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

[RandomGuy]

Notice how bad you have to try and poison the well with your trolling.
...or you are a computer illiterate who applies psychobabble when you do not understand something but want to make yourself feel intelligent.



Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

I dont' think your claims are false, nor do I represent them as such. You very studiously adhere to only true statements, I will freely admit to much.

Just as studiously, you never admit to any relevant evidence on the topic of AGW that might point to its [potentially catastrophic effects--RG], nor do you bother to rightfully qualify things, as noted.

Yet again, you start slinging terms about logical fallacies, without supporting them.

Either you don't understand what they are, or you know, and are deliberately lying about what I am saying.

Given you have never demonstrated a knowledge of what a logical fallacy is, I would say the former is more likely, but the latter is quite possible, given your apparent mental state.

[RandomGuy]

No kidding.

I haven't heard that rubber/glue thing since maybe 3rd grade.

Neither had I. Can't put pictures in blue text.

[RandomGuy]

Actually to be accurate I am politically independent. You are not going to get anything out of me insulting Ron Paul.

Mises then?

The Austrian school?

The precioussss lisst....?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, he is intellectually dishonest on a very frequent basis.

Sometimes I call him RandomPropagandaGuy.

Find an example of my intellectual dishonesty then.

If I do it on a frequent basis, it should be easy for you.

Example, and why you think it is intellectually dishonest, along with a link.

[DarrinS]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

I dont' think your claims are false, nor do I represent them as such. You very studiously adhere to only true statements, I will freely admit to much.

Just as studiously, you never admit to any relevant evidence on the topic of AGW that might point to its existence, nor do you bother to rightfully qualify things, as noted.

Yet again, you start slinging terms about logical fallacies, without supporting them.

Either you don't understand what they are, or you know, and are deliberately lying about what I am saying.

Given you have never demonstrated a knowledge of what a logical fallacy is, I would say the former is more likely, but the latter is quite possible, given your apparent mental state.


Again, the skeptic argument isn't about the existence of AGW, it's about whether or not AGW is catastrophic.

The title of his list:

"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"

[RandomGuy]

Any attempt to undermine a person's argument using character attacks or attacking their motives can be considered an ad hominem logical fallacy whether you explicitly make an argument or not while doing it.

I did not lie as you repeatedly engage in this behavior.

There is a difference between insults and saying your points are somehow invalid because you are a stinky booger-brain.

One should, as I have point out that your insanity and intellectual dishonesty should cause any reasonable person to approach your assertions with a bit more skepticism than would otherwise be the case.

"can be considered" is not the same as "can be proven".

You do understand there is a difference, yes?

[RandomGuy]

Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy, automation is not "self-googling", let alone the usage of basic web analytics. The only "cause" I have is to correct misinformation stated about my work and or make clarifications when necessary.

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

[boutons_deux]

What caused the drought, worse than the current on, 1,200 years ago?

naturally varying climatic conditions, El Nino/La Nina, etc, etc.

certainly not the draught, extreme weather, coal/oil-burning industrial revolution, AGW of 1000+ years later.

[RandomGuy]

Again, the skeptic argument isn't about the existence of AGW, it's about whether or not AGW is catastrophic.

The title of his list:

"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"


I dont' think your claims are false, nor do I represent them as such. You very studiously adhere to only true statements, I will freely admit to much.

Just as studiously, you never admit to any relevant evidence on the topic of AGW that might point to its potential catastrophic consequences, nor do you bother to rightfully qualify things, as noted.

Yet again, you start slinging terms about logical fallacies, without supporting them.

Either you don't understand what they are, or you know, and are deliberately lying about what I am saying.

Given you have never demonstrated a knowledge of what a logical fallacy is, I would say the former is more likely, but the latter is quite possible, given your apparent mental state.

Thanks, I genuinely appreciate the correction.

Better?

[RandomGuy]

I think the shills* are mad at me because I made this post.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197176&page=16&p=7711788&viewfull=1#post7711788


*
http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways.html

... and there he is. You have a new buddy, Cosmored. Maybe you can get him to comment in your thread.

[RandomGuy]

Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy and learn to cite reliable sources.

The stated purposed is quite clear as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. Which paper supporting a skeptic argument did I intentionally leave off the list?

This argument is incoherent, why would I provide papers that do not support skeptic arguments in a resource that was created only for papers that support skeptic arguments?

Where does the list claim to be a comprehensive resource on climate change?


I am claiming you are intellectually dishonest. I say this because you do not bother with even admitting the existence of evidence that might point to the catastrophic effects of AGW, here or elsewhere, that I have ever seen, let alone the volume or weight of that evidence.

Wikipedia is credible to a degree, and does provide reasonably useful information. Feel free to cite what you think is a more credible definition of cherry picking as a logical failing if you feel that the one wikipedia provided was inadequate. Telling me to "cite reliable sources" isn't the hallmark of someone seeking truth, it is the hallmark of someone soothing a wounded ego. A real truth seeker would want to get an agreed-on definition, so that true could be reasonably determined, and would provide one.



Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.

— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.

The very act of creating the website the way you have structured it, is cherry picking.

Again, you will hide behind the "but that is my stated purpose" all you want. That is just being honest about cherry picking.


Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:

One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."[1]

Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty.

Seems like a fair definition to me. Again, feel free to post what you think is better or more credible. I will work with that definition to show you are intellectually dishonest, because by any fair interpretation, your website is a dishonest one, by the simple dint of not alluding to the strength or merits of the theory you are so desperately attempting to criticise and debunk.

[DarrinS]

Wouldn't it be dishonest to include alarmists papers in a list with this title?


"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"

[RandomGuy]

Conspiratorial argumentation, I did not deliberately do anything let alone with an intent to deceive. The list is fully cited and sourced as there is nothing to hide.

The criteria for support is that the papers are either explicit to a skeptical position, were written by a skeptic, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso (http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.php) Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/) Ph.D. Climatology not me.

So again you spread misinformation as I am not the sole arbiter.

How "strongly" something supports a skeptic argument is purely subjective, alarmists like yourself believe some to be weak while skeptics would believe them to be strong.


Perpetual strawman argument, papers that support AGW have nothing to do with my resource nor do I claim they do not exist. Any reader of my resource who is literate would clearly know that it relates to the skeptic side of the argument as it is explicitly titled: "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"

I didn't represent my analysis as fact, merely that it was my guess.

Thanks for providing information here that you did not on the website.

Support is defined here, but not on your website.


explicit to a skeptical position, were written by a skeptic, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso (http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.php) Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/) Ph.D. Climatology not me.

So how is a paper to determined be "explicit to a skeptical position"? or determine who is "skeptical"?

[RandomGuy]

Wouldn't it be dishonest to include alarmists papers in a list with this title?


"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"

It would be. Not my point though.

I am making a point about intellectual honesty. Such a list is, on its face, intellectually dishonest, without some qualification of what the list really means. Do you understand why?

[Poptech]

Just as studiously, you never admit to any relevant evidence on the topic of AGW that might point to its [potentially catastrophic effects--RG], nor do you bother to rightfully qualify things, as noted.
I do not believe any relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW.


Yet again, you start slinging terms about logical fallacies, without supporting them.

Either you don't understand what they are, or you know, and are deliberately lying about what I am saying.

Given you have never demonstrated a knowledge of what a logical fallacy is, I would say the former is more likely, but the latter is quite possible, given your apparent mental state.
So you are denying you were poisoning the well with your personal attacks? Oh please, spare me your bullshit. What is more likely is you are mentally deranged.

[Poptech]

Mises then?

The Austrian school?

The precioussss lisst....?
Are you mentally deranged?

[Poptech]

There is a difference between insults and saying your points are somehow invalid because you are a stinky booger-brain.

One should, as I have point out that your insanity and intellectual dishonesty should cause any reasonable person to approach your assertions with a bit more skepticism than would otherwise be the case.

"can be considered" is not the same as "can be proven".

You do understand there is a difference, yes?
You are not the arbiter on the definitions of logical fallacies. Ad hominem for instance can simply mean "criticizing a person's character instead of what they are saying" (Macmillian (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/ad-hominem)). Thus if you respond with personal attacks about a person's character in an argument it can be considered an ad hominem.

[Poptech]

Do you have any link to any evidence in support of AGW's potentially catastrophic effects on your website or blog? Why or why not?
Do you have a list of skeptic papers supporting their arguments? Why or why not?

[Poptech]

I am claiming you are intellectually dishonest. I say this because you do not bother with even admitting the existence of evidence that might point to the catastrophic effects of AGW, here or elsewhere, that I have ever seen, let alone the volume or weight of that evidence.
So you continue to make libelous claims about me then. I do not believe there is any valid evidence that points to any catastrophic effects of AGW let alone that it holds any weight. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to believe otherwise.


Wikipedia is credible to a degree, and does provide reasonably useful information. Feel free to cite what you think is a more credible definition of cherry picking as a logical failing if you feel that the one wikipedia provided was inadequate. Telling me to "cite reliable sources" isn't the hallmark of someone seeking truth, it is the hallmark of someone soothing a wounded ego. A real truth seeker would want to get an agreed-on definition, so that true could be reasonably determined, and would provide one.
Wikipedia is a completely unreliable source that can be edited at will by anyone with an Internet connection. Only computer illiterates believe otherwise. It is not my job to provide reliable sources for you to support your arguments.


The very act of creating the website the way you have structured it, is cherry picking. [...] Again, you will hide behind the "but that is my stated purpose" all you want. That is just being honest about cherry picking.
Why do you keep making libelous claims about my website? Which paper supporting a skeptic argument did I intentionally leave off my list? Your argument is abject idiocy, it is the equivalent of claiming that a list of papers supporting evolution is "cherry picked" because it does not include ones that endorse intelligent design.


Seems like a fair definition to me. Again, feel free to post what you think is better or more credible. I will work with that definition to show you are intellectually dishonest, because by any fair interpretation, your website is a dishonest one, by the simple dint of not alluding to the strength or merits of the theory you are so desperately attempting to criticise and debunk.
It is not my job to provide reliable sources for you to support your arguments. Repeating your libelous claims about me does not make them true.

[Poptech]

I didn't represent my analysis as fact, merely that it was my guess.

Thanks for providing information here that you did not on the website.

Support is defined here, but not on your website.
It was in the rebuttals section but this has now been added to the Criteria for Inclusion (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Criteria) section as well.


So how is a paper to determined be "explicit to a skeptical position"? or determine who is "skeptical"?
This requires both basic reading comprehension skills and elementary knowledge of the debate.

[Th'Pusher]

So you continue to make libelous claims about me then.

Why do you keep making libelous claims about my website?

PopTech with The Threats

[Yonivore]

The science is settled (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/global-warming-isnt-causing-california-drought-report-triggers-storm-n263941), Bitches!


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

The evidence suggests a naturally induced “warm patch” of water in the western Pacific helped to create a high-pressure ridge that blocked precipitation from entering California, the experts said at a news conference to release the report (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141208_californiadrought.html).

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

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

“The report is not dismissive of global warming at all,” said Marty Hoerling, a meteorologist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Lab. “At the same time, drought is not a consequence of the warming planet to date.”
Realizing what this meant to the cause, NBC immediately turned to the least credible source they could muster to put the lie to their report...


But critics included Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth Science Center. He quickly penned a piece online, calling the report “deeply flawed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-change-and-the-re_b_6288402.html)” because of how it interpreted ocean and Arctic sea ice data, and focused on rainfall while paying “only the slightest lip service” to record warm temperatures in California.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yoni is well aware of who I am.


Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings



I left because I was bored and prefer debating more intelligent people not brain-dead stoners.


You are still falling for it and do not realize it. They do not respect you here and are laughing at you regardless of the sources you provide. You are not going to convince them of anything on climate change no matter the sources you use because they are not intellectually honest and most of them are stoned. This is an ideological crusade for them not an honest debate. You can provide whatever sources you like and I can give you the playbook of how they will respond five pages of discussions out, why do you think I left? They are also a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who engage in psychobabble. I have debated on hundreds of forums and am being completely honest with you.

They want to frame me as "controversial" because I am actually a threat to them and they want to scare you from using my sources.


Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW02XmBGQw

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors All Fail

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.
Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

[RandomGuy]

I do not believe any relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW.


So you are denying you were poisoning the well with your personal attacks? Oh please, spare me your bullshit. What is more likely is you are mentally deranged.

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

None.

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

[RandomGuy]

Are you mentally deranged?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/0d/0d491142666315c6bad34be3021f83c0eb22c5ba2e8c4e913d c07eb68826e2d0.jpg


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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::

The science is settled (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/global-warming-isnt-causing-california-drought-report-triggers-storm-n263941), Bitches!


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

The evidence suggests a naturally induced “warm patch” of water in the western Pacific helped to create a high-pressure ridge that blocked precipitation from entering California, the experts said at a news conference to release the report (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141208_californiadrought.html).

