*Getting zinged by cross fire and shrapnel* Hmm, maybe this wasn't the time and place to parade that skeleton. *Leaving skeleton lying in debris, takes taxi back home*
S
Global Warming Hysteria
by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
Frank
I enjoyed reading your post that made the above point. As I am not a climatologist and I suspect neither are you,
Nope, I'm not. Shutterbug has raised a good point though; I've fairly decent qualifications in science with a broad base. It means I can understand scientific arguments and also I understand the importance of the scientific method.
Not everyone has that. I know it is quite possible for someone with a non-scientiic background to arge intelligently and accurately on this topic. If they are open-minded and have the analytical skill by other means, and make the effort. One thing I am surprised at (and I'm not talking about you at this point) is how the hell do so many people get out of a cult when, from what they say now, they have the critical thinking capacity and analytical skills of a sandwich. We should ALL have that qualification, so lord knows how some got out...
Read this scientific article on the relationship of the Sun with earth Climate change in the past 240 years : http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/The%20Varying%20Sun%20and%20Climate%20Change-Baliunas.pdf
MMmmmmm... did you know one of the authors also thinks CFC's don't deplete the ozone layer (a rather remarkable opinion considering the actual chemistry involved was the subject of a Noble Prize)? Even funnier, without ever retracting her opposition to the idea that CFC's don't deplete the Ozone layer "an article by Baliunas and Soon written for the Heartland Institute in 2000 promoted the idea that ozone depletion, rather than CO2 emissions could explain atmospheric warming.
The Heartland Institute are an ideological lead lobby group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
That's just a bitof background to establish what in other cases might be called credibility. All I did was check up on the authors on Wiki, I am also going to deal with their argument, but the background is as illuminating as the validity of the argument they advance.
Your link is hosted by the Fraser Institute which is ANOTHER ideologically biased lobby group whose world view would make them favour a skeptical view of human-caused climate change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_institute.
Again, I am going to respond to the article itself, but it is interesting that thus far this skeptical view is conforming to previous descriptors of those typically holding or supporting skeptical views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas highlights mine
In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years.
A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[9] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result [10].
Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[11][12] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[13]
So, their argument is really NOT a decent one.
Scientists, just like plumbers, have differing degrees of competence and honesty. How wet would Baliunas and Soon make your carpet? And would they overcharge?
Although the above paper is not dogmatic so as to say Sun activity is the only scenario, it certainly is more reliable than your whimsical comment quoted below.
My comment was;
Yes, and the reason that the majority of scientists are concerned is the current increase in temperature cannot be explained by the sun THIS TIME, even though it's role is pivotal and it has caused climate change before.
I've shown their doubts are unreliable; please find something to refute my statement.
First of all what majority is that?
Disingenuous. You MUST know about the IPCC. You MUST know about the percentage of peer-reviewed paers that support the concensus (thus the term 'consensus') as opposed to the percentage of peer-reviewed papers that disagree with the consensus. If you don't, why are you having this discussion? The arguments the cynics are objecting too are so numerous, well known and widely documented acting like you don't know is threatening my initial assessment of how seriously you want to take this debate, especially as you find it so easy to find (bad) opposing arguments.
Second, since when are the majority right.
Irrelevant; let's talk about the science .
The only science you've bought up so far I have rebutted as unreliable. By all means show my rebuttal is unsound.
Are these scientists you mention climatologists or related to that field? Who are they, what is their expertise, what are their names and what do they say?
Again, disingenuous. By entering opposing arguments you show you know what the consensus argument is, where it comes from and who it is held by. Unless you are ONLY researching opposing arguments, which isn't 'research' in any desirable guise. So, are you asking me to tell you what you already know, are you ignorant of what you should know to credibly discuss this topic, or are you restricting your 'research' to opposing arguments only (options two and three overlap)?
Another article on the Sun: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html
Same people, same root claims, same response.
Articles have been written on Orbital Cycles and Ocean Currents as forcings for Global Warmings as well. Any of these seperately or all together are more plausible causes than CO2 levels caused by man.
