affirm or appear to affirm a part of your premise is fallacious. The refusal to answer your question in no way shape or form makes the premise more valid. Neither does them answering your question.

Its a tactic that I see around here a lot but it proves nothing and quite frankly wastes a lot of time. State your premise and move on. When they do not acknowledge the argument then you point it out and press the issue. All you are doing is asking someone else to make your argument for you.

What it does is get some common ground put together about things everybody agrees with, and takes away room to go back on shit if you don't like it later.

[DarrinS]

The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.



If there's no strong, positive feedback mechanism, our great-grandchildren will read about AGW and wonder what all the fuss was about.

[RandomGuy]

If there's no strong, positive feedback mechanism, our great-grandchildren will read about AGW and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Indeed.

If there is, they will think you are a selfish, short-sighted fucktard, who should have listened to the warnings you were given. I do not think they would be very kind about it, e.g. Luddites.

[boutons_deux]

One of the key reasons, perhaps the only key, the carbon energy industry is paying scientific whores to deny (man-made) global warming.

Clean Energy Switch to Cost Fossil Industry $4 Trillion by 2020

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/01/clean-energy-switch-to-cost-fossil-industry-4-trillion-by-2020/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

It's all about the money, NOT about the science.

[RandomGuy]

One of the key reasons, perhaps the only key, the carbon energy industry is paying scientific whores to deny (man-made) global warming.

Clean Energy Switch to Cost Fossil Industry $4 Trillion by 2020

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/01/clean-energy-switch-to-cost-fossil-industry-4-trillion-by-2020/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

It's all about the money, NOT about the science.

The IEA 2012 report on global progress:
http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/pdfs/Tracking_Clean_Energy_Progress.pdf




I wonder what cost assumptions are built into the costs of fossil fuels avoided.

The thing that I have discovered doing the financial analysis on things like solar, is that the returns tend to have very strong NPV's because the avoided costs go up with projected inflation of fuel costs.

A doubling of the price of oil in ten years is just a 7% average rate of increase, which is less in the next ten years than it was the last ten, if I remember correctly.


Yoni, you wanted a number, there is a rough guide.

truth is truth, but you can buy a whole lot of scientific research favorable to your preferred theory for even a tenth of what they stand to lose.


(edit)


Since 2006, coal prices in China have been fully subject to market pricing and domestic coal prices rose by more than 50% from 2006 to 2008 (China Electricity Council, 2010).
The continued policy of keeping power prices relatively low meant that China’s top five stateowned power generating groups incurred losses of USD 1.9 billion in the first five months of 2011. This transpired despite an increase in power prices, making future investments in higher-cost coal technologies a potential challenge (China Electric Council, 2011).

China's goverment, by allowing these losses and not raising end user prices, is subsidizing coal power, as they do gasoline.

This will drive them to use more of it than they would otherwise.

The pool of Chinese drivers will, collectively, have more money to bid for oil than we will at some point, and be using more of it, to boot.

[DarrinS]

Indeed.

If there is, they will think you are a selfish, short-sighted fucktard, who should have listened to the warnings you were given. I do not think they would be very kind about it, e.g. Luddites.


Shouldn't you be busy building the Ark and loading pairs of animals?

[RandomGuy]

I wish I was as good at calling these guys out as you are.

Maybe you should ask PT what he thinks about your implied comparison of alarmists to nazis.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5405129&postcount=1335

That ought to win him over to your cause.

[RandomGuy]

Shouldn't you be busy building the Ark and loading pairs of animals?

If it does turn out badly, and people like you fought changes that might have prevented it tooth and nail, you think they will be thanking you? Are you that deluded?

Why would I be building an ark?

[Wild Cobra]

Do scientists claim that natural oscillations don't exist, or that natural climate change doesn't exist?

Not to my knowledge.


What you have here is, in essence, an appeal to ridicule.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

One could alternately construe it as a strawman argument, since there are no scientists to my knowledge that claim natural oscillations don't exist, or that natural climate change doesn't exist.

Which are you going for, appeal to ridicule or strawman? Please elaborate.

Option 3. Neither. Just showing the paleoclimate record.

