Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

It's not always black & white...

Weather station temperature claims are overheated, report claims Read more: www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Fascinating, if not entirely connected response, as usual. I'm not sure that I agree with your specific contentions with my post, but your ability to talk a lot about a little has always fascinated me, and makes for some pretty reading nonetheless. star to you for verbosity!

reply to post by stanguilles7


When you can't argue the facts presented, there's always logical fallacy for you to fall back on. You have gone from pretending to know something about climate change to merely empty rhetoric. Climate change is nothing new for the planet Earth. This has to be a part of the foundation that is understood, not implicitly but expressly if any reasonable discussion can move forward regarding the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. That is, if you really wanted to do the research.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

When you can't argue the facts presented, there's always logical fallacy for you to fall back on. You have gone from pretending to know something about climate change to merely empty rhetoric.

Nope. But now you are. I actually made no contention with your point, just observed it didnt actually relate to my post. You seem to have a thing for me. Ive noticed you do it a lot.

We've actually stated several pists in this thread which are in total agreement, so i dont know why you are trying to argue something i didnt even state.

Climate change is nothing new for the planet Earth. This has to be a part of the foundation that is understood, not implicitly but expressly if any reasonable discussion can move forward regarding the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. That is, if you really wanted to do the research.

Again, your trying to argue a point i didnt make. But again, its still fun to read. I'll give you another one of those stars you like.

reply to post by stanguilles7

I actually made no contention with your point, just observed it didnt actually relate to my post. You seem to have a thing for me. Ive noticed you do it a lot.

Personalizing an argument is yet another logical fallacy. You took a member to task for posting a brief assertion without supplying any data, I reply to that post you made taking a member to task and you replied to my post by complaining of its links and the confusion the data I offered caused you. The argument you made to AwakeinNM was based on the assumption that member had not done a proper amount of research to make the brief post he did. I took issue with that argument and would take issue with that argument regardless of who makes the argument. Attempting to personalize criticism of an argument does not strengthen any perception you might hope to have created earlier of being knowledgeable enough, at least enough to castigate other members for not being as informed as you. Speaking to your knowledge of the subject would be wiser.

We've actually stated several pists in this thread which are in total agreement, so i dont know why you are trying to argue something i didnt even state.

What you did was inexplicably take another member to task for what you thought was a lack of knowledge on the subject. There was not enough evidence in that members post to justify such an assumption. Since you seem to want to push people to contributing knowledge, then I am unclear why you would then get agitated because I provided links to data that helped to inform a knowledge base regarding this subject. It was clear by my initial post to you that I was challenging you on imprudently taking another member to task regarding data while you let yourself off the hook for the same thing. I used the data set I did to allow for an actual dialogue to take place regarding the issue of anthropogenic climate change and its veracity.

You were given an opportunity to speak to the simple science of earlier known climates on Earth as a jumping point for actual discussion that would better inform those you want to take to task. You declined and instead are now making fallacious arguments that have nothing to do with the actual topic of this thread. Sigh.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Yes. It is the only rebuttal necessary to logical fallacy. There is nothing to challenge.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes,, I, too, enjoy the globular and eloquent disgoring of superfluous verbiage. It's quite titillating, to say as little as possible given the parameters of the discourse. Furthermore, your propensity towards parrying with abodes of straw is most entertaining, even if, like the sunrise and sunset, can be clocked with an accuracy that predates modern times. In short, my hat off to you and yours, for you are one of the truly gifted.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Yes. It is the only rebuttal necessary to logical fallacy. There is nothing to challenge.

Indeed. Fallacious logic, to be sweet and to the point, without having too much of a go-round about it. In short, and without dragging the point out too much, it's merely a copiously-worded and nearly overflowing abundance of pixels forming words which are meant to drage one further and further away from realizing that while one is being quite wordy, they arent saying a damn thing, and certainly not actually debating a point I ever made.

Originally posted by mc_squared

Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds

The Earth's land has warmed by 1.5C over the past 250 years and "humans are almost entirely the cause", according to a scientific study set up to address climate change sceptics' concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

Prof Richard Muller, a physicist and climate change sceptic who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) project, said he was surprised by the findings. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He added that he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

For the mainstream climate science community - this "new" study is of course hardly groundbreaking, and simply belongs in the #tellussomethingwedontalreadyknow department...


However it is interesting because the Berkeley analysis team not only consists of a few prominent (or I guess now - former) climate skeptics like Richard Muller, but it was also notoriously funded by some extremely shady sources like the Koch Brothers (I wonder if they can get their money back?):

The funding for the project included $150,000 from the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate and key backer of the climate-sceptic Heartland Institute thinktank.

So it was for these reasons that last year, before the team announced their findings, they were the venerable darlings of the online climate "skeptic"/blog science community, with prominent blogger Anthony Watts going so far as to state:

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. If the project was terminated tomorrow, nobody loses jobs, no large government programs get shut down, and no dependent programs crash either. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.