Unsupported claim, vague, undefined. You can do better than that; show me a peer-reviewed paper that supports this claim.
THAT is an alternative scenario? LOL. What you quoted is a different attribution of principle CAUSE, not a dispute over the immediate reality of human-caused climate change. The author of this holds;
- A global tipping point will be reached in 10 years if levels of greenhouse gases like methane and CO2 are not reduced. Global warming at this point becomes unstoppable.
- Global warming is 0.5–0.75 °C in the past century, and about 0.3 °C or more in the last 25 years
- Climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is 3±1 °C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
I also see that you picked up on my comments about the Global Cooling scare I mentioned from the 70's. You seem to take offense to myself and others bringing it up but you actually illustrate our point in your critique.
What a wonderful mischaracterization. Offense? At the sloppiness shown, yes. And you're not t#e only one using this empty argument parroted from political hacks. People read 'Right-wing Head-in-sand Quarterly" and see some hack spew forth about the 70's ice age thing and use this to doubt the current arguments about global warming.
Although I mentioned scientific concern at that time it was on the level of scientific concern of the like that the sun will die out and supernova in 5 billion years or so. The scientific community was not behind this scare at all, but rather self serving pseudo scientific journals, newspapers and articles.
That is precisely what is being done on the issue of Global Warming as far as documentary such as "An Inconvenient truth" are concerned.
Obviously there is some alarmism over global warming. I don't know how you got the impression I supported alarmism, as I have been repeating a request that people discuss the sceince , and thus far no cynic in this thread has entered a scientific argument which seriously challenges the consensus, including you. as there is now (as the article I provided showed) a VERY different level of certainty about global warming, I'm wondering what your point is over ths?
Thus far this level of certainty IN the scientific community is what the cynics on this thread are failing to respond to with any science thus far (other than citing discredited arguments which you'd have known were discredited if you didn't use right-wing lobby groups as a source of scientific data, LOL)
How is that you can point the finger at us for picking out the fringe rhetoric from that period (a loose characterisation of what was really done by myself anyway)
It's not all about you.
but you don't seem to apply the same rule to your own conclusions with regard to the sensational claims made by non scientists and non scientific sources. (Kyoto and the UN IPCC report are by their very nature political motivated documents weakly supported by scientists who are acting outside their areas of expertise or at least misapplying their expertise)
You use right-wing 'think' tanks as your source of scientific data, and don't cross-check to see if they are credible arguments. Thus you have a massive double standard "IPCC is biased let's go to a political lobby group for the truth" LOL. Way to go at signally failing to address the scientific arguments. Is this because you don't have any?
A thorough examination of the science behind the debate on why Global Warming is not an open and shut case will bring about the same conclusion as you noted above. The sky is not falling now anymore than it was in the 70's. So say the "real scientists" in "real scientific papers and mags". That was my point in bringing the matter up!
And one I have refuted. REAL scientists ARE sounding alarms that in no way resemble previous sensationalist scares based on speculation by scientists. To say (as you do) that the argument being made by the majority of scientists is along the lines of 'a long-term warming trend over 20,000 years' is simply a lie, but maybe one you repeat in all sincerity.
We do not need Al Gore on our shoulders as the spokesperson and poster boy for what is best for the planet and humanity.
Please for the love of non-existent god talk about the fricking SCIENCE . I'm not an Al Gore apologist, I haven't even seen the documentary as I have read up on the subject far more directly than the 3rd hand nature of any such documentary. Nice to see you cannot approach this at anything other than an exercise in partisanism.
Kyoto? Unfortunately the only way the USA could keep up with Kyoto initiatives that require a cut in emissions of 25% by 2012 is to build more nuclear plants for starters.
And this is a bad thing why?
10 common myths about Global Warming : http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
With friends of science like that science needs no enemies!
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
This is where a scientific background is an advantage; I can see the lie. This is a red herring. During the Medieval Maximum and Little Ice Age there were forcings that explained the temperature change.
