Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, climate change, liturgical year, War on Christmas  
•       •       •

4486 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:53 AM (3 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
 
2012-12-24 09:55:51 AM  
Fake Christmas tree. No insect invasion. No lights. problem solved.
 
2012-12-24 09:56:04 AM  
so we have nothing at all to worry about!

Got it!
 
2012-12-24 09:57:33 AM  
About two years ago I saw my first white christmas. It was fun for a few hours, but with Atlanta's notorious lack of plows and salt trucks it just became a nuisance the next day.
 
2012-12-24 09:59:10 AM  
Huh, RTFA. That sucks too.
 
2012-12-24 10:05:23 AM  
Phffft. Just another aired grievance.

Solution:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-24 10:14:58 AM  
Climate change was created by Baby Boomers so that more hurricanes hit the northeast; making it possible for them to get their musical nostalgia fix every year.
 
2012-12-24 10:15:15 AM  
Climate change is just part of the War on Christmas, instigated by atheists, non-believers, George Soros and Bill Ayers.
 
2012-12-24 10:18:27 AM  
Climate Change was invented by God to teach man a lesson about taking care of the world He created for them.
 
2012-12-24 10:18:43 AM  
Mother Jones? Nice try subby. Not clicking.
 
2012-12-24 10:18:52 AM  
Is this how fark gets page views on Xmas eve? Atheism and climate change troll fest?
 
2012-12-24 10:21:10 AM  
Climate Change?

When I went to work this morning it was 17 degrees Faren. The Wind chill was 5 degrees and it was snowing.

Pretty sure that's what everyone EXPECTS from my state.
 
2012-12-24 10:24:11 AM  
Can you make alcohol from puny trees?
Can you eat them?

Dodo time for the trees!
 
2012-12-24 10:24:27 AM  
Then Christmas is safe, because climate change, being based on superstition, pseudoscience and political hype, is not real.
 
2012-12-24 10:25:01 AM  
But it's not a political issue in the least.
 
2012-12-24 10:25:46 AM  
It was 34c today for me. Don't tell me climate change isn't real.
 
2012-12-24 10:27:35 AM  
Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.
 
2012-12-24 10:27:47 AM  
So. Just so we're clear....any drought now is due to Climate Change?

Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.
 
2012-12-24 10:28:28 AM  

Actor_au: It was 34c today for me. Don't tell me climate change isn't real.


Climate change isn't real. Sometimes it gets hot. Deal with it.
 
2012-12-24 10:29:50 AM  
There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.
 
2012-12-24 10:32:03 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: When I went to work this morning it was 17 degrees Faren. The Wind chill was 5 degrees and it was snowing.
Pretty sure that's what everyone EXPECTS from my state.


Actually, (positive) double digits before windchill sounds like it might be a bit warm for Minnesota this time of year, depending on what part of the state you're in.
 
2012-12-24 10:34:17 AM  
It's not winter everywhere at christmas. Where I grew up it was a cold-cut buffet lunch and a day at the beach.
 
2012-12-24 10:35:25 AM  
Climate change is the tinfoil that leftists, minorities, and nearsighted bassoonists use to keep snow off of their rooftops.
 
2012-12-24 10:35:26 AM  
I live in Alabama. None of our weather during the Fall or the first half of Winter has ever a damn lick of sense.
 
2012-12-24 10:37:42 AM  
Don't kill a perfectly good tree. Go artificial, or better yet, plant your tree in a moveable container if you have room and use it year after year and make the tree part of the family. When it gets too big, plant it and start over.
 
2012-12-24 10:40:05 AM  
Since before the dawn of humanity, temperatures have changed with the seasons. Before he could predict them, man was terrified of them. He invented gods, devils and supernatural forces to explain them, and tried to appease these powers with sacrifices and obedience. Opportunistic men designated themselves earthly representatives; they gained power over other men and collected wealth through taxation.

Once man did become able to predict them, he simply made calendars, and got on with his life.

Which stage is "climatology" at?
 
2012-12-24 10:41:09 AM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: About two years ago I saw my first white christmas. It was fun for a few hours, but with Atlanta's notorious lack of plows and salt trucks it just became a nuisance the next day.


I have lived here all my life, and I missed Atlanta's white Christmas because that was the year the family decided to go to Florida for the Holiday.
Just my luck.

iwatts: Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.


But fake trees are made of plastic (oil). Real Christmas trees are grown for only one purpose so "wild" trees are not depleted. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. Plus you get the benefits of the tree for the years it is growing.
 
2012-12-24 10:42:59 AM  

Actor_au: It was 34c today for me. Don't tell me climate change isn't real.


Sounds cold. What's that in Real American degrees?
 
2012-12-24 10:44:34 AM  
I was always a fan of real trees until having that pine needle surgically removed from my toe in frikkin' May! No amount of vaccuuming will get them all.
 
2012-12-24 10:46:47 AM  

Actor_au: It was 34c today for me.


Those are pretty much my favorite size boobs too. Good choice!
 
2012-12-24 10:46:49 AM  
As I guy who has a fake tree and likes being able to go to a football game in short sleeves 2 days before Christmas, I have no problem with this.
 
2012-12-24 10:48:45 AM  

ManRay:
iwatts: Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.

But fake trees are made of plastic (oil). Real Christmas trees are grown for only one purpose so "wild" trees are not depleted. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. Plus you get the benefits of the tree for the years it is growing.


But ManRay, has has told the internet that he is environmentally conscious, and that is enough to sate his thought masters for now.
 
2012-12-24 10:49:45 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.


THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.


THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.


THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.


images4.wikia.nocookie.net

Trying too hard
 
2012-12-24 10:51:43 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard


It is important to communicate these facts.
 
2012-12-24 10:53:50 AM  

TomD9938: Actor_au: It was 34c today for me. Don't tell me climate change isn't real.

Sounds cold. What's that in Real American degrees?


93F.
 
2012-12-24 10:54:36 AM  
Begun, this christmas war has.
 
2012-12-24 10:59:20 AM  
Everytime there is a vaguely weather related event the climate change greenie loons come out of the wood work. It was a damn drought that killed the trees. There have been droughts for millions of years, well before man started his activities that are supposedly creating climate change. Quite making shiat up or attempting to connect unrelated events.
 
2012-12-24 11:03:11 AM  
So summer drought kills some Christmas trees. Then the price of trees goes up because there are fewer trees and a mofo'ing tree grower is gonna get paid, yo. It ain't his fault that he now has less trees to sell. Christmas is the time to get payd! So anyway, maybe a few poor families get priced out of having a Christmas tree that year and they set up a pine branch like a Charlie Brown Christmas and they sit around and exchange road kill wrapped in newspaper for gifts. But it's more special that way. So this will actually strengthen the Christmas tradition, not wage war on it.
 
2012-12-24 11:07:23 AM  
This is our 3rd year of the fake tree goodness. I don't think we are ver going back again.

Between the expense, the extra work, and the godaweful mess it makes.... Eh, do not want.
 
2012-12-24 11:16:14 AM  
img28.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 11:21:38 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard


I'm not even sure he's trying. I think he's just naturally bad at this.
 
2012-12-24 11:29:58 AM  

friday13: Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard

I'm not even sure he's trying. I think he's just naturally bad at this.


You appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?
 
2012-12-24 11:31:58 AM  
His point is valid.
If it were the start of Christmas.
But it's here now, and it means something different now.
It's a time for giving, parties and worshiping the lord.  I doubt God is pissed off about it.
 
2012-12-24 11:36:52 AM  

iwatts: So. Just so we're clear....any drought now is due to Climate Change?

Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.


But the real ones smell better.

/amirite?
 