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

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

“The report is not dismissive of global warming at all,” said Marty Hoerling, a meteorologist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Lab. “At the same time, drought is not a consequence of the warming planet to date.”
Realizing what this meant to the cause, NBC immediately turned to the least credible source they could muster to put the lie to their report...


But critics included Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth Science Center. He quickly penned a piece online, calling the report “deeply flawed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-change-and-the-re_b_6288402.html)” because of how it interpreted ocean and Arctic sea ice data, and focused on rainfall while paying “only the slightest lip service” to record warm temperatures in California.

[RandomGuy]

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


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

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

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

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

Pseudo-science.



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

Pooptech's required link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm)

[RandomGuy]

:::bump:::

The science is settled (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/global-warming-isnt-causing-california-drought-report-triggers-storm-n263941), Bitches!


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

zORv8wwiadQ

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

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

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

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

[Poptech]

Powerpuff Girl AKA My Puppet,

http://images.summitpost.org/original/922943.jpg

[Poptech]

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


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

[Poptech]

Aspergers on the other hand, is noted for an obsession with narrow topics and an overall inability to understand wider contexts.
So you are mentally deranged then.

[Poptech]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Poptech]

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

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

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

Pseudo-science.
More libelous lies.

[Poptech]

"The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See"
etTVxGb2L50

[Yonivore]

zORv8wwiadQ

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/0d/0d491142666315c6bad34be3021f83c0eb22c5ba2e8c4e913d c07eb68826e2d0.jpg


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


etTVxGb2L50

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

[Yonivore]

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

Lima Climate Talks Set for Record Carbon Footprint (http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2014/12/09/lima-climate-talks-set-for-record-carbon-footprint)


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

At more than 50,000 metric tons of carfb/phbon dioxide, the negotiations' burden on global warming will be about 1 1/2 times the norm, said Jorge Alvarez, project coordinator for the U.N. Development Program.
Have these guys ever heard of the internet, Skype, or GoToMeeting.com?

Seriously, it kind of undermines the whole AGCC argument.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

Lima Climate Talks Set for Record Carbon Footprint (http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2014/12/09/lima-climate-talks-set-for-record-carbon-footprint)


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

Seriously, it kind of undermines the whole AGCC argument.

Discussions ignorant of context: the Yoni way.

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

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

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

[Yonivore]

Discussions ignorant of context: the Yoni way.

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

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

But wave your hands some more with a lack of context and scale.
That's not context; that's called non sequitur.

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

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

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

[Poptech]

Aspergers is also noted for a lack of nuance. Everything is black and white, yes and no, or true and false.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/555/783/4c2.jpg

[Yonivore]

The carbon emissions of other events is certainly context you decry the CO2 emissions of an arbitrary event. You just don't like what it shows.
But, it's not an arbitrary event. It's an international gathering of the very people who would have you and me reduce our carbon footprints to zero -- regardless the cost to us -- so they can crow about being saviors of the world.


Also you should read the article. It tells you why: Peru is the host and they had to build a venue and their energy grid is garbage. They also are bringing 11,000 people together in the southern hemisphere for the conference. Shall we compare and contrast with the numbers associated in those lists you regurgitated last month?
Uh, that doesn't make it better, it just makes one question why they would choose to burden Peru with their carbon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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


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

:lol they are the ones bringing attention to it.

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

[Poptech]

I don't deny that I smoke pot or that I told you that I wouldn't email your admission of mental illness if you took down your 'truth' series. I sent Comedy Central, John Stewart's production company, BEST, and Muller your survey results as well. Thanks for pointing out other people you smear that deserve to know what they are dealing with.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/120/955/butthurt.jpg


Compare and contrast with your actions about three weeks after you posted your survey results when you deleted everything and then DENIED admitting to mental illness and a positive answer to many indicators of NPD.
How does it feel to be my puppet?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/120/955/butthurt.jpg


How does it feel to be my puppet?

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

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

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

[Yonivore]

:lol they are the ones bringing attention to it.
By leaving a giant carbon footprint? Hell, I can do that.


You clearly are handwaving the same argument that was used against Gore's energy usage and didn't read the article. They ran into some infrastructure problems. I liked referencing skype etc in dealing with a conference of 11k people. Shows how in tune you are with the issue.
Why do you need to assemble 11,000 people to talk about climate? I'm just imagining all the emissions it took to get them there and then there's the problems pointed out by the article.

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

[Poptech]

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

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

That made me think that I should email your coworkers, GWPC, WUWT, Koch Industries etc with your admission. I am after all your puppet and you want me to do what I have been doing.
http://www.troll.me/images/darth-vader/the-butthurt-is-strong-with-this-one.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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


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

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

Because they are interested in forming international consensus and common ground amongst climate science. What an asinine question considering the discussion we have been having. If you are going to be coy and intentionally obtuse, don't be so blatant.

Back to technology, it's your argument. If you don't know the answers to those questions that just goes to show how ill informed on the issue you are and nothing else.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.troll.me/images/darth-vader/the-butthurt-is-strong-with-this-one.jpg

:lol You keep telling yourself that is my emotional disposition if it makes you feel better.

Interesting there is no contact information for Karl, Doug, Mike, and Snufflupagus. Emails sent to the others. Curious how you will react to the feedback this time.

[Poptech]

:lol You keep telling yourself that is my emotional disposition if it makes you feel better.

Interesting there is no contact information for Karl, Doug, Mike, and Snufflupagus. Emails sent to the others. Curious how you will react to the feedback this time.
http://www.troll.me/images/mr-t/i-pitty-the-fool-wh-dont-like-butthurt-central.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ahh, I see your 'Impact of Popular Technology" list. I have a lot more addresses to track down and emails to send.

[Poptech]

Ahh, I see your 'Impact of Popular Technology" list. I have a lot more addresses to track down and emails to send.
http://i.imgur.com/wvjmIr0.jpg?1

[Wild Cobra]

I never really thought much about the debate of how much man made CO2 remains in the atmosphere, but I just had an epiphany... Something I never heard mentioned before.

I don't think anyone disagree that carbon 13 level percentages have decreased in atmospheric CO2 If we use Böhm et. al 2002, the levels have changed from about 0.495% to 0.38% (extrapolated) during the assessment timeframe of the AR4. However, 278 ppm in 1750 means 1,376 ppb was CO2 with 13C and it rose to 1,440 in 2005. Since we have a net increase in CO2, we do with 13C as well. Since forcing is on a log curve, and if we assess the RE (radiative efficiency) separately, we get 0.00303 for CO2 with 13C and 0.0000151 for CO2 with 12C for the 1750 levels and 0.0029 for CO2 with 13C and 0.0000111 for CO2 with 12C for the 2005 levels. What this amounts to, if we take the stated 1.66 W/m^2 warming is that 0.21 W/m^2 of it was from CO2 with 13C and 1.45 W/m^2 from CO2 with 12C, or if the 1.66 W/m^2 is calculated for just the CO2 with 12C, then we can add another 0.24 W/m^2 for 13C increases.

Now what this means, can be important. I haven't looked at other studies, only this one for the values. However, if the values are wrong, and 13C is diminishing to less less than previously thought, and if the 1.66 W/m^2 is based only on CO2 with 12C, the individual forcing of CO2 made with 13C could possible cool the atmosphere more than the increasing 12C warms it. For example, since the RE of 13C is 200 times greater than the RE of 12C, if the atmospherics percentages of 13C actually dropped from about 0.5%, in half, to about 0.25%, then all the increased CO2 would provide a net cooling of about 0.2 W/m^2. This is because 13C would actually drop to 948 ppb, and it's radiative efficiency is so much higher.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the 13C percentages have halved, or close, but this is food for thought.

What do you guys think, or do you have different 13C values in mind?

Link reference:

http://www.boehmf.de/Boehm_et_al_g_cubed_preprint.pdf

[RandomGuy]

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

The bulk of the evidence, according to the experts that study it for a living is that we are affecting our atmosphere and changing our climate, just as the bulk of the evidence according to the experts, supports the theory of evolution, or the theory that we actually put men on the moon.

What I object to, is dishonesty and misrepresentation, which is rife in the denier movement.

I will act to stifle dishonesty and misrepresentation when I see it, no matter what type of quackery is being pushed.

Honest skepticism and debate is always welcome, and any good scientist should welcome the same.

[RandomGuy]

So all the people saying there is ]evidence of potential catastrophic effects of man-made climate change ]are lying? How do you account for them in your milieu? Deliberately lying conspiracy?



No valid evidence exists.


Strawman argument.

It isn't a strawman to ask clarifying question, in fact quite the opposite.

To imply that a clarifying question asked in good faith is a strawman logical fallacy is dishonest.

So I will ask again, as I am attempting to merely understand the basis on which you claim there is no valid evidence.

There are scientists and organizations of scientists claiming there is evidence of potentially catastrophic damage caused by the rapid rise in atmospheric green house gases. I can provide links if you wish.

Are these scientists lying about the evidence?

[DarrinS]

Ahh, I see your 'Impact of Popular Technology" list. I have a lot more addresses to track down and emails to send.


Wow. You're a piece of shit!

[RandomGuy]

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

Interesting.

You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.

I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to substitute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.

I will ask this question again, since you chose to ignore it:


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

It is a simple yes or no question.

[RandomGuy]

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


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

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

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

As an auditor who relies on such technology, I will tell you that the informal discussions and dissemination of information that happens in after-hours discussions at such seminars can be quite valuable.

As an accountant, I can tell you that incurring a small cost, to avoid a much larger cost, all things equal, is an optimal solution for any company or business.

Your suggestion, then, is another bit of flawed reasoning.

You take it as evidence that they don't believe in the science. This interpretation would require much more evidence that your insinuation.

Do you have better evidence, such as direct statements on the part of the partipants?

[boutons_deux]

Mysterious Seafloor Methane Begins to Melt Off Washington Coast

Warming of the Pacific Ocean off Washington state could destabilize methane deposits on the seafloor and trigger a release of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere,

Methane is a significant greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 86 times as potent as CO2 on a 20-year time scale. Some scientists worry that a significant release from the oceans could exacerbate climate change.

"Methane hydrates are a very large and fragile reservoir of carbon that can be released if temperatures change," Evan Soloman, a researcher at the University of Washington, said in a statement. "I was skeptical at first, but when we looked at the amounts, it's significant."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-seafloor-methane-begins-to-melt-off-washington-coast/

So where is BigOil when they could do some good? :lol

[RandomGuy]

etTVxGb2L50

Already addressed, and a strawman of wonderingminds video.

I don't think you can talk about this subject honestly, just like Cosmored cannot talk about the moon landings.

[Wild Cobra]

Mysterious Seafloor Methane Begins to Melt Off Washington Coast

Warming of the Pacific Ocean off Washington state could destabilize methane deposits on the seafloor and trigger a release of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere,

Methane is a significant greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 86 times as potent as CO2 on a 20-year time scale. Some scientists worry that a significant release from the oceans could exacerbate climate change.

"Methane hydrates are a very large and fragile reservoir of carbon that can be released if temperatures change," Evan Soloman, a researcher at the University of Washington, said in a statement. "I was skeptical at first, but when we looked at the amounts, it's significant."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-seafloor-methane-begins-to-melt-off-washington-coast/

So where is BigOil when they could do some good? :lol



Alarmnism at it's finest.

Tell us. How much methane do you think might be released?

If the methane in the atmosphere doubles, is the new GWP(20) still 86 times CO2?

[Poptech]

So I will ask again, as I am attempting to merely understand the basis on which you claim there is no valid evidence.

There are scientists and organizations of scientists claiming there is evidence of potentially catastrophic damage caused by the rapid rise in atmospheric green house gases. I can provide links if you wish.

Are these scientists lying about the evidence?
Loaded Question.

[Poptech]

Wow. You're a piece of shit!
No he is just a brain dead stoner that still does not realize how bad he has been trolled. His actions are merely confirmation of how scared he is off me. Puppet boy is doing free promotions for me and does not even realize it.

[Poptech]

Interesting.

You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.
I only quote what I respond to not your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.


I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to substitute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.
More incoherence, you do not define the meaning of words that is what dictionaries are for. Failure to provide a proper definition using a dictionary means you have no interest in honest communication and instead are intent on misleading those who you communicate with. And I am ignoring your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

[Poptech]

Already addressed, and a strawman of wonderingminds video.
No you haven't and no it is not, this absolutely destroys your idiotic wonderingmind video.

[Th'Pusher]

Loaded Question.
:lol you're not adding any value here. You're just emotionally spamming the thread with tired memes and your hyper defensive defensive about your "work". Add some value or go back to the forums where you have intellectual discussions about the fact that AGW doesn't pose any threat to civilization. Your non responses have truly become tiresome...