Those same orbital volcanic and solar forcings do not explain the current temperature change.
The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
Red Herring. "Ignore the ice cores, we can't quibble with them, lets o for the weather stations in urban centres."
"There has been no catastrophic warming recorded."
Straw man. Define 'catastrophic'. For ice cubes -0.01 degrees C to + 0.01 degrees C is pretty catastrophic.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
SixfNine has covered this very well.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth Brate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
Red Herring. The argument 'there is no proof' ignores the facts that CO2 has a specific heat capacity and that thus if it's concentration increases one can actual CALCULATE how much better at holding on to heat the atmosphere is. Thus the lack of definitive proof CO2 is a forcing is irrelevant; there is no other forcing than GHG's that explains current trends, and the law of physics explain how CO2 would increase the average temperatures as concentrations increased.
As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
A citation, a citation, the credibility of the argument depends on a citation! Unfounded claim, but on the balance of probabilities given the quality of claims you have made or supported thus far, a fallacy or rubbish.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect". Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
Because it is a red herring. Please show that there has been an increase in water vapour that would explain current climate trends. You can't. IF water vapour was increasing significantly, it would be mentioned more. It isn't so it isn't, as it is the forcings which are CHANGING which MATTER. This is one of my favourate identifying signs for spotting an argument from someone who is using 3rd hand political lobbiests as their primary soiurce of info. It displays not only a low level of knowledge about the issue, but also a lack of desire to learn about the issue and a lack of scientific understanding that hinders understanding the issue. It is no wonder your 'case' is a tissue of fallacies.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
Misrepresentation and gross simplification. And no citation. I'll pull the wings of this if you give me citations. I thought you were going to argue on a scientific basis? Where's the science man?
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. A
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”Dishonest, it doesn't cite the new report which says it is 90% likely that current climate change is caused by man.
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
Other than the laws of physics and no other candidate other than GHG's?
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
Semantics. Selenium is a vital element for human life, but can also be poisonous and classified as a pollutent. Concentration of CO2 increases the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat. FACT.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
Side issue; every one agrees exact impact on weather is unknown, other than the rise in average temperature patterns and the fact this will cause changes in weather patterns. Some areas will have 'better' weather, others 'worse'.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
Only the East Antarctic shelf is increasing mass. Which is just as well as it balances the fact the rest are melting; the East Antarctic shelf when melted would raise sea evels by over 150ft, so the FACT that warmer weather is increasing snowfall onto it is a fortuitous thing indeed. "warmer" dosen't necessarily mean over 0 degrees C.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.
Misrepresentation and lies.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsletter/092605.pdfHow you think you can have a scientific discussion with unsupported claims I do not know. With current trends it is quite likely there will no no summer ice at the North Pole in our lifetimes.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/12/MNGE5MTQ211.DTL&type=science
And please don't come back with some crap about a Chinese fleet, it's been refuted.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
This is a lie;
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update2.htm
You should be ashamed to spread crap like this around.
Every single contributor in that presentation is an established, peer respected, and renowned scientific expert in his field. One of the scientists was even designated by the UN (Dr. Tad Murtry) to examine the data, comment and report back on the accuracy presented in the IPCC report. None of his critical observations were taken into consideration or their validity challenged. Why? Because it did not suit the political agenda.
You really don't check your sources AT ALL, do you?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1283
So, maybe you'll actualy tell us what his SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS are??
Although historical and projected future increases in the air's CO2 concentration and its wrongly-predicted ability to lead to catastrophic global warming have been universally hailed by climate alarmists as diabolically detrimental to human health, scientific studies clearly demonstrate that such is not the case. Throughout the entire course of the Industrial Revolution, during which time the air's CO2 content rose by 35% and its near-surface temperature by about 0.6°C, there has been no detectable negative impact on human longevity. In fact, human lifespan has concurrently experienced an almost unbelievable increase that shows no signs of ultimately leveling off or even slowing down. What is more, warming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. In addition, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been shown to increase the amounts and effectiveness of disease-fighting substances found in plants that protect against various forms of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
In light of these many well-documented observations, it is abundantly clear we have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming, i.e., the "twin evils" of the extreme environmental movement. Indeed, these phenomena would appear to be our friends … and friends of the entire biosphere.
