Science Not Settled

[iNow]

It irritates the hell out of me when someone uses a blog called "skeptical science" to say they disprove something

I guess it's a good thing that I rely on the copious peer-reviewed citations underlying every single one of their claims, instead. I would really hate to irritate you, after all.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess it's a good thing that I rely on the copious peer-reviewed citations underlying every single one of their claims, instead. I would really hate to irritate you, after all.

 

It's the interpretations Skeptical Science gives and lies of omission.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[iNow]

I presume you dislike them because they disagree with your preconceptions and personal bias yet remain accurate and valid despite this apparent conflict.

[Wild Cobra]

I presume you dislike them because they disagree with your preconceptions and personal bias yet remain accurate and valid despite this apparent conflict.

 

I would be fine with them if they remained accurate. They do not.

[iNow]

Interesting assertion. I'd like to hear more. Now it's time for you to be specific, point to an actual specific claim, and then support precisely where it's not accurate. I suspect what I'll get instead is a bunch of handwaving and generalizations, though. I beg you to prove me mistaken.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting assertion. I'd like to hear more. Now it's time for you to be specific, point to an actual specific claim, and then support precisely where it's not accurate. I suspect what I'll get instead is a bunch of handwaving and generalizations, though. I beg you to prove me mistaken.

 

I have found examples years back, I'm not going to look today. I have pointed such things out when the debate warranted it.

 

Tell me...

 

Is that blog peer reviewed? That is a standard or yours, right?

[iNow]

I have found examples years back, I'm not going to look today. I have pointed such things out when the debate warranted it.

Just as I anticipated. Handwaving it is, then.

 

Is that blog peer reviewed?

Their countless many citations underlying each of the specific claims and denialist rebuttals they make are, yes.

[Wild Cobra]

Just as I anticipated. Handwaving it is, then.

True, but that's all I am willing to do for you at the moment.

 

 

Their countless many citations underlying each of the specific claims and denialist rebuttals they make are, yes.

I have already explained how they leave important facts out.

 

I'm sure at some point, I will explain why something posted by either Skeptical science or Real Climate is wrong. I'll do it when it is important enough, but I'm not going to go back in history for someone who has not earned my respect.

[iNow]

Continuing to handwave and generalize and evade in subsequent posts only further erodes your already ridiculous position on this issue.

[imatfaal]

Continuing to handwave and generalize and evade in subsequent posts only further erodes your already ridiculous position on this issue.

 

And provides further indications that there is no valid counter-argument to the prevailing conclusion of the majority of climate scientists. The mot de jour seems to be prefacing statements that are wildly critical of modern science with the phrase "I am not a scientist..." - as if this isolates the speaker from criticism for taking a position that is dangerously irrational.

[Willie71]

True, but that's all I am willing to do for you at the moment.

 

 

 

I have already explained how they leave important facts out.

 

I'm sure at some point, I will explain why something posted by either Skeptical science or Real Climate is wrong. I'll do it when it is important enough, but I'm not going to go back in history for someone who has not earned my respect.

This is a perfect example of lack of knowledge. It should be easy to point out the glaring mistakes. When someone claims there are no errors in the bible, I can recite 20 of them off the top of my head. When someone claims ADHD meds cause addiction, or sedate people, I can list multiple lines of evidence against that. When someone says exercise us as effective as antidepressants, I can exp,ain the flaws in those studies in detail. When someone makes bizarre claims about heat treating the steel in a knife, I can explain at the phase transformation level why it is bunk.

 

It has nothing to do with respecting the other person, it has to do with having the knowledge.

[Wild Cobra]

 

And provides further indications that there is no valid counter-argument to the prevailing conclusion of the majority of climate scientists. The mot de jour seems to be prefacing statements that are wildly critical of modern science with the phrase "I am not a scientist..." - as if this isolates the speaker from criticism for taking a position that is dangerously irrational.

You don't think it's at all possible that I prefer not to waste time looking for examples?

 

Again, at some point, I will likely point out a fallacy in one of those two blogs. Just be patient.

[iNow]

You don't think it's at all possible that I prefer not to waste time looking for examples?

 

Again, at some point, I will likely point out a fallacy in one of those two blogs. Just be patient.

Yet in post #229 you explicitly asserted that they make inaccurate claims. That's a rather bold assertion to make, especially since you cannot cite even a single one when asked four or five times for examples. Are you still confused why nobody takes you seriously on this topic?

[Wild Cobra]

Yet in post #229 you explicitly asserted that they make inaccurate claims. That's a rather bold assertion to make, especially since you cannot cite even a single one when asked four or five times for examples. Are you still confused why nobody takes you seriously on this topic?