2012-12-24 11:46:27 AM  

iwatts: So. Just so we're clear....any drought now is due to Climate Change?

Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.


Four words for you: carbon neutral renewable resource.

And if you recycle it, it can become paper or mulch afterward.

Locally grown is even better, since the transport cost and pollution are negligible.
 
2012-12-24 11:52:54 AM  

LazarusLong42: iwatts: So. Just so we're clear....any drought now is due to Climate Change?

Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.

Four words for you: carbon neutral renewable resource.

And if you recycle it, it can become paper or mulch afterward.

Locally grown is even better, since the transport cost and pollution are negligible.



Besides that, the carbon footprint really doesn't change in any meanful way because they immediately replant the forests after the trees are taken down. It may upset the balance for a couple of years, but it's been going on like that since we started tree farms.

And, yeah the recycling this is very important too... In my area, we have an ecological center. If you don't drop you tree there yourself, the township will come but with a chipper and take it for you. Then the pile all the shaving up and let them ferment for a few years. Free mulch for whoever wants it.
 
2012-12-24 11:54:51 AM  
Rochester, NY had its first snowfall of the winter on Saturday.

Average for December used to be 21 inches, though not this year (or last). Between October and the end of the year, we usually average 29 inches, but not this time.
 
2012-12-24 12:21:51 PM  

Actor_au: It was 34c today for me. Don't tell me climate change isn't real.


You're just bogarting all that warmth, ya know

i.imgur.com
Link
 
2012-12-24 12:23:11 PM  
Every year we hear about some new front in the "War on Christmas" that liberals are supposedly waging against this most important of all Christian holidays. But an actual war on Christmas is coming-and it's spurred by climate change. It's a liberal conspiracy!

The summer drought caused many Christmas holiday tree seedlings in Tennessee to die this year, The Tennessean reports:


Took a whole three sentences before conflating weather and climate this time. Not bad for internet journalism.
 
2012-12-24 12:37:04 PM  
It is 71 degrees here today in Texas.

Totally not in the Christmas spirit today.

/Freezing temps come Wednesday
//TOO LATE
 
2012-12-24 12:42:57 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?


Wait... That was your actual argument before?  That was you 'debating the issue'?

Wow.
 
2012-12-24 12:51:54 PM  
Shame it was warmer when christmas was invented.
 
2012-12-24 12:55:12 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: make the tree part of the family


I made my tree my wife.
 
2012-12-24 12:58:07 PM  

durbnpoisn: LazarusLong42: iwatts: So. Just so we're clear....any drought now is due to Climate Change?

Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.

Four words for you: carbon neutral renewable resource.

And if you recycle it, it can become paper or mulch afterward.

Locally grown is even better, since the transport cost and pollution are negligible.


Besides that, the carbon footprint really doesn't change in any meanful way because they immediately replant the forests after the trees are taken down. It may upset the balance for a couple of years, but it's been going on like that since we started tree farms.

And, yeah the recycling this is very important too... In my area, we have an ecological center. If you don't drop you tree there yourself, the township will come but with a chipper and take it for you. Then the pile all the shaving up and let them ferment for a few years. Free mulch for whoever wants it.


Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore
 
2012-12-24 12:58:32 PM  

unyon: THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?

Wait... That was your actual argument before?  That was you 'debating the issue'?

Wow.


"Can't win on the issues, resulting to ad hominem attacks." That's so tired it's not even used as troll boilerplate anymore and it was his Boobiese. Where did this guy come from, 1998?
 
2012-12-24 01:14:53 PM  

Curse of the Goth Kids: unyon: THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?

Wait... That was your actual argument before?  That was you 'debating the issue'?

Wow.

"Can't win on the issues, resulting to ad hominem attacks." That's so tired it's not even used as troll boilerplate anymore and it was his Boobiese. Where did this guy come from, 1998?


More global warming alarmism sheep who cannot debate the issues. Anything to divert from the topic. Climatism mind-slaves can never win the argument because their beliefs are based on shabby un-truths.
 
2012-12-24 01:26:43 PM  

LazarusLong42: Four words for you: carbon neutral renewable resource.


If it's cut down and refined(for wood in general) by hand. If it's cut down and transported via burned fossil fuels.

Maybe better than plastic manufacturing, but still.

This "carbon neutral" is tossed around a lot and it's not necessarily accurate.
 
2012-12-24 01:33:20 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Curse of the Goth Kids: unyon: THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?

Wait... That was your actual argument before?  That was you 'debating the issue'?

Wow.

"Can't win on the issues, resulting to ad hominem attacks." That's so tired it's not even used as troll boilerplate anymore and it was his Boobiese. Where did this guy come from, 1998?

More global warming alarmism sheep who cannot debate the issues. Anything to divert from the topic. Climatism mind-slaves can never win the argument because their beliefs are based on shabby un-truths.


If you don't respond to their personal attacks in the same manner they do using all kinds of verbal masturbation to make yourself feel superior they somehow feel justified in ridiculing you for being lazy. There are a lot of overly articulate yet insecure little men on fark who enjoy ganging up on someone who won't resort to insults like them. I assume they were bullied a great deal in school. Call them on their bullshiat like you did and then wait for someone more interested in conversation without hostility to respond because the more they yark at you the more pathetic they appear.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:05 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard


I am so stealing that. A perfect response to these lazy trolls that can't even put minimal effort into the intellectual hairballs they hock into our midst.
 
2012-12-24 01:38:16 PM  

jso2897: Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard

I am so stealing that. A perfect response to these lazy trolls that can't even put minimal effort into the intellectual hairballs they hock into our midst.


So... somebody who is lazy is trying to hard? With logic like yours I'm sure you'd believe any mumbo-jumbo.
 
2012-12-24 01:40:59 PM  
Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore

lol, wut? I hope you are joking.
Plants get their carbon from the air not the ground. It is where the C goes when they breathe in C02 and out O2.
 
2012-12-24 01:42:25 PM  
www.chinadaily.com.cn

Meanwhile, the land down under has had summer Christmas technology for ages. WHY IS AMERICA FALLING BEHIND
 
2012-12-24 01:44:47 PM  

abb3w: Jim from Saint Paul:When I went to work this morning it was 17 degrees Faren. The Wind chill was 5 degrees and it was snowing.
Pretty sure that's what everyone EXPECTS from my state.

Actually, (positive) double digits before windchill sounds like it might be a bit warm for Minnesota this time of year, depending on what part of the state you're in.


Well, I like to keep my whearabouts secret, so I guess you'll never truly know what part of the state I am in.
 
2012-12-24 01:46:05 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore

lol, wut? I hope you are joking.
Plants get their carbon from the air not the ground. It is where the C goes when they breathe in C02 and out O2.


User stirfrybry should back his claim up by citing the relevant research papers. He should not simply expect people to believe such claims. Why do climate alarmists think they can repeatedly appeal to their own (non-existant) authority?
 
2012-12-24 02:00:53 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: jso2897: Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard

I am so stealing that. A perfect response to these lazy trolls that can't even put minimal effort into the intellectual hairballs they hock into our midst.

So... somebody who is lazy is trying to hard? With logic like yours I'm sure you'd believe any mumbo-jumbo.


i18.photobucket.com

Black-Nosed Buddha

A nun who was searching for enlightenment made a statue of Buddha and covered it with gold leaf. Wherever she went she carried this golden Buddha with her.

Years passed and, still carrying her Buddha, the nun came to live in a small temple in a country where there were many Buddhas, each one with its own particular shrine.

The nun wished to burn incense before her golden Buddha. Not liking the idea of the perfume straying to the others, she devised a funnel through which the smoke would ascend only to her statue. This blackened the nose of the golden Buddha, making it especially ugly.
 