Again, no citations; if you cited accurate information I might be inclined to take your word for it but EVERY SINGLE argument you make is shown to be worthless. It is also the most hilarious straw man. No one credible is saying anything other than 'temperatures are rising due to GHG's, this will change weather patterns and change sea level, this will cause migration if severe or in expecially marginal climatatics and elevations, temperature change will also trigger change in land use, if weather worsens on the whole mortality may increase'. And I cannot recall any scientific papaer that put increases in modern lifespans down to raised CO2 as distinct from modern medicine and hygine, or any papaers claiming that human life spans will reduce because of high CO2 levels as a response to toxicity of CO2. What garbage.
elderwho
Yawn. I am surprised you can be bothered to breathe. Please go and be boring elsewhere. Ar are you elderwho is so used to getting the last word in the past, right or wrong, he doesn't understand the last word is no where near as important as the demonstrably accurate word?
Bro Apostate
L.O.G.I.C. = Lies, Onanism, Gobbledygook ,Idiocy, Crap
Well, you've learnt two words or phrases in this thread. Onanism and ad hom. No need to say thanks. What next, You gonna says 'with knobs on'? You are quite the most pathetic excuse for a troll I have seen in a long time. I remember the good old days when a troll could amuse one for days.
-
Brother Apostate
Abaddon,
Glad to see you had a safe trip to school today on the short bus.
I've fairly decent qualifications in science with a broad base. It means I can understand scientific arguments and also I understand the importance of the scientific method.
I have qualifications as well. Here is the difference between yours and mine- I have decades of real world experience, you don’t. As they say, "Those who are qualified, do, those who can’t, teach."
You truly are a mental onanist, Abaddon. You are always making the assumption that you alone are schooled in argumentation theory and logical fallacies. Here’s the point, obtuse one: You are supposed to avoid the use of them, not pepper your entire childish "rebuttal" with ad hominems, strawmen, etc.
This thread, just like all others you’ve posted your propaganda on, demonstrates clearly that you have no capacity to make other than a shallow "argument" based on your narcissistic belief that you are always right.
Your "debate" techniques, as well as responses on this thread and every other always follow the same M.O:
-bait the others to post citations
-use ad hominem attacks on the sources of those citations
-conclude that this "guilt by association" fallacy nullifies the claim of the original citation.
-oh, and "science" as used by you translates to "science that I can use to bolster my preconceived conclusion"
In a nutshell, "my opinion is always right, my sources are better than your sources, my citations are better than your citations, etc. It’s pathological and pathetic.
What you fail to realize is the same attacks could be made on your (rarely posted) pet sources and citations.
I am not the only one who notices how your claims of education are betrayed by your arrogant, narcissistic style of "debate". My observation, as well as many PMs to the same effect, is that you assume you are right because many will not "debate" you, having observed your child like style of "debate". I am not the only one who doesn’t "debate" with children. Calling someone a "troll", haughtily assuming you are "more qualified", etc, speaks volumes.
I imagine you need a special walking aid to hold your head up lest you fall over, or that you must wear a helmet at all times lest a sharp object pricks your skull and releases all that hot air.
BA- Doesn’t "debate" with children.
PS- Grow up. You opinion is just that, an opinion, not a fact.
-
hillary_step
Okay Brother Apostate,
Once again, and this represents the whole tenor of your posts to this thread, we have noted your repetitive ad hominem attacks towards any and all who have bloodied your nose in the past.
NOW, how about dealing with the matter at hand and rebutting, if you can the science that Abbadon has bought to your notice.
Are you capable of doing this?
HS
-
Brother Apostate
HS,
You clearly suffer from a lack of reading comprehension.