[Poptech]

:lol you're not adding any value here. You're just emotionally spamming the thread with tired memes and your hyper defensive defensive about your "work". Add some value or go back to the forums where you have intellectual discussions about the fact that AGW doesn't pose any threat to civilization. Your non responses have truly become tiresome...
Actually I corrected a bunch of misinformation about my work which is the only reason I am here. I have no interest in having a serious debate with brain-dead stoners.

[Th'Pusher]

Actually I corrected a bunch of misinformation about my work which is the only reason I am here. I have no interest in having a serious debate with brain-dead stoners.
Great. Can you stop spamming the thread with tired childish memes and try and not be so hypersensitive and emotional when someone criticizes your "work"?

[Poptech]

Great. Can you stop spamming the thread with tired childish memes and try and not be so hypersensitive and emotional when someone criticizes your "work"?
Again another dishonest loaded question.

[Th'Pusher]

Again another dishonest loaded question.
Explain to me how that question was dishonest. Have you not been spamming the thread with childish memes? I see three on this page alone. You've absolutely been hypersensitive and emotional when your "work" has been criticized. I think any objective reader would agree to that.

:lol Libelous

[Poptech]

Explain to me how that question was dishonest. Have you not been spamming the thread with childish memes?
Still a dishonest loaded question.


I see three on this page alone. You've absolutely been hypersensitive and emotional when your "work" has been criticized.
More libel.

[Th'Pusher]

Still a dishonest loaded question.


More libel.

If its dishonest and loaded explain why.

Also explain what is libelous in my statement.

Again, you're not adding value. You're not saying anything.

[Poptech]

If its dishonest and loaded explain why.

Also explain what is libelous in my statement.

Again, you're not adding value. You're not saying anything.
I am not here to entertain you.

[Th'Pusher]

I am not here to entertain you.

That's fine. But I'll side with RG on this one. Your inability to answer the most basic questions leads me to believe you to be an intellectually dishonest person.

He attempted to have an honest debate with you and you spun, and obfuscated and refused to answer basic questions.

For those reasons, I believe he wins.

And just a general life tip, I'd encourage you to be less emotionally attached to your "work".

Your identity doesn't have to revolve around being a player in the sceptic community.

Free of charge :)

[Wild Cobra]

That's fine. But I'll side with RG on this one. Your inability to answer the most basic questions leads me to believe you to be an intellectually dishonest person.

He attempted to have an honest debate with you and you spun, and obfuscated and refused to answer basic questions.

For those reasons, I believe he wins.

And just a general life tip, I'd encourage you to be less emotionally attached to your "work".

Your identity doesn't have to revolve around being a player in the sceptic community.

Free of charge :)

Maybe you should stop with the loaded questions, and see if he responds differently. All I see is him responding in-kind. You guys are being an ass, so he is too.

[RandomGuy]

No you haven't and no it is not, this absolutely destroys your idiotic wonderingmind video.

It is amusing to me that you think so.

I would note that the title of the thread concerns my theory that people like yourself are essentially buying into pseudo-science.

I prove my point by being reasonable, calm and respectful, and letting you commit all the logical fallacies you want to, and behave in a manner that parallels other practictioners of woo, such as 9-11 twoofers.

[RandomGuy]

I do not believe any relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW.

So you are denying you were poisoning the well with your personal attacks? Oh please, spare me your bullshit. What is more likely is you are mentally deranged.


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

None?

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



No valid evidence exists.

Strawman argument.


It isn't a strawman to ask clarifying question, in fact quite the opposite.

To imply that a clarifying question asked in good faith is a strawman logical fallacy is dishonest.

So I will ask again, as I am attempting to merely understand the basis on which you claim there is no valid evidence.

There are scientists and organizations of scientists claiming there is evidence of potentially catastrophic damage caused by the rapid rise in atmospheric green house gases. I can provide links if you wish.

Are these scientists lying about the evidence?


Loaded Question.

Then by all means, clarify. I am merely trying to understand the process by which you have reached your conclusions, to see if my view of the world is as accurate as possible. Perhaps I have missed something, I certainly value the truth.

How did you reach the conclusion that there is "no relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW."? i.e. there appears to be, according to a lot of scientists and organizations a lot of "relevant evidence supporting catastrophic effects of AGW", how did you conclude differently? what is your basis for asserting this?

[RandomGuy]

Ahh, I see your 'Impact of Popular Technology" list. I have a lot more addresses to track down and emails to send.

Interesting. Let me know how that goes.

[RandomGuy]

...

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

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

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


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


Interesting.

You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.

I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to substitute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.

I will ask this question again, since you chose to ignore it:


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

It is a simple yes or no question.



I only quote what I respond to not your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

More incoherence, you do not define the meaning of words that is what dictionaries are for. Failure to provide a proper definition using a dictionary means you have no interest in honest communication and instead are intent on misleading those who you communicate with. And I am ignoring your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

9-11 twoofers also have meltdowns when asked simple yes or no questions. We have whole sections of this forum dedicated to that.

The entire title of the thread has to do with pseudo-science and flawed reasoning. That question is about as on-topic as it gets.

I will ask a third time, a simple, fair, and honest question:

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

[RandomGuy]

Let's sum up.

The following posts are where I ask for any direct evidence of various claims made by Cosmored, and no such evidence was supplied or where I directly pointed out the logical flaws (all ad hominem) in Cosmored's arguments:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4016283&postcount=232

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4016310&postcount=234

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4016877&postcount=249

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4017220&postcount=279

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4026678&postcount=422

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4030054&postcount=466

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4033290&postcount=548

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4033337&postcount=550

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4036063&postcount=565

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4036063&postcount=565


(one of my favorites, where Cosmored proves he is a sophist, as he claims I am):http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4039284&postcount=603

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4045467&postcount=627

Here is where Cosmored admits that he doesn't tend to watch things that rebut his own points:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4033332&postcount=549

Here is one where I break down one of Cosmored's claims to find the underlying assumptions that essentially require modern physics to be wrong for ol' Cosmo to be right. This got a big round of ignore too:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4045450&postcount=626

Here is where Cosmored applies different standards of evidence to people he agrees with than to anybody else (another reason he got banned from the other websites by the way)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4056460&postcount=634

Here is one that Cosmored has yet to speak to with something other than internet videos:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4056526&postcount=635

I will not watch any further videos posted by Cosmored since he will not do the same for me. That is simply fair. If Cosmored wishes to post quick executive summaries of his videos, I will be happy to address them.

Lastly:

What we have here is a rather standard pattern of "argument" by Cosmored.

1) Dismiss sources using the logical "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

2) Make claims, but fail to provide direct proof of those assertions when repeatedly asked.

Both of which would get you laughed out of any debating hall.

Rules of debate:
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech_debate/what_is_debate.htm


Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses98/DEBATERULES.htm


Do not use ad hominem arguments.

Word.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Interesting. Let me know how that goes.

I'm finding that any mention is good enough to be get on the list regardless of the take of the source. This is much like his anti-AGW scientific papers where the paper's conclude the affirmative and he cherry picks that part out.

[boutons_deux]

Video: It Only Takes 60 Seconds to Refute Every Obnoxious Climate Denier You Know

If only all complicated science was accompanied by a kindly but sober British accent, and a jazzy beat. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.K. Royal Society have teamed up to produce this beautiful animation about the basics of climate science—from the greenhouse effect, to the role of human burning of fossil fuels, and the impacts on sea level rise, temperatures and the arctic. It's well worth your 60 seconds.

For more reading, the two groups have co-authored an excellent (and colorful) climate change primer (https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-q-and-a.pdf) that lays out the answers to 20 common questions—great to have up your sleeve for that awkward Christmas lunch with your climate-denying cousin. And there's also a more lengthy report (http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf)—still highly readable—to get you deeper into the nitty gritty of of the science.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/12/video-climate-change-explainer-denial-60-seconds

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11286404/Watch-Climate-change-explained-in-60-second-animation.html

[Poptech]

That's fine. But I'll side with RG on this one. Your inability to answer the most basic questions leads me to believe you to be an intellectually dishonest person.
I am not answering loaded questions get used to it.

BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?

[Poptech]

It is amusing to me that you think so.

I would note that the title of the thread concerns my theory that people like yourself are essentially buying into pseudo-science.

I prove my point by being reasonable, calm and respectful, and letting you commit all the logical fallacies you want to, and behave in a manner that parallels other practictioners of woo, such as 9-11 twoofers.
You are attempting to win the debate using personal attacks and ad hominems. Now you are attempting to associate me with 911 Truthers because you lost the actual debate some time ago.

[Poptech]

Then by all means, clarify. I am merely trying to understand the process by which you have reached your conclusions, to see if my view of the world is as accurate as possible. Perhaps I have missed something, I certainly value the truth.
Enough with the rhetorical games, you have no interest in the truth and never have. What you are interested in is attempting to smear all opposition to your ideologically held beliefs.


How did you reach the conclusion that there is "no relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW."?
A lot of research.


i.e. there appears to be, according to a lot of scientists and organizations a lot of "relevant evidence supporting catastrophic effects of AGW", how did you conclude differently? what is your basis for asserting this?
Correction: there are some scientists and some figure heads of organizations that may believe there is evidence supporting catastrophic effects of AGW. In each case I have found this to be either open to interpretation, misleading or completely inaccurate.

[boutons_deux]

Correction: there are some scientists and some figure heads of organizations that may believe there is evidence supporting catastrophic effects of AGW. In each case I have found this to be either open to interpretation, misleading or completely inaccurate.

correction: the vast majority of scientists .... (those not paid to deny AGW and its disastrous effects)

[Th'Pusher]

I am not answering loaded questions get used to it.

BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?

:lol you are an angry, belligerent and highly emotional man.

Have fun with your "work"

[RandomGuy]

I'm finding that any mention is good enough to be get on the list regardless of the take of the source. This is much like his anti-AGW scientific papers where the paper's conclude the affirmative and he cherry picks that part out.

That is essentially what I found when I started reading through the papers as well.

Actual scientific meta-analysis is very, very transparent about the selection process, the preciousss lissst is not.

[RandomGuy]

You are attempting to win the debate using personal attacks and ad hominems. Now you are attempting to associate me with 911 Truthers because you lost the actual debate some time ago.

The stated purpose of this thread is to associate people such as your self with 9-11 truthers. It says so in the OP.

All I have to do in order to succeed at that is to simply let you talk, because the faulty reasoning methods and rhetorical style you employ are so strikingly similar that that of the twoofers who push chemtrails, fluoride denial, and controlled demolition.

Every time you post something like this, and don't answer honest, fair questions, I win.

I don't need ad hominems to do it, and have committed no such logical fallacies, even by the definitions you have provided.

[Yonivore]

Not to interrupt the Poptech love-fest (which, thankfully, seems to be dying down a bit), can I again ask the question; when, according to their models, does the consensus say the planet will resume warming?

[RandomGuy]

...

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

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

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


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


Interesting.

You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.

I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to substitute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.

I will ask this question again, since you chose to ignore it:


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

It is a simple yes or no question.


I only quote what I respond to not your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

More incoherence, you do not define the meaning of words that is what dictionaries are for. Failure to provide a proper definition using a dictionary means you have no interest in honest communication and instead are intent on misleading those who you communicate with. And I am ignoring your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

9


9-11 twoofers also have meltdowns when asked simple yes or no questions. We have whole sections of this forum dedicated to that.

The entire title of the thread has to do with pseudo-science and flawed reasoning. That question is about as on-topic as it gets.

I will ask a third time, a simple, fair, and honest question:

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



[in passing-RG] am not answering loaded questions get used to it.

BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?

Not really a loaded question, merely a request for an opinion, so that we can have some rational, reasonable basis for discussion.

A loaded question would take the form similar to the one you chose "Do you think your flawed reasoning...", i.e. it includes a starting assumption.

But that wasn't what I asked. There is no underlying assumption required to answer the question in a meaningful way.

It is simple, yes or no. It is a question that I can answer easily. "no", and I would hope that you would agree.

Fourth time.

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

[RandomGuy]

Not to interrupt the Poptech love-fest (which, thankfully, seems to be dying down a bit), can I again ask the question; when, according to their models, does the consensus say the planet will resume warming?

Good question. I don't know the answer.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

[Yonivore]

Good question. I don't know the answer.

Sorry I can't be of more help.
No worries, perhaps someone else in here can shed some light on it.

[RandomGuy]

correction: the vast majority of scientists .... (those not paid to deny AGW and its disastrous effects)




There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.
[TD]Subject: "Science is against the theory of evolution."
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:25:52 -0400
From: P
To: [email protected]



Because, as we all know, some scientists doubting a theory, must mean that there just is no evidence.

[RandomGuy]

No worries, perhaps someone else in here can shed some light on it.




name the fish that became a Bear.

how do you get a starfish from a random explosion?

Until you can answer these questions truthfully you will never understand Design it has nothing to do with a God.


Maybe you can help mouse with his question, while you are at it. He seems to be doubting the validity of a scientific theory because everything isn't fully explained either.