Manny has talked about we are going to have temperatures never seen before. According to the proxies used by this chart, we have seem higher temperatures already. Some of these are pretty high already. No big deal if we gain another 2 C.

[Wild Cobra]

I stopped watching at the point where it showed bulldozers shoveling piles of bodies at some concentration camp.

I figured that once you go there, you aren't interested in the science.

LOL...

Really...

That was in the video, not my words, and an example of what politically motivated science can lead to.

If scare tactics are what you say isn't science, then why are you listening to the alarmists?

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin dodges questions, again.

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What it does is get some common ground put together about things everybody agrees with,

IOW, make your premise look valid. That right there is Ad Populum.

I can see the want to hold people accountable ie not go back on things especially around here but that still does not make it a valid line of reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

IOW, make your premise look valid. That right there is Ad Populum.

I can see the want to hold people accountable ie not go back on things especially around here but that still does not make it a valid line of reasoning.

Coming to things that everybody can agree is true is not Ad Populum.

If we both observe two cups on the table, and then say together "i see two cups on the table", that is not a logical fallacy, because both have observed it, and come to a parallel conclusion.

Ad populum is when you listen to a room full of people saying there are 3 cups on the table, and, without looking for yourself, say that they are right.

Are you trying to say that people debating something could never agree on something without that being logically flawed? Observable truth is observable truth, and irrespective of who observes it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Coming to things that everybody can agree is true is not Ad Populum.

If we both observe two cups on the table, and then say together "i see two cups on the table", that is not a logical fallacy, because both have observed it, and come to a parallel conclusion.

Ad populum is when you listen to a room full of people saying there are 3 cups on the table, and, without looking for yourself, say that they are right.

Are you trying to say that people debating something could never agree on something without that being logically flawed? Observable truth is observable truth, and irrespective of who observes it.

The fallacy is independent of human perception.

Everyone agrees this to be true
Therefore it is true.

The form is not

Everyone has not looked but everyone agrees
therefor its true

Sorry but that is just the case

[DarrinS]

The fallacy is independent of human perception.

Everyone agrees this to be true
Therefore it is true.

The form is not

Everyone has not looked but everyone agrees
therefor its true

Sorry but that is just the case




You and RG must be a lot of fun at parties.

[Poptech]

Yeah why would anyone think that you equate 'anti-capitalism,' 'socialism,' and 'communism?'
You have dodged the question,

Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?


Also considering your standards then the vast majority of Americans support some facet of a mixed economy, which means they can be labeled as anti-capitalist, which means they can be labeled as socialist/communist. Most Americans for over a century merit the hammer and sickle treatment. Lovely.
Not necessarily communist but irrefutably socialist. Just because a certain amount of American's support socialism does not make them any less socialist,

Mixed Economy (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mixed-economy) (defined) - "an economy in which some industries are privately owned and others are publicly owned or nationalized".

Those who support a mixed economy are socialists.


You certainly like calling me dishonest. You claim no relevance to the Red Scare yet you choose the Soviet sickle and hammer and then try and dissemble like this. Quit being an intellectual coward.
I choose an image of a socialist state to accurately represent an organization that is run by socialists. This had absolutely nothing to do with the anti-communism movement in the first half of the 20th century in the United States.


As for you not believing i would vote for the Libertarian Party, i really don't care. As I stated I support the notion of a third party not the parties particular platform. I try giving political capital to third parties because I think our political system lacks plurality. i want more voices to be heard so I vote for the other voices trying to be heard.

I often find libertarian to be the only alternative option. Unfortunately I all too often find only the existing two parties and turn in an unfilled ballot.
In this specific instance I have a very hard time believing you knowingly voted Libertarian and were fully aware of their views.


As for your question about what their list includes in total in regards your list the answer is obvious. I am not going to play your shitty psuedo-Socratic method game. Call it avoidance all you want. Try to find a person other than yourself who cares. If you have a point then make one.
You don't like these games your friends here play?

You have dodged this question again,

Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?


I also never claimed you made an argument based on Buckley. I am just saying that the most respected conservative intellectual of the twentieth century found your tactics reprehensible. The point in that is its a widely held view across the political spectrum that the Red Scare tactic is lame.
You respect Buckley? Who is considered respected is subjective. I used no such related "tactic". Why do you keep lying about my correct usage of a flag of a socialist state to represent an organization that holds socialist views? My usage of that image had absolutely nothing to do with the anti-communist movement in the first half of the 20th century in the United States.