2012-12-24 02:08:08 PM  
www.desmogblog.com
 
2012-12-24 02:13:17 PM  

Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]


Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.
 
2012-12-24 02:17:47 PM  
Do you know what the best part of Climate Change is? That it looks like the red states are going to burn first!

/deny, deny, deny ... delay action as long as you can for your corporate masters
 
2012-12-24 02:23:41 PM  
Crazy warm winter down here in Florida this year, whatever the reason. Usually we'd be in the 40's or even 30's here in the Tampa Bay area for Christmas... it's currently 70+ and the coolest it's been all year.
 
2012-12-24 02:26:02 PM  

Farking Canuck: Do you know what the best part of Climate Change is? That it looks like the red states are going to burn first!

/deny, deny, deny ... delay action as long as you can for your corporate masters


Those corporations you love to hate are all profiting from green tech, renewable energy, carbon trading etc. Did you think the established energy companies would pass over first call on a tonne of government-subsidised cash? In a recession? Yes they initially argued against AGW (because AGW is BS) but now they're at the front of the queue for eco-dollars, closely followed by corrupt land owners, corrupt new "consultancies" and corrupt fake-charities like WWF that pays its CEO over $400,000 salary.

Welcome to corporatism Canuck. Read your 20th century history books a little more carefully this time.
 
2012-12-24 02:30:19 PM  
Your picture says "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject global warming."

Wow. Considering that climate (and weather) are mathematically chaotic systems in which the basic systems are STILL being investigate, it is MOST impressive that that high a percentage of articles do not question AGW. If you will check, you will find MORE articles on gravity which question the basics, by percentage. I guess that means that climate science is WAY more certain than gravity.

Either that, or any articles skeptical of AGW were kept from publication. Oh, but scientists are infallible!
 
2012-12-24 02:30:51 PM  
img268.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 02:31:48 PM  
How am I supposed to celebrate the birth of Christ without an affordable dead tree in my house? Jesus is the way to everlasting life! Unless you're a tree!
 
2012-12-24 02:34:46 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Those corporations you love to hate are all profiting from green tech, renewable energy, carbon trading etc.


Yes ... they are very smart people. They know that this denial campaign can only last so long before the facts are too obvious. Just like their mentors in the '70s, Big Tobacco, who knew they were going to lose the lawsuits but were able to delay it by about a decade to keep profits high for as long as possible.

They know that eventually their primary source of revenue will be hit so they are making inroads into future tech.

A brilliant strategy: delay action as long as possible to keep the billions of $$$ of profit flowing while buying time to get a strong foothold into the new fields.

Brilliant for their bottom line ... we will pay the price for the actions of these people and their willing puppets (like yourself).
 
2012-12-24 02:35:02 PM  

stirfrybry: Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore


Uhh.... trees get their carbon from the air. Almost nothing comes from the ground, except water.
 
2012-12-24 02:35:53 PM  
Damn ... the green threadshiatter is back.

Here come the lies ...
 
2012-12-24 02:36:06 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.


Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html
 
2012-12-24 02:38:05 PM  
www.blingdomofgod.com

www.christmasisalie.com
 
2012-12-24 02:46:08 PM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Those corporations you love to hate are all profiting from green tech, renewable energy, carbon trading etc.

Yes ... they are very smart people. They know that this denial campaign can only last so long before the facts are too obvious. Just like their mentors in the '70s, Big Tobacco, who knew they were going to lose the lawsuits but were able to delay it by about a decade to keep profits high for as long as possible.

They know that eventually their primary source of revenue will be hit so they are making inroads into future tech.


No you don't get it. They are making *more* money now, because so much cash is flowing into green industry, a mixture of direct tax-payer subsidy and investors who expect to get rich off of current and future legislation that controls how people can generate and use energy. They are raking it in.

If you don't believe me, try contacting one of those companies, under two assumed names, one as a green lobbyist and another as a sceptical lobbyist. They will want to talk to the green one.

None of the people on here that you rudely call "deiners" is on a bung.
 
2012-12-24 02:49:40 PM  
Yayyy! we can derp about climate change and religion all in one place.
 
2012-12-24 02:52:14 PM  

rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.

Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html


Did you even read the links you supplied?

He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Why do you waste everybody's time posting such blatant rubbish on public forums?
 
2012-12-24 02:53:48 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.


Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)
 
2012-12-24 02:56:24 PM  
Fapinator:
img28.imageshack.us


They won`t get a good chromakey with all those creases...

It will increase their post production costs for a start. Also the trees will ghost.

Bad santa!
 
2012-12-24 02:57:22 PM  

RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)


In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?
 
2012-12-24 03:02:58 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: jso2897:
Black-Nosed Buddha

A nun who was searching for enlightenment made a statue of Buddha and covered it with gold leaf. Wherever she went she carried this golden Buddha with her.

Years passed and, still carrying her Buddha, the nun came to live in a small temple in a country where there were many Buddhas, each one with its own particular shrine.

The nun wished to burn incense before her golden Buddha. Not liking the idea of the perfume straying to the others, she devised a funnel through which the smoke would ascend only to her statue. This blackened the nose of the golden Buddha, making it especially ugly.

A nun who was searching for enlightenment walked straight past user jso2897. Because he is a twat.


Well, bless your heart.
 
2012-12-24 03:04:32 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.

Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

Did you even read the links you supplied?

He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Why do you waste everybody's time posting such blatant rubbish on public forums?


Er...I didn't originally post the image, I just supplied you with the source, as you requested. You just assumed I made the original post without checking the facts.

Also, nowhere in the image does it state that the remaining 13950 ambiguous articles were counted as 'pro'. You just assumed that to be the case, again without checking the facts.

Based on how quickly you're ready to jump down someone's throat who might be presenting a world view that's in opposition to yours, I'd bet there are a whole lot of things that you just assume without checking the facts.
 
2012-12-24 03:07:35 PM  

dready zim: RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)

In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?


Yes, but there's more to it than that. Regular "vanilla" Christianity works with faith as something separate from science. I have my reservations, but can co-exist with that (atheist myself). What ID and AGW are doing is trying to define themselves as science when they're really just belief systems.

Their attack vector is mainly one of post-modernism, with ideas like the subjective on a level with the objective, everything really just introspection, truth relative to the speaker, and so on. These ideas have been gaining ground since the mid 20th century, possibly as part of a "head-in-the-sand" response to certain difficult realities of WW2.

Both ID and AGW are debasements and threaten to destroy science. AGW, being more successful, is the bigger threat.
 
2012-12-24 03:07:39 PM  

Pitabred: stirfrybry: Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore

Uhh.... trees get their carbon from the air. Almost nothing comes from the ground, except water.


You should have stopped with that first bit and left off the bold part.
 
2012-12-24 03:10:54 PM  

dready zim: RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)

In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?


Both have a HEAVY dose of confirmation bias.
 
2012-12-24 03:11:56 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: More global warming alarmism sheep who cannot debate the issues. Anything to divert from the topic. Climatism mind-slaves can never win the argument because their beliefs are based on shabby un-truths.


Oh I get it now.  It's performance art.
 
2012-12-24 03:13:47 PM  

rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.

Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

Did you even read the links you supplied?

He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Why do you waste everybody's time posting such blatant rubbish on public forums?

Er...I didn't originally post the image, I just supplied you with the source, as you requested. You just assumed I made the original post without checking the facts.

Also, nowhere in the image does it state that the remaining 13950 ambiguous articles were counted as 'pro'. You just assumed that to be the case, again without checking the facts.

Based on how quickly you're ready to jump down someone's throat who might be presenting a world view that's in opposition to yours, I'd bet there are a whole lot of things that you just assume without checking the facts.


