If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Forget atheists and other non-believers, the real war on Christmas is climate change   (motherjones.com) divider line 189
    More: Interesting, climate change, liturgical year, War on Christmas  
•       •       •

4474 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-26 06:33:47 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
And, as you're seeing here, if you point out that you mentioned, years ago, that hot water will dissolve sugar to another farker in a thread, you are morally obligated to be able to point that thread and your comment, or you are a filthy liar, and hot water probably WON'T dissolve sugar, besides.

There are lots of similar phenomena -- such as insisting that one can't argue with peer-reviewed research, unless that research casts doubt upon AGW, in which case it is irrelevant, outdated, and the researcher is a fraud. And the list could go on...


First off, Happy Holidays!

With that out of the way, what you've written is rather telling as to how you approach scientific information

Merry Christmas. With THAT out of the way, you're full of it. Warmers say "Nuh-uh" when presented with scientific information which falsifies their cherished position, that is NOT, itself, scientific information. You have yet to explain how scientific papers, however flawed, can prove your point, while scientific papers which argue against your point can be ignored. It seems to me that it should be one way or the other -- either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do. I'm flexible enough to argue either way, but this "Our papers are unassailable, but yours are trash" is just stupid.

Additionally, in a now-closed thread, you brought up the old "feedback and forcing" canard, and then doubled down on the derp with a reference to Shakun et al. 2012. With this, you continue to make the same mistake you always have, only writ large. Anyone with knowledge of feedback systems, who observes the tracking from the Vostok, or any of the other core datasets, and sees the 800-year lag, with carbon dioxide levels following along after temperature changes understands that without evidence of rate-dependent hysteresis, or any other dependency, the physics simply prohibit carbon dioxide level changes raising the temperature any significant amount. You said:

First, you're making the assumption that an observation that finds A causing B somehow excludes the possibility of B also causing A. This is why the the tongue-in-cheek idea that 'chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them' that I occasionally hit you over the head with is apt. That A causes B does not exclude the possibility of B also causing A.

Actually, the reality of the situation is more like "While it is true that chickens come from eggs, and also that chickens lay eggs, it is impossible that a given chicken laid the egg from which that chicken developed.

If you were to read the paper you quote, Shakun et al. 2012, you would note that their logic is as follows: They acknowledge that the increased insolation of the "warm end" of Milankovitch cycles is what causes the initial warming, which causes a release of carbon dioxide. They THEN go on to claim that this released carbon dioxide causes the further warm-up of the planet. Their rationale for this? That insolation alone will not account for the warming, and they can't think of anything else that could.

While this limited thinking is at least honest, it is, well, limited. Despite CERN's directive that their scientists are not to discuss the implications of their CLOUD experiments on the field of climatology, and as Svensmark has pointed out, the effects of cosmic rays, as modulated by the Sun's MAGNETIC activity, are that they amplify the effects of insolation. This amplification should be sufficient to produce the observed warming. Whereas the warming, if it WERE caused by carbon dioxide, would have to involve the physics of carbon dioxide's reactions change during each Milankovitch cycle. I would suggest that the possibility of cyclic changes to the laws of atmospheric physics is somewhere south of impossible. But, since you have consistently shown that you do not understand the concepts of feedback systems, I doubt this expanded explanation will compensate for the lack of basic knowledge. However, perhaps someone else will benefit from it.
 
2012-12-26 06:47:29 PM  

GeneralJim: either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do


You could really learn a lot from this book:

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-12-26 06:54:48 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: So with no success there, a logical next step would be to politely ask the person who made the claim, and that is what I did.

To sum up my argument so it's easier to understand:
1. What was presented was not evidence, but an opinion about a claim.
2. Weight should be given to evidence, not opinion, so obtaining evidence is necessary if we wish to evaluate the validity of the claim presented.
3. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, so they should present evidence when asked.
4. The evidence is difficult if not impossible to replicate or to find without information held by the person making the claim.
5. Both points 3 and 4 strongly indicate that the person making the claim should provide evidence supporting their claim.


Hopefully this makes sense to you. I know I'm making a bit of hay about this, but if one cannot deal with such a basic concept as why one should back up an opinion with evidence, it does not bode well for any discussion in a rational mindset.


He didn't state an opinion so much as some reasoning about how GW is not handled as critically as some of the other sciences.

True, he did not provide evidence for that(this time). That's where the burden of proof gets hazy. This is fark, not debate 101. There is no requisite, no duty, no obligation. If all we did was throw citations back and forth it would be one of the most boring sites on the internet, and as you yourself pointed out, burden of proof is not a steadfast rule, there are plain exceptions.


The information he used in his claim on is fairly well known. Every couple weeks this year alone we have a higgs bosun article, even supposedly found the particle(twice). Evolution articles come out practically every week. These I consider as common knowledge as they're consistantly making headlines. Medicine to quantum physics, we're constantly finding new things, some trivial, some have quite the potential impact, some are proofs of theories we've already lived by but allow for further research.

Asking for a citation for these things is being purposefully and painfully obtuse(or insanely unaware of the world around you, like some monk sequesterd from society and news/internet). Acting as if it's false based on lack of specific citations is just as grossly false.

Global warming? Some different interperetations and projections, but they mostly say similar things, all lacking precision and accuracy(which is what tends to happen when you start averaging numbers from an erratic source, like weather).

That "consensus" now needs a citation after you all have used it as an arguing point for weeks/months?

I understand the general purpose of citations just fine, what you posted earlier was a good rule of thumb. As you yourself state it isn't always needed. Being as stubborn as you are over it this time is plain silly, and a little aggrandizing.

Also.

When you blather on about opinions, you act as if they can be proven wrong. I like pizza...that is an opinion, and it's "weight" should not matter. You don't like pizza, so what? Who cares what someone's opinion is? Regardless to what you think, this is not a high school popularity contest. Fine that you want to treat it that way, but really, one's popularity(and hence opinion) is irrelevant.
 
2012-12-26 07:07:07 PM  
omeganuepsilon:
Who cares if he claimed it before or not?

It's his actual talking points that you're ignoring, that's what you just proved for me. Ever since that post, that's all you've done. You're dodging the issue. If it's his reasoning that's wrong, go after that. If the evidence(relative to the topic) is wrong, go after that.

Those last two things, you're conveniently bypassing with regularity. If you want to prove your assertion, all you've got to show is that there are frequent papers questioning global warming on par with the other sciences mentioned.

Now, seeing as how his original post of contention specifically mentioned how your ability to search and find what you want magically vanishes, it establishes disingenuous character that you've done nothing but bolster since.

Ha! No doubt he is squirming. Yes, for someone who goes out of their way to appear to be balanced and fair, Hippy is as biased and dishonest as they come. Personally, I find that position less "fragrant" even than a rabid "fan" who does anything for his "team." It takes INTENT to be that dishonest, and it is intent that turns error into sin.