As for being an arbiter. Its that you extend your standard of what you think to how everyone else should think or behave. Are you really that dumb? Why is your list the standard by which their list should be judged? Because you 'think' something just lacks vehemence and credibility.
I made no such claim. What I did do was demonstrate that the Skeptical Science link cherry picked papers.

Do you consider a list that claims to present both sides of an argument on a website, where the administration is aware of peer-reviewed papers for one side of the argument but fails to include these papers on their list, to be intellectually honest in their presentation of both sides of an argument?


Their comments from that blog post indicates why they don't want their papers on your list. I am not going to play your shitty attempt at socratic method. they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism. They went so far in some of those papers to anticipate your kind and made disclaimers of their own.
Was this the reason their papers were listed?

Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?


I also have no idea when his particular association with the energy lobby began. What we know is that he does have one and despite your claims to the contrary it does display a conflict of interest. As does his work with the coal industry. Skepticism is merited in my view.
These are very serious charges,

Do you have evidence he received monetary donations from energy companies in the 1980s?

Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?


You can sit there and claim cognitive dissonance all you want. However i see no contradiction in skepticism towards behavior that was exhibited with the tobacco industry and their scientists 50 years ago.
Thank you for proving my point,

"It is emotionally easier for them to believe climate skeptics are all either conspiracy theorists, creationists, religious zealots, right-wing partisans, corrupt or evil."


I know its a stretch but maybe people advocate for people that pay them.
So AGW Alarm proponents advocate for government?

[Poptech]

Oh and I want to make one more comment. Asking loaded questions that affirm what you consider part of your argument is fallacious. You do it again and again and then act as if its significant when you do not get an answer.

When you lack knowledge and are trying to obtain it that is one thing. At that point it makes sense to point to the evasiveness as it demonstrates a desire to hide something.

Thats not the game you are playing here. You are asking questions that if answered you can crow 'see I told you so.' Its a weak tactic and shows nothing other than the need to appeal to dramatics.
Why are you describing your friends behavior here?

[Poptech]

However, he is evasive, and does not admit that anyone might make a good point, and accedes as little as possible.
Because you have not made a good point.


If you can't accede someone you disagree with has a point, that provides more proof that skeptics tend to act like 9-11 truthers.
Thank you for continuing to prove my point,

"It is emotionally easier for them to believe climate skeptics are all either conspiracy theorists, creationists, religious zealots, right-wing partisans, corrupt or evil."

[Poptech]

Really?

Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

Your claim, your burden of proof.
I forgot to add the word "hypothetically" before the statement.

[Poptech]

That is not an argumentum ad populum.

I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

That is your implication. Not mine.

I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

Your claim, your burden of proof.
Is the use of an argumentum ad populum to criticize the validity of my list a logical fallacy? Yes or No?

[Poptech]

Libertarianism looks good on paper, but would fail to provide a workable government for a large country, as it does not do anything to overcome resource assymetry, to my knowledge. That is a huge problem, when it comes to running things fairly.
Is what is considered "running things fairly" subjective?


In this, it is much like communism, IMO.
Support this statement.

[Poptech]

They have now turned on each other,

As to the asking of questions: questions do not make an argument. Asking questions in an effort to affirm or appear to affirm a part of your premise is fallacious. The refusal to answer your question in no way shape or form makes the premise more valid. Neither does them answering your question.

Its a tactic that I see around here a lot but it proves nothing and quite frankly wastes a lot of time. State your premise and move on. When they do not acknowledge the argument then you point it out and press the issue. All you are doing is asking someone else to make your argument for you.

[Poptech]

Shouldn't you be busy building the Ark and loading pairs of animals?
:lol

[RandomGuy]

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.


I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

Did I miss something?

Once again, I want to know how you got to

"using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

From what I said.

Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.


That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.


So when you said:

Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?


A hypothetical exercise.


Really?

Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

Your claim, your burden of proof.


I forgot to add the word "hypothetically" before the statement.