My point stands that, once you read the methodology, the graph is extremely misleading in several ways, and that by posting documentary support, you are attempting to fool other users into believing that there is good support for the graph when there is not. After checking your past posts, I can see you have a tendency to lie in favour of AGW alarmism, so don't bother pretending otherwise.
 
2012-12-24 03:23:18 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: dready zim: RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)

In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?

Yes, but there's more to it than that. Regular "vanilla" Christianity works with faith as something separate from science. I have my reservations, but can co-exist with that (atheist myself). What ID and AGW are doing is trying to define themselves as science when they're really just belief systems.

Their attack vector is mainly one of post-modernism, with ideas like the subjective on a level with the objective, everything really just introspection, truth relative to the speaker, and so on. These ideas have been gaining ground since the mid 20th century, possibly as part of a "head-in-the-sand" response to certain difficult realities of WW2.

Both ID and AGW are debasements and threaten to destroy science. AGW, being more successful, is the bigger threat.


This always happens when science and the politics of power are mixed.
 
2012-12-24 03:24:58 PM  
Farking Canuck:
Brilliant for their bottom line ... we will pay the price for the actions of these people and their willing puppets (like yourself).

Stupid knee-jerk green... Oil companies WANT carbon taxes... Their lobbyists WROTE the legislation, you dumbass. Who do you think paid for the Kancun Klimate Konference? Yep, oil companies.

So, you just keep doing the legwork for the oil companies, you brain-damaged greenie, you. You, and the rest of the green "army" are saving the oil companies a LOT of money.

40748
 
2012-12-24 03:39:29 PM  

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Brilliant for their bottom line ... we will pay the price for the actions of these people and their willing puppets (like yourself).
Stupid knee-jerk green... Oil companies WANT carbon taxes... Their lobbyists WROTE the legislation, you dumbass. Who do you think paid for the Kancun Klimate Konference? Yep, oil companies.

So, you just keep doing the legwork for the oil companies, you brain-damaged greenie, you. You, and the rest of the green "army" are saving the oil companies a LOT of money.
40748


One of the most important messages we have to get through to the greenist-alarmists is that science is the LOSER in all this while corporations are the WINNERS.

And we should remind them that history shows that when science gets subverted and corporations get too close to governments, totalitarianism and genocides are the result.

But pathetic young people on the internet are often the ones who got through education without ever realising their intellectual limitations and are having trouble keeping afloat in adult life. They are desperate for some simple bandwagon to cling to. This was also a factor in historical examples of totalitarianism.
 
2012-12-24 03:41:52 PM  
Tomflry7:
Yayyy! we can derp about climate change and religion all in one place.

Well, that's ALWAYS true, since the idea that mankind is dangerously altering the temperature through carbon dioxide release IS a religious tenet.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Al Gore wants to have his Second Chakra rubbed.

 
2012-12-24 03:47:14 PM  
Psychotic deniers are holding Christmas mass in this thread.
 
2012-12-24 03:49:11 PM  
THE GREAT NAME:
He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Exactly correct. It is the same with the Oreskes study, which certain morons here continue to quote after having it explained to them. I answered the questions on several surveys, and so far ALL of them find me to be a "supporter" of the AGW hypothesis.

 
2012-12-24 03:52:55 PM  

GeneralJim: THE GREAT NAME: He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.
Exactly correct. It is the same with the Oreskes study, which certain morons here continue to quote after having it explained to them. I answered the questions on several surveys, and so far ALL of them find me to be a "supporter" of the AGW hypothesis.


In fact the IPCC's own claims of overwhelming majority support have been based on similar manipulations.

Paint a labcoat on propaganda, and its still just propaganda.
 
2012-12-24 03:55:27 PM  

GeneralJim: Your picture says "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject global warming."

Wow. Considering that climate (and weather) are mathematically chaotic systems in which the basic systems are STILL being investigate, it is MOST impressive that that high a percentage of articles do not question AGW. If you will check, you will find MORE articles on gravity which question the basics, by percentage. I guess that means that climate science is WAY more certain than gravity.

Either that, or any articles skeptical of AGW were kept from publication. Oh, but scientists are infallible!


This is entirely true. I'm not even a physicist, but I've read 50 scientific papers this year which question whether gravity really keeps the earth in orbit around the sun, and a good 30 of them definitively asserted that if an object is dropped it won't fall to the ground but instead will float upwards towards the moon - entirely consistent with hundred of other findings that people's common sense notions of physical phenomena are generally just flat out wrong.
 
2012-12-24 03:57:04 PM  
THE GREAT NAME:
One of the most important messages we have to get through to the greenist-alarmists is that science is the LOSER in all this while corporations are the WINNERS.

And we should remind them that history shows that when science gets subverted and corporations get too close to governments, totalitarianism and genocides are the result.

But pathetic young people on the internet are often the ones who got through education without ever realising their intellectual limitations and are having trouble keeping afloat in adult life. They are desperate for some simple bandwagon to cling to. This was also a factor in historical examples of totalitarianism.

You're preaching to the choir with me. You DO know who was the first "green" world leader, right?

Anyway, as one of the choir, I do very much appreciate your sermon. You manage to say good things with FAR fewer words than I generally use.
 
2012-12-24 03:59:56 PM  

GeneralJim: THE GREAT NAME: One of the most important messages we have to get through to the greenist-alarmists is that science is the LOSER in all this while corporations are the WINNERS.

And we should remind them that history shows that when science gets subverted and corporations get too close to governments, totalitarianism and genocides are the result.

But pathetic young people on the internet are often the ones who got through education without ever realising their intellectual limitations and are having trouble keeping afloat in adult life. They are desperate for some simple bandwagon to cling to. This was also a factor in historical examples of totalitarianism.
You're preaching to the choir with me. You DO know who was the first "green" world leader, right?

Anyway, as one of the choir, I do very much appreciate your sermon. You manage to say good things with FAR fewer words than I generally use.


Thank you.
 
2012-12-24 04:04:21 PM  
HighZoolander:
I'm not even a physicist, but I've read 50 scientific papers this year which question whether gravity really keeps the earth in orbit around the sun, and a good 30 of them definitively asserted that if an object is dropped it won't fall to the ground but instead will float upwards towards the moon - entirely consistent with hundred of other findings that people's common sense notions of physical phenomena are generally just flat out wrong.

You've got weed THAT good and you're not even sharing? Where's your Christmas spirit, you dick?

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.
 
2012-12-24 04:06:37 PM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander:
I'm not even a physicist, but I've read 50 scientific papers this year which question whether gravity really keeps the earth in orbit around the sun, and a good 30 of them definitively asserted that if an object is dropped it won't fall to the ground but instead will float upwards towards the moon - entirely consistent with hundred of other findings that people's common sense notions of physical phenomena are generally just flat out wrong.

You've got weed THAT good and you're not even sharing? Where's your Christmas spirit, you dick?

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.



I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
 
2012-12-24 04:06:41 PM  
Now it's time for a Beach Christmas -- I'm off to Kona. Try to avoid starting any more religions while I'm gone....
 
2012-12-24 04:09:43 PM  

GeneralJim: Now it's time for a Beach Christmas -- I'm off to Kona. Try to avoid starting any more religions while I'm gone....


We'll try, if only to help prevent you from joining an even stranger religion ;)

Happy holidays, though.
 
2012-12-24 04:12:37 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?

Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...
 
2012-12-24 04:29:05 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...



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.
 
2012-12-24 04:40:45 PM  
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.

We've been over this before. You "assign" research as a punishment for not agreeing with you. A couple years ago, I spent probably 8 hours looking up and reading papers published on the subjects of gravity and evolution, just to prove to Monkey Boy that papers DO question the basics of pretty much everything -- except, of course, AGW. They skipped that whole "theory" step, and promoted the AGW hypothesis right to Natural Law, and gave it diplomatic immunity.