:)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No worries, perhaps someone else in here can shed some light on it.

I already did. Can you remember my answer the last time you asked this same question. I'll give you a a hint: your question is based on a premise ignorant to the science.

[Yonivore]

Maybe you can help mouse with his question, while you are at it. He seems to be doubting the validity of a scientific theory because everything isn't fully explained either.

:)
Maybe you can explain why a huge consensus can claim to know the future, based on models they shoehorn into fitting the past, but cannot produce a model that even pretends to show a path to the future they predict.

Throw in some tomfoolery by the likes of Michael Mann and others, and you create skeptics that just aren't going to accept that the consensus knows what the fuck they're talking about.

So, again, when does the consensus's models say the warming is going to resume? I want to mark the day.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe you can explain why a huge consensus can claim to know the future, based on models they shoehorn into fitting the past, but cannot produce a model that even pretends to show a path to the future they predict.

Throw in some tomfoolery by the likes of Michael Mann and others, and you create skeptics that just aren't going to accept that the consensus knows what the fuck they're talking about.

So, again, when does the consensus's models say the warming is going to resume? I want to mark the day.

We've gone over this part too. WC at least waits a month or two before putting the same refuted shit up again.

[Yonivore]

We've gone over this part too. WC at least waits a month or two before putting the same refuted shit up again.
So, there is a model predicting when the planet will begin warming again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, there is a model predicting when the planet will begin warming again?

You keep acting as if the model is not a reliable day by day forecast that it is invalid. I've shown you models they have that conform very well to observations. You kept claiming there were none.

It's typical ignorance but I know for a fact that Manny has talked to you about the time frames involved and how decadal blocks are what they use. You are being dishonest with your coyness once again.

[Yonivore]

You keep acting as if the model is not a reliable day by day forecast that it is invalid. I've shown you models they have that conform very well to observations. You kept claiming there were none.

It's typical ignorance but I know for a fact that Manny has talked to you about the time frames involved and how decadal blocks are what they use. You are being dishonest with your coyness once again.
I want to see a model that is predictive of a future event in my lifetime.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I want to see a model that is predictive of a future event in my lifetime.

wgaf?

[xrayzebra]

wgaf?


Hmmmmm, folks seemed to be having a problem answering Yonivores question. Does the model show all these cold, snowy days the NE seems to be having. I am quite sure someone will or already has blamed the California storms on warming. But they cant prove it.

[Yonivore]

wgaf?

I do.

[boutons_deux]

I want to see a model that is predictive of a future event in my lifetime.

simple, SCIENCE says: hotter, drier, weather more unstable, more severe, higher tides

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmmmm, folks seemed to be having a problem answering Yonivores question. Does the model show all these cold, snowy days the NE seems to be having. I am quite sure someone will or already has blamed the California storms on warming. But they cant prove it.

That is because his premise is that climate models should be interpreted like a weather report which is ignorant to how climate is modeled.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do.

Remember the part where yous aid you had no desire to understand my motives and desires? Yeah, right back at you. What you want or think is meaningless in the larger context. Your inability to fathom is representative of nothing.

[Yonivore]

simple, a less-than-advertised consensus of SCIENtists, relying on flawed models says: hotter, drier, weather more unstable, more severe, higher tides
There, fixed.

[Yonivore]

That is because his premise is that climate models should be interpreted like a weather report which is ignorant to how climate is modeled.
Climate models are supposed to be predictive. You plug in assumptions and observations and they tell you what's going to happen. I'm not asking you what the models say the weather is going to be next December. I'm asking a question the models are supposed to be able to answer; when will the warming resume? If they know we're going to be x degrees warmer in 100 years, they should also know when the warming trend is liable to restart.

Of course, missing the hiatus makes their reliability problematic, I understand.

[Yonivore]

Remember the part where yous aid you had no desire to understand my motives and desires? Yeah, right back at you. What you want or think is meaningless in the larger context. Your inability to fathom is representative of nothing.

You asked the question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You asked the question.

You were the one that made the original statement eliciting the question about what you wanted. It was intended to be rhetorical but you missed that. I had to state it explicitly so you could understand.

[Yonivore]

You were the one that made the original statement eliciting the question about what you wanted. It was intended to be rhetorical but you missed that. I had to state it explicitly so you could understand.
I know the WGAF was rhetorical but, you engaged in the exchange and bailed when it became to difficult to answer. You went from "I told you" to "Manny said" to "WGAF."

Well, again, I do. I don't necessarily give a fuck what you have to say but, I would like for the "scientific consensus" to pony up a predictive model, they'll then stand by, so the rest of the world can assess for themselves if these hucksters are worth the time of day.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know the WGAF was rhetorical but, you engaged in the exchange and bailed when it became to difficult to answer. You went from "I told you" to "Manny said" to "WGAF."

Well, again, I do. I don't necessarily give a fuck what you have to say but, I would like for the "scientific consensus" to pony up a predictive model, they'll then stand by, so the rest of the world can assess for themselves if these hucksters are worth the time of day.

I didn't move from one to the other to the other. All 3 are still true concurrently. I told you, Manny told you in a previous discussion and no one gives a fuck what you want.

They have 17 models that are predictive and I showed them to you. Your asking for a weather report only shows you have no clue what is being predicted. Your sense of scale is full of fail.

[Yonivore]

I didn't move from one to the other to the other. All 3 are still true concurrently. I told you, Manny told you in a previous discussion and no one gives a fuck what you want.

They have 17 models that are predictive and I showed them to you. Your asking for a weather report only shows you have no clue what is being predicted. Your sense of scale is full of fail.
Then you should be able to answer the question of when the warming is predicted to resume.

And, 17 models? What's the matter, can't they decide on a set of assumptions?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then you should be able to answer the question of when the warming is predicted to resume.

And, 17 models? What's the matter, can't they decide on a set of assumptions?

Your asking for a weather report only shows you have no clue what is being predicted. Your sense of scale is full of fail.

[Yonivore]

Your asking for a weather report only shows you have no clue what is being predicted. Your sense of scale is full of fail.
Then how do they know it's going to be x degrees warmer in 2100?

I'm not asking for a weather report, I'm asking for a model that shows the trend from today to where they say we'll be in 100 years. Just simply saying we'll be x degrees warmer in a 100 years, isn't going to convince the skeptics. If they can pretend to know what it's going to be then, they can at least make a stab at the next 20 years.

[Poptech]

I'm finding that any mention is good enough to be get on the list regardless of the take of the source.
Do citations metrics like "Impact Factor" take into account how something was cited? Regardless there are only 10 cites out of over 225 listed that were not positive and they are easy to spot on that list (http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/11/the-impact-of-popular-technologynet.html) as they do not include a link.


This is much like his anti-AGW scientific papers where the paper's conclude the affirmative and he cherry picks that part out.
Please stop spreading misinformation, I do not have a list of "anti-AGW scientific papers", I have a list of papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarmism. Again read the "Rebuttals to Criticism (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals)" section of the list,

Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw) Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcGgLoPpbBw) Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

[Poptech]

correction: the vast majority of scientists .... (those not paid to deny AGW and its disastrous effects)
When have all the scientists in the world been polled to determine this?

[Poptech]

The stated purpose of this thread is to associate people such as your self with 9-11 truthers. It says so in the OP.
All you have left is to smear skeptics with dishonest ad hominems like this because you cannot debate. Thanks for confirming how bad you are losing that you have to abandon any semblance of intellectual honesty.


All I have to do in order to succeed at that is to simply let you talk, because the faulty reasoning methods and rhetorical style you employ are so strikingly similar that that of the twoofers who push chemtrails, fluoride denial, and controlled demolition.
Pure libel. It is impossible to associate me with something that I criticize,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html)


Every time you post something like this, and don't answer honest, fair questions, I win.
Let me know when you start asking honest or fair questions.

[Poptech]

Not really a loaded question, merely a request for an opinion, so that we can have some rational, reasonable basis for discussion.

A loaded question would take the form similar to the one you chose "Do you think your flawed reasoning...", i.e. it includes a starting assumption.

But that wasn't what I asked. There is no underlying assumption required to answer the question in a meaningful way.

It is simple, yes or no. It is a question that I can answer easily. "no", and I would hope that you would agree.

Fourth time.

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?
I am not here for your entertainment.

2nd time.

When did you stop beating your wife?

[Poptech]

Not to interrupt the Poptech love-fest (which, thankfully, seems to be dying down a bit), can I again ask the question; when, according to their models, does the consensus say the planet will resume warming?
Do you understand you are "debating" brain-dead stoners who do not respect you and have no problem lying about anything? What part of they are laughing at you do you not understand?

[Wild Cobra]

Do citations metrics like "Impact Factor" take into account how something was cited? Regardless there are only 10 cites out of over 225 listed that were not positive and they are easy to spot on that list (http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/11/the-impact-of-popular-technologynet.html) as they do not include a link.


Please stop spreading misinformation, I do not have a list of "anti-AGW scientific papers", I have a list of papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarmism. Again read the "Rebuttals to Criticism (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals)" section of the list,

Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw) Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcGgLoPpbBw) Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

OMG...

That flew so far over Fuzzy's head, his fur didn't even ruffle.

[Yonivore]

Do you understand you are "debating" brain-dead stoners who do not respect you and have no problem lying about anything? What part of they are laughing at you do you not understand?
Who's put more effort into communicating with the monkeys, you or me.

I'm having fun at the zoo and taunting the primates into screeching and flinging poo. you're trying to teach them sign language and still having poo flung at you.

Who's the one not understanding their position here?

[Poptech]

Who's put more effort into communicating with the monkeys, you or me.

I'm having fun at the zoo and taunting the primates into screeching and flinging poo. you're trying to teach them sign language and still having poo flung at you.

Who's the one not understanding their position here?
I am well aware you have put more time in, which is my whole point. I am not here attempting to teach them something as you cannot teach brain-dead stoners anything. I am just correcting their misinformation about my work and then I move on, which is solely for the few intellectually honest people reading this not them.

[Th'Pusher]

You know there is a schism in the denier movement when PopTech and Yoni can't come to terms. Complete lack of consensus :lol

[Yonivore]

I am well aware you have put more time in, which is my whole point.
Actually, I haven't. I don't have a website I spend all my time in here defending against a few primates that like to screech an fling poo.


I am not here attempting to teach them something as you cannot teach brain-dead stoners anything. I am just correcting their misinformation about my work and then I move on, which is solely for the few intellectually honest people reading this not them.
So, how's that working for you?

[Yonivore]

You know there is a schism in the denier movement when PopTech and Yoni can't come to terms. Complete lack of consensus :lol
:lmao Yeah, right.

[Poptech]

So, how's that working for you?
Very well, as I received numerous emails thanking me from these forums and they are now recommending my articles. This is something that almost always happens once people learn the truth in these debates which is why I do it. I definitely do not try to convince the brain-dead stoners of anything.

[Wild Cobra]

Very well, as I received numerous emails thanking me from these forums and they are now recommending my articles. This is something that almost always happens once people learn the truth in these debates which is why I do it. I definitely do not try to convince the brain-dead stoners of anything.

I'll bet a lot of people simply don't care to approve of you openly, for fear of being retaliated on by others. Warmers and alarmists seem to maintain a first grade bully type persona.

[Poptech]

I'll bet a lot of people simply don't care to approve of you openly, for fear of being retaliated on by others. Warmers and alarmists seem to maintain a first grade bully type persona.
All the time, most people don't want to deal with the abuse and I don't blame them. Alarmists will go after you in real life if they have your personal information as many are completely deranged so fair warning. Just look at what FuzzyDumbkins threatened to do with the limited information he has, now while he is acting as one of my puppets if someone does not plan for this ahead of time it can be disturbing. I am used to this abuse but I cannot imagine other people would want to deal with it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do citations metrics like "Impact Factor" take into account how something was cited? Regardless there are only 10 cites out of over 225 listed that were not positive and they are easy to spot on that list (http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/11/the-impact-of-popular-technologynet.html) as they do not include a link.


Please stop spreading misinformation, I do not have a list of "anti-AGW scientific papers", I have a list of papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarmism. Again read the "Rebuttals to Criticism (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals)" section of the list,

Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw) Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcGgLoPpbBw) Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

Ahh yes your robotic canned answers precipitated by your axis disorder.

:lol It's not anti-AGW. It's pro AGW-skeptic!

BTW who is the arbiter of what makes a pro AGW-skeptic argument that you can attribute other peer reviewed works to? Could it be the cherry picking autistic narcissist working outside of the peer review process? I bet it could be.

You fail to grasp that your labels are just how you set your cherry picking bias. They are not excuses for the selection process.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All the time, most people don't want to deal with the abuse and I don't blame them. Alarmists will go after you in real life if they have your personal information as many are completely deranged so fair warning. Just look at what FuzzyDumbkins threatened to do with the limited information he has, now while he is acting as one of my puppets if someone does not plan for this ahead of time it can be disturbing. I am used to this abuse but I cannot imagine other people would want to deal with it.