You forgot.

Okaaaay.

Please step me through this hypothetical exercise. I would hate for the potential to exist for anything I might think to lead to truth being irrelevant.

Can you step me through this hypothetical exercise or not?

[RandomGuy]

Is what is considered "running things fairly" subjective?


Support this statement.

Start another thread on the topic, if you are interested.

heh, this one is busy enough.

[Poptech]

You forgot.

Okaaaay.

Please step me through this hypothetical exercise. I would hate for the potential to exist for anything I might think to lead to truth being irrelevant.

Can you step me through this hypothetical exercise or not?
You are unaware of what a hypothetical argument is?

[Poptech]

In this, it [Libertarianism] is much like communism, IMO.


Start another thread on the topic, if you are interested.

heh, this one is busy enough.
This is a very serious allegation surely you can support it.

[RandomGuy]

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).



That is not an argumentum ad populum.

I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

That is your implication. Not mine.

I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

This also got ignored.

You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.

Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.

I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.

Your claim, your burden of proof.


Is the use of an argumentum ad populum to criticize the validity of my list a logical fallacy? Yes or No?

Yes, the use of a defined logical fallacy to attempt to prove/disprove something is a logical fallacy. :lol

Now prove that my question/statement is as you claim.

[RandomGuy]

This is a very serious allegation surely you can support it.

Surely I can.

In a different thread.

Try this one:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165295

[RandomGuy]

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.


I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

Did I miss something?

Once again, I want to know how you got to

"using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

From what I said.

Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.


That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.


So when you said:

Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?


A hypothetical exercise.


Really?

Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

Your claim, your burden of proof.


I forgot to add the word "hypothetically" before the statement.


You forgot.

Okaaaay.

Please step me through this hypothetical exercise. I would hate for the potential to exist for anything I might think to lead to truth being irrelevant.

Can you step me through this hypothetical exercise or not?


You are unaware of what a hypothetical argument is?

Answering a question with a question is evasive.

Yes or no, can you show me this hypothetical exercise?

(edit)
This is the fourth time the same basic question has been asked.

[Poptech]

Yes it is.

Now prove that my question/statement is as you claim.
If your intent was to just see a "wider picture" then you would have initially stated this, you did not. My opinion on this will never change so don't waste your time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah because use of the giant red flag of the USSR has nothing to do with the tactics about scaring the American populace with concern over the rising influence of the Soviet union.

You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s1600/USSR_Flag_500.gif

No one is arguing your use of a socialist state. We are arguing the gratuitous use of that particular state.

Intellectual cowardice at its finest.

So by your standard everyone in America is socialist. I reject that standard as I imagine would most Americans. You can label things all you like. You do seem to like doing that.

Contra that is that most Americans supporting property laws makes them capitalist too.

I think at that point given your standard the conclusion obviously is that socialist does not imply anti-capitalist or the reverse by your definition.

That would be the third time i have answered that particular question. As to your last little dig, my point is you both do it. You can bold your questions and wave your hands all you like. Its meaningless posturing. if you cannot figure out the obvious thats your problem and if you want me to begin the premise of your argument, you can forget about it.

Its a weak and obvious tactic in a game that I do not play.

As for voting for the Libertarian Party, I have stated my reasoning. Its obvious from the result of every election ever that they have a chance of nil of winning and I have told you about my desire for more plurality in the American system. Most libertarians that i have met do not behave as a sophist like you do and the notion of a third political voice having a say appeals to me more than your obvious limited imagination can conceive of.

As for your next bolded question, I again am not going to answer it. I have told you why. You dodged the argument by trying to place the blame on RG however its quite obvious you exhibit the same behavior to a much greater degree.

Now I will extend my same arguments again. Those authors objected to their inclusion on the list. They have asked specifically to be taken off the list unless I am mistaken. Meehl, I believe, went so far to go to say that using his analysis is improper for describing trends.

This leaves you a choice. You can ask your question again which once again i will repeat myself or you can actually make your argument for yourself. I am sure you will try and discredit me instead. Oh well.