Your continual requests for repeats of research are abusive. If I do this, you have to agree to pay me, say, $25 for every 2011 peer-reviewed paper I find which questions our fundamental understanding of either gravity or evolution. How does that sound? That's probably cheap for professional research.
 
2012-12-24 05:03:49 PM  

GeneralJim: 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.
We've been over this before. You "assign" research as a punishment for not agreeing with you. A couple years ago, I spent probably 8 hours looking up and reading papers published on the subjects of gravity and evolution, just to prove to Monkey Boy that papers DO question the basics of pretty much everything -- except, of course, AGW. They skipped that whole "theory" step, and promoted the AGW hypothesis right to Natural Law, and gave it diplomatic immunity.

Your continual requests for repeats of research are abusive. If I do this, you have to agree to pay me, say, $25 for every 2011 peer-reviewed paper I find which questions our fundamental understanding of either gravity or evolution. How does that sound? That's probably cheap for professional research.


Actually if I was paid that much for every paper I find on a particular research topic, I'd be able to afford a second fleet of limousines (I do wear out the first one occasionally. What? My mailbox is all the way at the end of my driveway.).
 
2012-12-24 05:47:24 PM  

GeneralJim: 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.
We've been over this before. You "assign" research as a punishment for not agreeing with you. A couple years ago, I spent probably 8 hours looking up and reading papers published on the subjects of gravity and evolution, just to prove to Monkey Boy that papers DO question the basics of pretty much everything -- except, of course, AGW. They skipped that whole "theory" step, and promoted the AGW hypothesis right to Natural Law, and gave it diplomatic immunity.

Your continual requests for repeats of research are abusive. If I do this, you have to agree to pay me, say, $25 for every 2011 peer-reviewed paper I find which questions our fundamental understanding of either gravity or evolution. How does that sound? That's probably cheap for professional research.



I'm just asking you to back up a very specific claim - just point us to the thread where what you claimed happened. It's not apparent from a google search of the site. You don't need to repeat the survey of the literature you claim you performed.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're making it very difficult to do so. Again, your bewildering unwillingness to stand by your very own words renders your claim rather dubious. I'm sorry, but if you see backing up your claims as some sort of unusal "punishment" that is an unreasonable burden, then you're probably dealing with scientific information in the wrong way in the first place.

I suggest you divert some of that effort you're expending into acting all indignant into simply backing up your claim (if you can).
 
2012-12-24 05:49:09 PM  

GeneralJim: Your continual requests for repeats of research are abusive.


Being grounded by scientific information and actual evidence (oh my) is so very limiting for your kind of thought, isn't it ;)
 
2012-12-24 06:27:22 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...


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.


It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF
 
2012-12-24 07:03:25 PM  
It's 80 degrees dry heat and endless blue skies where I am. None of your Northern Hemisphere traditions have ever made sense here. Somehow the entire Southern Hemisphere has still managed to work out a way to enjoy Christmas (mainly with fake plastic trees).

Gonna go swimming at the beach, eat a nice lunch, play some non-stop cricket, eat some more, then sit around drinking in the long twilight.

/Sun won't go down until about 10pm
 
2012-12-24 07:45:36 PM  

RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...


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.

It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF


More that it's only true if you can back it up in some way.
 
2012-12-24 10:56:58 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...


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.

It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF

More that it's only true if you can back it up in some way.


I don't think you would accept any evidence brought to this discussion in any case.
 
2012-12-24 10:59:08 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...


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.

It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF

More that it's only true if you can back it up in some way.


Another way to rephrase:
It can only be true if supported by facts that agree with my position.

The Inquisitors used similar tactics. Just sayin'
 
2012-12-25 12:22:10 AM  

RedVentrue: Another way to rephrase:
It can only be true if supported by facts that agree with my position.


He didn't ask for anything supporting his position. He asked the green threadshiatter to provide links to the papers he claims to have.

He is giving him a chance to support his otherwise unfounded claims and the green threadshiatter is refusing.
 
2012-12-25 12:56:49 AM  

RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...


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.

It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF

More that it's only true if you can back it up in some way.

I don't think you would accept any evidence brought to this discussion in any case.



I would, in fact - that's why I asked.
 
2012-12-25 01:08:28 AM  

RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...


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.

It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF

More that it's only true if you can back it up in some way.

Another way to rephrase:
It can only be true if supported by facts that agree with my position.

The Inquisitors used similar tactics. Just sayin'



I'm also sure that, just like me, the Inquisitors wore shoes.

In my opinion, when someone makes a specific claim, simply taking someone's word that they once posted information in a thread proving it sometime in the past isn't really convincing. I politely asked for the fellow to back up the claim (that he himself brought up) in some way, and he vehemently refused to do so repeatedly.

What you should be asking yourself is why one (potentially including you) should accept the guy's word without a shred of evidence or critical thought.
 
2012-12-25 01:27:42 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: In my opinion, when someone makes a specific claim, simply taking someone's word that they once posted information in a thread proving it sometime in the past isn't really convincing.


I find this funny, because some of you harp so hard on things that have already been discussed before only a couple of GW threads back, and even harped on me with a "lmgtfy" link.

Ah how the mighty have fallen.
 
2012-12-25 02:10:30 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: In my opinion, when someone makes a specific claim, simply taking someone's word that they once posted information in a thread proving it sometime in the past isn't really convincing.

I find this funny, because some of you harp so hard on things that have already been discussed before only a couple of GW threads back, and even harped on me with a "lmgtfy" link.

Ah how the mighty have fallen.


Well, to be fair, it depends on the subject. If one finds themselves being somewhat information-deficient on the very basics of a subject, there is at least a bit of responsibility for that person to educate themselves, especially before expressing a strong opinion on it. One could get the information required from a variety of easily-found sources, or it may be something akin to 'common knowledge' (as nebulous as that may be).

If it's something a bit more obscure, like someone making a specific claim about difficult-to-find information about something they themselves have done sometime in the unspecified past, they should probably back it up when called on it. The best place to get the information required is that very person. I mean, if there is something you should probably claim responsibility for, it's your very own words about your very own deeds, hm?

That aside, also keep in mind that there are a variety of posters in any given thread with different discussion styles. Some are more productive than others. My suggestion is to keep a thick skin about this sort of thing.
 
2012-12-25 03:25:18 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...


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.

It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF

More that it's only true if you can back it up in some way.

Another way to rephrase:
It can only be true if supported by facts that agree with my position.

The Inquisitors used similar tactics. Just sayin'


I'm also sure that, just like me, the Inquisitors wore shoes.

In my opinion, when someone makes a specific claim, simply taking someone's word that they once posted information in a thread proving it sometime in the past isn't really convincing. I politely asked for the fellow to back up the claim (that he himself brought up) in some way, and he vehemently refused to do so repeatedly.

What you should be asking yourself is why one (potentially including you) should accept the guy's word without a shred of evidence or critical thought.


I don't, but I don't accept the "concensus" opinion without reasoning it out for myself.The deceptions on both sides muddy the waters to the point that I can't accept either position completely.

Climate changes.

It won't be the end of the Earth, or the end of us. Some people will have to move.

I don't get the urgency.
 
2012-12-25 04:12:08 AM  
Wait, are you asking for a citation where he makes the claim?
Isn't that kind of pointless as he explained exactly what he meant? He set up a very basic theory, gave you all the information you needed to find a few papers.

Or do you mean citation for the validity of the claim?