:lol laying down the victim card but couldn't help but maintain you were in control before going right back to the victim card.

I am using the exact same rationale you use in your blog. I am reporting the truth. You filled out that survey and admitted to a mental illness as well as checking off many behaviors common for an antisocial personality disorder. If one of your rivals being a cartoonist or an eco-terrorist is important enough to post for the entire web to see then I think your mental illness is just as relevant. Think of it as a 'truth series' about yourself.

[Poptech]

It's not anti-AGW. It's pro AGW-skeptic!
Again, incorrect it is effectively "anti-Alarmism".


BTW who is the arbiter of what makes a pro AGW-skeptic argument that you can attribute other peer reviewed works to? Could it be the cherry picking autistic narcissist working outside of the peer review process? I bet it could be.
Puppet boy read the rebuttals.

Criticism: The editor is not qualified to compile the list.

Rebuttal: The editor's university education writing research papers and two years of physics is all the qualifications that is needed to compile such a list, since the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso (http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.php) Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/) Ph.D. Climatology not the editor.


You fail to grasp that your labels are just how you set your cherry picking bias. They are not excuses for the selection process.
Criticism: The list has been cherry-picked.

Rebuttal: This is absolutely false, as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints and the purpose (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Purpose) of the list is clearly stated, "To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise."

[Poptech]

I am using the exact same rationale you use in your blog. I am reporting the truth. You filled out that survey and admitted to a mental illness as well as checking off many behaviors common for an antisocial personality disorder. If one of your rivals being a cartoonist or an eco-terrorist is important enough to post for the entire web to see then I think your mental illness is just as relevant. Think of it as a 'truth series' about yourself.
You are a good puppet reporting what I wish to be reported and increasing traffic to my website. Just like those who believe my last name is Khan. Remember there is nothing you can do about my truth series. My web traffic continues to increase exponentially, especially to the truth series so many more will be forth coming. How does it feel to be so helpful to me?

[DarrinS]

Lol @ Fuzzy threatening to spam people.

[Cry Havoc]

You are a good puppet reporting what I wish to be reported and increasing traffic to my website. Just like those who believe my last name is Khan. Remember there is nothing you can do about my truth series. My web traffic continues to increase exponentially, especially to the truth series so many more will be forth coming. How does it feel to be so helpful to me?

One person visiting your site counts as significantly increasing traffic? :wow

[Poptech]

One person visiting your site counts as significantly increasing traffic? :wow
Try millions.

[Th'Pusher]

Criticism: The list has been cherry-picked.

Rebuttal: This is absolutely false, as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints and the purpose (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Purpose) of the list is clearly stated, "To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise."

Just because it does not discriminate between skeptical viewpoints and it explicitly states the purpose of the website does not change the fact that the list is by definition cherry picked.

It's amusing that you think that is an irrefutable rebuttal. You just keep stating it over and over again without refuting anything.

[Poptech]

Just because it does not discriminate between skeptical viewpoints and it explicitly states the purpose of the website does not change the fact that the list is by definition cherry picked.
Using your logic the IPCC reports are cherry picked because they failed to included most of these papers.

[Th'Pusher]

Using your logic the IPCC reports are cherry picked because they failed to included most of these papers.

People can and do make that claim.

You're obviously free to make a website with whatever content you want, but because the focus is so narrow, you really can't make any reasonable argument that the content is not cherry picked. It would be analogues to me creating a website that only logged the San Antonio Spurs wins. Even if I explicitly state the site is a reference for Spurs Wins!, it doesn't change the fact that the data is cherry picked.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Rebuttal: The editor's university education writing research papers and two years of physics is all the qualifications that is needed to compile such a list, since the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as

:lol so is that what you have down on your resume? College writing experience and two years of physics? You don't even have a degree in an applicable science do you?

You basically say that you are qualified because you say so. IT'S IRREFUTABLE!

And stating your bias doesn't justify the bias, dimwit. You need to rethink your canned answers.

[Th'Pusher]

Try millions.
You almost have 300 YouTube channel subscribers. How many of those do you attribute to Fuzzy? :lol

[Poptech]

so is that what you have down on your resume? College writing experience and two years of physics? You don't even have a degree in an applicable science do you?

You basically say that you are qualified because you say so. IT'S IRREFUTABLE!
So you are illiterate too? What I clearly stated was that the level of requirements necessary to compile such a list are not high since any paper that was not written by a skeptic or explicitly making a skeptic argument was determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by someone with the qualifications to make such a decision not me. So again, dumbass I know you have brain damage because of the drugs but please try to understand what someone is saying.

[Poptech]

People can and do make that claim.

You're obviously free to make a website with whatever content you want, but because the focus is so narrow, you really can't make any reasonable argument that the content is not cherry picked. It would be analogues to me creating a website that only logged the San Antonio Spurs wins. Even if I explicitly state the site is a reference for Spurs Wins!, it doesn't change the fact that the data is cherry picked.
That is still wrong because for the list to be cherry picked it would have to claim to be just on climate change and leave out pro-alarmist papers. Since I make no claim that pro-alarmist papers do not exist it cannot be cherry picked. You apparently do not understand what cherry picking is.

Are you implying I am claiming that pro-alarmist papers do not exist?

[Th'Pusher]

That is still wrong because for the list to be cherry picked it would have to claim to be just on climate change and leave out pro-alarmist papers. Since I make no claim that pro-alarmist papers do not exist it cannot be cherry picked. You apparently do not understand what cherry picking is.

Are you implying I am claiming that pro-alarmist papers do not exist?

If I make no claim that the Spurs do not lose any games and they are not referenced on my hypothetical site, are the data still not cherry picked?

:lol parsing. I'm surprised yoni and you didn't get along better. He loves to parse.

[Poptech]

You almost have 300 YouTube channel subscribers. How many of those do you attribute to Fuzzy?
The YouTube channel is not even focused on but it has received a couple hundred thousands views regardless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you are illiterate too? What I clearly stated was that the level of requirements necessary to compile such a list are not high since any paper that was not written by a skeptic or explicitly making a skeptic argument was determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by someone with the qualifications to make such a decision not me. So again, dumbass I know you have brain damage because of the drugs but please try to understand what someone is saying.

The requirements are met because you think you get to speak for other people. IOW, because you say so. So where is Idso's proxy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and Th'Pusher I hope you noted how poptart dodged the quote about his lack of degree.

[Poptech]

If I make no claim that the Spurs do not lose any games and they are not referenced on my hypothetical site, are the data still not cherry picked?
Not if it is just a list of games the Spurs won and titled as such.

[Th'Pusher]

Pop. Do you have a degree? I do. Can you just answer basic questions?

[Poptech]

The requirements are met because you think you get to speak for other people. IOW, because you say so. So where is Idso's proxy?
Are you mentally deranged? I don't speak for anyone, they all speak for themselves.

[Poptech]

Pop. Do you have a degree? I do. Can you just answer basic questions?
Of course, my university education was in Computer Science / Information Technology which is irrelevant.

[Poptech]

Oh and Th'Pusher (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=19189) I hope you noted how poptech dodged the quote about his lack of degree.
Puppet boy, I don't answer stupid questions from brain damaged stoners.

[Th'Pusher]

Of course, my university education was in Computer Science / Information Technology which is irrelevant.

Are you a code monkey?

[Poptech]

Are you a code monkey?
It is not possible for me to be an ad hominem.

[Th'Pusher]

It is not possible for me to be an ad hominem.

Don't be so sensitive. It's industry jargon. I'll rephrase. Is your primary function to write code?

[Poptech]

Don't be so sensitive. It's industry jargon. I'll rephrase. Is your primary function to write code?
No it is not industry jargon and I am not here for your entertainment. You have no idea what my primary function is and never will.

[Th'Pusher]

No it is not industry jargon and I am not here for your entertainment. You have no idea what my primary function is and never will.

It is industry jargon. I know. I work in the industry.

I was simply asking questions. Trying to get to know Poptech. Poptech appears to be both hyper-sensitive and emotionally attached to his "work". I don't know much about PopTech, but I do know that.

[Th'Pusher]

...and whether you like it or not, you are here for my entertainment.

It made me smile when I saw you came back to spurstalk to vigorously defend your "work". The ridiculous number of claims of libel are my favorite.

[Poptech]

It is industry jargon. I know. I work in the industry.
No it is not, it is personal attack against programmers. Anyone who works in the industry would know this, thus you obviously do not.

[Poptech]

...and whether you like it or not, you are here for my entertainment.
Sure, keep believing that.


It made me smile when I saw you came back to spurstalk to vigorously defend your "work". The ridiculous number of claims of libel are my favorite.
I always come back to drive traffic to my site, puppet boy is good for that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you mentally deranged? I don't speak for anyone, they all speak for themselves.

So show me where Idso or the other guy put together your list. You don't seem to understand what a proxy means. You are piggy backing of the peer review process and using their stuff yet don't submit your own work and have it pass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course, my university education was in Computer Science / Information Technology which is irrelevant.

Do you have a degree? University education does not necessarily mean degree.

[Yonivore]

Did I miss it? Did someone post the consensus model that show when the Earth is going to start warming again?

[Th'Pusher]

I always come back to drive traffic to my site, puppet boy is good for that.

No one believes that. Before your recent resurfacing, you hadn't posted here in over two years. If fuzzy is so good at driving traffic to your site, any logical business-minded person would have never left. You'd have just kept playing Svengali racking up al those site views. Maybe you'd have 300 YouTube subscribers.

[RandomGuy]

...

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

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

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


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


Interesting.

You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.

I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to substitute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.

I will ask this question again, since you chose to ignore it:


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

It is a simple yes or no question.


I only quote what I respond to not your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

More incoherence, you do not define the meaning of words that is what dictionaries are for. Failure to provide a proper definition using a dictionary means you have no interest in honest communication and instead are intent on misleading those who you communicate with. And I am ignoring your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

9


9-11 twoofers also have meltdowns when asked simple yes or no questions. We have whole sections of this forum dedicated to that.

The entire title of the thread has to do with pseudo-science and flawed reasoning. That question is about as on-topic as it gets.

I will ask a third time, a simple, fair, and honest question:

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



[in passing-RG] am not answering loaded questions get used to it.

BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?




Not really a loaded question, merely a request for an opinion, so that we can have some rational, reasonable basis for discussion.

A loaded question would take the form similar to the one you chose "Do you think your flawed reasoning...", i.e. it includes a starting assumption.

But that wasn't what I asked. There is no underlying assumption required to answer the question in a meaningful way.

It is simple, yes or no. It is a question that I can answer easily. "no", and I would hope that you would agree.

Fourth time.

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



I am not here for your entertainment.

2nd time.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Not really an answer to my question. I asked you first.

I have already pointed out rather specifically that my question is not loaded, merely something seeking some basic groundwork.

The stated purpose of this thread is to draw parallels between dishonest sophist deniers such as yourself, and the dishonest sophists in the twoof and conspiracy movements.

Here is a thread by someone claiming the moon landings were faked in s studio. Cosmored can't answer questions in a straightforward manner.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

Here is a thread on 9-11. The people talking about controlled demolitions and government conspiracies can't answer questions in a straightforward manner.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65131&page=101
Everytime to deflect, scorn, and otherwise dissemble, you make my case for me.

By all means, keep arguing like Cosmored.

Fourth time:

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

[RandomGuy]

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators?


Of course I don't. How could I.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?


Face it. You shills look very silly when you duck the jacket ] issue.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?


You seem to be confusing the issue of the way the jacket ...

Don't just say it's zero-G without giving any explanation. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that response of yours. They'd throw you out.



...and yet, you keep ignoring my question.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


The anomalies in the video and still pictures show it was a hoax.


My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


[Some copied and pasted stuff about faked pictures that continues for serveral posts]


[provably false video showing people who believe moon landings were faked actively make things up]


This [dust] issue is just too basic to obfuscate.



Too basic to obfuscate... like the fact you haven't presented any first hand accounts of someone involved in this massive hoax effort?


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?



I've asked for opinions on photography forums and physics forums about Apollo and 9/11 anomalies...



Still no answer to my basic question.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


Here's the latest hoax-believer ariticle that I've just found.
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2012/03/apollo-moon-hoax-now-russia-says-it.html

Just ignore the shills everybody.


Does that article have any first hand accounts? I noticed you didn't answer my question yet.


Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


still waiting for FatFreddy's lame comeback on this.

:wakeup


[a whole lot of not answering the question]
That's why he's able to continue; in his private life his friends probably don't know what he really does and he probably tells them that he knows Apollo was a hoax.



This simple question doesn't go away, just because you keep ignoring it.

It has only two possible answers. The fact that neither mouse, nor Cosmored can admit even the possibility their "moon landings were a hoax" theory is wrong says all you need to know.


Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?



[9-11, grassy knoll, etc]


Chinese spacewalk bla bla bla.