I asked when his relationship with the energy lobby began. I don't know. thats the entire basis of your argument. Its known that he does and its also known that he has worked with the coal lobby regarding advertisement campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/business/pro-coal-ad-campaign-disputes-warming-idea.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Now as I stated I have a concern with scientists that behave in the same way as tobacco scientists that worked with cigarette manufacturers in the first half of the twentieth century until now.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120106164921.htm

Their tactics are widely publicized. Oil and tobacco magnates have lobbied together and worked in tandem before like with the Heritage Foundation with Phillip-Morris and ExxonMobil so yes I have a very healthy skepticism as these are the same people that brought us

http://nadinejolie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cigarette-ads2.jpg

As for the last, i think that the influence of agencies such as the NSF or NASA has on the scientists they endorse should be very concerning. The difference however is there is at least a measure of oversight and accountability.

Further, unlike when dealing with ExxonMobil, we can file for discovery of documents using the Freedom of Information Act. I see no obvious economic benefit to them making a conclusion one way or another. OTOH, the impact for the energy lobby is obvious. Its saying their product is unsafe.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You and RG must be a lot of fun at parties.

You must not have done very well in school.

[Poptech]

Yes or no, can you show me this hypothetical exercise?
It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.

[RandomGuy]

If your intent was to just see a "wider picture" then you would have initially stated this, you did not. My opinion on this will never change so don't waste your time.

You have failed to show an argumentum ad populum. I will not waste my time asking you for this again, you have been given enough opportunity to address it.


Yes or no, if someone states something as factual, but cannot or will not prove it, is it logical to reject that statement?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I definitely get what you are saying regarding fundamentalists. As i read him talking about how it could make the truth irrelevant i am beginning to read 'only my truth is relevant.'

Basically i read what you are saying is that if things are uncertain then doesn't it make sense to consider the possibility of both sides. Hes is saying that by admitting that you may have a point that he is allowing for the possibility that the truth is irrelevant. The logical conclusion if that is the case is that only his position is the truth.

[RandomGuy]

It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.

You forgot to say "hypothetically".

:lmao

You can't, or won't, show me this hypothetical exercise.

I got it.

Hypothetically a lack of ability to explain ones statements or a lack of willingess to explain ones statements is the mark of a sophist.

Hypothically, speaking that is.

[DarrinS]

This must be getting serious -- RG is using his big-boy fonts.

[Poptech]

You have failed to show an argumentum ad populum. I will not waste my time asking you for this again, you have been given enough opportunity to address it.

Yes or no, if someone states something as factual, but cannot or will not prove it, is it logical to reject that statement?
It was directly implied. Did you not read this the first time?

My opinion on this will never change so don't waste your time.

Your argumentum ad populum is noted.

[Poptech]

You forgot to say "hypothetically".

:lmao

You can't, or won't, show me this hypothetical exercise.

I got it.

Hypothetically a lack of ability to explain ones statements or a lack of willingess to explain ones statements is the mark of a sophist.

Hypothically, speaking that is.
This was just explained to you,

It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.

This does not need the word hypothetically added to it.

Your failure to show where I claimed you stated or implied this is the mark of a sophist.

Do you not know what a hypothetical argument is?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They have now turned on each other,

RG and I are two different people and he will tell you that we do not agree on everything by any measure. I suppose in your little myopic world that you do not understand that possibility exists but we often disagree and I have a healthy respect for him nonetheless. I have no respect for you whatsoever.

[Poptech]

This must be getting serious -- RG is using his big-boy fonts.
:lol

He is aggravated because he was called out using an argumentum ad populum when he falsely claims to be a logical debater.

[RandomGuy]

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.


I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

Did I miss something?

Once again, I want to know how you got to

"using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

From what I said.

Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.


That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.


So when you said:

Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?


A hypothetical exercise.


Really?

Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

Your claim, your burden of proof.


I forgot to add the word "hypothetically" before the statement.


You forgot.

Okaaaay.

Please step me through this hypothetical exercise. I would hate for the potential to exist for anything I might think to lead to truth being irrelevant.

Can you step me through this hypothetical exercise or not?


You are unaware of what a hypothetical argument is?


Answering a question with a question is evasive.

Yes or no, can you show me this hypothetical exercise?

(edit)
This is the fourth time the same basic question has been asked.


It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.

