Reply With Quote
Are you done?
That thread took place over the space of three years. I was calling you out for being a lying piece of back then too.
You don't 'still' agree with anything. You are full sophist that will hide sources rather than have them bear scrutiny and blanatly misrepresent yourself. I used to think you were a shill but it's been too long and no one would keep on incompetence such as yours in a position with much la ude.
I will say that you are compulsive liar that lies habitually and with a purpose. In our cases of dealing with you it has been lies in an attempt to make you appear more credible. In this case you want people to believe that you have been objective in the past.
Liar liar. Pants on fire.
Are you done?
Never. Thank you please drive through.
Don't get in trouble for posting at work.
Let's steer this back to topic shall we?
Where we left off was Darrin saying that he used to be a believer in AGW and that he still believes many of the tenants. I then showed a bunch of posts of his from a few years ago where he embraces the denial label and presents what he think is evidence that CO2 is not causing any warming and that there is no warming going on at all. He goes on and on about it in 2010.
That showed how he is a lying piece of that much like the premise of the OP tries to make the illusion of an objective and openminded approach to determining the truth when in fact he is a sophist of the first order.
I would also warn to not take him at face value when he presents data. He will use doctored graphs that do not reveal the source and then lie to you about what the source is. He used to use graphics created by the heartland ins ute and claim that they were from BEST.
It's always wise to check for yourself when dealing with anything but it is doubly true for Darrin.
As I said to Winehole, I'm what you would call a "luke warmer". I fully acknowledge that it has warmed a smallish amount in the last century and that carbon emissions contributed to that increase. I just don't believe in all the doomsday scenarios. That is what I currently think. If I made posts that contradict that, then that was poor judgement on my part.
As for YOU, I think people would be wise not to hit your "tipping point", or they might face the wrath of a psychotic bag move like this...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5910380
You have to admit it, Fuzzy, that was a real move.
I had forgotten about this post
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5911214
If you want me to feel bad for tricking that sociopath into filling out the survey and sending it to the people he harasses then you are going to have to do better than that.You have to admit it, Fuzzy, that was a real move.
I had forgotten about this post
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5911214
I had forgotten about that. He was much like you, he went back and edited posts and tried to make it appear that he never filled out that survey so I knew it would with him to send them to those he considered his political enemies. He didn't last long after that.
He is a kindred spirit of yours in the world of deception. You are just more resilient.
It should be noted that you in no way contradict and others can see that you are lying about your objectivity regarding climate science.
When does that not make es look bad?You have to admit it, Fuzzy, that was a real move.
I had forgotten about this post
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5911214
That's why I have Fuzzy on IGNORE. I can tolerate a lot of , but he goes beyond most people's .
You were so adorable when poptart was here. You were telling him all about your high school years and appreciation for his work. Your servility had an outlet and you were in love. He of course ignored you. Unrequited cobra it was.
Maybe we can revisit that later.
As I said before, the exact percentage is not as meaningful as a general consensus. The point made by the video would be as valid if it were far less, something you either don't understand, or won't admit. Feel free to actually address something that isn't a red herring.
Secondly, what pseudoscience do I believe in? Define pseudoscience as part of your answer.
Lastly, what scientific journal did John Cook "publish a paper" in that likens CAGW to conspiracy nutters?
If your answers to those questions end up based on logical fallacies, does that indicate a greater or lesser liklihood that those answers accurately reflect reality?
Sorry consensus generally is science. That is how "best fits to evidence" are ascertained.
Go stand in the corner with the creationists.
This makes a very valid economic point about how pollution can shift costs on to others and create artificially profitable industries and companies.Climate Panel Stunner: Avoiding Climate Catastrophe Is Super Cheap — But Only If We Act Now
You read that right, the annual growth loss to preserve a livable climate is 0.06% — and that’s “relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year.” So we’re talking annual growth of, say 2.24% rather than 2.30% to save billions and billions of people from needless suffering for decades if not centuries. As always, every word of the report was signed off on by every major government in the world.