What is the claim exactly? Lets review:

Lots of studies and papers consistantly re-examine physics(to include gravity) as well as evolution, as both are theories that we don't have a precise handle on one level or another. (I see that as common knowledge, if you need a cite for that you're woefully deficient)

And that GW piece, which the picture was posted in this very thread, the pie chart where there is a tiny tiny amount of re-evaluation on par with that, which made up a fark thread a couple weeks back. The whole "consensus makes us right" thread.

Where is there a need for citation, precisely?
 
2012-12-25 04:42:14 AM  
RedVentrue:
It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF

Yeah. Truth gets some strange effects from proximity to the climate singularity. A true statement in a peer-reviewed paper becomes untrue if quoted in a blog put out by someone warmers don't like. On the other hand, pro-warmer blogs, no matter how closely associated with perpetrators of scientific fraud, or how many times they are proven to be lying, making up data, or leaving out data which do not support their case, are ALWAYS a valid reference.

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...
 
2012-12-25 06:30:04 AM  

GeneralJim: RedVentrue: It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF
Yeah. Truth gets some strange effects from proximity to the climate singularity. A true statement in a peer-reviewed paper becomes untrue if quoted in a blog put out by someone warmers don't like. On the other hand, pro-warmer blogs, no matter how closely associated with perpetrators of scientific fraud, or how many times they are proven to be lying, making up data, or leaving out data which do not support their case, are ALWAYS a valid reference.

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...


Post-modernism in education means they assign truth value based on the socio-political staus of the speaker and not on what is spoken.
 
2012-12-25 09:28:36 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: NotARocketScientist: Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore

lol, wut? I hope you are joking.
Plants get their carbon from the air not the ground. It is where the C goes when they breathe in C02 and out O2.

User stirfrybry should back his claim up by citing the relevant research papers. He should not simply expect people to believe such claims. Why do climate alarmists think they can repeatedly appeal to their own (non-existant) authority?


Hey, I'm not an alarmist. I'm a rabid denier. I was hoping to catch some ignorant warmunists who were unaware of this science.
But here's the link
http://inhabitat.com/rapid-arctic-forest-growth-is-releasing-more-co2 - than-it-is-absorbing/arctic-tundra/
 
2012-12-25 09:34:59 AM  
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1575.html
 
2012-12-25 10:49:52 AM  
20 C/68 F in Munich, Germany yesterday.

Sixty-farking-eight.
 
2012-12-25 12:44:42 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Wait, are you asking for a citation where he makes the claim?
Isn't that kind of pointless as he explained exactly what he meant? He set up a very basic theory, gave you all the information you needed to find a few papers.


First off, Happy Holidays!

Now, the problem is that it's not just reasoning that was presented, but reasoning supposedly based on evidence. Evidence backing up what one claims is kind of important, don't you think? Let me know if you really need to discuss why that is - there's different reasons for it.


omeganuepsilon: What is the claim exactly? Lets review:

Lots of studies and papers consistantly re-examine physics(to include gravity) as well as evolution, as both are theories that we don't have a precise handle on one level or another. (I see that as common knowledge, if you need a cite for that you're woefully deficient)


I am somewhat skeptical of the bit in bold as they refer to the basics. 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: And that GW piece, which the picture was posted in this very thread, the pie chart where there is a tiny tiny amount of re-evaluation on par with that, which made up a fark thread a couple weeks back. The whole "consensus makes us right" thread.

Where is there a need for citation, precisely?


Hopefully, I've covered why there is a need for citation. Note that this also covers the pie chart you mention, and yes, a citation was provided so the veracity of the claim being made by said chart can actually be assessed. Again, let me know if you want to discuss why such backing up of a claim with evidence is important.
 
2012-12-25 01:10:22 PM  

GeneralJim: RedVentrue: It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF
Yeah. Truth gets some strange effects from proximity to the climate singularity. A true statement in a peer-reviewed paper becomes untrue if quoted in a blog put out by someone warmers don't like. On the other hand, pro-warmer blogs, no matter how closely associated with perpetrators of scientific fraud, or how many times they are proven to be lying, making up data, or leaving out data which do not support their case, are ALWAYS a valid reference.

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. Nowhere in this argument of yours is any consideration whatsoever of the actual evidence behind a statement. The big reason why different claims are given more or less weight by others is that claims given more weight back them up with documented evidence. So scientific literature, with the evidence documented right in front of you is given relatively lots of weight, you simply stating the once upon a time you presented evidence for a claim you're making is given relatively little weight. That's the important distinction - the availability of evidence to back you your claim.

In short, the fact that you seem to be complaining about scientific literature being weighed differently than your own (unsupported) statements suggests how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place.

Contrary to your protestations in this thread, yes, you probably should back up claims you make with some sort of evidence, especially if they're about your own actions and especially if you brought it up yourself. Again, you don't absolutely have to, but don't be surprised if people give said claim less weight than something like scientific literature.
 
2012-12-25 01:15:41 PM  

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.

 
2012-12-25 01:17:20 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: That's the important distinction - the availability of evidence to back you up your claim.


That makes more sense, but also repeated for emphasis.
 
2012-12-25 06:18:39 PM  
omeganuepsilon:
Wait, are you asking for a citation where he makes the claim?
Isn't that kind of pointless as he explained exactly what he meant? He set up a very basic theory, gave you all the information you needed to find a few papers.

Or do you mean citation for the validity of the claim?

What is the claim exactly? Lets review:

Lots of studies and papers consistantly re-examine physics(to include gravity) as well as evolution, as both are theories that we don't have a precise handle on one level or another. (I see that as common knowledge, if you need a cite for that you're woefully deficient)

And that GW piece, which the picture was posted in this very thread, the pie chart where there is a tiny tiny amount of re-evaluation on par with that, which made up a fark thread a couple weeks back. The whole "consensus makes us right" thread.

Where is there a need for citation, precisely?

Well, you certainly understand the situation. The whole business is a deflection. Monkey Boy said something stupid to the effect that questioning AGW was like questioning evolution or gravity. On a whim, I actually looked up quite a few examples of papers questioning the basics of gravity or evolution which were published in the previous year. Monkey Boy could not understand why the fact that, according to him, NOTHING critical of AGW had been published over many years is suspicious in and of itself.

But making this an issue takes the focus off of the poor scientific showing (being falsified multiple times) that the AGW hypothesis is making. It is clear that the warmers are taking a stand in which the "success" of the AGW hypothesis is more important than the science involved. I see this, but I do not understand. What is the benefit to the warmers? I doubt any of them are on the government funding bandwagon, so it must be some sort of personal motive.

I mean, the scientific process is BUILT upon false hypotheses. Each one that is falsified increases our knowledge. But, backing a hypothesis as if it were a sports team runs counter to the entire scientific process. It actively IMPEDES the accumulation of scientific knowledge. And having the warmers deny the scientific process, and denigrate anyone presumptuous enough to publish a paper falsifying AGW, provides a level of hypocritical warmth to counter the cold winter nights. The warmers deny the validity of the scientific process, and any paper which runs counter to their position. Meanwhile, the "deniers" are only denying that votes in a political organization of scientists mean anything, and that cooked data proves anything, and that the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, visible ONLY if one cherry-picks a certain time frame, proves that carbon dioxide is the proximate cause of the warming we have seen.
 
2012-12-25 07:16:18 PM  

GeneralJim: I see this, but I do not understand. What is the benefit to the warmers? I doubt any of them are on the government funding bandwagon, so it must be some sort of personal motive.


It is a personal thing. Save all the little fuzzy things! Save the planet!

Same deal here. It boils down to a moral decision on their part. There is nothing wrong with the general idea of saving what you can in that sense. It gives them a sort of zealotic high; the euphoria of a just cause creates monsters that will resort to many a given fallacy to rationalize maintaining that rush.