You have not, after being asked repeatedly shown how "this" or "that" argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant.

I am forced, at this point, to believe that you cannot, or will not.

I am not entirely sure what to make of this.

If you cannot, that means you don't know, and made shit up. If you will not... that is a bit more open ended.


Either way, you get added to my list. Thank you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You dropped the argument that you lack the credibility to be the arbiter of the set of total skeptic arguments or further what entails a skeptic argument for all of us to use.

You have to have a defined set to cherry pick from or its not meaningful cherrypicking in the sense that its invalid.

Now in argumentation when you drop an argument you concede it and we both know, my little sophist monkey, that we cannot have that.

[RandomGuy]

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).



That is not an argumentum ad populum.

I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

That is your implication. Not mine.

I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

This also got ignored.

You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.

Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.

I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.

Your claim, your burden of proof.


Is the use of an argumentum ad populum to criticize the validity of my list a logical fallacy? Yes or No?

Yes, the use of a defined logical fallacy to attempt to prove/disprove something is a logical fallacy. :lol

Now prove that my question/statement is as you claim.


It was directly implied...


That, again, is not an answer to my question, nor does it show the structure of your underlying charge. You saying it is implied, especially when it is not explicitly stated, nor even directly intended on my part, does not make it so.

We both know the logical answer is, yes, it is logical to reject your statement.

Your charge is rejected.

(edit)

Error redacted. Not quite a strawman.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At least when I accused you of using the appeal to popularity I used the form. What I want to see is the meltdown he will have if we ever get him into what he considers a logical corner. its going to require what he considers a logical corner because of how his ego appears to work. Its only his truth that is relevant after all.

He is kind of like Darrin that he would rather die than concede a point.

[RandomGuy]

At least when I accused you of using the appeal to popularity I used the form. What I want to see is the meltdown he will have if we ever get him into what he considers a logical corner. He is kind of like Darrin that he would rather die than concede a point.

Still don't quite see it. (puzzled)

I am willing to withdraw anything proven to be logically or factually flawed.

Could you step me through it? Maybe PoopDeck will learn something.

[RandomGuy]

:lol

He is aggravated because he was called out using an argumentum ad populum when he falsely claims to be a logical debater.

I am not aggravated.

I just want you to not have the excuse of not being able to see it.

Again, thanks for helping me prove the OP.

[Th'Pusher]

Poptech, as an impartial, but interested viewer of this debate, I must say that you are not bringing much to the table other than offering paradoxical reasoning while focusing on inconsequential minutiae like defending your use of the soviet flag and RG's supposed use of argumentum ad populum, which I do not think you effectively defended.

You have open and unanswered questions to MiG (and RG) relating to the actual science. this particular sequence went unanswered by you:


Originally Posted by Poptech
Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined. I am aware of the papers on this subject.


Originally Posted by Poptech
The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.

Changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not the cause of climate cycles.



Originally Posted by MiG
Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still don't quite see it. (puzzled)

I am willing to withdraw anything proven to be logically or factually flawed.

Could you step me through it? Maybe PoopDeck will learn something.

If you are talking about his assertion then I have no clue. I have been wondering that myself and waiting for him to actually show the argument rather than just claim its existence.

As for mine, it comes down to it its a problem with epistemology. I do not know your exact wording but you said you liked asking questions because it led to a concensus. I said that was an invalid reason for validity because the argument 'everyone agrees therefore it is true' is pretty much the definition of ad populum.

OTOH, how can we know anything? Thats the other side of that particular coin as when it comes down to it cause is unknowable without having some rational construct to work with. I have yet to see a rational construct based on anything other than observation. Introduce the fallibility of sensory perception and the fallibility of inserting agreement for the truth and you are left with nothing. Its all that shit that Hume was getting at.

So i get what you are saying to no small extent but when push comes to shove I guess i cannot agree with it wholeheartedly. Its the basis of the quote in my sig.

[RandomGuy]

as you did with your argumentum ad populum.





[b]My opinion on this...


You are right to walk that back.

Or did you forget to say "it is my opinion that your..."

:lol

Awfully convenient to forget things like stating an opinion as a fact.

Man, I wish I could wave my magic opinion wand and make them into facts. Can you share your magic power with me?

