Irrational Thinking: A Winner!

[mhaze]

You're making assertions that challenge an entire field of science. Whereas I'm not. The onus is on you to support your assertions.

Unvalidated climate computer models, Warmologists primary (or only) refuge in the CO2-as-primary-causative-agent-of-global-warming theory, now are "an entire field of science", and are elevated to such a height that the onus should be on anyone who questions them?

Wow.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Assuming the Right is skeptical about Global Warming, and the Left is skeptical about Intelligent Design, does that mean that neither one exists -- or that they both exist?

 

[varwoche]

Unvalidated climate computer models, Warmologists primary (or only) refuge in the CO2-as-primary-causative-agent-of-global-warming theory, now are "an entire field of science", and are elevated to such a height that the onus should be on anyone who questions them?

Wow.

It would behoove you to be more attentive, and/or stop playing word games.

My comment was prompted by this absurd, unsupported proclamation:

everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that [CO2 as driver] assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

You should be aware this borderline CT is patently false. Many posters (including you) have cited studies regarding the impact of aeresols, for instance.

 

[varwoche]

Unvalidated climate computer models, Warmologists primary (or only) refuge in the CO2-as-primary-causative-agent-of-global-warming theory, now are "an entire field of science", and are elevated to such a height that the onus should be on anyone who questions them?

Wow.

"Questions"? Ya sure. It would behoove you to be more attentive, and/or to stop playing word games as the case may be.

My comment was prompted by this absurd, unsupported question proclamation:

everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that [CO2 as driver] assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

Not to mention mhaze, you should be aware this borderline CT is patently false. Many posters (including you) have cited studies regarding the impact of aeresols, for instance.

 

[varwoche]

Unvalidated climate computer models, Warmologists primary (or only) refuge in the CO2-as-primary-causative-agent-of-global-warming theory, now are "an entire field of science", and are elevated to such a height that the onus should be on anyone who questions them?

Wow.

"Questions"? Ya sure. It would behoove you to be more attentive, and/or to stop playing word games as the case may be.

My comment was prompted by this absurd, unsupported question proclamation:

everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that [CO2 as driver] assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

Not to mention mhaze, you should be aware this borderline CT is patently false. Many posters (including you) have cited studies regarding the impact of aeresols, for instance.

 

[varwoche]

dupe

 

[mhaze]

Shall I address in a clear and convincing fashion, separately and distinctly, the contents of post #143, #144, #145, and #146? Better, finding this confusing, let me ask for separate and distinct clarifications to each of these unique posts.

What is this about attempting to define things in "conspiracy" fashion?

That seems as much of a reductionism of a complex reality, social, political and scientific, to a false simpleton's premise, as you might assert the CO2-as-primary-causative-agent-of-global-warming theory to be. In the latter case, one might ascribe the reductionism to political ends. But if so doing, does that support the former hypothesis?

 

[mhaze]

Hansen made very public predictions in his presentations to Congress. The obsessive response from McIntyre has been to get the boot in for every nuance or smudge on the graph made in those presentations. The projections made bake then on much more primitive computers and software have been substantially correct, which I find amazing. There is no need to project 20 years from now, that has already been done.

Well, the projections made did bake, sort of, given that Hansen picked a day to present them to Gore's little Senate panel which was a historically unusual hot day, 0623-1988. And yes, they were immediately splashed by pre arrangement onto media. So it was right after 0623 that newspapers started picking up "global warming" spinmeister innuendo.

Is there any need to project 20 years from now? Of course there is a need to do so. Even if you, AUP, do not think there is a need to do so, there still is, because others do not agree with you.

When someone flips a coin and it lands heads five times in a row, that is not amazing at all.

And the person who doubles his bet with each "heads" flip is a sure loser.

 

[rockoon]

It is a request for evidence made in a reasonably well known media outlet.

No effort at all then.

The accusation that the scientists involved in climate change are biased is a serious one. It should be backed up by facts.

Indeed it should, but I have not asked you for those facts nor have I challenged you on them.

My correspondence with you has been on the specific subject of the value of Blacks writings, because you made multiple posts defending its value based on what he did to arrive at the facts.

Now I find that he didnt do much of anything.

Your concerns over his method can be debated but don't you really feel he would have had more replies than he did?

It was your concern over his methods which got me into this debate. You specifically defended the value of Blacks work. Later you suggested that the expected effort involved (called Investigative Journalism) was, and I quote, "unreasonable from the point of view of the work involved"

I've had enough of you.

You defended Black because you agree with his conclusion, not because you can demonstrate that his work has value.

He didn't contact anyone. He didnt follow any leads. He didnt interview anybody. He didn't even follow up on the previously known cases.

Under this light, the point still stands. The work of Black is just fluff.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, the projections made did bake, sort of, given that Hansen picked a day to present them to Gore's little Senate panel which was a historically unusual hot day, 0623-1988. And yes, they were immediately splashed by pre arrangement onto media. So it was right after 0623 that newspapers started picking up "global warming" spinmeister innuendo.

Is there any need to project 20 years from now? Of course there is a need to do so. Even if you, AUP, do not think there is a need to do so, there still is, because others do not agree with you.

When someone flips a coin and it lands heads five times in a row, that is not amazing at all.

And the person who doubles his bet with each "heads" flip is a sure loser.

The scientists are just tossing coins. yeah... right.....

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Well, the projections made did bake, sort of, given that Hansen picked a day to present them to Gore's little Senate panel which was a historically unusual hot day, 0623-1988. And yes, they were immediately splashed by pre arrangement onto media. So it was right after 0623 that newspapers started picking up "global warming" spinmeister innuendo.