Factor in the greenpeace types that don't care so much for the environment, except that it makes a good front, but are really against big business, which is also a moral argument of sorts.

Throw it all in a pot and it's pretty evident why it seems as if there's a consensus(which is also false, as even warming studies and papers contradict one another, a fact conveniently overlooked by a vast majority of them).

It's not a religion in that it's spiritual, but it mimics the whole belief system, to include all the bunk arguments and twisted crap science.
 
2012-12-25 08:34:57 PM  

GeneralJim: Well, you certainly understand the situation. The whole business is a deflection. Monkey Boy said something stupid to the effect that questioning AGW was like questioning evolution or gravity. On a whim, I actually looked up quite a few examples of papers questioning the basics of gravity or evolution which were published in the previous year. Monkey Boy could not understand why the fact that, according to him, NOTHING critical of AGW had been published over many years is suspicious in and of itself.

But making this an issue takes the focus off of the poor scientific showing (being falsified multiple times) that the AGW hypothesis is making. It is clear that the warmers are taking a stand in which the "success" of the AGW hypothesis is more important than the science involved. I see this, but I do not understand. What is the benefit to the warmers? I doubt any of them are on the government funding bandwagon, so it must be some sort of personal motive.

I mean, the scientific process is BUILT upon false hypotheses. Each one that is falsified increases our knowledge. But, backing a hypothesis as if it were a sports team runs counter to the entire scientific process. It actively IMPEDES the accumulation of scientific knowledge. And having the warmers deny the scientific process, and denigrate anyone presumptuous enough to publish a paper falsifying AGW, provides a level of hypocritical warmth to counter the cold winter nights. The warmers deny the validity of the scientific process, and any paper which runs counter to their position. Meanwhile, the "deniers" are only denying that votes in a political organization of scientists mean anything, and that cooked data proves anything, and that the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, visible ONLY if one cherry-picks a certain time frame, proves that carbon dioxide is the proximate cause of the warming we have seen.


omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: I see this, but I do not understand. What is the benefit to the warmers? I doubt any of them are on the government funding bandwagon, so it must be some sort of personal motive.

It is a personal thing. Save all the little fuzzy things! Save the planet!

Same deal here. It boils down to a moral decision on their part. There is nothing wrong with the general idea of saving what you can in that sense. It gives them a sort of zealotic high; the euphoria of a just cause creates monsters that will resort to many a given fallacy to rationalize maintaining that rush.

Factor in the greenpeace types that don't care so much for the environment, except that it makes a good front, but are really against big business, which is also a moral argument of sorts.

Throw it all in a pot and it's pretty evident why it seems as if there's a consensus(which is also false, as even warming studies and papers contradict one another, a fact conveniently overlooked by a vast majority of them).

It's not a religion in that it's spiritual, but it mimics the whole belief system, to include all the bunk arguments and twisted crap science.



Well, you can hold whatever opinion you wish, and that's fine and dandy. However, how much weight your opinion holds should be more based on evidence rather than the characterization one puts forth about those who don't share your opinion. If this thread is any indication, you're both leaning much more on the latter rather than the former.

Be careful you're not engaging in exactly the kind of irrationality you're accusing others of exhibiting.
 
2012-12-25 11:02:48 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: However, how much weight your opinion holds


Opinions don't hold weight. Evidence does.

The shakier the evidence, the less weight it holds. Kinda like what we're talking about with GW.
 
2012-12-25 11:26:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: However, how much weight your opinion holds

Opinions don't hold weight. Evidence does.

The shakier the evidence, the less weight it holds. Kinda like what we're talking about with GW.



Agreed:

Damnhippyfreak: However, how much weight your opinion holds should be more based on evidence rather than the characterization one puts forth about those who don't share your opinion.


Which is why it's so very puzzling that you would seem somewhat incredulous about me asking for evidence to back up a claim:

omeganuepsilon: Where is there a need for citation, precisely?

omeganuepsilon: Isn't that kind of pointless as he explained exactly what he meant?



Again, I suggest you be careful you're not engaging in exactly the kind of irrationality you're accusing others of exhibiting.
 
2012-12-26 12:22:19 AM  
Whatever, it's clear that you have reading comprehension woes. If you can't figure out why someone would be incredulous at your vehement request for a cite for one of their past fark posts(not evidence mind you, just a random fark post which was summed up perfectly fine in this thread)...

You're deflecting the concept of the post, flat out ignoring the content, in favor of alleging that he'd not actually posted such a thing in the past.

Intellectually dishonest as you are, I really don't think I'll be conversing with you much at all.
 
2012-12-26 12:54:46 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Well, I like to keep my whearabouts secret, so I guess you'll never truly know what part of the state I am in.


Har de har. For morning in Saint Paul, yes, that's running slightly warm if you work a standard 9-5. Not to a statistically significant level, and not as much as I'm mocking about... but yes, above average warm from the records Google turns up.
 
2012-12-26 02:47:16 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Whatever, it's clear that you have reading comprehension woes. If you can't figure out why someone would be incredulous at your vehement request for a cite for one of their past fark posts(not evidence mind you, just a random fark post which was summed up perfectly fine in this thread)...

You're deflecting the concept of the post, flat out ignoring the content, in favor of alleging that he'd not actually posted such a thing in the past.

Intellectually dishonest as you are, I really don't think I'll be conversing with you much at all.



Unfortunately, you may be misrepresenting this thread somewhat. The nice thing about valuing evidence (as I do) is that I can easily prove what was said:

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: HighZoolander:
I'm not even a physicist, but I've read 50 scientific papers this year which question whether gravity really keeps the earth in orbit around the sun, and a good 30 of them definitively asserted that if an object is dropped it won't fall to the ground but instead will float upwards towards the moon - entirely consistent with hundred of other findings that people's common sense notions of physical phenomena are generally just flat out wrong.

You've got weed THAT good and you're not even sharing? Where's your Christmas spirit, you dick?

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.


I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?


You're probably misrepresenting my tone if you consider my words (in bold) a "vehement request". In addition, you are ignoring the fact that I am, in fact, requesting some sort of evidence instead of simply taking the guy's word on faith. Actual evidence is more than simply saying that one once presented evidence to someone else some unspecified time in the past. I really wish I didn't have to explain that one cannot actually evaluate the veracity of a claim if the evidence isn't actually presented. I mean, according to you:

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


Again, I suggest you start to heed your own words, or at least be consistent. Either evidence holds weight or it doesn't. Either is fine, given the informal setting and depending on how seriously you wish your posts to be taken, but at least make up your mind.
 
2012-12-26 12:13:23 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-26 01:25:10 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.



Hm. I guess I'm really not getting across what I'm trying to convey. Let me take a slightly different tack so hopefully it will be clearer. Let's look at the original comment to do as you say, to assess its merits:

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, the guy presented his opinion that this discussion occurred in this way and presented his opinion that he presented sufficient evidence (to someone else, at some unspecified time in the past) to prove his case. No actual evidence is presented here to back this up in any way, and saying that he once presented evidence (again,to someone else, at some unspecified time in the past) isn't the same as actual evidence.. Again, according to you:

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


So, at this point, we can conclude that instead of taking the guy's opinion on faith (which, according to you, shouldn't be given weight), we should be looking for evidence.

Now where should this evidence come from? This is where the idea of 'burden of proof' should come in (sorry for the Wikipedia link, we can find something better if you need more information). The idea is that if one makes a claim (that we should give weight to), one also has an obligation to back it up in some way. This basic aspect of reasonable discussion is why why this bit is such an old chestnut:

imgs.xkcd.com

So the onus is on the person making the claim to back it up with evidence.