But, as to the actual issue, it's even funnier than you may know. In the last few years, there are, indeed, many papers questioning the basics of climatology as in any other field. The whole POINT of the exercise, from my perspective, was to point out how asinine Oreskes' study was. Her "fence" for skepticism was too high to jump. Meanwhile, I was using a more normal set of criteria for skepticism in my survey of papers on gravity and evolution. Oreskes' study was apparently designed in an attempt to convince the non-scientific world of the unanimity of climatological acceptance of AGW. As I have mentioned, I myself took the quiz, and had I been counted, would have counted as a supporter of AGW... Readers of Fark climate threads will see the idiocy of that result.
 
2012-12-26 07:58:23 PM  

GeneralJim: Her "fence" for skepticism was too high to jump.


That's an entertaining phrase. Oddly ghosts fark threads, at that.

GeneralJim: In the last few years, there are, indeed, many papers questioning the basics of climatology as in any other field.


Phrased that way, sure. Although, relative to most other fields, there's not much to go on(IE tangible proof of concept, it's all questionable extrapolation/prediction), and a lot of the same base data is used(and that in a similar manner).

imgs.xkcd.com

Entertaining as that is, it's only somewhat irrelevant..... with reliability of proxies( I seem to recall seeing a +/-10% margin of error on a single day's measurement from ice cores), and some contrived averaging method thrown into the mix(ie a monthly average means jack shiat, that's 30 days and 30 nights worth of erratic weather averaged into a single data point, and some years only have a couple data points), you can only get so much out of the "science" as a whole.
 
2012-12-26 08:21:17 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
And, as you're seeing here, if you point out that you mentioned, years ago, that hot water will dissolve sugar to another farker in a thread, you are morally obligated to be able to point that thread and your comment, or you are a filthy liar, and hot water probably WON'T dissolve sugar, besides.

There are lots of similar phenomena -- such as insisting that one can't argue with peer-reviewed research, unless that research casts doubt upon AGW, in which case it is irrelevant, outdated, and the researcher is a fraud. And the list could go on...


First off, Happy Holidays!

With that out of the way, what you've written is rather telling as to how you approach scientific information

Merry Christmas. With THAT out of the way, you're full of it. Warmers say "Nuh-uh" when presented with scientific information which falsifies their cherished position, that is NOT, itself, scientific information. You have yet to explain how scientific papers, however flawed, can prove your point, while scientific papers which argue against your point can be ignored. It seems to me that it should be one way or the other -- either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do. I'm flexible enough to argue either way, but this "Our papers are unassailable, but yours are trash" is just stupid.



I'm sorry, but you're again exhibiting what I pointed out in the very next sentence of the post you truncated:

Damnhippyfreak: Nowhere in this argument of yours is any consideration whatsoever of the actual evidence behind a statement.


Scientific literature in general is given relatively more weight than say, a claim you refuse to back up because it by necessity presents evidence to support its claims. However that does not mean that the evidence present in an individual paper is necessarily good, or the conclusions sound.

Your misguided attempt to look for some sort of all-or-nothing "either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do" without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place.

I'll respond to the rest in a separate post as it's a different subject.
 
2012-12-26 08:28:50 PM  

GeneralJim: Additionally, in a now-closed thread, you brought up the old "feedback and forcing" canard, and then doubled down on the derp with a reference to Shakun et al. 2012. With this, you continue to make the same mistake you always have, only writ large. Anyone with knowledge of feedback systems, who observes the tracking from the Vostok, or any of the other core datasets, and sees the 800-year lag, with carbon dioxide levels following along after temperature changes understands that without evidence of rate-dependent hysteresis, or any other dependency, the physics simply prohibit carbon dioxide level changes raising the temperature any significant amount. You said:
First, you're making the assumption that an observation that finds A causing B somehow excludes the possibility of B also causing A. This is why the the tongue-in-cheek idea that 'chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them' that I occasionally hit you over the head with is apt. That A causes B does not exclude the possibility of B also causing A.

Actually, the reality of the situation is more like "While it is true that chickens come from eggs, and also that chickens lay eggs, it is impossible that a given chicken laid the egg from which that chicken developed.


While I do appreciate you bringing up something that you didn't have time to respond to previously, note that the altered analogy you brought forward is begging the question. You are attempting to prove a one-way causality through a physical example that already has that assumption built in. The idea that I was putting forth there was to disprove your idea that "A causing B somehow excludes the possibility of B also causing A", which your previous argument was based on, through an example that shows that it isn't necessarily true.


GeneralJim: If you were to read the paper you quote, Shakun et al. 2012, you would note that their logic is as follows: They acknowledge that the increased insolation of the "warm end" of Milankovitch cycles is what causes the initial warming, which causes a release of carbon dioxide. They THEN go on to claim that this released carbon dioxide causes the further warm-up of the planet. Their rationale for this? That insolation alone will not account for the warming, and they can't think of anything else that could.


The bit in bold is flat out false:

We evaluate potential physical explanations for the correlations between temperature, CO2 concentration and AMOC variability in three transient simulations of the last deglaciation using the Community Climate System Model version 3 (CCSM3; ref. 25) of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research. The first simulation (ALL) runs from 22 to 6.5kyr ago and is driven by changes in greenhouse gases, insolation, ice sheets and freshwater fluxes (the last of which is adjusted iteratively and thus is a tunable parameter). The second simulation (CO2) is forced only by imposed changes in greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide), and the third simulation (ORB) is forced only by orbitally driven insolation variations.

You sure you read that paper? Again, I'm more than willing to put the paper up for you somewhere, if you'll actually read the thing - you don't have to guess what's in there or make up things about it.

That aside, note that the conclusions of the paper also falsify your previous assertions:

GeneralJim: for hundreds of thousands of years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has FOLLOWED the global temperature



GeneralJim: While this limited thinking is at least honest, it is, well, limited. Despite CERN's directive that their scientists are not to discuss the implications of their CLOUD experiments on the field of climatology, and as Svensmark has pointed out, the effects of cosmic rays, as modulated by the Sun's MAGNETIC activity, are that they amplify the effects of insolation. This amplification should be sufficient to produce the observed warming. Whereas the warming, if it WERE caused by carbon dioxide, would have to involve the physics of carbon dioxide's reactions change during each Milankovitch cycle. I would suggest that the possibility of cyclic changes to the laws of atmospheric physics is somewhere south of impossible. But, since you have consistently shown that you do not understand the concepts of feedback systems, I doubt this expanded explanation will compensate for the lack of basic knowledge. However, perhaps someone else will benefit from it.


Let me post something else that you didn't get to in the previous thread as a response:

Maybe what would help would be to note that readings from one specific geographical location (like Antarctica and the Vostok ice core record) can be misleading in that it may not be representative of the whole world. So for your first choice, something that seems anomalous may simply be non-representative due to its limited geographical scope. As for your second choice, what may help is to note that different processes are not mutually exclusive. You can have orbital forcing changing temperature, and CO2 changing temperature as well - it doesn't have to be just one or the other and no change in the laws of physics required.