Is there any need to project 20 years from now? Of course there is a need to do so. Even if you, AUP, do not think there is a need to do so, there still is, because others do not agree with you.

When someone flips a coin and it lands heads five times in a row, that is not amazing at all.

And the person who doubles his bet with each "heads" flip is a sure loser.
​

The scientists are just tossing coins. yeah... right.....

Umm, the way they prove they are not just tossing coins is ....????

 

[CapelDodger]

Umm, the way they prove they are not just tossing coins is ....????

Remember way back when, two or three decades back, when people were calling "no warming" on the coin toss? Singer, Lindzen, Pielke, Gray, people like that. They keep losing, they invent reasons why they were wrong without being wrong about AGW, and they just keep calling the same old "no warming" despite the obvious fact that the coin involved is double-headed.

You can't buck physics. But some folk don't give up trying this side of the grave.

Climate scientists haven't tried to buck physics, of course, they work with it. Physics is the double-headed coin.

 

[a_unique_person]

Umm, the way they prove they are not just tossing coins is ....????

Read the 4AR. Glaciers, temperature records, physics, etc.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is a link to it to the right of Black's article to the Have Your Say blog provided by the BBC for responses to this and the other articles published during 'Sceptic's Week'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7095420.stm

After stating "we received so many that those below are just a selection", this is from the first response they chose to include:



This is from the second response:



Later we have:



This is the final response included:



You were saying?

Splat.

"Yeah, look, right?, everybody knows it's happening, right?, we don't need evidence 'cos everybody knows it's happening, right? we all know people that know people it's happened to, right?" (That's how bar-pundits talk over here, the "right" is pure coincidence. Happy coincidence, but coincidence all the same .)

Why is it so hard to get conspiracy onto the Conspiracy Forum? It's most frustrating. Science gets presented on the Conspiracy Forum, and conspiracy on the Science Forum. Sometimes by the same people.

As to the Politics Forum, lets not go there .

 

[jsfisher]

...How exactly is that narrow enough not to imply conspiracy?...varwoche quoted what he quoted, and what other interpretation is reasonable?

I explained my view in my response to varwoche's post. Varwoche considered my point and reconsidered his/her own. If varwoche wishes to revisit the matter, we can discuss it further.

On the other hand, CapelDodger, if you have further interest, why not ask TokenConservative directly if she/he meant to imply a formal conspiracy or not.

 

[CapelDodger]

Read the 4AR. Glaciers, temperature records, physics, etc.

Well, yeah, but what about the unvalidated models? Or the Medieval Warm Period? And global warming on Mars - what about that, eh? There was more rapid warming in the 30's, but you can't trust modern weather-stations. Wall of water. IPCC part of UN. Greenpeace. (Irony)

The big bad analogue model cares nothing for initial conditions, it samples with absolute precision at every moment and never gets the output wrong. Defy it and it will win every time. I choose not to defy it. Truth told, I'm not the adventurous type.

 

[CapelDodger]

I explained my view in my response to varwoche's post.

My response was precisely to said response, by way of your response to SezMe. I quoted varwoche's original post. Your response has problems that can't be wriggled out of, and they're obvious to anybody. This is a public forum. You can't choose who picks you apart.

Varwoche considered my point and reconsidered his/her own. If varwoche wishes to revisit the matter, we can discuss it further.

If varwoche did that he made the mistake of not asking for a lawyer beforehand. That aside, I visited your point and you've not responded.

On the other hand, CapelDodger, if you have further interest, why not ask TokenConservative directly if she/he meant to imply a formal conspiracy or not.

See what I mean about the wriggling? It's unedifying. You've suggested that TC's intent could maybe something other and unspecified, looking at narrowing here and expansion there.

I don't respond to the likes of TC. What's the point? He's a carpet-chewer, and surely you're aware of that. You've chosen to defend him, for whatever quixotic reason. I've responded to your defence.

Hey, at least that means I regard you as something better than a carpet-chewer . The next circle up is "Sophist", and I'm not nearly so sure about that.

 

[jsfisher]

I don't respond to the likes of TC. What's the point? He's a carpet-chewer, and surely you're aware of that. You've chosen to defend him, for whatever quixotic reason. I've responded to your defence.

Hey, at least that means I regard you as something better than a carpet-chewer . The next circle up is "Sophist", and I'm not nearly so sure about that.

I see you are more interested in labels than communication. Carry on.

 

[CapelDodger]

Which I find unconvincing.

I'm with you there.

You're making assertions that challenge an entire field of science. Whereas I'm not. The onus is on you to support your assertions.

You can't buck physics. That's the road I chose long ago, and it has never led me into a wilderness.

The contrarian obsession with models hasn't gone away, but it has recently evolved into unvalidated models. It's almost become hyphenated. There's a desperate, almost hysterical edge to the ploy. Nobody defines validation, and even if the world warms (or ice melts) faster than model predictions they are invalidated, which makes it all go away. Or something. Anyhoo, the models won't be validated and models are what it all has to be about. The real world is just too discomforting for them to face.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see you are more interested in labels than communication. Carry on.

That still doesn't constitute a reponse to my response to your response to varwoche (whose post I quoted in my post, for the sake of clarity). I was interested in what your response would be. That was then, this is now.

Now you seem to have resorted to Whining, which is several circles above Sophistry. You're doing yourself no favours, frankly. You're onto a loser in the first place (trying to present TC as not being an explicit conspiracy-theorist), and even your sophistry is unimpressive.

Have you noticed how TC isn't defending himself against the accusation? You're left flapping in the wind, presenting your own exegesis of TC's frothings.