[RandomGuy]

If you are talking about his assertion then I have no clue. I have been wondering that myself and waiting for him to actually show the argument rather than just claim its existence.

As for mine, it comes down to it its a problem with epistemology. I do not know your exact wording but you said you liked asking questions because it led to a concensus. I said that was an invalid reason for validity because the argument 'everyone agrees therefore it is true' is pretty much the definition of ad populum.

OTOH, how can we know anything? Thats the other side of that particular coin as when it comes down to it cause is unknowable without having some rational construct to work with. I have yet to see a rational construct based on anything other than observation. Introduce the fallibility of sensory perception and the fallibility of inserting agreement for the truth and you are left with nothing. Its all that shit that Hume was getting at.

So i get what you are saying to no small extent but when push comes to shove I guess i cannot agree with it wholeheartedly. Its the basis of the quote in my sig.

aaaaah. (nods)

Gotcha. I see your point now. It *is* something of a paradox. Now you are getting into philosophy, which is a bit out of my normal area of interest.

Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

RG and I are two different people and he will tell you that we do not agree on everything by any measure. I suppose in your little myopic world that you do not understand that possibility exists but we often disagree and I have a healthy respect for him nonetheless. I have no respect for you whatsoever.

It isn't the first time we have gotten into it either.

One should never be afraid to call out someone, no matter how much you like them or respect them, or generally agree with them on most things.

That is a hallmark of intellectual honesty and good faith.

Something that seem to be in short supply these days.

[Poptech]

Yeah because use of the giant red flag of the USSR has nothing to do with the tactics about scaring the American populace with concern over the rising influence of the Soviet union.
Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?

The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".


You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s1600/USSR_Flag_500.gif
My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,

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

It is clearly used to equate socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.


No one is arguing your use of a socialist state. We are arguing the gratuitous use of that particular state.
Then you are arguing a strawman.


So by your standard everyone in America is socialist. I reject that standard as I imagine would most Americans. You can label things all you like. You do seem to like doing that.
Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.

Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?

Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?


Contra that is that most Americans supporting property laws makes them capitalist too.

I think at that point given your standard the conclusion obviously is that socialist does not imply anti-capitalist or the reverse by your definition.
Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.


That would be the third time i have answered that particular question. As to your last little dig, my point is you both do it. You can bold your questions and wave your hands all you like. Its meaningless posturing. if you cannot figure out the obvious thats your problem and if you want me to begin the premise of your argument, you can forget about it.
You have dodged this question again,

Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?


As for voting for the Libertarian Party, I have stated my reasoning. Its obvious from the result of every election ever that they have a chance of nil of winning and I have told you about my desire for more plurality in the American system. Most libertarians that i have met do not behave as a sophist like you do and the notion of a third political voice having a say appeals to me more than your obvious limited imagination can conceive of.
I am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a sophist?


As for your next bolded question, I again am not going to answer it. I have told you why. You dodged the argument by trying to place the blame on RG however its quite obvious you exhibit the same behavior to a much greater degree.
You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?


Now I will extend my same arguments again. Those authors objected to their inclusion on the list. They have asked specifically to be taken off the list unless I am mistaken. Meehl, I believe, went so far to go to say that using his analysis is improper for describing trends.
Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.


...they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism.

Was this the reason their papers were listed?

Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?


I asked when his relationship with the energy lobby began. I don't know. thats the entire basis of your argument. Its known that he does and its also known that he has worked with the coal lobby regarding advertisement campaigns.
Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.

Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?

Can a corporation and a scientist hold the same position independently?

Now as I stated I have a concern with scientists that behave in the same way as tobacco scientists that worked with cigarette manufacturers in the first half of the twentieth century until now.

Their tactics are widely publicized. Oil and tobacco magnates have lobbied together and worked in tandem before like with the Heritage Foundation with Phillip-Morris and ExxonMobil so yes I have a very healthy skepticism as these are the same people that brought us
You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then your intent is to smear credentialed scientists.

Do you have any evidence of corruption?

