Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

[bigus_D]

Thanks for the detailed rebutal to the science.

Oh, wait. I see no alternative data provided.

VICTORIOUS YET AGAIN!

If you can't provide scientific data to support your position, you really should just admit it.

 

[dburkhead]

Thanks for the detailed rebutal to the science.

Oh, wait. I see no alternative data provided.

Didn't need to provide "alternate data" because the contents of the paper were sufficient to refute itself. The paper basically said, "our models weren't matching the guesses we made based on just a few measurements made in a really large system so we changed the way we made the guesses so that they would better match the models."

The academicese of the paper made it sound important but that's really all it said.

VICTORIOUS YET AGAIN!

Why thank you. I know those words look like English but on your world they must mean "I've got nothing."

If you can't provide scientific data to support your position, you really should just admit it.

There's no need when you are so kind as point me to the AGW proponents who rebut themselves. They changed the guesses so that they matched the modesl and they stopped making measurements/guesses about the time that the curve leveled off so that they can claim that it didn't level off.

Can you imagine if Michaelson and Morley and all their colleagues had taken the same approach when their measurements didn't match the Aether model? All of modern physics would never have happened. Or how about Galileo? I'm not talking about his astronomical work but his work on falling bodies and laws of motion (important precursors to Newton's work).

You see, in real science when the data doesn't match your theory, it's the theory that goes, not the data. Yet in the paper your beloved "skeptical science" site cites what it described is a means of making the data fit the theory. This is exactly backwards and completely contrary to science.

When the data doesn't fit your models, you don't just keep looking for "estimating" approaches until one produces results you want, even if you think the fault really might be in bad data. In the latter case, you try to get better data--and that means better measurement data, not searching through "estimation" techniques until one fits.

You can "prove" anything if you get to make up your data (which is what they are doing here). And you can prove almost anything if you get to exclude data that doesn't fit (which is what the CRU did).

 

[bigus_D]

Didn't need to provide "alternate data" because the contents of the paper were sufficient to refute itself. The paper basically said, "our models weren't matching the guesses we made based on just a few measurements made in a really large system so we changed the way we made the guesses so that they would better match the models."

The academicese of the paper made it sound important but that's really all it said.



Why thank you. I know those words look like English but on your world they must mean "I've got nothing."



There's no need when you are so kind as point me to the AGW proponents who rebut themselves. They changed the guesses so that they matched the modesl and they stopped making measurements/guesses about the time that the curve leveled off so that they can claim that it didn't level off.

Can you imagine if Michaelson and Morley and all their colleagues had taken the same approach when their measurements didn't match the Aether model? All of modern physics would never have happened. Or how about Galileo? I'm not talking about his astronomical work but his work on falling bodies and laws of motion (important precursors to Newton's work).

You see, in real science when the data doesn't match your theory, it's the theory that goes, not the data. Yet in the paper your beloved "skeptical science" site cites what it described is a means of making the data fit the theory. This is exactly backwards and completely contrary to science.

When the data doesn't fit your models, you don't just keep looking for "estimating" approaches until one produces results you want, even if you think the fault really might be in bad data. In the latter case, you try to get better data--and that means better measurement data, not searching through "estimation" techniques until one fits.

You can "prove" anything if you get to make up your data (which is what they are doing here). And you can prove almost anything if you get to exclude data that doesn't fit (which is what the CRU did).

blah blah blah...

If the science doesn't jive with your world view, just say that it is flawed. That should do the trick.

So, now that I've provided the science you were so eager to see, and you've completely ignored it, where does the 'debate' go from here? Oh yea, by the way, what are we debating again? Is it all the pro Al Gore commentary I've provided?

This is fun.

I AM VICTORIOUS YET AGAIN!

p.s. This 'debate' is just a little too easy for me. I think I'll stop trying and start posting "last word" rebutalls from now on instead.

 

[bigus_D]

LAST WORD!

VICTORY!

 

[dburkhead]

blah blah blah...

Translation "Biggus_D doesn't understand what was said and hopes that no one will notice."

If the science doesn't jive with your world view, just say that it is flawed. That should do the trick.

The irony of that statement, considering that the paper itself was about changing the data because it doesn't match the AGW worldview is just staggering.

And no, I say that it's flawed because I can point out, and have pointed out, the flaws. That you don't understand that is your problem, not mine.

So, now that I've provided the science you were so eager to see, and you've completely ignored it, where does the 'debate' go from here? Oh yea, by the way, what are we debating again? Is it all the pro Al Gore commentary I've provided?

I haven't ignored it. I've demonstrated that it isn't science at all. At this point you cannot possibly not know that youre "points" have been addressed repeatedly. Claiming that they are "ignored" no longer falls into the category of misunderstanding. Nope. At this point I call it as I see it: you are lying.

This is fun.

For someone with the emotional maturity you've demonstrated here, I suppose it is.

I AM VICTORIOUS YET AGAIN!

So once again you've got nothing.

Seriously, who are you trying to fool? You know you've got nothing. I know you've got nothing. The peanut gallery knows you've got nothing. All these constant claims of "Victory" do is make you look like a child.

p.s. This 'debate' is just a little too easy for me. I think I'll stop trying and start posting "last word" rebutalls from now on instead.

And my estimate of your emotional maturity goes down yet farther... and that's saying something.

 

[dburkhead]

LAST WORD!

VICTORY!

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Welcome to my ignore list.

Now real progess has been made.
In before the :dumbass: attempts a rebuttal.

 

[bigus_D]

Welcome to my ignore list.

LAST WORD!

SUCCESS!!!

 

[rambone]

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

DANCE , I SAID ! DANCE !!

 

[SavageEagle]

Ding dong the thread is dead the thread is dead the tread is dead! Ding dong the... Oh. Sorry. My bad.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Ding dong the thread is dead the thread is dead the tread is dead! Ding dong the... Oh. Sorry. My bad.

There is still hope.

Or maybe not.

 

[SavageEagle]

WHERE'S REDNECKMEDIC?!?!?! WE NEED A MEDIC IN HERE STAT!

 

[CarmelHP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM

 

[5.56'aholic]

its nice to see that even the local AGW supporters stoop to the same b.s. tactics that the media heads do. No wonder the b.s. keeps perpetuating itself, as it is the old "if it is repeated enough times," it becomes truth mentality.

 

[BloodEclipse]

its nice to see that even the local AGW supporters stoop to the same b.s. tactics that the media heads do. No wonder the b.s. keeps perpetuating itself, as it is the old "if it is repeated enough times," it becomes truth mentality.

WTH is an AGW supporter?

 

[SavageEagle]

Anti-Gore-Whore.

 

[5.56'aholic]

WTH is an AGW supporter?

a complete idiot , yeah, now that i read it it kinda makes it sound like we support global warming, lol

 

[CarmelHP]

a complete idiot , yeah, now that i read it it kinda makes it sound like we support global warming, lol

I think I'm with the Minnesotans, bring it on!

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Oh, W.T.H. :

EBG is a pompous ass:

Oh... i get it now... YOU are right, and I am wrong.

We could have been done with this a long time ago if you had just said that!

p.s. The only other people I've ever met who's [[[[ WHOSE ]]]] writting appears as arrogant as yours are pompous a-holes. Please don't take this sentence to be comparing you to those pompous a-holes, because I understand your Venn diagram logic now! (i.e. when somebody says that one thing is like another thing, there is actually no assertion that there is an intersection of attributes between the two groups.)