That being said, I do believe there is also some responsibility to actively educate oneself and to obtain information on one's own initiative when possible. So I first attempted to find the information myself, as I stated:

Damnhippyfreak: It's not apparent from a google search of the site.


So unfortunately, no success there. Why not just go out and repeat the analysis that was supposedly done? The above-mentioned idea of 'burden of proof', aside, 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. As I previously stated:

Damnhippyfreak: one cannot actually evaluate the veracity of a claim if the evidence isn't actually presented.


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. It's a fundamental building block for addressing almost any issue and is therefore relatively important. I think it's important enough to merit an ongoing discussion - I may bring this over to another thread if we don't manage to get to the bottom of this in this thread.
 
2012-12-26 01:51:34 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: 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.


Hm. I guess I'm really not getting across what I'm trying to convey. Let me take a slightly different tack so hopefully it will be clearer. Let's look at the original comment to do as you say, to assess its merits:

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, the guy presented his opinion that this discussion occurred in this way and presented his opinion that he presented sufficient evidence (to someone else, at some unspecified time in the past) to prove his case. No actual evidence is presented here to back this up in any way, and saying that he once presented evidence (again,to someone else, at some unspecified time in the past) isn't the same as actual evidence.. Again, according to you:

omeganuepsilon: Opinio ...


Wow, that was a longie!

I already knew that science is constantly questioning itself, and that problems with consensus theories are often found, and often lead to peer-reviewed papers. I think most people know this. I therefore have no problem with GeneralJim's claim.

Are you feigning ignorance in order to justify demanding evidence?
 
2012-12-26 01:53:53 PM  
Now with the overall argument hopefully made clear, I can go through what you said and make reference back to said argument.

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


See point 1 above. Because simply stating that one once supplied evidence (again,to someone else, at some unspecified time in the past) isn't actual evidence. Let me repeat that for emphasis: saying you once proved something isn't the same as actually proving it. Without evidence actually being presented, a claim is rendered merely opinion. And, as you've stated opinion should not be given weight.


omeganuepsilon: 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.


See points 3,4,and 5 above. The validity of the claim cannot be verified without the person who made the claim backing it up or providing further information to that end, and the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim.


omeganuepsilon: 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.


As in the previous selection, see points 3,4, and 5 above, noting that (contrary to what you've said here) it is not I who made the assertion, and the burden of proof does not rest on me. There's one additional important idea you're missing: that it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, or the non-existence of something. There isn't many papers questioning the basics of global warming, and I believe neither is there many papers questioning the basics of evolution or gravity. The line of proof you're talking about isn't really possible, even if we were to put the idea of burden of proof aside.


omeganuepsilon: 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.


See point 4 above. Yet again, even with the burden of proof set aside for the moment, I couldn't find the post specified.

However, if you wish to talk about being disingenuous, I point out that your position still remains self-contradictory, even as you avoid directly addressing the points I'm making.

I have hopefully made a cogent argument in these last couple of posts as to why evidence is required from the person making the claim. Here's your chance to engage in more than what you yourself are accusing others of doing.
 
2012-12-26 01:59:46 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: I already knew that science is constantly questioning itself, and that problems with consensus theories are often found, and often lead to peer-reviewed papers. I think most people know this. I therefore have no problem with GeneralJim's claim.

Are you feigning ignorance in order to justify demanding evidence?



I think you're right in that "problems with consensus theories are often found". However, the claim is about the very basics of said theories. Let me repost what I said earlier to someone else:

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.


So, while refinements in consensus theories may abound, I contend that questioning the very basics is probably quite rare.

As for my reasons for demanding evidence, my reasoning is detailed in the post you're responding to. It's long, I know, but hopefully it's easier to follow. Let me know if you need me to clarify something.
 
2012-12-26 02:13:51 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: I already knew that science is constantly questioning itself, and that problems with consensus theories are often found, and often lead to peer-reviewed papers. I think most people know this. I therefore have no problem with GeneralJim's claim.

Are you feigning ignorance in order to justify demanding evidence?


I think you're right in that "problems with consensus theories are often found". However, the claim is about the very basics of said theories. Let me repost what I said earlier to someone else:

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.

So, while refinements in consensus theories may abound, I contend that questioning the very basics is probably quite rare.


I hear what you're saying but you're way off GeneralJim's original point.
 
2012-12-26 02:23:37 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: I already knew that science is constantly questioning itself, and that problems with consensus theories are often found, and often lead to peer-reviewed papers. I think most people know this. I therefore have no problem with GeneralJim's claim.

Are you feigning ignorance in order to justify demanding evidence?


I think you're right in that "problems with consensus theories are often found". However, the claim is about the very basics of said theories. Let me repost what I said earlier to someone else:

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.

So, while refinements in consensus theories may abound, I contend that questioning the very basics is probably quite rare.

I hear what you're saying but you're way off GeneralJim's original point.



You might have missed the run-up to it. Let's take a look:

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.


Besides the use of the word 'fundamental' there, if you follow the conversation back, it is in response to this post with its graphic:

Mayhem_2006: www.desmogblog.com



Which is the graphic I'm specifically referring to in my bit about the very basics being considered. The criterion of "whether a paper "rejects" human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations" remains fairly basic. If GeneralJim wishes to make a meaningful comparison of this with other theories, one should also use a criterion that is also fairly basic. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell whether his criterion fits this or not (or to tell whether he actually performed such a search in the first place) since he refuses to back up his claim.
 
2012-12-26 02:52:03 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: I already knew that science is constantly questioning itself, and that problems with consensus theories are often found, and often lead to peer-reviewed papers. I think most people know this. I therefore have no problem with GeneralJim's claim.

Are you feigning ignorance in order to justify demanding evidence?


I think you're right in that "problems with consensus theories are often found". However, the claim is about the very basics of said theories. Let me repost what I said earlier to someone else:

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.

So, while refinements in consensus theories may abound, I contend that questioning the very basics is probably quite rare.

I hear what you're saying but you're way off GeneralJim's original point.


To be fair though, GeneralJim is also well known to say ridiculous things that have no basis in fact.

One notorious example:
GeneralJim cites the density of the Jurassic atmosphere as 670 kg / m^3:  http://www.fark.com/comments/4432056/51708012#c51708012

which is about as dense as solid oak:  http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/ShirleyLam.shtml

He doesn't always say things that are quite that dumb, but I'm certainly not about to take his word for anything. I can't find the thread right now (yes, I realize the irony here), but he also recently tried to make a point about data manipulation by comparing global temperatures against local ones, based on his misunderstanding of a blog he saw (the source of his graphs did not make this same mistake). So even when he does provide a source for something (and is simply gullibly repeating an error that his source made), that is no guarantee that he's reporting it accurately.

You'd be wise to ask for some way to verify any information he presents - and for that matter, for any information that anyone presents - but that's what scientists routinely do (both asking for and providing such verification).
 
2012-12-26 03:05:56 PM  
(found it)

Here is GeneralJim trying to substantiate a claim of fraud:  http://www.fark.com/comments/7380890/80042070#c80042070

Here is the source of those graphs:  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/is-the-united-states-ac t ually-getting-warmer.php

and GeneralJIm's error pointed out to him:
http://www.fark.com/comments/7380890/80042742#c80042742
http://www.fark.com/comments/7380890/80043326#c80043326


I'm not just trying to pick on GeneralJim, but just reinforcing the idea that you shouldn't just uncritically accept what he says, because his past performance gives a rather high probability that he made an error of interpretation (at least).
 
2012-12-26 05:38:17 PM  
Hey HighZoolander, there you are. Thank you for the sponsorship!
 
2012-12-26 06:11:26 PM  

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 :)
 
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 189 of 189 comments

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