That aside, there's also something else of note. When confronted with evidence that either suggests that your preconceived notions are wrong or that the laws of physics somehow change, the fact that you would rather consider the laws of physics changing than even the possibility that your interpretation is wrong is quite telling.
 
2012-12-26 08:29:26 PM  

HighZoolander: Damnhippyfreak: Hey HighZoolander, there you are. Thank you for the sponsorship!

You're welcome! You are a model of patience, though I did enjoy seeing you make with the snark on occasion :)


Well, in all fairness, I should be cutting out the snark a bit more. Regardless, thanks!
 
2012-12-26 08:51:40 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: So with no success there, a logical next step would be to politely ask the person who made the claim, and that is what I did.

To sum up my argument so it's easier to understand:
1. What was presented was not evidence, but an opinion about a claim.
2. Weight should be given to evidence, not opinion, so obtaining evidence is necessary if we wish to evaluate the validity of the claim presented.
3. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, so they should present evidence when asked.
4. The evidence is difficult if not impossible to replicate or to find without information held by the person making the claim.
5. Both points 3 and 4 strongly indicate that the person making the claim should provide evidence supporting their claim.


Hopefully this makes sense to you. I know I'm making a bit of hay about this, but if one cannot deal with such a basic concept as why one should back up an opinion with evidence, it does not bode well for any discussion in a rational mindset.

He didn't state an opinion so much as some reasoning about how GW is not handled as critically as some of the other sciences.

True, he did not provide evidence for that(this time). That's where the burden of proof gets hazy. This is fark, not debate 101. There is no requisite, no duty, no obligation. If all we did was throw citations back and forth it would be one of the most boring sites on the internet, and as you yourself pointed out, burden of proof is not a steadfast rule, there are plain exceptions.


I have to agree. If the guy doesn't wish to have his posts be taken seriously, or have his opinions be considered without weight, then he's under no obligation to back them up. I get the impression, however, that he means his posts to be somewhat more than that ;)


omeganuepsilon: The information he used in his claim on is fairly well known. Every couple weeks this year alone we have a higgs bosun article, even supposedly found the particle(twice). Evolution articles come out practically every week. These I consider as common knowledge as they're consistantly making headlines. Medicine to quantum physics, we're constantly finding new things, some trivial, some have quite the potential impact, some are proofs of theories we've already lived by but allow for further research.


You might have missed this bit I said to you earlier:

Damnhippyfreak: Why do I specify the basics? Let's look at the claim about the literature on global warming which is being compared to. The criterion was "whether a paper "rejects" human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations". Somewhat subjective, but is talking about the very basics - whether humans are contributing to climate change (without any mention of how much, or mechanisms, or impact). So what would an equivalent set of basic statements about evolution or gravity would you expect to be looking for in order to compare them? How about whether 'natural selection contributes to species changing over time', or say that perhaps 'mass contributes to bodies attracting each other'. I remain very skeptical as to whether you're going to find many papers at all questioning basics such as these. Unfortunately, there's only one way to find out what exactly was previously done (and is the basis of the claim), isn't there.



omeganuepsilon: Asking for a citation for these things is being purposefully and painfully obtuse(or insanely unaware of the world around you, like some monk sequesterd from society and news/internet). Acting as if it's false based on lack of specific citations is just as grossly false.


Hopefully I've made the case in the previous paragraph that the issue isn't as obvious as you may think. In addition, let me add (as I mentioned in my previous post to you) that we have no way of knowing what year was considered (and therefore it is impossible to corroborate or disprove), there's no way to know whether he correctly assessed the papers (especially given that he probably has no access to the vast majority of the scientific literature), and there's no way to check whether the discussion happened as was claimed. This is in addition to the burden of proof being on the person making the claim. Again, one cannot actually evaluate the veracity of a claim if the evidence isn't actually presented. Without said evidence, we're left with considering the guy's claim just anopinion - and we both know how much weight we should be giving something like that:

omeganuepsilon: Opinions don't hold weight. Evidence does.



omeganuepsilon: Global warming? Some different interperetations and projections, but they mostly say similar things, all lacking precision and accuracy(which is what tends to happen when you start averaging numbers from an erratic source, like weather).

That "consensus" now needs a citation after you all have used it as an arguing point for weeks/months?


Not exactly sure what you're getting at there, but the fact that different interpretations and projections exist is yet another good reason why we should be better about backing up the claims we make. The issue is complex and confusing enough already.


omeganuepsilon: I understand the general purpose of citations just fine, what you posted earlier was a good rule of thumb. As you yourself state it isn't always needed. Being as stubborn as you are over it this time is plain silly, and a little aggrandizing.


While you're probably right about me being stubborn, the discussion we've been having is the only recourse we have about that specific claim we've been talking about, as the guy who presented it refuses to back it up. We can't have a discussion about the merits or problems of the evidence if there's no evidence, can we?


omeganuepsilon: When you blather on about opinions, you act as if they can be proven wrong. I like pizza...that is an opinion, and it's "weight" should not matter. You don't like pizza, so what? Who cares what someone's opinion is? Regardless to what you think, this is not a high school popularity contest. Fine that you want to treat it that way, but really, one's popularity(and hence opinion) is irrelevant.


Opinions are just fine and I generally let them be. That being said, while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts.
 
2012-12-26 09:14:32 PM  

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon:
Who cares if he claimed it before or not?

It's his actual talking points that you're ignoring, that's what you just proved for me. Ever since that post, that's all you've done. You're dodging the issue. If it's his reasoning that's wrong, go after that. If the evidence(relative to the topic) is wrong, go after that.

Those last two things, you're conveniently bypassing with regularity. If you want to prove your assertion, all you've got to show is that there are frequent papers questioning global warming on par with the other sciences mentioned.

Now, seeing as how his original post of contention specifically mentioned how your ability to search and find what you want magically vanishes, it establishes disingenuous character that you've done nothing but bolster since.

Ha! No doubt he is squirming. Yes, for someone who goes out of their way to appear to be balanced and fair, Hippy is as biased and dishonest as they come. Personally, I find that position less "fragrant" even than a rabid "fan" who does anything for his "team." It takes INTENT to be that dishonest, and it is intent that turns error into sin.


Following the theme of this thread, you're welcome to your opinion. However, whether it is based on actual evidence (and therefore true or not) is something else. Unfortunately, your track record in this thread isn't exactly stellar in that regard ;)


GeneralJim: But, as to the actual issue, it's even funnier than you may know. In the last few years, there are, indeed, many papers questioning the basics of climatology as in any other field. The whole POINT of the exercise, from my perspective, was to point out how asinine Oreskes' study was. Her "fence" for skepticism was too high to jump. Meanwhile, I was using a more normal set of criteria for skepticism in my survey of papers on gravity and evolution. Oreskes' study was apparently designed in an attempt to convince the non-scientific world of the unanimity of climatological acceptance of AGW. As I have mentioned, I myself took the quiz, and had I been counted, would have counted as a supporter of AGW... Readers of Fark climate threads will see the idiocy of that result.