 

Bold or not, I'm not going to take time with that issue now. Just let it drop, and watch for remarks with future posts. I’m sure at some point, the occasion will arise that I say why they are wrong. I will take time to type a few keystrokes now, but it has zero importance for me to go back in time, and spend any time on the topic looking into old information. I have better things to do. Don't you?

[John Cuthber]

 

Bold or not, I'm not going to take time with that issue now. Just let it drop, and watch for remarks with future posts. I’m sure at some point, the occasion will arise that I say why they are wrong. I will take time to type a few keystrokes now, but it has zero importance for me to go back in time, and spend any time on the topic looking into old information. I have better things to do. Don't you?

It doesn't work that way.you can't just slander a group of people and refuse to back it up.

[Ophiolite]

 

Bold or not, I'm not going to take time with that issue now. Just let it drop, and watch for remarks with future posts. I’m sure at some point, the occasion will arise that I say why they are wrong. I will take time to type a few keystrokes now, but it has zero importance for me to go back in time, and spend any time on the topic looking into old information. I have better things to do. Don't you?

The issue of global warming is one of the greatest challenges facing our species today. The actions that would minimise the impact are commonly seen as expensive, or even too expensive. The political will to address these challenges will not arise until there is a sufficiently well informed populace to press for action.

 

Attitudes, such as yours, that deny AGW, not on the basis of evidence, but upon opinion, misinformation, misinterpretation, and a cynical employment of deceitful rhetoric could deceive a casual and presently uninformed reader. That delays the creation of a well informed populace.

 

So, to answer your question, I have no better thing to do at present than to call you out. Provide the support for your assertion or retract it or be seen as a dishonest charlatan. Your choice.

[Wild Cobra]

The issue of global warming is one of the greatest challenges facing our species today.

 

Not for those of us who believe most of the warming is natural.

 

 

The actions that would minimise the impact are commonly seen as expensive, or even too expensive.

 

Correct. Most of us who disagree with the consensus view see it as a waste of money with no effect, but to make carbon traders rich, and displace 20,000+ people from Uganda for no good reason.

 

 

The political will to address these challenges will not arise until there is a sufficiently well informed populace to press for action.

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the politicians don’t have accurate enough information to use. There are too many conflicting papers. There is no real consensus.

 

Maybe when the climate community starts writing papers without political spin and weasel words, the politicians will listen. As it is, all the information given to politicians are like the same tripe they use to get elected, and they see through it.

 

 

Attitudes, such as yours, that deny AGW, not on the basis of evidence, but upon opinion, misinformation, misinterpretation, and a cynical employment of deceitful rhetoric could deceive a casual and presently uninformed reader. That delays the creation of a well informed populace.

 

I get sick and tired of people like you saying I deny AGW.

 

Must I report you for your repeated lies about my position, after clarifying so many times?

 

Be warned. I may take farther misrepresentations of my clearly stated viewpoints as flame baiting and report you!

 

Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. I have never said, and never will say otherwise. Please keep that strait. That does not mean I agree with the quantifications of the stated variables.

 

Deceitful? Who is being deceitful when they misrepresent other posters viewpoints? Look in a mirror lately?

 

As for the delay of being well informed. Why must AGW agenda driven papers use weasel words? Why not strait up be honest, without all the implied messages? Wouldn’t strait up honesty be better? Have you ever read any of these papers from a viewpoint of opposition to see how they imply without stating as fact?

 

 

So, to answer your question, I have no better thing to do at present than to call you out. Provide the support for your assertion or retract it or be seen as a dishonest charlatan. Your choice.

 

I feel sorry for you. Time is on my side. Like I said before, I'm sure at some point, I will take issue with one of thos blogs and expalin why. If this is a win for you, then savor it.

 

Taunting me will get you nowhere, but just be considered by me as flamebaiting.

It doesn't work that way.you can't just slander a group of people and refuse to back it up.

 

Are you the master rule-maker?

 

Again, just wait. I'm sure at some point in the future, I will explain what is wrong in one of the blogs. My refusal is not to be construed that I cannot. It is simply not worth my time. When the appropriate thread, post, etc. comes along, I will respond as I think is necessary.

 

My biggest point is not to take either of these two blogs as completely accurate.

 

Just be patient.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[John Cuthber]

 

Are you the master rule-maker?

 

No, but now you come to mention it this is

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

and it says

• Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

  and saying that you refuse to back up your assertion is refusal to discuss the issue.

[Wild Cobra]

 

No, but now you come to mention it this is

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

and it says

• Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

  and saying that you refuse to back up your assertion is refusal to discuss the issue.

 

 

Who's preaching now?

 

I said I will likely back it up in future posts. I have given all the discussion that is needed. I am not continuing such a topic as a lecture, it is you guys not letting go of it, and if any rule violations are happening, it is from your constant harassment of me on the topic.

