How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[CapelDodger]

This you construed quite incorrectly, thereby mischaracterising my argument.

I construed quite reasonaby what you said.

The words I used were fine. It was your interpretation of words that weren't there that was wrong.

I only interpreted the words that were there. If there were some you neglected to include that's your problem. As I've pointed out before, I'm not psychic.

Good constructive argument as ever.

In response to "Boy, you're hard work". One statement ("You have no idea") in response to another. No argument involved. Just an exchange of opinions. I stand by mine.

My emphasis. It includes policy and science. The reports include a review of scientific literature. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

"It includes a duck therefore it is a duck" is an unusual argument.

Once again, impugning with no evidence.

You've had the hots for the IPCC since before the start of this exchange. The IPCC "sweeping research under the carpet" claim which marked you down as a GWSceptic.

RoundRobin asked a question about bias in the IPCC. I provided an answer. How am I supposed to answer a question about the IPCC without talking about the IPCC? The IPCC has a role to play, obviously it is not the be all and end all and I have never suggested as such. However it is an important body and is supposed to be independent; yet it really isn't.

Have you ever considered discussing AGW without focussing on the IPCC? Which you regard as dependent on what, exactly?

The people that set up the IPCC think it's dependent on them, as the clients that specified their task. You seem to be of a different opinion.

I have provided clear evidence that the checks and balances are not there.

You've provided nothing of the sort. You've claimed that specific papers have been ignored because the IPCC reports fly in their face, but that's not evidence of any sort.

You, once again, provide opinion and assertion. Evidence versus opinion, hmmm...

Clarity versus evasive gabble. Evidence available on this very thread.

 

[mhaze]

Rubbish is rubbish. If you want the Anti-AGW arguments to be taken seriously, then the arguments have to be serious. Monckton is a fool. He has no formal training in climate science, yet he is quite prepared to tell people he has mastered it in a few years, and knows more than the experts. E&E will publish just about any piece of rubbish that comes along (they did reject one paper, amazingly enough). The Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, is another black mark, a prime piece of insanity. Piers Corbyn, another crank.

The minute the denier side becomes disciplined enough to reject the rubbish and stick to the science, I will quite happily take it more seriously.

Guess the world just does not march to your drumroll.

 

[a_unique_person]

Guess the world just does not march to your drumroll.

Evidently.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think that it is entirely appropriate to question how long a paper must survive in the wild ...

(My emphasis)

I wish I'd thought up that metaphor .

 

[mhaze]

Would you expect anything less?

A special mention for AUP:

This a very important paper, and yet another example of an issue concerning climate change that was mostly ignored by the IPCC assessment.
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/25/mo...cover-change-on-australia’s-regional-climate/

and...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/cloud.shtml

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Round Robin
I think that it is entirely appropriate to question how long a paper must survive in the wild ..
(My emphasis)​

I wish I'd thought up that metaphor .

Bite, not bark.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Thus you show more of your true nature - a radical far left environmentalist. But we knew.

I provide a link to the editor of E&E explaining the need for such a publication and you come back with this?

Truly, you are beyond rational argument.

why not help the RC guys out a bit?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/ni...limateorg.html

Realclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.

Try a bit of that anti Monckton antipathy? A bit of the old insult? Add some smear in for good measure. Add a sling or two at those darned contrarian peer reviewed journals a la E & E.

Again, you refuse to look at the evidence. Tell me, have you always been like this, or is it only GW that has sent you off into this fantasy world where white is black and true is false?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Having provided evidence to support my position, all I seem to have in return are opinions, speculation, arguments against the person, hand-waving and factual errors that should take ten seconds to verify. Is this really the standard level of debate in a supposedly scientific forum?

This thread is about GWS behaviour, not GW science.

You offer no evidence, just suppostions and accusations, often second-hand.

If you really have sound scientific arguments, stop wasting your time here and get published where it matters!

 

[TrueSceptic]

I have provided clear evidence that the checks and balances are not there. You, once again, provide opinion and assertion. Evidence versus opinion, hmmm...

This, in the usual GWS fashion, is an exact reversal of the true situation.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I'm renowned for my humourlessness, but this thread has had me giggling on the inside pretty much from the get-go. It's not often you see rats volunteering for the lab.

Yup. Round and round the m(h)aze they go, falling for all the little treats and hitting the buttons.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Marcus Brigstocke has had another amusing swipe at GW sceptics here, starting at about 17m02s

 

[TrueSceptic]

Already done...

http://www.amazon.com/End-Science-Knowledge-Twilight-Scientific/dp/0553061747

Thanks. I should have known, shouldn't I?

 

[mhaze]

I provide a link to the editor of E&E explaining the need for such a publication and you come back with this? Truly, you are beyond rational argument. Again, you refuse to look at the evidence. Tell me, have you always been like this, or is it only GW that has sent you off into this fantasy world where white is black and true is false?

Is random babble chat fun, or just part of the natural compulsive squirming of climatozoa?

Quote:
why not help the RC guys out a bit?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/ni...limateorg.html

Realclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.

Try a bit of that anti Monckton antipathy? A bit of the old insult? Add some smear in for good measure. Add a sling or two at those darned contrarian peer reviewed journals a la E & E.

Not going to help them out a bit!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Is random babble chat fun, or just part of the natural compulsive squirming of climatozoa?

It clearly is for you. Care to argue with E&E's editor as to why it was set up?

Is it "climatoza" or "climatozoa"? Both good, BTW.

 

[Pipirr]

Marcus Brigstocke has had another amusing swipe at GW sceptics here, starting at about 17m02s

Excellent, thanks!

 

[David Rodale]

Ignored? It came out after the report was compiled. Give me a break.

Yes AUP, this is but another in a long line of articles concerning UHI, microsite and LCC issues, and yes, they were all ignored by IPCC.

If you pay attention to these issues instead burying your head in the sand you'd have known that.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes AUP, this is but another in a long line of articles concerning UHI, microsite and LCC issues, and yes, they were all ignored by IPCC.

They are not reflected in the IPCC reports, but that is not evidence that they were ignored. it's evidence that they're not terribly impressive. The "I" is for "International", the "G" in AGW is for "Global", and the "D" in denialist is for "desperate".

If you pay attention to these issues instead burying your head in the sand you'd have known that.

AUP : Is there an Australian version of the weather-station-photography thing that so impresses 'Murricans who have their heads stuck firmly where the sun don't shine? I know you guys have your own celebrities, but have any of them latched onto this idea?

 

[CapelDodger]

Yup. Round and round the m(h)aze they go, falling for all the little treats and hitting the buttons.

And there's none of that crap about "informed consent" or animal rights; there's not an ethics committee in sight, so just what an ethics committee would make of us exploiting uninformed enthusiasm is debatable. Not that I'm going to debate it, of course, I'll just carry on exploiting it for my own satisfaction.

 

[CapelDodger]

Guess the world just does not march to your drumroll.

I find it impossible to picture anybody marching to a drumroll. And I'm not without imagination. It far outstrips the Ministry Of Silly Walks sketch.

 

[CapelDodger]

This, in the usual GWS fashion, is an exact reversal of the true situation.

CoolSceptic could almost have been designed to be confirmation of your OP. Not that I'm suggesting that he was, of course, despite the similarity in your handles. I'm inclined to the opinion that yours was the inspiration (and motivation) for his. A less charitable opinion would be that CoolSceptic actually thinks he's cool.