Uh-huh. That didn't answer my question, as to why you and Cosmored can't find any first hand conspirators out of the tens of thousands that would have to be involved.

You still haven't answered the question.

It has only two possible answers. The fact that neither you, nor Cosmored can admit even the possibility their "moon landings were a hoax" theory is wrong says all anyone reading this need to know.


Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


Thanks for the support guys!
[here are some more spammed links, but no answer to RG's question].


You still haven't answered the question.

It has only two possible answers. The fact that neither you, nor mouse can admit even the possibility their "moon landings were a hoax" theory is wrong says all anyone reading this need to know.

Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?


[obfuscating bullshit links, not one of which has any firsthand confessions from any of the hundreds of thousands of people who would have to be involved in a huge 60 year conspiracy to fake moon landings and all subsequent space travel and exploration]



Handwaving and obfuscation. Given that thens of thousands of geologists have studied NASA's lunar material, surely ONE of them was honest enough to come forward to say it was faked.

You have no first hand testimony from anyone involved in this huge plot still.

Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?



What you pro-Apollo shills seem to be doing now is trying... [still no confessions from any of the hundreds of thousands of people that would have been required to perpetuate a 60 year conspiracy to fake all human space travel].

You still haven't answered the question.

It has only two possible answers. The fact that neither you, nor mouse can admit even the possibility their "moon landings were a hoax" theory is wrong says all anyone reading this need to know.

You have no first hand testimony from anyone involved in this huge plot yet?


Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

[RandomGuy]

Just because it does not discriminate between skeptical viewpoints and it explicitly states the purpose of the website does not change the fact that the list is by definition cherry picked.

It's amusing that you think that is an irrefutable rebuttal. You just keep stating it over and over again without refuting anything.

Pretty much..

The person posting as Poptech has a broken brain, and it is broken much in the same way as many conspiracy theorists are broken.

Dishonest, and they assume the rest of the world thinks the way they do. Everybody who doubts them are "in on it" somehow, and they are on a personal crusade to get "the truth" out.

When you start stacking up what Poptech does and says against people like, say Avante, Robdiaz say about the "theory" of evolution, or Cosmored says about the "theory" that we landed people on the moon, or SA210 does when talking about the "theory" that some religious nutballs flew planes into buildings on 9-11-2001, it all starts fitting a pattern.

[Poptech]

So show me where Idso or the other guy put together your list. You don't seem to understand what a proxy means. You are piggy backing of the peer review process and using their stuff yet don't submit your own work and have it pass.
Puppet boy, they evaluate papers and have for years. If you had not caused yourself brain damage you would understand. I am compiling a list dumbass not writing a paper,

Criticism: The list has not been peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal: The list is a resource not a scholarly paper. Bibliographic resources are not peer-reviewed but curated by an editor. They are used as aids in locating information, in this case peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments.

[Poptech]

Do you have a degree? University education does not necessarily mean degree.
Are you illiterate?

[Poptech]

No one believes that. Before your recent resurfacing, you hadn't posted here in over two years. If fuzzy is so good at driving traffic to your site, any logical business-minded person would have never left. You'd have just kept playing Svengali racking up al those site views. Maybe you'd have 300 YouTube subscribers.
I am racking up site views which is in the many millions. You do realize I have a YouTube channel just so I have the name held, same with my Facebook page that I never use. Even still the YouTube channels has a couple hundred thousands views with no effort on my part. I invest absolutely no time in the YouTube channel and use it occasionally to archive a video segment.

[Poptech]

Not really an answer to my question. I asked you first.

3rd time,

When did you stop beating your wife?

[Poptech]

Pretty much..

The person posting as Poptech has a broken brain, and it is broken much in the same way as many conspiracy theorists are broken.

Dishonest, and they assume the rest of the world thinks the way they do. Everybody who doubts them are "in on it" somehow, and they are on a personal crusade to get "the truth" out.

When you start stacking up what Poptech does and says against people like, say Avante, Robdiaz say about the "theory" of evolution, or Cosmored says about the "theory" that we landed people on the moon, or SA210 does when talking about the "theory" that some religious nutballs flew planes into buildings on 9-11-2001, it all starts fitting a pattern.
Your brain is obviously melted from previous drug use. How does it feel to be a failure with you libelous lies? I don't fit any of your "patterns" because I don't believe in any conspiracy theories. Even this nonsense is in the rebuttals section,

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a creationist website.

Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as the editors all support evolution theory but unlike extremists we respect individual's religious views and their right to hold them.

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a conspiracy theorist website.

Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we have resources challenging 911 (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html), JFK (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3313) and Moon Landing (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4011) conspiracy theories.

I don't believe anyone that disagrees with me is part of a conspiracy theory. Instead I know for a fact (because they admitted it) the Alarmists here are brain-damaged stoners.

How does it feel to fail like this?

[DarrinS]

Dishonest, and they assume the rest of the world thinks the way they do. Everybody who doubts them are "in on it" somehow, and they are on a personal crusade to get "the truth" out.

When you start stacking up what Poptech does and says against people like, say Avante, Robdiaz say about the "theory" of evolution, or Cosmored says about the "theory" that we landed people on the moon, or SA210 does when talking about the "theory" that some religious nutballs flew planes into buildings on 9-11-2001, it all starts fitting a pattern.


Not really. What's dishonest is saying that those who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW are the same as 9-11 nutters.

[DarrinS]

I like how RG recycled his conversation with Cosmored and Mouse. No agenda there.

[Poptech]

I like how RG recycled his conversation with Cosmored and Mouse. No agenda there.
Alarmists cannot argue the facts so they have to resort to things like Psychobabble.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

RandomPropagandaGuy...

It is so funny to see you all worked up!

PopTech much be ruffling your feathers!

[Th'Pusher]

I am racking up site views which is in the many millions. You do realize I have a YouTube channel just so I have the name held, same with my Facebook page that I never use. Even still the YouTube channels has a couple hundred thousands views with no effort on my part. I invest absolutely no time in the YouTube channel and use it occasionally to archive a video segment.

That is not an answer to my question. You claim that posting on spurstalk and interaction with fuzzy in particular drives site views to your website. If that is true, why did you stop posting here for over 2 years? Site couldn't handle all the traffic fuzzy was generating for you?

Why don't you stop lying?

[Poptech]

That is not an answer to my question. You claim that posting on spurstalk and interaction with fuzzy in particular drives site views to your website. If that is true, why did you stop posting here for over 2 years? Site couldn't handle all the traffic fuzzy was generating for you?
Puppets do not work for you every day like this, you have to give them incentives. So many puppets now driving traffic like crazy.


Why don't you stop lying?
I have not lied about anything.

[Wild Cobra]

Plant the seed, move on, come back when the season is right again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Puppet boy, they evaluate papers and have for years. If you had not caused yourself brain damage you would understand. I am compiling a list dumbass not writing a paper,

Criticism: The list has not been peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal: The list is a resource not a scholarly paper. Bibliographic resources are not peer-reviewed but curated by an editor. They are used as aids in locating information, in this case peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments.

Why even use peer reviewed work at all and not just list anything that agrees with what you want to believe? That's your bias but you try to slap on the peer review process and piggy back into some credibility.

It misses the entire point of the peer review process in the first place and is misleading. If the peer review process is indeed authoritative then why are you only picking the stuff you agree with? It's intellectually dishonest.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you illiterate?

I'm quite literate and have a good sense of your approach to logic. You are not being explicit.

[Poptech]

Why even use peer reviewed work at all and not just list anything that agrees with what you want to believe? That's your bias but you try to slap on the peer review process and piggy back into some credibility.
Then it would not be a list of peer-reviewed papers. The list is very credible and has been cited in the peer-reviewed literature. Which paper on the list is not peer-reviewed?


It misses the entire point of the peer review process in the first place and is misleading. If the peer review process is indeed authoritative then why are you only picking the stuff you agree with? It's intellectually dishonest.
This statement is illogical and does not make any sense. Nothing is misleading because the list only claims to include papers that support skeptic arguments. What is intellectually dishonest is people like yourself.

[Cry Havoc]

I have not lied about anything.

:lmao

"One person from Spurstalk is driving traffic to my site. I notice this single person even though I claim to have millions of pageviews, meaning that visitor accounts for less than one thousandth of one percent of my page views."

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

3rd time,

When did you stop beating your wife?

Never have laid a hand on my wife. The underlying assumption, that I beat my wife now, or have in the past is false.

Easy enough question to answer for an honest person.

[RandomGuy]

I like how RG recycled his conversation with Cosmored and Mouse. No agenda there.

As I said before, and the entire purpose of the thread is to draw such comparisons.


Does the inability to answer honest, fair questions strike you as making someone more, or less credible? or does it affect your opinion of someones intent at all?

[RandomGuy]

Puppets do not work for you every day like this, you have to give them incentives. So many puppets now driving traffic like crazy.


I have not lied about anything.

You have lied, and continue to lie that I commit logical fallacies, and provably so.

Easy.

LOL ad hominem

[Cry Havoc]

Does the inability to answer honest, fair questions strike you as making someone more, or less credible? or does it affect your opinion of someones intent at all?

>Implying they're interested in being honest or credible

:lol

[RandomGuy]

>Implying they're interested in being honest or credible

:lol

I know they aren't. You know they aren't. They know they aren't.

The fun is in catching them at it.

I would point out the bit in the OP, see if it sounds familiar:


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

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

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

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

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

1. It is obvious Andrew thinks himself more intelligent than most.
2. He regards the scientists that posit the catastrophic effects of AGW as being dishonest, and has a non-peer reviewed bibliographic list that will never be submitted as part of any meta-analysis. A good peer-review system would peel quite a bit of it away as being weak support at best.
3. He is here reacting to what he perceives as a campaign against him. Read the constant, crazy-town rebuttals to his critics he posts.
4. Full on criticism of the scientists who dare to be "alarmist"
5. Constant mis-use of the names of the logical fallacies in his accusations. It is obvious he doesn't really know how to use them, or if he does, he is deliberately misusing them.

[RandomGuy]

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a conspiracy theorist website.

Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we have resources challenging 911, JFK and Moon Landing conspiracy theories.

This rebuttal fails, because it is possible to advocate for one conspiracy theory, while dismissing others.

In this case, the rather obvious implication is that the scientists who are spreading "alarmism" are all colluding to misrepresent the "real evidence".

Let's rephrase the criticism and rebuttal to make it a bit clearer.


Popular Technology.net is an anti-cake website.

This is a dishonest ad hominem as we have resources challenging people who hate pineapple upside-down cakes, people who hate chocolate cakes, and people who hate strawberry cakes.

If, say the only thing on Popular Technology was a list of brownie recipes, and diatribes against people who say they like cake, then it becomes a bit clearer.

The criticism is completely side-stepped.

This is not dissimilar to what Cosmored does in his thread.

When confronted by something that he can't really fit into his theory, he comes up with an "its plausible" statement that would explain away the fact.

In this case PoopDeck is essentially saying "It is plausible that I am not a conspiracy theorist, because I hate these other conspiracy theories."

Proving this to a reasonable degree is easy, even if PopTart dissembles, because he will be unable to ascribe the scientists who are spreading "alarmism" any honest motives whatsoever.

[Yonivore]

I don't know if this perfectly meshes with the current conversation going on in this thread but, it is germane to the OP and the general conversation of Anthroponegic Global Climate Change and those who are skeptical of it.

Five years ago, in an article titled, "How the Science Got Settled (http://www.steynonline.com/2697/how-the-science-got-settled)," Mark Steyn documented a set of abuses by the AGCC crowd that demonstrated they were actively trying to corrupt the data, monopolize the debate and silence critics. To my knowledge, the following issues he raised in his article have never been answered for. But, in addition, I think that these things alone are sufficient cause for the AGCC crowd to be a bit more understanding of why skeptics are the way they are -- particularly when no one has acquitted the AGCC crowd of what was alleged then...


1) The Settled Scientists have wholly corrupted the process of "peer review."

Phil Jones, director of the CRU, writing to Michael Mann, creator (le mot juste) of the now discredited "hockey stick" graph, about two academics who disagree with him:


I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views:


Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Professor Jones's reply:


I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.

And you'll be glad to hear they did!

2) The Settled Scientists have refused to comply with Freedom of Information requests by (illegally) deleting relevant documents.

Phil Jones to Michael Mann on Feb. 3, 2005:


The two MMs [McKitrick and McIntyre, the latter the dogged retired Ontarian who runs the Climate Audit website] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

And, indeed, the CRU subsequently announced that they had "inadvertently deleted" the requested data.

3) The Settled Scientists have attempted to (in the words of one email) "hide the decline" — that's to say, obscure the awkward fact that "global warming" stopped over a decade ago.

Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:


The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant.

4) The Settled Scientists have tortured the data into compliance with political requirements.