[Poptech]

Either way, you get added to my list. Thank you.
I can play this game as well. I will work on this in detail (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5845193#post5845193) if you like?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yay more questions inserted for arguments! So without further ado:


Yeah because use of the giant red flag of the USSR has nothing to do with the tactics about scaring the American populace with concern over the rising influence of the Soviet union.

You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aFGesBSY93w/ToojeWhzlwI/AAAAAAAAAc8/ug_T364OR4w/s1600/USSR_Flag_500.gif

No one is arguing your use of a socialist state. We are arguing the gratuitous use of that particular state.

Intellectual cowardice at its finest.

So by your standard everyone in America is socialist. I reject that standard as I imagine would most Americans. You can label things all you like. You do seem to like doing that.

Contra that is that most Americans supporting property laws makes them capitalist too.

I think at that point given your standard the conclusion obviously is that socialist does not imply anti-capitalist or the reverse by your definition.

That would be the third time i have answered that particular question. As to your last little dig, my point is you both do it. You can bold your questions and wave your hands all you like. Its meaningless posturing. if you cannot figure out the obvious thats your problem and if you want me to begin the premise of your argument, you can forget about it.

Its a weak and obvious tactic in a game that I do not play.

As for voting for the Libertarian Party, I have stated my reasoning. Its obvious from the result of every election ever that they have a chance of nil of winning and I have told you about my desire for more plurality in the American system. Most libertarians that i have met do not behave as a sophist like you do and the notion of a third political voice having a say appeals to me more than your obvious limited imagination can conceive of.

As for your next bolded question, I again am not going to answer it. I have told you why. You dodged the argument by trying to place the blame on RG however its quite obvious you exhibit the same behavior to a much greater degree.

Now I will extend my same arguments again. Those authors objected to their inclusion on the list. They have asked specifically to be taken off the list unless I am mistaken. Meehl, I believe, went so far to go to say that using his analysis is improper for describing trends.

This leaves you a choice. You can ask your question again which once again i will repeat myself or you can actually make your argument for yourself. I am sure you will try and discredit me instead. Oh well.

I asked when his relationship with the energy lobby began. I don't know. thats the entire basis of your argument. Its known that he does and its also known that he has worked with the coal lobby regarding advertisement campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/business/pro-coal-ad-campaign-disputes-warming-idea.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Now as I stated I have a concern with scientists that behave in the same way as tobacco scientists that worked with cigarette manufacturers in the first half of the twentieth century until now.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120106164921.htm

Their tactics are widely publicized. Oil and tobacco magnates have lobbied together and worked in tandem before like with the Heritage Foundation with Phillip-Morris and ExxonMobil so yes I have a very healthy skepticism as these are the same people that brought us

http://nadinejolie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cigarette-ads2.jpg

As for the last, i think that the influence of agencies such as the NSF or NASA has on the scientists they endorse should be very concerning. The difference however is there is at least a measure of oversight and accountability.

Further, unlike when dealing with ExxonMobil, we can file for discovery of documents using the Freedom of Information Act. I see no obvious economic benefit to them making a conclusion one way or another. OTOH, the impact for the energy lobby is obvious. Its saying their product is unsafe.

Linking liberals to Soviets and using large red effigies is not red scare tactics because the USSR was socialist! WOOHOO!

Supporting socialist programs makes you a socialist but supporting capitalist programs does not make you a capitalist! WOOHOO!

Ask more questions and pretend like its an adequate argument, monkey.

[RandomGuy]

Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?

The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".


My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,

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

It is clearly used equate a socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.


Then you are arguing a strawman.


Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.

Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?

Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?


Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.


You have dodged this question again,

Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?


I am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a Sophist?


You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?


Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.



Was this the reason their papers were listed?

Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?


Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.

Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?

Can an industry and a scientist hold the same position independently?

You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then you intent is to smear credentialed scientists.

Do you have any evidence of corruption?

Do you have any evidence of a "new thread" button? hint hint :p:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You dropped the argument that you lack the credibility to be the arbiter of the set of total skeptic arguments or further what entails a skeptic argument for all of us to use.

You have to have a defined set to cherry pick from or its not meaningful cherrypicking in the sense that its invalid.

Now in argumentation when you drop an argument you concede it and we both know, my little sophist monkey, that we cannot have that.

And don't forget about this, monkey.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't forget this either:


Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?