Heh. You do realize you've just completely invalidated your previous reasoning:

GeneralJim: And, yes, when Monkey Boy said that questioning AGW was just as stupid as questioning gravity or evolution, as proved by the fact that there were NO papers skeptical of AGW, just like with gravity and evolution, I provided him with a list of a dozen or so papers from the previous year which questioned our fundamental understanding of gravity or evolution. But, NO PAPER (allegedly) questioned AGW. There's your proof, I retorted, that climatology publishing has the fix in. He did not understand.



So you're stating that you attempted to prove "that climatology publishing has the fix in" by (supposedly) doing a review of the literature showing that there were more papers questioning the basics of evolution or gravity, therefore showing that the field of climatology is somehow compromised. You then admit that the criteria you used for the review you performed to be different than the one you're trying to compare it to and "more normal" and supposedly less high to jump - no wonder you found more papers when the criteria you used was, by your own design, more lenient.

Even worse, note that Oreskes' work, contrary to your claim, did not involve any sort of poll or quiz. Contrary to your claim, there was no quiz to take.

This is exactly what I mean when I claim that your claims usually don't stand up to scrutiny, and that you tend not to evaluate the evidence which you rely on. You're making basic mistakes like these.
The irony that you would put forth such a self-invalidating statement as well as a blatant falsehood in the same post as you accuse me of being "as biased and dishonest as they come" is not lost on me ;)
 
2012-12-26 09:20:28 PM  
For all of those still following the thread and concerned about the ongoing discussion about rational argumentation and evidence, let us follow how GeneralJim reacts to someone pointing out his self-invalidating statements and outright false claim. I would take bets, but I'm always hoping for the best.

Take it away, GeneralJim...
 
2012-12-27 11:36:42 AM  
omeganuepsilon:
Entertaining as that is, it's only somewhat irrelevant..... with reliability of proxies( I seem to recall seeing a +/-10% margin of error on a single day's measurement from ice cores), and some contrived averaging method thrown into the mix(ie a monthly average means jack shiat, that's 30 days and 30 nights worth of erratic weather averaged into a single data point, and some years only have a couple data points), you can only get so much out of the "science" as a whole.

Correct. So, perhaps, altering human society in a way that makes both food production and energy use much more expensive, and significantly more difficult, based solely on poorly-performing models of what climate will be like a hundred years from now, which assume that we totally understand the mechanisms today, and even twenty years ago... might not be the best plan?
 
2012-12-27 12:04:35 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Your misguided attempt to look for some sort of all-or-nothing "either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do" without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place.

That's a mighty fine log you have in your eye.

Listen, Mr. Whistle -- you have not the tiniest bit of room to talk. In EVERY instance, your "evaluation of the quality of research" has fallen according to whether or not that research supports AGW. When I have shown you how you can prove Michael Mann has engaged in deliberate fraud for yourself, you have ignored it. Meanwhile, Miskolczi publishes a major work that shot the then current AGW theory in the heart, and which goes unchallenged for nearly five years, and it's nothing, or badly done, according to you. Really?

You display the massive ignorance you enjoy in this subject -- science does not work that way. Should another Velikovsky paper be discovered, with more of his planet-slinging physics-denying crap, it would be eviscerated in no time. Bad science which claims to overturn current science in ANY field is contested with cold facts in a time frame most conveniently measured in single-digit weeks -- unless the bad science is supported by government money. But, the "official" take on climatology is upended, and there is no peer-reviewed comment for almost five years? That is the ACTUAL pattern of an "inconvenient truth." The fact that the planet is backing Miskolczi up with a stoppage of warming, impossible, according to all the warmer alarmist models, despite all the after-the-fact attempts to back-pedal by warmer alarmists. I note that NO warmer alarmist ever claimed that a more-than-a-decade "pause" in warming was either expected or possible. Rather, the patently absurd idea of "tipping points" being reached, which would cascade and accelerate "dangerous warming" was a topic of discussion.

The planet is telling you to fark off, you have it wrong. And all the bluster about an "expected pause" in warming is bollocks. NOTHING was said of such a thing -- until it happened. And scientists are generally not that good at lying -- their "we expected this" rings as hollow as the adolescent bicyclist who faceplants, and then gets up saying "I meant to do that." No, no you didn't. The last fifteen years of no warming caught the warmer alarmists flat-footed, and they have countered with ever more dire, and ever more urgent warnings about the dangerous warming -- which isn't taking place. Things have gotten so surreal that the claim has been made that one of the effects of global warming is global cooling. The desperation is palpable.
 
2012-12-27 12:12:58 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
While I do appreciate you bringing up something that you didn't have time to respond to previously, note that the altered analogy you brought forward is begging the question. You are attempting to prove a one-way causality through a physical example that already has that assumption built in. The idea that I was putting forth there was to disprove your idea that "A causing B somehow excludes the possibility of B also causing A", which your previous argument was based on, through an example that shows that it isn't necessarily true.

And, again, you are not getting it. It is not that the IDEA of the duality of cause and effect is not possible, it is that it is NOT the case in this instance. Were it true, the effects would be evident in the pattern of temperature and carbon dioxide available in the cores.

If what you are claiming were true, then when carbon dioxide WAS following temperature, the cross-causation would mean that temperatures would drop off much more slowly than they rise. They do not. Again, this is obvious if one has experience with positive feedback systems. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to teach you about feedback systems, but you can get a start HERE.
 
2012-12-27 12:48:02 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: A true statement in a peer-reviewed paper becomes untrue if quoted in a blog put out by someone warmers don't like.

Ahem.

GeneralJim: You're a fine one to talk of abysmal ignorance. Posting links to that perps' blog, skepticalscience.

Again you display your ignorance. There is a MASSIVE difference between rejecting something because one does not like the conclusions, and rejecting it because the author has committed scientific fraud.
 
2012-12-27 12:52:48 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Maybe what would help would be to note that readings from one specific geographical location (like Antarctica and the Vostok ice core record) can be misleading in that it may not be representative of the whole world. So for your first choice, something that seems anomalous may simply be non-representative due to its limited geographical scope. As for your second choice, what may help is to note that different processes are not mutually exclusive. You can have orbital forcing changing temperature, and CO2 changing temperature as well - it doesn't have to be just one or the other and no change in the laws of physics required.

Actually, in this case, YES, the laws of physics would have to change to have changes in carbon dioxide level be a significant factor in planetary temperature. Again, that is evident by a competent observation of the relative behavior of those levels with temperature. But, you wouldn't know that.
 
2012-12-27 12:59:35 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
That aside, there's also something else of note. When confronted with evidence that either suggests that your preconceived notions are wrong or that the laws of physics somehow change, the fact that you would rather consider the laws of physics changing than even the possibility that your interpretation is wrong is quite telling.

Now you're just using the incorrect orifice for coherent speech.

