Global warming

[mhaze]

Did you read the link?

Like this quote from the rambling monologue?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We’ve already gone past the tipping point, now it is a matter of the survival of our species and all the others that share on this earth. [/FONT]
​

 

[Pipirr]

Pipirr, Megaloon - Thanks for your interest in the subject. However, I should have the 1988 Hansen testimony in a day or two and prefer to wait, study it and respond at that time.
[snip]

The current version of this meme was generated by Paul Krugman, well noted for smearing and distorting facts to promote certain directions in politics,

Do be so good as to report back on what Hansen presented in 1988.

As for Krugman being responsible for the 'current version of this meme', it's worth noting that the link I provided was from a debate held in 1998. Hansen took part in the debate to correct Michael's misrepresentation of his 1988 testimony.

Michael's lie has been challenged and shown to be such from the time it was first uttered, and a little fact checking would have put this canard to rest a long time ago. I can only assume that people like Michael Crichton et al., who have done such good work in disseminating it, do not have much of an interest in the truth.

 

[mhaze]

Do be so good as to report back on what Hansen presented in 1988.

As for Krugman being responsible for the 'current version of this meme', it's worth noting that the link I provided was from a debate held in 1998. Hansen took part in the debate to correct Michael's misrepresentation of his 1988 testimony.

I'll report back and post the testimony.

As for the debate, I have read the actual debate, thus Hansen's "commentary" on the debate are without merit insofar as the issue at hand. Hansen and Michael's exchange during the debate on the Scenario A issue is relevant, but let's put off discussing that until all the facts are in.

 

[Schneibster]

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony. That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

No, it's not. You've ignored the rest of the evidence, which is your typical rhetorical trick.

From that position you leap to a conclusion of guilt on Michaels part; while I stay with an opinion of not guilty until it is proven.

I leapt nowhere. I presented further evidence and drew a conclusion from it. This is a strawman; you ignored presented evidence.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further, because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not, I would just like to see the actual proof of it.

Given that you are not accepting or even acknowledging presented evidence, I think you've just proven that in fact, it DOES matter to you whether Michaels lied or not. And again, whether Michaels is a liar or not is a characterization; this cannot be a matter of fact. The matter in question is whether he lied, not whether he is a liar. As I said, you ignore points that you don't like. If you'd care to address ALL the evidence, perhaps your posts would acquire some meaning; this one has none.

In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter.

Yes, they do; and you're ignoring them, so that means that you have an opinion that is not based on the facts.

Since you agree with me on the absence of facts

I do not. I presented facts and you have ignored them.

required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

If you can produce them, feel free. In the absence of further facts, I see no reason to do any further research; in the presence of a proven lie, supported by testimony from two sources, the testimony of your witness is impeached. End of conversation, unless you can produce reliable evidence otherwise.

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.

Yes, it is. If testimony disproving Hansen's account existed, there can be no question that it would have been produced. This would have vindicated Michaels, and considering the subsequent attacks on his character, he has to have had strong motivation to produce it; furthermore, he was right there in the right place to collect it if it existed. That he has not, but instead simply told another easily provable lie shows that a) it does not exist, and b) he doesn't care if he can be proven a liar, because his audience is not capable of critical analysis. Like you for example.

Your critique is accepted, thank you. And I suspect that you will offer more rhetorical tricks, surprise me.

No, no rhetorical tricks at all. Just the facts, which you will of course ignore because they do not fit your uncritical world-view.

 

[Schneibster]

I'll report back and post the testimony.

As for the debate, I have read the actual debate, thus Hansen's "commentary" on the debate are without merit insofar as the issue at hand. Hansen and Michael's exchange during the debate on the Scenario A issue is relevant, but let's put off discussing that until all the facts are in.

I'm sorry, but I have no trust in any "evidence" you might provide. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly capable of constructing fake "evidence," and you absolutely for certain will cherry-pick and distort the meaning by omitting important qualifications of statements. There can be no question of this, considering your previous behavior; I'll be happy to produce examples if necessary to substantiate that statement.