Of course when the Berkeley team made their results (that showed global warming to be real) public last year, he immediately changed his tune - attacking them for anything he could throw at them.


Watts list of grievances on why the study was "flawed":

- it had only been accepted for peer-review at the time, but not yet actually peer-reviewed (even though Watts notoriously posts and promotes non-peer-reviewed "science" on his blog every day - as long as it's skeptical of AGW). *PS the Berkeley analysis has since been peer-reviewed and published.

- it examined data over a 60-year period rather than the 30-year window Watts preferred to cherrypick focus on. (So analyzing a larger sample size and doing twice as much work apparently makes it less robust).

- the not-yet-peer-reviewed paper had spelling errors. (seriously)



Many other skeptics at the time seemed to accept the results, going so far as to say "duh, we already knew it's been warming" but then immediately pointing out that their beef is with the idea that humans are the cause.



...
So now that the Berkeley team has done supplementary research and announced that -

humans are almost entirely the cause

...it will be interesting to see what sort of back-pedaling excuses the remaining camp of so-called skeptics come up with. I'm not saying they have to accept this result (or else!) - but it provides for an interesting benchmark in separating real skeptics from phony ones.

Real ones will need to take this evidence into context with the enormous pile already in place that shows modern warming to be primarily man made. While the rest will no doubt ignore all that yet again, and try to deflect focus on spelling errors and tinfoil conspiracies.



(Then they'll probably cry something about how unfairly people label them 'deniers', while muttering what a 'religion' belief in AGW clearly is)

My only reply to any of this global warming crap is when did we forget about past ice ages, temperate and tropical periods on earth? They have happened all over the earth for as long as we can imagine. Ice, super hot and dry, mild and wet, warm and humid. It happens over and over and over again. We can find the cycles in fossil layers, even in the layers of ice left on the caps. We know when the last ice age started and we've been lucky to witness it receding. Get over it. We may have an impact, but it's organic. The crap we've spewed out that is not organic. Sure it's causing damage, and maybe it will accelerate the rates, but there is no chemical man can create, that can't happen in nature. There are conditions on earth that create all sorts of things, and we merely replicate them. They will break down, maybe after we die, but they will. It's just getting old. Planets warm and they cool.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Yes,, I, too, enjoy the globular and eloquent disgoring of superfluous verbiage. It's quite titillating, to say as little as possible given the parameters of the discourse. Furthermore, your propensity towards parrying with abodes of straw is most entertaining, even if, like the sunrise and sunset, can be clocked with an accuracy that predates modern times. In short, my hat off to you and yours, for you are one of the truly gifted.

Would that you find the courage of conviction and the reasonableness of critical thought to simply just take up the very challenge you set, and actually have a discussion of facts on the implications of a anthropogenic climate change theory. Instead you waste everyone's time with nonsense.

Rather than waste your time posturing phony compliments, why not just speak plainly and clearly on what you mean by "It's a shame you dont take the time to actually understand the arguments you think you are disagreeing with"? How could you have possibly ascertained this by the brief post that he made? What precisely about that brief post struck you as "straw man"? Just what the hell is it that you think you understand about this issue?

Not even reading what is sure to be a huge amount of ignorant rants on both sides of a political (not scientific) topic. I'm sure many will point out the rational idea that 7+Billion and growing human beings, increasingly using high technology, just might--maybe-- have an affect on the planet.
Things may come up such as the fact that CERN (the most respected scientific body on the planet) recently concluded that solar activity has a much bigger affect on earth's climate than any earth activity. But I doubt it. Especially since Euro bureaucrats put a gag order on actual scientists. Or the fact that the one well respected science journal that published these findings was largely shut down. A respected peer reviewed journal was undone by political correctness.
Later, a NASA study was undermined by US bureaucrats bc it found that over 20% of carbon dioxide escaped the atmosphere than "the models" previously allowed.

But, as you would expect, bureaucrats and media do not allow that to penetrate the skull of pop propaganda.

If you really believe the propaganda, you are not only the epitome of the numbskull you think you are superior to, you are far beneath the Jesus loving rightnwingers you wrongly believe yourself smarter than.
Congratulations!!!!!
But yes, call me "dumb" and tell me how my personal and local sovereignty (and yours) should be destroyed to "save us all"!!!!!
Idiots

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I understand that your intent is to try and frame me into either the 'denier' camp' or the al gore camp. All I've pointed out is that there is far more to the issue than such simplifications, from either 'side'. If you prefer to deal in such simplifications, thats fine, but i see no reason to engage in a debate which argues points i never made.

There is an enormous amount of info out there on the subject, and i tire of those who try and reduce it to the soundbites you and the one you are defending seem to relish. Such claims like 'its been hot before' really doesnt address any of it. It's a straw man, which is what i have pointed out.