I have NEVER suggested, or thought, that the laws of physics will change. I am pointing out that they would HAVE to, to make your ideas correct. The conclusion, to the non-impaired, is that your ideas have been PROVEN incorrect, or falsified. It is not my fault if you don't understand the process.
 
2012-12-27 01:03:58 PM  

GeneralJim: Actually, in this case, YES, the laws of physics would have to change to have changes in carbon dioxide level be a significant factor in planetary temperature.


See everyone. Not only does the green-threadshiatter preach brain-dead conspiracy theories ... he actually denies the greenhouse effect. Something that is based on extremely solid science and that can be reproduced in a lab.

This is how far out of whack with reality deniers are.

How about you repost the paper supporting how CO2 lags warming. I always enjoyed when you trotted that one out so we could show you the quotes from the paper where it shows CO2 as a major driver of the warming brings the earth out of the ice age and the part where the author explicitly states that the results do not apply to the current warming.

You posted that crap >100 times, you were slapped down every time and here you are repeating the same crap over and over again. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
 
2012-12-27 01:28:32 PM  

Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: Actually, in this case, YES, the laws of physics would have to change to have changes in carbon dioxide level be a significant factor in planetary temperature.

See everyone. Not only does the green-threadshiatter preach brain-dead conspiracy theories ... he actually denies the greenhouse effect. Something that is based on extremely solid science and that can be reproduced in a lab.

This is how far out of whack with reality deniers are.

How about you repost the paper supporting how CO2 lags warming. I always enjoyed when you trotted that one out so we could show you the quotes from the paper where it shows CO2 as a major driver of the warming brings the earth out of the ice age and the part where the author explicitly states that the results do not apply to the current warming.

You posted that crap >100 times, you were slapped down every time and here you are repeating the same crap over and over again. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.


He makes more sense than you do, and he does it more politely.

Claiming victory is not an automatic win, nor does it make what you support any truthier.

I thought Canadians were supposed to be polite?
 
2012-12-27 01:31:20 PM  

RedVentrue: I thought Canadians were supposed to be polite?


He is a pathological liar and I have absolutely zero respect for him. Politeness is not an option.
 
2012-12-27 02:05:27 PM  

RedVentrue: He makes more sense than you do, and he does it more politely


Dear Sir,

Please accept this note with my humblest condolences for the recent passing of your critical thinking skills.

Yours sincerely in grief,

HighZoolander
 
2012-12-27 02:24:06 PM  

HighZoolander: RedVentrue: He makes more sense than you do, and he does it more politely

Dear Sir,

Please accept this note with my humblest condolences for the recent passing of your critical thinking skills.

Yours sincerely in grief,

HighZoolander


I don't think it really matters, anyway. Climate changes, and we'll just have to deal with the changes as they happen. Shutting down the world economy is not the answer. This is a politically driven problem, not a scientific one, and there is more going on here than the question of whether AGW is real or not.
 
2012-12-27 02:42:09 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Your misguided attempt to look for some sort of all-or-nothing "either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do" without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place.

That's a mighty fine log you have in your eye.

Listen, Mr. Whistle -- you have not the tiniest bit of room to talk. In EVERY instance, your "evaluation of the quality of research" has fallen according to whether or not that research supports AGW.


I don't think this is the case. The problem is that the vast majority of the evidence you attempt to use is somewhat shaky, like the example in this very thread. When a piece of evidence you provide tends to be better, you tend to overstate what it says or outright misrepresent it.

The fact that, again, this reasoning you use about the person instead of the quality of the evidence itself shows that you tend to operate "without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented" and "shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place."


GeneralJim: When I have shown you how you can prove Michael Mann has engaged in deliberate fraud for yourself, you have ignored it.


I try to not ignore information. If you can find an example otherwise, I would be glad to rectify it immediately. The problem is that the evidence you present for this claim, like many of the others you make, is very shaky when not outright false.


GeneralJim: Meanwhile, Miskolczi publishes a major work that shot the then current AGW theory in the heart, and which goes unchallenged for nearly five years, and it's nothing, or badly done, according to you. Really?


This is an outright falsehood:

De Bruin H. 2010. Comments on "Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres" by Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Idojaras - Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society 114(4):319-324.

This is exactly what I mean when I state that your claims tend not to be true, or are based on shaky evidence.


GeneralJim: You display the massive ignorance you enjoy in this subject -- science does not work that way. Should another Velikovsky paper be discovered, with more of his planet-slinging physics-denying crap, it would be eviscerated in no time. Bad science which claims to overturn current science in ANY field is contested with cold facts in a time frame most conveniently measured in single-digit weeks -- unless the bad science is supported by government money. But, the "official" take on climatology is upended, and there is no peer-reviewed comment for almost five years? That is the ACTUAL pattern of an "inconvenient truth."


There is, of course, another explanation that you haven't considered. There are many journals, and many of them are obscure. A flawed paper in an obscure Hungarian meteorological journal isn't going to get much play regardless of its content. This is one of the reasons why much of the commentary about this paper has been outside of the scientific literature.

That aside, you're yet again proving me right. Nowhere are you considering the actual validity of the evidence presented, but whether people have responded to it. Again, your non-evidence-based reasoning, "without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place."


GeneralJim: The fact that the planet is backing Miskolczi up with a stoppage of warming, impossible, according to all the warmer alarmist models, despite all the after-the-fact attempts to back-pedal by warmer alarmists. I note that NO warmer alarmist ever claimed that a more-than-a-decade "pause" in warming was either expected or possible. Rather, the patently absurd idea of "tipping points" being reached, which would cascade and accelerate "dangerous warming" was a topic of discussion.


This is absurd given the numerous periods in the past where supposed "stoppage of warming" has already occurred in the past. Remember this:

www.skepticalscience.com

Of course, there's also the issue that:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate



GeneralJim: The planet is telling you to fark off, you have it wrong. And all the bluster about an "expected pause" in warming is bollocks. NOTHING was said of such a thing -- until it happened.


Nothing was said because it has happened repeatedly in the past, and therefore was expected to do so again. Internal variability or variability due to decadal-level (or shorter) processes continue to exist.


GeneralJim: The last fifteen years of no warming caught the warmer alarmists flat-footed, and they have countered with ever more dire, and ever more urgent warnings about the dangerous warming -- which isn't taking place.


Again, I'll have to refer you to this fellow:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate



GeneralJim: Things have gotten so surreal that the claim has been made that one of the effects of global warming is global cooling. The desperation is palpable.


Given that I've caught you in at least two outright falsehoods already this thread, I'll have to ask you to back this up in some way.
 
2012-12-27 02:53:08 PM  

RedVentrue: HighZoolander: RedVentrue: He makes more sense than you do, and he does it more politely

Dear Sir,

Please accept this note with my humblest condolences for the recent passing of your critical thinking skills.

Yours sincerely in grief,

HighZoolander

I don't think it really matters, anyway. Climate changes, and we'll just have to deal with the changes as they happen. Shutting down the world economy is not the answer. This is a politically driven problem, not a scientific one, and there is more going on here than the question of whether AGW is real or not.