So whatever you produce had better be from an absolutely unimpeachable source. I'm not interested in any document you claim to have scanned; photoshop is ubiquitous. I'm not interested in any document on any GW "skeptic" site for the same reason. Produce the actual transcripts of testimony from an uninterested third party's site or from a US government archive, or don't bother wasting your time or ours.

 

[Schneibster]

I have never read anything anyone named Krugman has written, to the best of my knowledge. I have examined Hansen (1988), Michaels' 1998 testimony, and further statements made on-line by Michaels; these have constituted my research into this matter. I am uninterested in any "debate" between Michaels and Hansen; I have little doubt that Michaels is a better debater than Hansen, he certainly knows how to lie.

 

[CapelDodger]

You are a cynic, sir.

You're most kind. One tries ...

There are three messages in "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time". The last is the one that's mostly focused on, and the first is doubtful (some people can't be persuaded of anything, scam or not), but the middle one is dead on. Some people can be fooled and stay fooled - a fact well and profitably exploited since way back.

To my mind it's easily explicable, and even derivable from human nature. People are most easily fooled into beliefs that they find attractive, so unconvincing them is an uphill struggle. Admitting - even to yourself - that you've been fooled is an unpleasant experience. And then there's the whole monkey group-think aspect.

Of course denialists will contend that this describes our problem - that we've been fooled into believing in AGW and all the science that predicted it. Mark my words.

Cynicism spares us the discomfort of being fooled. When I hear something that appeals to me on a gut-level I subject it to even closer examination than usual.

 

[David Rodale]

I'm sorry, but I have no trust in any "evidence" you might provide. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly capable of constructing fake "evidence,"

Now that Schneibster has implied MHaze fabricates evidence, who else is willing to step forward and join Schneibster?

What's the matter Schneibster, do you realize you've been snookered and now must resort to the lowest level of repulsive tactics? Circling the wagons now?

Since I'm on your ignore list, maybe someone would be kind enough to quote it for him.

 

[CapelDodger]

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony.

We know the facts of Michaels's testimony - this includes you - since it's available via the Cato Institute link you provided. It's during this testimony that Michaels lied. He did not refer to Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress but to the Hansen et al 1988 model and associated report - available online and previously linked to by Schneibster. These are two very distinct things. You don't need Hansen's Congressional testimony to make a judgement, and the only viable one is that Michaels lied in his testimony.

That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

It's nothing of the sort. Hansen's testimony has no more relevance to Michaels's mendacity than the green-cheesiness of the Moon's far-side. What you keep asserting is that you won't examine Michaels's testimony until you've examined Hansen's testimony from a decade earlier.

From that position you leap to a conclusion of guilt on Michaels part; while I stay with an opinion of not guilty until it is proven.

It is proven, by Michaels's own words.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further ...

You've already got it. You linked to it, for crying out loud.

... because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not ...

It clearly does matter to you or you wouldn't be getting into such contortions to avoid admitting it - even to yourself.

... I would just like to see the actual proof of it.

It's been presented to you - even pushed in your face. Your inablility to see it is something you should maybe ponder on.

In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Since you agree with me on the absence of facts required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

That's a pretty sad and transparent attempt at weaseling. Have you learnt no technique during your time spent in denialist clubhouses? The facts pertaining to Michaels's lying testimony are available to all of us - in his testimony and in the Hansen et al report he lied about.

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.

Sinister ... But then again, since Hansen's testimony is irrelevant, not interesting at all. Your fixation on it is what's peculiar.

Your critique is accepted, thank you. And I suspect that you will offer more rhetorical tricks, surprise me.

I think more irony to come from that source is pretty much a given. We may have passed a tipping-point.