 

Please stop your flame-bating.

[Strange]

Not for those of us who believe most of the warming is natural.

 

Even if it were largely natural, it would still be a massive problem. In fact it would be worse because there would be less we could do about it.

 

 

I get sick and tired of people like you saying I deny AGW.

 

Oh, I thought it was "mostly natural"

Edited November 16, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

 

Not for those of us who believe most of the warming is natural.

 

..........

I get sick and tired of people like you saying I deny AGW.

Now which is it. Your posts and your opening remark declare that you believe the current documented increases in global temperature are natural. Yet you also say you believe in AGW. Yet AGW is generally taken to mean that the bulk of the temperature increase we see is a consequence of human activities. If you are defining it differently it is really rather rude of you to accost people who use the conventional definition. Frankly, I find it yet another example of the looseness of thought that permeates your posts.

 

 

Correct. Most of us who disagree with the consensus view see it as a waste of money with no effect, but to make carbon traders rich, and displace 20,000+ people from Uganda for no good reason.

1. Strawman argument. I have no idea what Uganda has to do with this.

2. No good reason? Saving the planet's biosphere from the impact of humanity seems like a good reason to me.

 

 

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the politicians don’t have accurate enough information to use. There are too many conflicting papers. There is no real consensus.

You are wrong. There is a powerful consensus on the major points. Disagreement exists, as it should, on many details, but the IPCC report is one of the more remarkable scientific consensuses to emerge in the last one hundred years. Denial without justification is as welcome as flatulence in the confessional.

 

Maybe when the climate community starts writing papers without political spin and weasel words, the politicians will listen.

Please cite specific examples of "weasel words". You seem always ready to critique with rhetoric, but you run lightly with facts. Perhaps a defect in your education.

 

I get sick and tired of people like you saying I deny AGW.

 

Must I report you for your repeated lies about my position, after clarifying so many times?

How many times have you clarified? You seem to live in a delusion wherein I carefully read all of your fact free posts and try to resolve the internal inconsistencies, the logical fallacies, and the agenda driven angst. I don't.

 

But please tell me where I have repeated lies about your position. (Note, it is not my responsibility if your writing is as incoherent as your opinions.)

 

Be warned. I may take farther misrepresentations of my clearly stated viewpoints as flame baiting and report you!

Feel free to report me at any time. I have certainly reported you for rule infringement.

 

Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. I have never said, and never will say otherwise. Please keep that strait.

I expect to see many more straits emerging with rising sea levels. I hope I have that straight.

 

Deceitful? Who is being deceitful when they misrepresent other posters viewpoints? Look in a mirror lately?

If I have misrepresented your viewpoint it is down to the laxity of your expression. Correct that and you might have fewer things to complain of. And, as noted earlier in this post, your views on AGW are contradictory at best and dumb-assed at worst second best.

[iNow]

I get sick and tired of people like you saying I deny AGW. Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. I have never said, and never will say otherwise. Please keep that strait.

Interesting.

 

This whole "primarily due to man" warming idea to me is a fraud.

Not for those of us who believe most of the warming is natural.

 

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

 

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

 

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

I am not alone in this idea.

I think you misspoke there, because then you would be agreeing with me, that the sun is responsible for most the changes we have observed.

I disagree with that. I believe it's more like 50% solar, and a large portion from soot on ice, melting the northern ice. Of course there are other facters, and I believe the H2O feedback is from solar, not CO2.

Given this, it's a bit hard to take you at your word when you assert:

 

I get sick and tired of people like you saying I deny AGW. Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. I have never said, and never will say otherwise. Please keep that strait.

After all, we're talking about anthropogenic climate change here, and... as you well know... Words have meaning.

[Wild Cobra]

AGW simply means man made warming. Anthropogenic Global Warming. It acknowledges man has a global effect on warming. The term itself has no quantifier of value. You have to assign a value, and I have on many occasions made my point clear on this.

 

To demand it means mostly makes it a binary argument, which is not scientific. Political maybe, but not scientific. Now if you specifically attach a qualifier to it like “anthropogenic global warming theory,” then yes, you are speaking of it mostly being cause by man. If you cannot accept clarification of a person’s points, when being specific in assigning a qualifier of sorts, then I am at a loss of what to say from here. I have been specific in saying natural warming is greater than anthropogenic. There is no wiggle room. Why are you building straw men?

1. Strawman argument. I have no idea what Uganda has to do with this.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html?_r=0

[iNow]

I return you now to my post from 3 weeks ago:

You seem to be playing word games, but that doesn't change the fact that human activity is currently the primary driver of climate change.

[Wild Cobra]

I return you now to my post from 3 weeks ago:

 

Yet we disagree. I agree CO2 is a climate driver, but far from primary. I'll give it 3rd place befind solar and soot.