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

[Roadie]

Seen this thread by chance?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...66138-uk_media_tears_open_global_warming.html

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

 

[dburkhead]

Wait. I could tell.. i could tell very quickly that you arguements DID NOT HOLD WATER!

And yet the best you've got is cut and paste or just bald assertion. I have yet to see you actually discuss an actual issue. I'm still waiting for a single cogent comment from you on any of the issues that have been raised. You claim that they don't hold water but seem incapable of pointing to and describing the holes. (Alternative is that you are quite capable of doing so but choose not to, but that leads to other questions such that "incapable" is the kinder interpretation so I give you the benefit of the doubt.)

Wait... Yes, each of them is clearly supported. Take a breath and come back to reality.

No, actually, they aren't. Repeating it over and over again is not going to make it true.

Sure, I may not gain much ground with these conservative nut cases, but then again, do I really expect to? No offense intended to all of you conservative tin-foil heads!

And what flavor is your kool-aid? Just wondering.

Add "insult and invective" to "cut and paste" and "argument by repeated assertion" in your toolbox of debate skills.

Your posts don't make any sense. Just because YOU SAY they are the teaching of a master scientist doesn't make it so. I mean, seriously... come on dude.

And whether you think they make sense or not doesn't make it so. Frankly, if you had anything other than feelings you'd present it. You don't.

If my argument is weak, then the entire AGW case is weak? What fallacy is that oh great and knowledgeable one?

Since all you've got is cut and paste from others arguments and these are the best you can find, then that's pretty telling about what there is to find right there.

If there is really better than what you've presented, why haven't you been able to find it? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt of being a reasonably intelligent human being (as in one who does not deliberately use less than the best arguments he has available in a debate) with reasonably good google-fu. I just tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the person in front of me (virtually speaking in this case) rather than the faceless masses. If you'd rather I didn't....

 

[dburkhead]

Seen this thread by chance?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...66138-uk_media_tears_open_global_warming.html

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

I didn't see Kirk's thread, but I did post the relevant information (along with several other sources for the same release, including the original release in Russian) in a post uptopic:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tic_ice_claims_don_t_add_up-9.html#post723812

 

[bigus_D]

Please elaborate...

They did not know they wrote a paper? huh? Or they didn't agree with the fact that the paper they wrote expressed skepticism of GW?

The real authors couldn't come up with 500 scientists (they didn't call dburkhead I guess), so they threw some extras in because 455 scientists doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[dburkhead]

The real authors couldn't come up with 500 scientists (they didn't call dburkhead I guess), so they threw some extras in because 455 scientists doesn't have the same ring to it.

But it's okay when the AGW crowd do it?

 

[Roadie]

The real authors couldn't come up with 500 scientists (they didn't call dburkhead I guess), so they threw some extras in because 455 scientists doesn't have the same ring to it.

Ah, thanks for the clarification..

However, 455 PEER REVIEWED papers is still a lot more than the "none" as proposed by some pro-GW folks..

 

[rambone]

8"Ice age predicted in the 70s"1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming.

LOL. Media based! A "scientist" named John Holdren wrote a book about the impending doom of coming Ice Age in the 1970s. He's not part of the media. In fact, his "knowledge" is so esteemed that President Barack Obama chose him to be his "Science Czar," working with him in the White House to shape legislation.

Obama's Science Czar John Holdren: Ice Age will kill 1 Billion People

I hear that he has changed his tune, and now hopes to amplify government power in the name of global warming instead of global cooling. Some things change, some things stay the same. The goal is about growing government. Yes we can.

 

[bigus_D]

But it's okay when the AGW crowd do it?

Now you are just sticking words in my mouth.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Sure, I may not gain much ground with these conservative nut cases, but then again, do I really expect to? No offense intended to all of you conservative tin-foil heads!




If my argument is weak, then the entire AGW case is weak? What fallacy is that oh great and knowledgeable one?

Who is wearing the tin foil, Mr. The sky is falling?

AGW, the fact you have to call it Anti is telling. For you it seems proven science when it is anything but.
Is this you?

 

[dross]

dburkhead is the King Arthur of INGO science debates:

YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

Yes, exactly. In fact, I almost feel sorry for the poor little troll at this point. It's almost...no, it IS pathetic.

This thread should be required reading to understand the mindset that wants to and will believe whatever it started to believe, regardless that it is clearly and exhaustingly demonstrated that its beliefs are based on nothing it can defend.

What's funny about this argument is that dburkhead has made it clear he isn't even saying that there's no warming or that man hasn't caused a)warming, b)cooling, c)temperature stability. If I'm summing up correctly, all he's saying is that we don't know and that those who claim to know can't back it up, and that the argument is still very much on the table.