 

[David Rodale]

We know the facts of Michaels's testimony - this includes you - since it's available via the Cato Institute link you provided. It's during this testimony that Michaels lied. He did not refer to Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress but to the Hansen et al 1988 model and associated report - available online and previously linked to by Schneibster. These are two very distinct things. You don't need Hansen's Congressional testimony to make a judgement, and the only viable one is that Michaels lied in his testimony.



It's nothing of the sort. Hansen's testimony has no more relevance to Michaels's mendacity than the green-cheesiness of the Moon's far-side. What you keep asserting is that you won't examine Michaels's testimony until you've examined Hansen's testimony from a decade earlier.



It is proven, by Michaels's own words.



You've already got it. You linked to it, for crying out loud.



It clearly does matter to you or you wouldn't be getting into such contortions to avoid admitting it - even to yourself.



It's been presented to you - even pushed in your face. Your inablility to see it is something you should maybe ponder on.




That's a pretty sad and transparent attempt at weaseling. Have you learnt no technique during your time spent in denialist clubhouses? The facts pertaining to Michaels's lying testimony are available to all of us - in his testimony and in the Hansen et al report he lied about.



Sinister ... But then again, since Hansen's testimony is irrelevant, not interesting at all. Your fixation on it is what's peculiar.



I think more irony to come from that source is pretty much a given. We may have passed a tipping-point.

Sinister ... But then again, since Hansen's testimony is irrelevant, not interesting at all. Your fixation on it is what's peculiar.

You said Michaels lied. You called him a fraud. This was in direct reference to Hansen's 1988 Senate testimony for which Michaels commented on. Looking over all the posts, it is your side that has been fixated on the subject. MHaze asked if anyone has actually read Hansen's (nobody on this forum has) Senate statement to verify the accusations against Michaels, and questioned if the ferocity of attacks were justified. Did you ever stop and think that maybe Krugman is the one distorting the truth? Of course not.

I think more irony to come from that source is pretty much a given. We may have passed a tipping-point.

Sept. 2007 is no warmer than Sept. 1988.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now that Schneibster has implied MHaze fabricates evidence, who else is willing to step forward and join Schneibster?

I am Spartacus!

The way mhaze distorts other people's posts is tantamount to fabricating evidence. Fortunately he's so inexpert that nobody's fooled by it.

What's the matter Schneibster, do you realize you've been snookered and now must resort to the lowest level of repulsive tactics? Circling the wagons now?

I take that back. Apparently you're fooled by it.

And apparently you think accusing people of fabricating evidence is a repulsive low-life tactic. Duly noted. It's always good to see when people demonstrate a sense of integrity.

Not something Michaels has got, obviously, otherwise he wouldn't lied to Congress or anybody else. Sadly, he did.

Since I'm on your ignore list, maybe someone would be kind enough to quote it for him.

Well, there it is.

 

[Schneibster]

We know the facts of Michaels's testimony - this includes you - since it's available via the Cato Institute link you provided. It's during this testimony that Michaels lied. He did not refer to Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress but to the Hansen et al 1988 model and associated report - available online and previously linked to by Schneibster. These are two very distinct things. You don't need Hansen's Congressional testimony to make a judgement, and the only viable one is that Michaels lied in his testimony.

Wow, I didn't catch that. You're right:

At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress.

By "produced," I thought he meant "produced as evidence for review by Congress," not "produced and referred to in his paper." It's clear, however, that that's precisely what he meant, and you are correct, we don't need Hansen's 1988 Congressional testimony.

I'll stop short of criticizing mhaze for not noticing it, however, since I didn't.

 

[CapelDodger]

You said Michaels lied. You called him a
fraud.

Yes to both, repeatedly.

This was in direct reference to Hansen's 1988 Senate testimony for which Michaels commented on.

It was in direct reference to Michaels's 1998 testimony. Here's the Michaels money-shot:

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."

"That model." Not "that testimony". There's the lie.