Global mitigation costs for stabilization at a level “likely” to stay below 2°C (3.6°F). Cost estimates shown in this table do not consider the benefits of reduced climate change as well as co-benefits of mitigation. The green columns show the consumption loss in the years 2030, 2050, and 2100 relative to a baseline development without climate policy. The light green column shows that the annualized consumption growth reduction over the century is 0.06%. Source: IPCC 2014.
Moreover, this does not even count the economic benefit of avoiding climate catastrophe. Afew years ago, scientists calculated that benefit as having a net present value of $615 to $830 trillion. That means our current do-nothing plan is actually far, far costlier than aggressive climate mitigation.
And the IPCC warns “Delaying is estimated to … substantially increase the difficulty of the transition to low, longer-term emissions levels and narrow the range of options consistent with maintaining temperature change below 2 degrees C.”
These are not new findings. In its previous Fourth Assessment (AR4) in 2007, the IPCC found the cost of stabilizing at 445 ppm CO2-eq corresponded to “slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.”
These conclusions should not be a surprise since they are based on a review of the literature — and every major independent study has found a remarkably low net cost for climate action — and a high cost for delay. Back in 2011, the International Energy Agency warned“Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”
As German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC committee that wrote the new report, put it, “We cannot afford to lose another decade. If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...28Daily+Kos%29
Of course, BigCarbon, and their proxies like ALEC, US CoC, etc will block ALL AGW mitigation.
It is also appears to be a good effort at quantifying the NPV of inaction. I would challenge any denier to find something even remotely similar. And no, the Spanish study is ty, so don't even try that one.
Except, when it's wrong.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree
"In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality."
smh
Frontiers in Psychology
"Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation"
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journ...013.00073/full
"This article has been retracted. Please follow the link to the full retraction notice for details."
Frontiers in Psychology
"Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation"
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journ...013.00073/full
"This article has been retracted. Please follow the link to the full retraction notice for details."A sense of legal caution, not any concern about the content.In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.
Not quite the way to win a scientific debate is it Darrin?
Do you think that scientific debates should be settled by lawyers? A simple yes or no will do.
I noticed you don't seem to be interested in answering fair questions.
e.g
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7243467
Why is that?
I think the biggest thing that for me demonstrated that was Darrins use of the "CO2 is such a small % of the atmosphere it can't be bad" idea. One of the weakest tropes put forth by the deniers, and very easily debunked from a rational standpoint, yet Darrin put it out there as part of his argument.
It was the kind of argument that requires a bit of ignorance to buy into, and reminded me quite closely of the "look there aren't any stars in these Moon landing pictures, they must be faked" schtick commonly employed by conspiracy nutters.
I agree.
That is the only value any given theory has, is how closely it models reality.
Which is why the dishonesty of many in the denier movement makes me deeply skeptical of their "skepticism".
If you can't make logical, evidence based, fair arguments like the one above, then one, rightly, should lose credibility.
You also left out some extra bits before and after your quote.
So what to make of this increase in the use of the concept of “scientific consensus?” After all, several scientific consensuses before 1985 turned out to be wrong or exaggerated, e.g., saccharin, dietary fiber, fusion reactors, stratospheric ozone depletion, and even arguably acid rain and high-dose animal testing for carcinogenicity. One reasonable response might be that anthropogenic climate change is different from the cited examples because much more research has been done."In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality."
Yes, those two things are sooo similar.
Bravo! You're starting to get it.
He explained the link between the two groups with specific methods that were used. You know: empirical facts.
Whining doesn't change that. Whining is better than lying but not by much.
Do you think that scientific debates should be settled by lawyers? A simple yes or no will do.
That isn't a yes or a no answer.
Cosmored, Parker, Mouse, and all sorts of creationist doo-dahs consistently fail to answer direct questions when put to them.
Every time you dodge fair, simple questions, you make my case for me. Thank you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