From the computer code for one of the "Mann" models:


Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions of growing season temperatures. Uses 'corrected' MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.

Yet perhaps the most important revelation is not the collusion, the bullying, the politicization and the evidence-planting, but the fact that, even if you wanted to do honest "climate research" at the Climatic Research Unit, the data and the models are now so diseased by the above that they're all but useless. Let Ian "Harry" Harris, who works in "climate scenario development and data manipulation" at the CRU, sum it up. Mr. Harris was attempting to duplicate previous results—i.e., to duplicate all that science that's supposedly settled, and the questioning of which consigns you to the Climate Branch of the Flat Earth Society. How hard should it be to confirm settled science? After much cyber-gnashing of teeth, Harry throws in the towel:


ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

OH F**K THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

Thus spake the Settled Scientist: "OH F**K THIS." And on the basis of "OH F**K THIS" the world's enlightened progressives will assemble at Copenhagen for the single greatest advance in punitive liberalism ever perpetrated on the developed world.

Back in the summer, I wrote in a column south of the border:


If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade. There has been no global warming this century. None. Admittedly the 21st century is only one century out of the many centuries of planetary existence, but it happens to be the one you're stuck living in.

In response to that, the shrieking pansies of the eco-left had a fit. The general tenor of my mail was summed up by one correspondent: "How can you live with your lies, dumb*f**k?" George Soros's stenographers at Media Matters confidently pronounced it a "false claim." Well, take it up with Phil Jones. He agrees with me. The only difference is he won't say so in public.

Which is a bit odd, don't you think?

Phil Jones and Michael Mann are two of the most influential figures in the whole "climate change" racket. What these documents reveal is the greatest scientific scandal of our times - and a tragedy. It's not just their graphs but their battle lines that are drawn all wrong. Science is never "settled," and certainly not on the basis of predictive models. And any scientist who says it is is no longer a scientist. And the dismissal of "skeptics" throughout the Jones/Mann correspondence is most revealing: a real scientist is always a skeptic.

[RandomGuy]

Criticism: The list uses "weasel words".

Rebuttal: Qualifiers are not "weasel words", but an accepted method by the scientific community to express a level of confidence. Rejection of the use of qualifiers would mean rejection of the IPCC reports and the use of such terms as "consensus". The IPCC AR5 WG1 'Summary for Policy Makers' liberally uses qualifiers, "A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high".

This brings up a VERY important point.

Honest debate, and honest science uses qualifiers. They are not only important, but vital to understanding, and open debate.

Next we have PoopyPants criteria for inclusion:


Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means they are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology.


All counted papers must ... and support a skeptic argument

Where is the qualifier for "support"? Strongly support? Weakly support?


Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:

One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Or if one prefers:
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/


2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

Poopy's list, on its face does not adhere to any general sense of intellectual honesty.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know if this perfectly meshes with the current conversation going on in this thread but, it is germane to the OP and the general conversation of Anthroponegic Global Climate Change and those who are skeptical of it.

Five years ago, in an article titled, "How the Science Got Settled (http://www.steynonline.com/2697/how-the-science-got-settled)," Mark Steyn documented a set of abuses by the AGCC crow they were actively trying to corrupt the data, monopolize the debate and silence critics. To my knowledge, the following issues he raised in his article have never been answered for. But, in addition, I think that these things alone are sufficient cause for the AGCC crowd to be a bit more understanding of why skeptics are the way they are -- particularly when no one has acquitted the AGCC crowd of what was alleged then...


In response to that, the shrieking pansies of the eco-left had a fit.

Eyup.

I'm sure I got the unvarnished, honest truth out of that guy. (rolls eyes)

Typical for your sourced material. Feels good to post, I'm sure. I can get to the specifics, but lets attempt to establish a baseline for discussion. Hopefully you will do better than PopTech. The following questions are not loaded, and merely intended to offer some common ground that can be accepted by both of us to form the basis of a good conversation.

Is intellectual honesty important?

If so, what is it? If not, why not?

I will, answer first, as that is fair.

Yes.

and

Just about any good online definition works for me. Google is that away, but if one wants a link here is one that is just as good as almost any other:
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/

[Yonivore]

Eyup.

I'm sure I got the unvarnished, honest truth out of that guy. (rolls eyes)

Typical for your sourced material. Feels good to post, I'm sure. I can get to the specifics, but lets attempt to establish a baseline for discussion. Hopefully you will do better than PopTech. The following questions are not loaded, and merely intended to offer some common ground that can be accepted by both of us to form the basis of a good conversation.

Is intellectual honesty important?

If so, what is it? If not, why not?

I will, answer first, as that is fair.

Yes.

and

Just about any good online definition works for me. Google is that away, but if one wants a link here is one that is just as good as almost any other:
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/
So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

Pretty straightforward questions.

[Wild Cobra]

Random...

You are really making a fool of yourself.

[Cry Havoc]

Random...

You are really making a fool of yourself.

:lmao from your lips. :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

>Implying they're interested in being honest or credible

:lol

Cognitive dissonance is tough on him. He goes back and edits.

[Yonivore]

:::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy


Eyup.

I'm sure I got the unvarnished, honest truth out of that guy. (rolls eyes)

Typical for your sourced material. Feels good to post, I'm sure. I can get to the specifics, but lets attempt to establish a baseline for discussion. Hopefully you will do better than PopTech. The following questions are not loaded, and merely intended to offer some common ground that can be accepted by both of us to form the basis of a good conversation.

Is intellectual honesty important?

If so, what is it? If not, why not?

I will, answer first, as that is fair.

Yes.

and

Just about any good online definition works for me. Google is that away, but if one wants a link here is one that is just as good as almost any other:
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/
So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

Pretty straightforward questions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy


So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

Pretty straightforward questions.


The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."


http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-mann-responds-to-misleading-filings-in-climate-change-lawsuit-641

2009 called and wants it's shitty argument back.

[Yonivore]

:::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy. Hell, it's bumped for anyone; maybe Manny will come back and take a stab at it.


Eyup.

I'm sure I got the unvarnished, honest truth out of that guy. (rolls eyes)

Typical for your sourced material. Feels good to post, I'm sure. I can get to the specifics, but lets attempt to establish a baseline for discussion. Hopefully you will do better than PopTech. The following questions are not loaded, and merely intended to offer some common ground that can be accepted by both of us to form the basis of a good conversation.

Is intellectual honesty important?

If so, what is it? If not, why not?

I will, answer first, as that is fair.

Yes.

and

Just about any good online definition works for me. Google is that away, but if one wants a link here is one that is just as good as almost any other:
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-2/
So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

Pretty straightforward questions.

[Wild Cobra]

:::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy. Hell, it's bumped for anyone; maybe Manny will come back and take a stab at it.


I doubt it.

He's a chickenshit.

[Yonivore]

Somebody help me out here. Manny? RandomGuy?

Northern European summer temperature variations over the Common Era from integrated tree-ring density records (http://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Esper_2014_JQS.pdf)


ABSTRACT: Tree-ring chronologies of maximum latewood density are most suitable to reconstruct annually
resolved summer temperature variations of the late Holocene. The two longest such chronologies have been
developed in northern Europe stretching back to the 2nd century BC, and the 5th century AD. We show where
similarities between the two chronologies exist, and combine portions of both into a new summer temperature
reconstruction for the Common Era. To minimize the transfer of potential biases, we assess the contribution of the
candidate reconstructions’ measurements, and exclude data (i) from exceptionally young and old trees, and (ii)
produced by different laboratory technologies. Our new composite reconstruction reveals warmer conditions
during Roman, Medieval and recent times, separated by prolonged cooling during the Migration period and Little
Ice Age. Twentieth century warmth, as indicated in one of the existing density records, is reduced in the new
reconstruction, also affecting the overall, millennial-scale, cooling trend over the late Holocene (
0.30 ˚C per
1000 years). Due to the reduced biological memory, typical for tree-ring density measurements, the new
reconstruction is most suitable for evaluating the rate and speed of abrupt summer cooling following large volcanic
eruptions. Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/images/nclimate1589-f2.jpg

So, I am reliably informed and, as the above graph demonstrates, an august team of researchers from the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland (a consensus?) describe their finding as depicting "a long-term cooling trend of -0.30°C per 1,000 years over the Common Era in northern Europe”. That's a lot of cooling during a period when we've been told the planet was warming, wouldn't you say? Coincidentally, they note that their temperature reconstruction “has centennial-scale variations superimposed on this trend,” which indicate that “conditions during Medieval and Roman times were probably warmer than in the late 20th century,” when the previously-rising post-Little Ice Age mean global air temperature hit a ceiling of sorts above which it has yet to penetrate.

Interesting. What does it all mean?

I think it means that when you put the modest temperature rise, of the latter part of the 20th century (because that's the period we're told is drop dead proof we're headed for catastrophe), into the context of, say, the past 2,000 years, the whole AGCC argument kind of goes soft,eh? Context is key -- even in science.

[Yonivore]

:::BUMP:::

Are their no AGCC defenders left in Spurstalk?

[boutons_deux]

:::BUMP:::

Are their no AGCC defenders left in Spurstalk?

hardly, just no AGW-deniers worth a shit to piss at.

[Yonivore]

hardly, we just can't respond to reasonable, fact-based, evidence of how wrong we've been these many years.
Fixed it for you bouts. You're welcome.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:::BUMP:::

Are their no AGCC defenders left in Spurstalk?

You tried to resurrect the manufactured controversy of those stolen emails and are asking for specific dates for global warming. :rolleyes

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

I linked this before as it was from the National Science Foundation and the Royal Society. It tells you the time frames you keep asking for and outlines the science with empirical examples. They do a much better job than anyone will here in answering your questions but we both know nothing is going to sway your opinion.

It's kind of funny because you are trying to rehash the same shit from 5 or more years ago. HOCKEY STICK AL GORE WHEN IS WARM! HANSEN AND MANN EMAIL DEBBILS! It's a losing issue in coastal states and now that the financial industry is at odds with the petro industry this is a sunk issue especially in GB. You live inland so you don't give a fuck but it's turning into a losing issue in coastal states and areas. The last GOP primaries showed that less than a year ago.

[RandomGuy]

I doubt it.

He's a chickenshit.

Or maybe, just maybe, I took a busy holiday week off, and forgot about some argument on the internet, and had a hootin' lot of fun with my family.

Nah.

[RandomGuy]

So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

Pretty straightforward questions.

Define "accurate".
Accurate to the overall tone/intent of the entire communication, taken in context?
Or accurate word-for-word excerpts?


So, you've answered ... and I don't disagree so, ... the biases exposed have been eliminated and that... is truly ... important to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, the effect of warming from the sun has finally stopped in about 2002... Could that why we have the warming hiatus?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Energyequalization002_zpsf93baaad.png

[Wild Cobra]

Or maybe, just maybe, I took a busy holiday week off, and forgot about some argument on the internet, and had a hootin' lot of fun with my family.

Nah.
I was speaking of Manny...


:::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy. Hell, it's bumped for anyone; maybe Manny will come back and take a stab at it.

[Yonivore]

Define "accurate".
Accurate to the overall tone/intent of the entire communication, taken in context?
Or accurate word-for-word excerpts?
Don't be a Chumpesque pedant.

Are the allegations true? Did principal scientists in the "consensus" engage in tomfoolery? And, if they did, have the circumstances that led to the deceptions been corrected by the remaining "consensus?" But, maybe most importantly, would you agree this type of manipulation of the scientific data and process is a legitimate cause for skepticism among those not part of the "consensus?"

[boutons_deux]

world population growth in the Anthropocene era of anthropogenic global warming

http://blog.dssresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/world_population_1050_to_2050.jpg

deforestation for wood for cooking, heating.

coal and oil burning for electricity

explosion of polluting industrial activity, esp in countries with little or no pollution regulations.

[Yonivore]

In answer to the second question, apparently they haven't.

What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud? (http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/)


“Ocean acidification” (OA) is receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the global warming/climate change narrative is built.
...
Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that, he told me, “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.”

Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in e-mail communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there are real world data. Feely and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.

Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of diagram-co2_emissions (1)the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. He went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart beginning in 1850 lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.

Wallace sent Bard an e-mail: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th Century.”

Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.” Sabine concludes the e-mail with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.

In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:


“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.”

“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th Century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).”
Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”

In his last e-mail exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the e-mail string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.

Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”
Yeah, apparently the "consensus" is still up to its old tricks.

[boutons_deux]

What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud? (http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/)


The only fraud is the POLITICAL propaganda and lies by you AGW deniers, shills and hucksters for BigOil and BigCorp.

The biggest fraud, lies is from You People is that AGW is a hoax, a massive, conspiratorial fraud by 10s of 1000s of scientists over many decades.

[RandomGuy]

:::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy. Hell, it's bumped for anyone; maybe Manny will come back and take a stab at it.




I doubt it.

He's a chickenshit.