Certainly politics are involved, but why do you believe any economists, politicians, or bloggers (whoever it was that really said it) who say that any proposed solutions to global warming necessarily equate to 'shutting down the world economy'? Why is that claim accepted? Do you think economists and politicians are being objective, and are not influenced by their political agendas, or do you think they have a good track record when it comes to economic predictions?

You seem happy to dispute the science, but you uncritically accept predictions about the economics? (I'll note that other economic predictions are not nearly so dire, but I'm too lazy to back that up)
 
2012-12-27 02:55:46 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
While I do appreciate you bringing up something that you didn't have time to respond to previously, note that the altered analogy you brought forward is begging the question. You are attempting to prove a one-way causality through a physical example that already has that assumption built in. The idea that I was putting forth there was to disprove your idea that "A causing B somehow excludes the possibility of B also causing A", which your previous argument was based on, through an example that shows that it isn't necessarily true.

And, again, you are not getting it. It is not that the IDEA of the duality of cause and effect is not possible, it is that it is NOT the case in this instance


You sure, because that is exactly what you were trying to argue for, and that the post you brought up from the previous thread was in response to a post that included this:

GeneralJim: Let's say I claim that the amount of tan I have determines the amount of sunshine reaching the surface in Hawai'i. Your response at least SHOULD be to counter with evidence that my tan level actually has a correlation with Hawia'ian sunshine, but it is that I get more tanned AFTER the sunshine increases, so my tan level CANNOT be what is controlling Hawai'ian sunshine.



GeneralJim: Were it true, the effects would be evident in the pattern of temperature and carbon dioxide available in the cores.


...and that is exactly what we see. Don't forget that this discussion was borne out of this bit of evidence:

i50.tinypic.com
a, The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5-6.5kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record42 (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (refs 12, 13; yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling-Allerød (B-A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1σ (Methods); p.p.m.v., parts per million by volume. b, The phasing of CO2 concentration and temperature for the global (grey), Northern Hemisphere (NH; blue) and Southern Hemisphere (SH; red) proxy stacks based on lag correlations from 20-10kyr ago in 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations (Methods). The mean and 1σ of the histograms are given. CO2 concentration leads the global temperature stack in 90% of the simulations and lags it in 6%.

From Shakun et al. 2012:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

As I stated in that previous thread, you're attempting to generalize from a singular observation when more observations would also show the reverse.


GeneralJim: If what you are claiming were true, then when carbon dioxide WAS following temperature, the cross-causation would mean that temperatures would drop off much more slowly than they rise. They do not. Again, this is obvious if one has experience with positive feedback systems. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to teach you about feedback systems, but you can get a start HERE.


Hopefully this addresses your point, bu this doesn't make sense given the long time periods we're talking about here. The residence time of CO2 is relatively long, but not that long.
 
2012-12-27 02:59:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: A true statement in a peer-reviewed paper becomes untrue if quoted in a blog put out by someone warmers don't like.

Ahem.

GeneralJim: You're a fine one to talk of abysmal ignorance. Posting links to that perps' blog, skepticalscience.
Again you display your ignorance. There is a MASSIVE difference between rejecting something because one does not like the conclusions, and rejecting it because the author has committed scientific fraud.


The fact that your allegations of fraud generally don't stand up to scrutiny aside, note skepticalscience isn't run by climate researchers:

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist.


Yet again, your claims don't stand up to scrutiny.
 
2012-12-27 03:00:51 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Maybe what would help would be to note that readings from one specific geographical location (like Antarctica and the Vostok ice core record) can be misleading in that it may not be representative of the whole world. So for your first choice, something that seems anomalous may simply be non-representative due to its limited geographical scope. As for your second choice, what may help is to note that different processes are not mutually exclusive. You can have orbital forcing changing temperature, and CO2 changing temperature as well - it doesn't have to be just one or the other and no change in the laws of physics required.
Actually, in this case, YES, the laws of physics would have to change to have changes in carbon dioxide level be a significant factor in planetary temperature. Again, that is evident by a competent observation of the relative behavior of those levels with temperature. But, you wouldn't know that.



Heh. You're proving me right:

Damnhippyfreak: That aside, there's also something else of note. When confronted with evidence that either suggests that your preconceived notions are wrong or that the laws of physics somehow change, the fact that you would rather consider the laws of physics changing than even the possibility that your interpretation is wrong is quite telling.

 
2012-12-27 03:10:47 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: That aside, there's also something else of note. When confronted with evidence that either suggests that your preconceived notions are wrong or that the laws of physics somehow change, the fact that you would rather consider the laws of physics changing than even the possibility that your interpretation is wrong is quite telling.
Now you're just using the incorrect orifice for coherent speech.

I have NEVER suggested, or thought, that the laws of physics will change. I am pointing out that they would HAVE to, to make your ideas correct. The conclusion, to the non-impaired, is that your ideas have been PROVEN incorrect, or falsified. It is not my fault if you don't understand the process.



Swing and a miss. I didn't actually put forward any idea there. You really need to start to understand that someone pointing out the flaws in your reasoning or evidence isn't the same as arguing for the exact opposite.

I'm just noting here that when confronted with evidence that contradicts your claims, your first instinct is to consider, even remotely, that the laws of physics may change instead of the much more likely idea that your ideas are wrong. You'll mention the laws of physics changing before you would even consider you may be wrong.
 
2012-12-27 03:11:51 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Maybe what would help would be to note that readings from one specific geographical location (like Antarctica and the Vostok ice core record) can be misleading in that it may not be representative of the whole world. So for your first choice, something that seems anomalous may simply be non-representative due to its limited geographical scope. As for your second choice, what may help is to note that different processes are not mutually exclusive. You can have orbital forcing changing temperature, and CO2 changing temperature as well - it doesn't have to be just one or the other and no change in the laws of physics required.

Actually, in this case, YES, the laws of physics would have to change to have changes in carbon dioxide level be a significant factor in planetary temperature.


I forgot to add in that there really isn't any reasoning attached to this claim. I really ought to give you the chance to explain.
 
2012-12-27 03:18:33 PM  

RedVentrue: HighZoolander: RedVentrue: He makes more sense than you do, and he does it more politely

Dear Sir,

Please accept this note with my humblest condolences for the recent passing of your critical thinking skills.

Yours sincerely in grief,

HighZoolander

I don't think it really matters, anyway. Climate changes, and we'll just have to deal with the changes as they happen. Shutting down the world economy is not the answer. This is a politically driven problem, not a scientific one, and there is more going on here than the question of whether AGW is real or not.



I think you'll find that not many people will disagree with the bit in bold, and I am very hard pressed to even think of a proposed plan (by non-kooks) that would have this as an effect.
 
2012-12-27 03:28:14 PM  

RedVentrue: Shutting down the world economy is not the answer.


Well ... lucky for us, nobody is suggesting this. It is just a denier strawman.