Too bad you can't face the facts. Your one track mind keeps repeating untruths such as "I had my nose bloodied" or some such nonsense that has already been rebutted.
I'm not surprised, as your cheerleading coach Abaddon does likewise.
BA- doesn't "debate" with children.
PS- As you were- playing with blocks and teddy bears
-
LittleToe
BA:Gyles (Abaddon) can be debated. It just takes a reasonable starting position, a comprehensive understanding of the facts and the ability to present them in a non-ambiguous manner. If you lack any of these then he'll have your guts for garters. If you can present a well-reasoned perspective he's more than reasonable in return.
Just my 2p, from a guy who regularly engages him.
-
Abaddon
Bro Apo
Haha. I knew someone with your attitude couldn't remain consistent to their own stated principles (even if I don't agree with the ad hom embedded in them). Here you are, having a debate with me, despite insisting you wouldn't do. Obviously you want some reaction from me other than the dismissal and laughter as for some curious reason you need me to react in order to validate your pathetic existence on this thread.
I have qualifications as well.
Yup. Lesser Licker of the Polished Turd, without honour.
Here is the difference between yours and mine- I have decades of real world experience, you don’t.
Yes, of course you do sweetie. 100 years old and still turning tricks. And you're enough of a buffoon to make an argument from authority using yourself as the authority. And your swinging scientific argument is? Oh, you've avoided having one. Coward.
As they say, "Those who are qualified, do, those who can’t, teach."
As I don't actually teach your failure to insult me is amusing. And 'they' would be nasty inadequates who take pot-shots at a valuable profession I assume. In your self-importnace and dislike for me, all that matters is the insult, not the facts or attacking others along with me.
You truly are a mental onanist, Abaddon.
I love the fact you haven't the originality to use your own insults. Abaddon uses Onanism so you copy. LOL.
You are always making the assumption that you alone are schooled in argumentation theory and logical fallacies. Here’s the point, obtuse one: You are supposed to avoid the use of them, not pepper your entire childish "rebuttal" with ad hominems, strawmen, etc.
And still we see this dishonest streak of micturition exceed the almost transcendent level of hypocrisy and idiocy he's thus far attained. In his responses to me he has not yet dealt with the scientific arguments ONCE, unless I missed one in the drivel of ad homs his responses to me have consisted of. And note how he can't illustrate his accusations of straw men (another term cribbed off screen in this discussion I guess), just say I do it. Where, liar ?
Still failing to deal with facts. I have a feeling you are one of these people who thinks the determination of facts in science is like the determination of what band is best in music.This thread, just like all others you’ve posted your propaganda on, demonstrates clearly that you have no capacity to make other than a shallow "argument" based on your narcissistic belief that you are always right.
Your "debate" techniques, as well as responses on this thread and every other always follow the same M.O:
-bait the others to post citations
-use ad hominem attacks on the sources of those citations
-conclude that this "guilt by association" fallacy nullifies the claim of the original citation.
-oh, and "science" as used by you translates to "science that I can use to bolster my preconceived conclusion"
Again, dishonestly, you fail to either deal with the scientific responses I have given to those self-same citations. I just add in the obvious and demonstrable lack of credibility to illustrate the level of effort the anti posse put into their research. Of course, you could attempt to show I am wrong to question the credibility of the sources given, or that the rebuttals of the anti-posses nonsense are wrong, but as you can't you lie and whine.
In a nutshell, "my opinion is always right, my sources are better than your sources, my citations are better than your citations, etc. It’s pathological and pathetic.
You really do have massive level of resentment. Not so much a chip on your shoulder as a sack of potatoes on each shoulder. Thus far I have pretty much proved my sources ARE better. No one else has really bothered, although I've not read you repeat the same routine with hillary as it bored me when you did it to me. I got enough of your 'flavour' from his responses to you, most enjoyable they were. Frank tried but himself down with poor research.
What you fail to realize is the same attacks could be made on your (rarely posted) pet sources and citations.