Or maybe, just maybe, I took a busy holiday week off, and forgot about some argument on the internet, and had a hootin' lot of fun with my family.

Nah.


I was speaking of Manny...

You might have unbolded my name in your post quote to make that a bit more clear. Just sayin'.

[RandomGuy]

Don't be a Chumpesque pedant.

Are the allegations true? Did principal scientists in the "consensus" engage in tomfoolery? And, if they did, have the circumstances that led to the deceptions been corrected by the remaining "consensus?" But, maybe most importantly, would you agree this type of manipulation of the scientific data and process is a legitimate cause for skepticism among those not part of the "consensus?"

Only for you would a simple clarification be such a cause for insults.

Since you can't be bothered to clarify, I will take a stab at honestly answering your question then.

No, the quotes are not accurate in the way you appear to mean the term. They do not indicate the level of fraud you are alleging, and by most independent accounts were taken so far out of context as to be actively misleading.

To prove the kind of "tomfoolery" and epic fraud you are attempting to allege here you have quite a far way to go.

I would agree that manipulation of scientific data and process would be a cause for concern were it real, and proven to a reasonable degree, which I don't see here.

(edit)

"if so..."

Since I don't find the quotes accurate, then there is no second question to answer.

[RandomGuy]

In answer to the second question, apparently they haven't.

What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud? (http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/)


Yeah, apparently the "consensus" is still up to its old tricks.

Sooooo someone got a chart wrong? Am I reading that correctly?

That's more big proof that there are "tricks" going on? Really? Really?

My first impulse is to treat this article at face value honestly and fairly, and dive into it.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n1/full/nclimate2456.html

Start with the reference paper and source of the "bigger than climategate" scandalous graph, then go on to see what the science actually says, and write a bunch of posts detailing, yet again, what I actually found, and how that just didn't ultimately support your thesis, just as I have done in the past.

Then I thought, "why bother, he's going to ignore it like he does everything else."

Maybe later.

[Yonivore]

Sooooo someone got a chart wrong? Am I reading that correctly?

That's more big proof that there are "tricks" going on? Really? Really?

My first impulse is to treat this article at face value honestly and fairly, and dive into it.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n1/full/nclimate2456.html

Start with the reference paper and source of the "bigger than climategate" scandalous graph, then go on to see what the science actually says, and write a bunch of posts detailing, yet again, what I actually found, and how that just didn't ultimately support your thesis, just as I have done in the past.

Then I thought, "why bother, he's going to ignore it like he does everything else."

Maybe later.
And you lecture about intellectual honesty.

[Wild Cobra]

You might have unbolded my name in your post quote to make that a bit more clear. Just sayin'.

Mea culpa

[RandomGuy]

And you lecture about intellectual honesty.

Yes, I do, as you exhibit so many of the signs of intellectual dishonesty. Here is a good article on that:

http://informingthemisled.onlineinfidels.com/2010/06/17/10-signs-of-intellectual-dishonesty/

I could easily run through this, and pick out instances where you would hit that checklist. Feel free to do the same for me, maybe you will learn something.

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that people like you who tend to buy into this conspiracy theory argue in much the way that the nutters who blather on about faked moon landings or secret government building demolitions do. They are generally even worse at being honest than you are.

To be intellectually honest:

My refusal to really consider your posted article is not really fair to you or your argument.

Frankly, I am a bit weary of your general laziness, dishonesty, and lack of respect. Lazy because instead of doing the honest legwork for yourself, you come here after finding something that looks sciency or what you think is a "gotcha" and/or emotionally appealing to your confirmation biasses, throw it in the "libtards" faces, and then run away when I take my time to, as my conscience dictates, evaluate it using critical thinking and effort. Dishonesty because when I point out the flaws, you rarely admit them, if ever. I have found the majority of what you post here to be at best, logically flawed, and at worst outright misleading, but only after I spend a good chunk of my time doing a lot of reading.

I know with some high degree of certainyy, you would never return the favor of doing the same, much as Cosmored, mouse, Parker2112, PopTech, NBADan don't.

My time these days, however, is somewhat limited. So I have been forced to stoop to your level. I am employing the same mental short-cut you do here, and simply assume that what you posted likely fits the already identified pattern. I won't bother to examine my underlying assumptions or ultimate conclusion on this topic, i.e. that most people who profess skepticism about AGCC care very little for what is true.

Why don't you do my work for me?

Tell me why or how the article you posted is flawed? what are its strengths? Weaknesses? How much evidence does it really constitute? What does it really mean?

[boutons_deux]

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Denier-Caucus2.png

"I'm not a scientist" but "I'm proud BigCarbon WHORE"

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons. That is so stupid. I'll bet if congress was asked the same two questions that the climate science were asked, at least 80% of the republicans would agree.

[boutons_deux]

I'll bet if congress was asked the same two questions that the climate science were asked, at least 80% of the republicans would agree.

you'd lose that bet

Repug whores DENY AGW science totally, it's fundamental to implementing the VRWC strategies, esp in permitting BigCarbon to fuck us all over.

[boutons_deux]

BigCarbon fellators, here's an oldie, but goodie

"Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study" (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/02/scientists-offered-cash-to-dispute.html)

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/02/scientists-offered-cash-to-dispute.html

[boutons_deux]

Despite Current Congress, Many Republicans Think Climate Change Is Real (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/13/3611016/gop-down-with-agw/)


http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Chart.jpg

70 percent of the people surveyed considered themselves conservative or tea party, while only 30 percent identified as liberal or moderate.

even though the majority of Republicans don’t actively accept that global warming is real, a majority of every group except tea party Republicans think carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant — a fact that, Yale noted, runs “in contrast to the current goal of Republican leaders in Congress to block EPA regulations on carbon dioxide.” Specifically, 56 percent of all Republicans support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, including 54 percent of self-identifying conservatives. In addition, 64 percent of Republicans in general support tax rebates for people who buy energy-efficient cars or solar panels.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/13/3611016/gop-down-with-agw/

[Nero5]

Somebody help me out here. Manny? RandomGuy?

Northern European summer temperature variations over the Common Era from integrated tree-ring density records (http://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Esper_2014_JQS.pdf)



http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/images/nclimate1589-f2.jpg

So, I am reliably informed and, as the above graph demonstrates, an august team of researchers from the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland (a consensus?) describe their finding as depicting "a long-term cooling trend of -0.30°C per 1,000 years over the Common Era in northern Europe”. That's a lot of cooling during a period when we've been told the planet was warming, wouldn't you say? Coincidentally, they note that their temperature reconstruction “has centennial-scale variations superimposed on this trend,” which indicate that “conditions during Medieval and Roman times were probably warmer than in the late 20th century,” when the previously-rising post-Little Ice Age mean global air temperature hit a ceiling of sorts above which it has yet to penetrate.

Interesting. What does it all mean?

I think it means that when you put the modest temperature rise, of the latter part of the 20th century (because that's the period we're told is drop dead proof we're headed for catastrophe), into the context of, say, the past 2,000 years, the whole AGCC argument kind of goes soft,eh? Context is key -- even in science.

Your conclusion side steps the prescient issue with climate change: it is the rate of change that is the big issue. The climate change that has occurred in the past and that you note occurred over many centuries per degree. Biological systems can cope with slow change, however now we have introduced change at a rate that will see extinction of species as the norm rather than the exception.

[RandomGuy]

Boutons. That is so stupid. I'll bet if congress was asked the same two questions that the climate science were asked, at least 80% of the republicans would agree.

lPgZfhnCAdI

"I do not believe the scientists, because it is their profession and not their hobby".

:bang

[Wild Cobra]

lPgZfhnCAdI

"I do not believe the scientists, because it is their profession and not their hobby".

:bang

What's the point of taking the excerpts? When you cherry pick, you can show one side. I wonder what the full C-Span clip would tell us?

[RandomGuy]

What's the point of taking the excerpts? When you cherry pick, you can show one side. I wonder what the full C-Span clip would tell us?

That the Republicans on the science oversight panel care far less for actual science than they do the politics and feelings about the "truthiness" of facts.

You tell me, because the nitwit politician is pretty much aping your favorite conspiracy theory, and the one you, and Yoni, have failed so hard in proving, just like Cosmored has failed to prove his.

[Blake]

474951707378847746

[boutons_deux]

474951707378847746

he sucks in climatology as much as he sucks in religion (but at the very top of his game when suckering $100Ms from idiots)

He pays himself and his bitch about $3M/year, can't he afford heating?

[Wild Cobra]

That the Republicans on the science oversight panel care far less for actual science than they do the politics and feelings about the "truthiness" of facts.

You tell me, because the nitwit politician is pretty much aping your favorite conspiracy theory, and the one you, and Yoni, have failed so hard in proving, just like Cosmored has failed to prove his.
Well, I disagree, and it is not presented in context. What you posted is very unethical.

[Th'Pusher]

Well, I disagree, and it is not presented in context. What you posted is very unethical.

Provide the context then. How is the clipped post "very unethical"?

Let me guess, you don't have time?

[Wild Cobra]

Provide the context then. How is the clipped post "very unethical"?

Let me guess, you don't have time?
Why?

I have done so several times in the past. Presented the full length C-Span video for full context, with time indexes, but you idiots just don't learn.

[Th'Pusher]

Why?

I have done so several times in the past. Presented the full length C-Span video for full context, with time indexes, but you idiots just don't learn.

I've never seen it. Can you provide a link to the thread. Or better yet, but give me the gist of why the guys says he refuses to believe the scientists, because climate study is their profession

[Wild Cobra]

I've never seen it. Can you provide a link to the thread. Or better yet, but give me the gist of why the guys says he refuses to believe the scientists, because climate study is their profession

I'm not going to take time to search.

I have however taken from snippets, linked the entire C-Span video, and pointed to time indexes of the relevant materiel. It can be very hard to find some of the videos, and specially only knowing this was taken from September.

Feel free to search:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary//

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not going to take time to search.

I have however taken from snippets, linked the entire C-Span video, and pointed to time indexes of the relevant materiel. It can be very hard to find some of the videos, and specially only knowing this was taken from September.

Feel free to search:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary//

I looked. I think Rep Bucshon was pretty clear. He didn't trust the scientific data because of all of the climatetoligist whose career depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles, I could read that, but I don't believe it.

I saw nothing else in there that discounted that statement or was taken out of context.

Hell, I've seen you make similar arguments n this board.

[pgardn]

WC.

Please stop.

[pgardn]

he sucks in climatology as much as he sucks in religion (but at the very top of his game when suckering $100Ms from idiots)

He pays himself and his bitch about $3M/year, can't he afford heating?

Boots we may not agree with him, but one thing that astounds me about the guy is his command of the English language. The guy is pretty amazing. He has totally sucked in quite a few people who should know better. There is something to be said for the Bill Clinton/Ronald Reagan type speakers, they can be dangerous.

Dont underestimate the silver tongue.

[boutons_deux]

"guy is his command of the English language"

Typical characteristic of successful sales people, hucksters, con men, charismatic speakers. A talent which has nothing to do with what they are actually saying. eg, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, and other eloquent pied pipers who lead their listeners wildly astray, to poverty, to death, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

I looked. I think Rep Bucshon was pretty clear. He didn't trust the scientific data because of all of the climatetoligist whose career depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles, I could read that, but I don't believe it.

I saw nothing else in there that discounted that statement or was taken out of context.

Hell, I've seen you make similar arguments n this board.
I would accept that statement as in context, but others were likely not.

I too see a trend where it is difficult to get any paper published that doesn't follow the dogma. Scientists then have to get published through "vanity sites" that disagree with the consensus, and then they are attacked for going that route.

Follow the money. Research grants are for supporting the UN governmental position.

[boutons_deux]

"follow the dogma"

there's no dogma, no doctrine, just 1000s papers stuffed with evidence, facts, data confirming the AGW "theory"

[RandomGuy]

Well, I disagree, and it is not presented in context. What you posted is very unethical.

By all means, present what you think the proper context for their fucktarded and ignorant statments is.

Unethical, how? Be specific.

[RandomGuy]

I would accept that statement as in context, but others were likely not.

I too see a trend where it is difficult to get any paper published that doesn't follow the dogma. Scientists then have to get published through "vanity sites" that disagree with the consensus, and then they are attacked for going that route.

Follow the money. Research grants are for supporting the UN governmental position.

So, people who are researching cancer, and tell you that you should be concerned about new carcinogens are wrong because they are getting paid to study it?

You can see all the trends you want, Cosmored, but unless you can prove them, you have little more than another conspiracy theory. Get cracking ace.

[Wild Cobra]

By all means, present what you think the proper context for their fucktarded and ignorant statments is.

Unethical, how? Be specific.
How about specifying how it was ethical first?

[Blake]

I'm not going to take time to search.


Per shocking par

[Wild Cobra]

Per shocking par
For you to think I have that much time on my hands must be because you do.

Sorry, I have better things to do than look for things you can. I have a life. Don't you?