What people are suggesting is smart investments in new technologies to create jobs and fill a demand.
 
2012-12-27 09:17:41 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
omeganuepsilon: I understand the general purpose of citations just fine, what you posted earlier was a good rule of thumb. As you yourself state it isn't always needed. Being as stubborn as you are over it this time is plain silly, and a little aggrandizing.

While you're probably right about me being stubborn, the discussion we've been having is the only recourse we have about that specific claim we've been talking about, as the guy who presented it refuses to back it up. We can't have a discussion about the merits or problems of the evidence if there's no evidence, can we?

No, it's not, and quit being an idiot. YOU, YOURSELF, can look up papers which question the basics of evolution and gravity. They abound. Are you suddenly so farking stupid that you can't find them, when you have, first off, more access to papers than I do, and second, if you want a paper saying a specific thing about climatology, you always find it?

You can't have it both ways, as I have been saying. You can't claim various points I make are false, simply because you find an obscure paper suggesting that, while claiming to be able to find any of a broad range of papers on a general subject. You are either a decent researcher, with paywall access, or a bumbling n00b, unable to research your way out of a paper bag. You can't claim BOTH of these, at various times, when one or the other appears to serve you better.

And, as to my specific post -- well, I can't find it. I did the research, posted the results, and taunted Monkey Boy with those results. You are a prime asshole if you believe that my inability to find a specific post means I lied about it. You are morally repugnant. And, since, of course, you will question THAT statement of mind, pro forma, here's one to chew on:

I fully accept that there may be a way to do what I want to do, of which I am not aware. I have contacted Farkback, and was unable to obtain a useful response. But, from some of the electronic detritus on my hard drive, I can give you a clear example of what I mean.

I claim I wrote a post on Fark which contained the phrase "those readings DO fly in the face of a pet theory held by a pretentious ass like yourself" and that it was published, and not deleted. Can anyone find that post? If you CAN, could you please describe the method used? TIA.
 
2012-12-27 10:02:32 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Ha! No doubt he is squirming. Yes, for someone who goes out of their way to appear to be balanced and fair, Hippy is as biased and dishonest as they come. Personally, I find that position less "fragrant" even than a rabid "fan" who does anything for his "team." It takes INTENT to be that dishonest, and it is intent that turns error into sin.

Following the theme of this thread, you're welcome to your opinion. However, whether it is based on actual evidence (and therefore true or not) is something else. Unfortunately, your track record in this thread isn't exactly stellar in that regard ;)

WTF are you talking about? I did EXACTLY what I said I did. I cannot find the post in which I did it. That is an EXTREME distance from having lied about the process, or the facts. And, have you proved that there is no such post? No, you have not. You are implying that my inability to point to it PROVES it does not exist. In that, you are being, ONE MORE TIME, dishonest. A post or so ago, I put out something I know appeared on Fark, but which cannot be discovered with a search, at least any search of which I am aware. This will prove the inability to find known published Fark information -- or, perhaps, instruct me as to how to find old Fark posts.

This inappropriate claim of dishonesty is the constant pattern from you -- you latch onto one fact, for instance, not liking the temperature scale used to plot the CET temperature data, obsess over that one bit of displeasure, and imply that whoever uses it is DISHONEST, because they are not doing everything just as you want them to. Another example is that you call any attempt to move out of your cherry-picked temperature data, which you insist must start between 1850 and 1880, and look at the broader picture, as "cherry-picking." In other words, ANY range of time, other than your chosen one, you label as "cherry-picking." "You keep using that word..." Seeing as you can post in English, you don't have the excuse that you are that mentally impaired, which leaves being INTENTIONALLY misleading as the only option standing. As an example of your trademark dishonesty in this thread, your finely-honed research skills suddenly fade to zero when you should look up something to support what I have said... Again, highly dishonest

The facts are that EVERY field has people questioning the basic tenets of that field. That's what science IS, and how it works. Are you denying this? Also, the fact is that morons in climate threads constantly quote the Oreskes study, showing that, what, 98% + of climate scientists support AGW, and that NO skeptical literature was published over the period of her study. There are only two possibilities: science is NOT working in climatology as it does in other fields, or the Oreskes study is so fatally flawed that it should be ignored. Of course, both could be true at the same time; they are not mutually exclusive.

And, it's not just one incident, or one type of dishonesty. The key is that you never fail to avail yourself of an opportunity to be dishonest and at least look like you scored a point. And then to paint over this rabid partisanship with a veneer of smarmy alleged "fairness" is on the stomach-turning side. Of all the idiots posting crap they don't understand, and all the one-sided "team" fanship present on Fark, I find YOUR particular "style" the most offensive. Congratulations.
 
2012-12-27 10:11:32 PM  
http://www.google.ca/advanced_search

Under domain put (minus the quotes) "fark.com"

Keywords that you remember.

Or from the google main page

"fly in the face of a pet theory" site:fark.com

You've probably not got it exact as I've tried several segments of the sentence in quotes. Without the quotes it doesn't work, brings up too many posts.
 
2012-12-27 10:13:07 PM  
I think google shifted some things about, cannot find the "advanced" link.

/you can replace .ca with .com
 
2012-12-27 11:01:55 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
omeganuepsilon: I understand the general purpose of citations just fine, what you posted earlier was a good rule of thumb. As you yourself state it isn't always needed. Being as stubborn as you are over it this time is plain silly, and a little aggrandizing.

While you're probably right about me being stubborn, the discussion we've been having is the only recourse we have about that specific claim we've been talking about, as the guy who presented it refuses to back it up. We can't have a discussion about the merits or problems of the evidence if there's no evidence, can we?

No, it's not, and quit being an idiot. YOU, YOURSELF, can look up papers which question the basics of evolution and gravity. They abound. Are you suddenly so farking stupid that you can't find them, when you have, first off, more access to papers than I do, and second, if you want a paper saying a specific thing about climatology, you always find it?

You can't have it both ways, as I have been saying. You can't claim various points I make are false, simply because you find an obscure paper suggesting that, while claiming to be able to find any of a broad range of papers on a general subject. You are either a decent researcher, with paywall access, or a bumbling n00b, unable to research your way out of a paper bag. You can't claim BOTH of these, at various times, when one or the other appears to serve you better.


I'm sorry, but the idea of burden of proof still exists. You can't just complain that when you make a unsupported claim in a thread, the other people aren't taking your word on it on faith, or providing the evidence for you. Take responsibility for your own words.


GeneralJim: And, as to my specific post -- well, I can't find it. I did the research, posted the results, and taunted Monkey Boy with those results. You are a prime asshole if you believe that my inability to find a specific post means I lied about it. You are morally repugnant. And, since, of course, you will question THAT statement of mind, pro forma, here's one to chew on:

I fully accept that there may be a way to do what I want to do, of which I am not aware. I have contacted Farkback, and was unable to obtain a useful response. But, from some of the electronic detritus on my hard drive, I can give you a clear example of what I mean.