More lies as I often cite my sources, and will provide citations to anything I don't support with a source on request.
More lies as a pathetic little piece of web-trash such as yourself would break their fingers typing if they could refute something decently.
I am not the only one who notices how your claims of education are betrayed by your arrogant, narcissistic style of "debate". My observation, as well as many PMs to the same effect, is that you assume you are right because many will not "debate" you, having observed your child like style of "debate". I am not the only one who doesn’t "debate" with children. Calling someone a "troll", haughtily assuming you are "more qualified", etc, speaks volumes.
You do realise that apart from people of a similar bent, no one believes a word you type as they can see, although I can be caustic and sarcastic, I actually do back my argument up with facts. As you have lied and falsely attacked people on this thread and others (and I can prove this with your own words), I see no reason to believe a word you say. And so what if you have some PM's from the hard of understanding? The easiest way to shut me up is to show me I am wrong using decent credible science. And I don't ever see that coming from you or your friends, imaginary or otherwise.
I imagine you need a special walking aid to hold your head up lest you fall over, or that you must wear a helmet at all times lest a sharp object pricks your skull and releases all that hot air.
BA- Doesn’t "debate" with children.
You just debated with me, idiot. Although I dispute your classification of me, the fact you contradict yourself further illustrates the depths of looserdom you will plumb.
PS- Grow up. You opinion is just that, an opinion, not a fact.
Yup, you obviously feel scientific discussion is like discussing which contestant is best on American Idol. How drool. Some opinions can be demonstrated to be facts. Of course the fact you re entitled to your own opinion but NOT your own facts will come as a surprise to you.
Oh, whilst I am happy to get as good as I give and vica versa on threads where there is a spirited debate, do not continue to attack me personally on other threads. You attacked me without provocation in this thread, and attacked me specifically when I pointed out in general the attacks made on Al Gore (in the first thread you attacked me in) were straw men and ad homs - again facts the threads will show to be true. I am sure other people do not want your campaign to get Abaddon to spill onto yet other threads and spoil their enjoyment of more polite reasoned debates. I suspect you care so little for other posters you will be incapable of being civilized as your own hate-campaign is far more important to you. To make it very simple I'll probably not bother replying to you again.
Now, I think the nice man in a white coat wants to take you out of the Media Centre as they need to clean your chair...
-
hillary_step
BA,
Just to add to the post just made by Abbadon, and in evidence of my claims that your posts on this thread are due to the fact that Abbadon bloodied your nose in the past, I now present your own post in reply to Abbadon's GENERAL remarks on this thread. Please note, that until that point no post had been made by Abbadon to you. This was an unprovoked attack on YOUR part on him. Please note that it is also COMPLETE ad hominem
Perhaps you might explian why you made this post in such a fashion. After this is would be interesting to read what you actually know about the subject at hand. So far you have not made any contributions at all toward the subject of the thread, apart from attacking Abbadon and myself with ad hominem of course.
lol,....What a pillock. You claim not to 'debate with children'. We can all see, those who have followed this thread, that you are actually incapable of understanding the basic tenets of debate and that you are still saturated in WTS methodology.
HSDecoding Abbaddon-speak, lesson one
1. my point regarding is NOT an = Translation: I am the queen of denial
2. Be careful with your sloppy accusations = Translation: I’m too narcissistic to realize my own accusations are sloppy
3. I am virually(sic) pleading for people to discuss the science = Translation: I will disagree with all science that doesn’t suit my preconceived conclusion
4. My main interest is arguably discussing the science, so far the change-deniers et. al. seem to avoid it like the plague(sic). = Translation: Boo hoo, why won’t somebody argue with my preconceived conclusions (and citations that I just know are right because they agree with my preconceived conclusions) so I can continue my mindless ranting?