It's telling that even that is considered heresy.

Global warming believers = socialists = no dissent allowed.

 

[bigus_D]

Who is wearing the tin foil, Mr. The sky is falling?

AGW, the fact you have to call it Anti is telling. For you it seems proven science when it is anything but.
Is this you?

Oh, I only wish I had that much hair!

 

[bigus_D]

What's funny about this argument is that dburkhead has made it clear he isn't even saying that there's no warming or that man hasn't caused a)warming, b)cooling, c)temperature stability.

The fact is that this is what I am saying.

Here is my first post... the one that got him ranting against me.

The fact is that the earth is getting warmer. NO DOUBT IN ANY EDUCATED MIND IN THE WORLD. The suggestion that this change is going to help people (because they work outside and it will be more comfortable, or whatever) is as lame as the claims that warming isn't happening (because this winter was so cold, or whatever). Millions of people will be completed F'd as temperatures rise (THERE IS NO DOUBT).

The first question is weather (ha) or not we are contributing to the warming. No matter the answer to that question, the next question should be can/should we be doing something to change the current trend.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil is (IMHO) the position of the extreme right on this issue. I could care less if science can prove that humans are the main cause of the warming, the fact is that it IS happening... it is wrong of US to do nothing leaving our children with a world in worse shape than when we were born.

p.s. Al Gore is a riding the green wave and padding his pockets with every opportunity. My statements above are in no way an endorcement for his actions/positions/etc.

Funny how the actual point was completely lost... funny but not surprising. rants will do that to ya.

 

[dburkhead]

Now you are just sticking words in my mouth.

No, I was asking you a question. Since there have been instances of pro-AGW papers where scientists, whose work was used but who disagree with the paper and its conclusions were included as "authors" and are included among those scientists who are supposed to be part of the "consensus" I wondered if you'd criticize that as much as you criticize the other side.

 

[Roadie]

I'm sorry, but the assertion that:

The fact is that the earth is getting warmer. NO DOUBT IN ANY EDUCATED MIND IN THE WORLD.

is extremely pompous. For example:

Ice In The Greenhouse: Earth May Be Cooling, Not Warming

An educator from Old Dominion University....this is just one quick example found by a cursory Google search.

If you want to say there are many scientists that believe the earth is getting warmer, fine, but a blanket statement like yours has no basis in fact. There are too many variables. Warming how much? Short term or long term? Define short term. Define long term.

The FACTS are that there are many scientists on either side of the fence. Even if there are more on the GW side, so what? Since when is science "majority rule" when it comes to unproven theories?

 

[dburkhead]

The fact is that this is what I am saying.

Here is my first post... the one that got him ranting against me.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Your use of loaded language BS ("rant") to dismiss any disagreement with your statements is one sign of an argument weak on facts and logic. It's the fallacy of "appeal to emotion."

Funny how the actual point was completely lost... funny but not surprising. rants will do that to ya.

And, yes, you do completely lose the point(s).

Case in point. In what you call a "rant" I state that:

1) The situation with regards to climate is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Data is dropped, data is "cherry picked," Interpolations are made over far more the "effect length" of the measurements being made (called "undersampling" in analysis), and other errors are made making the uncertainty in the final results large compared to the effect being measured. While I agree that (on the century or so level) the world is probably warming, the whole "no reasonable person can disagree" vibe is unjustified.

2) Despite claims that are made otherwise, climate is not well enough understood to draw conclusions on what effect, if any, human action has on it.

3) Since even the predicted changes (with all the flaws that the predictions have) are within the range of normal variation even in historical times the cries of alarm that are often raised in terms of AGW are unwarranted.

4) Even if the claims were warranted, without better understanding of climate and the forces that drive it, we have no idea what actions would actually "fix" whatever might be wrong and, without that, any actions that humans take to "fix" the problem (presuming that said action can have a significant effect) is as likely to make things worse as to make it better.

Each one of those addressed a part of your post, but rather than actually address them in turn you just call it a "rant" which lets you turn your brain off and ignore what you don't want to deal with.

I know, I know. It's so much easier to just dismiss disagreement as a "rant" rather than attempt to address the issues within it, but if you do that do expect to get called on it.

 

[dross]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Have you ever heard of Plato? Socrates? Aristotle? Morons!

 

[dburkhead]

Have you ever heard of Plato? Socrates? Aristotle? Morons!

I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

 

[nawainwright]

I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY, I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!!

 

[SavageEagle]

 

[dross]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.