Looking over all the posts, it is your side that has been fixated on the subject. MHaze asked if anyone has actually read Hansen's (nobody on this forum has) Senate statement to verify the accusations against Michaels, and questioned if the ferocity of attacks were justified. Did you ever stop and think that maybe Krugman is the one distorting the truth? Of course not.

Have you ever considered that McIntyre is distorting the truth with rhetorical tricks? Be honest.

Sept. 2007 is no warmer than Sept. 1988.

Where? In your house?


eta: I have read Hansen's 1988 testimony, back in '88 when I was already a mature and cynical adult with an informed interest in the subject.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll stop short of criticizing mhaze for not noticing it, however, since I didn't.

Don't beat yourself up; I've spent far more time amongst lawyers (socially, of course) than is the norm .

 

[David Rodale]

Yes to both, repeatedly.



It was in direct reference to Michaels's 1998 testimony. Here's the Michaels money-shot:



"That model." Not "that testimony". There's the lie.



Have you ever considered that McIntyre is distorting the truth with rhetorical tricks? Be honest.




Where? In your house?


eta: I have read Hansen's 1988 testimony, back in '88 when I was already a mature and cynical adult with an informed interest in the subject.

Are you saying Hansen didn't mention his models in his statement to the Senate?

BTW, you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to join Schneibster and imply MHaze fabricates what he posts?

It's not warming

 

[CapelDodger]

As for the debate, I have read the actual debate, thus Hansen's "commentary" on the debate are without merit insofar as the issue at hand. Hansen and Michael's exchange during the debate on the Scenario A issue is relevant, but let's put off discussing that until all the facts are in.

One fact that was in when Michaels gave his 1998 testimony was that Scenario A hadn't happened. And yet he presented the Scenario A prediction as being the prediction of the Hansen et al model. A lie.

Here's the Michaels money-shot again :

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."

You can check it out, the Cato Institute site carries the testimony in full.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are you saying Hansen didn't mention his models in his statement to the Senate?

No.

BTW, you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to join Schneibster and imply MHaze fabricates what he posts?

Perhaps "I am Spartacus!" is too allusive an answer. More bluntly : I stand with Schneibster on this. Any of us can see how mhaze tries to twist posts (including his own, after the fact) to new meanings. If that's not facrication, what is?

It's not warming
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323470d98b386ac0.jpg[/URL]

That must be a great comfort to you.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by Schneibster
I'm sorry, but I have no trust in any "evidence" you might provide. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly capable of constructing fake "evidence,"

Now that Schneibster has implied MHaze fabricates evidence, who else is willing to step forward and join Schneibster?

What's the matter Schneibster, do you realize you've been snookered and now must resort to the lowest level of repulsive tactics? Circling the wagons now?

Since I'm on your ignore list, maybe someone would be kind enough to quote it for him.

Here is the evidence that Schneibster does not care about evidence.

The argument is over.

His mind is made up, and if evidence surfaces that contradicts his pre-drawn conclusion it will be discounted.

I recommend this song


http://www.al-oholicsanonymous.com/sounds/yourepitiful.mp3

 

[CapelDodger]

The current version of this meme was generated by Paul Krugman, well noted for smearing and distorting facts to promote certain directions in politics ...

The belief that "Michaels lied to Congress" is a meme generated by Krugman is in itself a meme. One you are apparently wedded to. How long for is anybody's guess.

The devious nature of this defensive strategy is revealed by your use of "current version". By it you reveal that you know full well that "Michaels lied to Congress" was in play before Krugman's comments. In fact it was in play from the moment Michaels gave his blatantly lying testimony.

I woldn't take anything Krugman says at face value, but apparently, a lot of people here do. Article and summary of it follows -

I take Michaels's 1998 testimony to Congress at face value and Michaels lied like a lowlife lawyer. It's all there in his own words.

 

[CapelDodger]

Jerome, if you're going down that road (childish remarks and off-topicness), it's straight to my ignore list. Not that you'd care.

He's posted a thing with a song attached now.

I think it's safe to write-off any chance of rational discourse with the capitalised one.