5. by their statements shows they don't begin to understand the scientific argument. = Translation: I refuse to look in the mirror
6. Why don't you ALSO apply it to the fact all lobby groups against global warming being a fact are supported by vested interests who would lose money if we tried to limit further environmental damage? =Translation: I have never considered the fact that the reverse is also true (Editors note: substitute against = for, and lose = make)
7. It really is so like the tobacco industries support of 'scientists' and lobby groups who were aplogists(sic) for the damage smoking causes (which they supported as they stood to lose money if they didn't make a counter argument), but people seem unwilling to discuss the similarities = Translation: I can’t see that this is a straw man, as well as an association fallacy, in that there is proof that smoking causes cancer, but no conclusive proof that human activity is responsible for other than a minute portion of the warming trend.
8. majority of scientists(sic) are concerned = Translation: I like to misuse words like "majority", that is, the majority of those that agree with my preconceived notions.
9. If my statement that there is no forcing from the sun to account for current climatic trends is incorrect(sic), please show me. (See Translation 3, above).
10. If it is correct, please give me (with evidence) what forcing IS causing recent trends? = Translation: I want you to post what you believe, with your citations that back up your belief, so I can then bash your sources, citations, and beliefs. In short, I just want to argue with you.
11. If it is correct, please give me (with evidence) what forcing IS causing recent trends? = Translation: I want to call you names and disagree with conclusions that don’t agree with my conclusion
12. regurgitated propaganda = Translation: doesn’t agree with my pet propaganda
13. as this is as over-used by that lobby as the little puffs of debris coming out the WTC windows a few stories below the collapse is over-used by the 911 conspiracists. = Translation: I enjoy arguing from fallacy, e.g,
"All dogs are animals. Blacky is an animal. This means Blacky is a dog."14.
science gets stuff wrong = Translation: I don’t apply this statement to the science and citations that agree with my conclusion, just science and citations that don’t agree with my conclusion.15. Really difficult to find reasned(sic) discussion = Translation: Really difficult to find people to argue with and hurl insults at because they don’t agree with my conclusion, also, see Translation 4 above
16. thus sometime my exasperation as I know how easy it is to find stuff out if you're bothered enough, or check out the veracity of claims = Translation: I won’t take my blinders off and realize that others who disagree with my conclusion have come to their conclusions by doing thusly.
17. To those not arsed enough to read it, the key points are = Translation: these "key" points are the ones that agree with my conclusion
18. a call for more research , not a prediction = Translation: I’ll continue to spew my insults at all who don’t agree with my predictive conclusions, regardless
19. other than regurgitation of classic anti-change lobby arguments which are easily dismissed = Translation: I will continue to dismiss all science and citations that don’t agree with my conclusion
20. no anti-change supporter has really engaged in the science of the argument. = Translation: See Translation 4, above
22. It seems a certain side in this discussion wants to swagger around declaiming their rightness and the foolishnehss(sic) of the other side of the argument, but aren't prepared to back it up in a proper scientific discussion. = Translation: See Translation 5, above
23. More regurgitated(sic) nonsense thatasimple check online would reveal as nonsense will be treated appropriately. = Translation: See Translation 4 and 16, above
BA- this concludes our lesson, class dismissed.
-
Brother Apostate
LT,
I always enjoy your reasoned, mature approach to discussions on JWD. I am simply calling Gyles on the carpet based on his immature style, as pointed out numerous times in this thread.
BA:Gyles (Abaddon) can be debated. It just takes a reasonable starting position, a comprehensive understanding of the facts and the ability to present them in a non-ambiguous manner. If you lack any of these then he'll have your guts for garters. If you can present a well-reasoned perspective he's more than reasonable in return.
Just my 2p, from a guy who regularly engages him.
I have pointed out where I (and many others) feel it is useless, just a waste of time. What passes as debate is really just baiting the argument, then assailing the sources. I have seen absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
I've got no beef with Abaddon or his cheerleaders, other than that what he's up to isn't debate.
That's just my 2p, from a guy who regularly observes his use of fallacies.
BA- Wishing you the best, LT!
-
metatron
Record low temps in New York City
Biggest snowfall in half century in China
Lowest temperatures for February in Toronto in 28 years
metatron