I'm sure there are several in this thread who would revel at the chance to engage in the black and white dichotomy you so crave. But I am not one. better luck with them, friend...

reply to post by stanguilles7


All you've done is sputter your own simplifications heavily fortified with off topic posts and logical fallacies. You cannot have it both ways, taking others to task for the very ignorance you reveal in spades. Either you can speak to the science of the argument or you cannot. Thus far, what you've demonstrated is that you cannot. It's a shame you don't take the time to actually understand the arguments you think you are disagreeing with.

reply to post by TSZodiac


You try to put the burden of proof on us to say global climate change is real. Under the standard excepted practices of the world the burden of proof is on the person making changes that effect things. When industrialization started polluting the earth noone challenged the things we did. Just because it wasn't challenged the statuette of limitation was not changed and industrialization still has to prove it's actions are not destroying the environment. If what I say was not true the governments of the world would not be able to pass any laws to lower pollution by people or force companies to curb emissions or toxic releases into the environment. Since it is evident that they can it is proof that for the good of the people applies.

If you think I lost you are a little weird. Your evidence is not very good at all, inferior to most of the other evidence I have seen on ATS on other threads.. Intimidation will not work on me, I have enough confidence and have researched both sides of this extensively. You do not win anything. How does your use of the tooth fairy apply to this conversation. Are you a young kid or something?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

All you've done is sputter your own simplifications heavily fortified with off topic posts and logical fallacies. You cannot have it both ways, taking others to task for the very ignorance you reveal in spades. Either you can speak to the science of the argument or you cannot. Thus far, what you've demonstrated is that you cannot. It's a shame you don't take the time to actually understand the arguments you think you are disagreeing with.

"Sputtering". Nice characterization. A good tool in your chest, im sure.


Yes, you do seem to keep saying that, regardless of its accuracy.

Ive stated my point several times in his thread, and its there for review, which is, in short; Climate Science is a complicated, evolving subject, and those on either 'side' who wish to pretend its as cut and dry as your friend you are defending has do little to promote scientific understanding. Saying 'it's been warm before' is a horridly simple straw man.

As Ive also previously stated, I understand your need to simply this debate into the All or Nothing crowd, but as ive clearly lined out, i reject those simplifications on either side. Science is not football, where one chooses a team and roots for them to the end. You seem deeply invested in one 'side'. As my posts in this trhead are evidence, i point out both what i see as the truths and fallacies in both sides. That rarely goes over well in these threads, where so many scurry to the comfort of their per-determined side.

A good eve to you. As always, I enjoy and appreciate the effort you put into what you do.

reply to post by stanguilles7


All complications are understood by simplifying. Simplify, simplify, simplify. It is not enough to hide behind the curtain of "too complicated", particularly when you think it prudent to castigate others for avoiding the same complexities you now avoid. Nothing is "too complicated" that it cannot be understood.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

All complications are understood by simplifying. Simplify, simplify, simplify. It is not enough to hide behind the curtain of "too complicated", particularly when you think it prudent to castigate others for avoiding the same complexities you now avoid. Nothing is "too complicated" that it cannot be understood.

Wow. Really? Thats really noteworthy on your part.

Can you explain the entire body of information out on 'climate science' for us? I would definitely appreciate that.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I began by first clarifying your ridiculously sloppy use of the word carbon, and then by following with an acknowledgement of several earlier ice ages not caused by humanity, and you have steadfastly run from those arguments insisting it is all "too complicated". Quit hiding if you want to play and speak to what has all ready been addressed. Stop pretending the law of parsimony would be no help in regards to anthropogenic climate change.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I began by first clarifying your ridiculously sloppy use of the word carbon,

Yes.

and then by following with an acknowledgement of several earlier ice ages not caused by humanity,

I'm sorry, can you show me where i contested that?

and you have steadfastly run from those arguments insisting it is all "too complicated".

Hardly, especially considering i never made any contention to claims of previous ice ages. I agree, the earth has cycles. Where have i stated differently?

Stop pretending the law of parsimony would be no help in regards to anthropogenic climate change.

lulz

I stated that one cant simplify science into soundbites, and that saying 'its been warm before' is not a realistic refutation of climate science.

But you sure do say nuthin real purty.

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by mc_squared

 

Yes, cow farts and SUV's are melting polar caps on Mars and changing the weather on Jupiter, it didn't need those bright pesky bands anyway, they were just decoration. Isn't it odd how all the planets in the solar system we can actively measure have new "hotter" weather patterns?

Admittedly, humans may be contributing by some fraction to "global temperature change" but I still go with the majority of the thermal change is being caused by the Sun in conjunction with the small tubular nebula in the spiral arm we are entering. More gas between the sun and the planets equals more thermal conductivity equals a proportional increase in temperature in the solar system.

WTF?

What physical evidence do you have that anything in that paragraph is realistic compared to people who know physics?

What fraction of "Thermal conductivity" contributes to heat flux on the Earth? What is the "thermal conductivity" forcing vs radiative forcing? Numbers and experimental evidence, please.