I claim I wrote a post on Fark which contained the phrase "those readings DO fly in the face of a pet theory held by a pretentious ass like yourself" and that it was published, and not deleted. Can anyone find that post? If you CAN, could you please describe the method used? TIA.


There we go. Believe it or not, I accept this. I tried to find it and failed, You tried, with your further knowledge of what you said, and failed too. You even went above and beyond I would have reasonably expected you to and contacted Farkback. I don't expect you to be able to do the impossible - but just give it a try as if you were actually interested in an honest discussion.

That wasn't all that hard, now wasn't it. Now take a look back and look what it took to get you simply try to back up a claim you made.

That aside, I didn't say you lied about it, but without evidence, but it's very difficult if not impossible to tell the difference, isn't it.
 
2012-12-27 11:42:49 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Again, I'll have to refer you to this fellow:


(Snicker.)

HighZoolander: You seem happy to dispute the science, but you uncritically accept predictions about the economics?


Nate Silver's book is probably interestingly relevant. Economists make weather forecasters look psychic.
 
2012-12-27 11:48:36 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Ha! No doubt he is squirming. Yes, for someone who goes out of their way to appear to be balanced and fair, Hippy is as biased and dishonest as they come. Personally, I find that position less "fragrant" even than a rabid "fan" who does anything for his "team." It takes INTENT to be that dishonest, and it is intent that turns error into sin.

Following the theme of this thread, you're welcome to your opinion. However, whether it is based on actual evidence (and therefore true or not) is something else. Unfortunately, your track record in this thread isn't exactly stellar in that regard ;)

WTF are you talking about? I did EXACTLY what I said I did.


The problem is that all we can tell is that you say you did. Do you honestly expect others to take your word on faith alone?


GeneralJim: That is an EXTREME distance from having lied about the process, or the facts. And, have you proved that there is no such post? No, you have not. You are implying that my inability to point to it PROVES it does not exist.


In this case I was referring you to your falsehoods about Shakun et al. 2012 as well as the Oreskes paper - you're ignoring the falsehoods you've told about both, of course.

That aside, I wish I didn't have to point out the idea that since it is your claim, it is your burden of proof, and the fact that it's very difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. Again, instead of repeatedly complaining about others not providing the evidence for your claims, take responsibility for yourself and your own words like an adult.

In addition, you're misrepresenting what I've said:

Damnhippyfreak: Well, it's up to you, but your extreme unwillingness to back up a claim you've made renders it indistinguishable from an outright lie.


A claim, without any evidence behind it, is indistinguishable from a falsehood - that remains true whether you like it or not. You're not necessarily lying, but, unfortunately, there's no way to tell without the evidence you were unwilling to even attempt to provide. If you're trying to make the case that my characterization of you as someone who makes claims without evidence is wrong, you're not helping here by mischaracterizing what I've said.


GeneralJim: This inappropriate claim of dishonesty is the constant pattern from you -- you latch onto one fact, for instance, not liking the temperature scale used to plot the CET temperature data, obsess over that one bit of displeasure, and imply that whoever uses it is DISHONEST, because they are not doing everything just as you want them to.


Actually, I provide the reasoning why something should be done, and when appropriate, the evidence supporting that reasoning. It's not personal preference. Your gross misrepresentation further proves the idea that you are not in the habit of actually evaluating evidence.


GeneralJim: Another example is that you call any attempt to move out of your cherry-picked temperature data, which you insist must start between 1850 and 1880, and look at the broader picture, as "cherry-picking." In other words, ANY range of time, other than your chosen one, you label as "cherry-picking." "You keep using that word..." Seeing as you can post in English, you don't have the excuse that you are that mentally impaired, which leaves being INTENTIONALLY misleading as the only option standing. As an example of your trademark dishonesty in this thread, your finely-honed research skills suddenly fade to zero when you should look up something to support what I have said... Again, highly dishonest


You're flat out lying about my claims. Here's an example of what I actually argue for:

Damnhippyfreak: I consider looking at a variety of scales to be appropriate, not just making potentially-misleading inferences from one, as you and the person I was responding to are in the habit of doing.


Again, if all of these assorted mischaracterizations you're throwing out there are somehow meant to counter the idea I was putting forth that much of the time your opinions aren't based on evidence, you're instead proving me right.


GeneralJim: The facts are that EVERY field has people questioning the basic tenets of that field. That's what science IS, and how it works. Are you denying this? Also, the fact is that morons in climate threads constantly quote the Oreskes study, showing that, what, 98% + of climate scientists support AGW,


LOL. You still don't get it do you. Oreskes did not poll climate scientists. I This is exactly what I mean when I accuse you of not basing your opinions on evidence. You don't even have the very basics right of the evidence you're evidence you think you're using.


GeneralJim: And, it's not just one incident, or one type of dishonesty. The key is that you never fail to avail yourself of an opportunity to be dishonest and at least look like you scored a point. And then to paint over this rabid partisanship with a veneer of smarmy alleged "fairness" is on the stomach-turning side. Of all the idiots posting crap they don't understand, and all the one-sided "team" fanship present on Fark, I find YOUR particular "style" the most offensive. Congratulations.


To bring this full circle, you're welcome to your opinion. However, whether it is based on actual evidence (and therefore true or not) is something else. Unfortunately, your track record in this thread isn't exactly stellar in that regard, and even worse after this post. In this post alone I caught you lying (again) about Oreskes 2003, mischaracterizing my positions, and trying to argue why others should have to back up your claims for you by somehow proving a negative.

You're proving me right.
 
2012-12-28 12:01:33 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: But, as to the actual issue, it's even funnier than you may know. In the last few years, there are, indeed, many papers questioning the basics of climatology as in any other field. The whole POINT of the exercise, from my perspective, was to point out how asinine Oreskes' study was. Her "fence" for skepticism was too high to jump. Meanwhile, I was using a more normal set of criteria for skepticism in my survey of papers on gravity and evolution. Oreskes' study was apparently designed in an attempt to convince the non-scientific world of the unanimity of climatological acceptance of AGW. As I have mentioned, I myself took the quiz, and had I been counted, would have counted as a supporter of AGW... Readers of Fark climate threads will see the idiocy of that result.

Heh. You do realize you've just completely invalidated your previous reasoning:

GeneralJim: And, yes, when Monkey Boy said that questioning AGW was just as stupid as questioning gravity or evolution, as proved by the fact that there were NO papers skeptical of AGW, just like with gravity and evolution, I provided him with a list of a dozen or so papers from the previous year which questioned our fundamental understanding of gravity or evolution. But, NO PAPER (allegedly) questioned AGW. There's your proof, I retorted, that climatology publishing has the fix in. He did not understand.

No, not true. And, I am getting weary of dealing with what are your failures to process information, whether genuine, or feigned. It is possible for both the peer-review process to be crooked, and for the Oreskes study to have made it essentially impossible for a study to count as skeptical of AGW. In fact, both ARE true.
 
Displayed 39 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report