Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Yup, Timothy Ball is #162. If OE had actually been reading the content--something he almost certainly has not done--he probably would have noticed that each is a different scientist assigned a different number on the list. But that would be sooooooo inconvenient to a AGW religionist who still contends that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley.

Hey, Foxy, aren't you the one who is so easily offended when people "misquote" you, or "quote you out of context", or simply make sh!t up and attribute it to you?

Just wondering...

Wonder away. I don't see that I quoted you at all. Do you say that you do not see AGW as a problem that must be addressed immediately? If so I will happily say that the crack at AGW religionists who do say that do not include you.

0 Replies

Yeah, you know the one... Post repeated, different, original sources that demonstrate an alternative to a strongly held liberal belief and watch the liberals not read any of it because it's "preaching".

That old conservative tactic.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, you know the one... Post repeated, different, original sources that demonstrate an alternative to a strongly held liberal belief and watch the liberals not read any of it because it's "preaching".

That old conservative tactic.

I don't know if Ican has posted Dr. Ball before or whether #162 was simply an affirmation of the point I made, but I do know that Ican is posting individual statements of different scientists and their rationale for why they were once AGW supporters and are now among the skeptics. Do you suppose it would be too much to ask OE to acknowledge that and/or explain how his comment was not accusing Ican posting the same information over and over?

It has been my experience, however, that OE likes to ask provocative questions but has an adversion to answering any directed to him.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Yup, Timothy Ball is #162. If OE had actually been reading the content--something he almost certainly has not done--he probably would have noticed that each is a different scientist assigned a different number on the list. But that would be sooooooo inconvenient to a AGW religionist who still contends that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley.

Hey, Foxy, aren't you the one who is so easily offended when people "misquote" you, or "quote you out of context", or simply make sh!t up and attribute it to you?

Just wondering...

Wonder away. I don't see that I quoted you at all. Do you say that you do not see AGW as a problem that must be addressed immediately? If so I will happily say that the crack at AGW religionists who do say that do not include you.

You were obviously referring to me. I'm fine if you want to pretend that you weren't.

Also, what you just wrote in that post is something entirely different than what you wrote in the original post.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Yup, Timothy Ball is #162. If OE had actually been reading the content--something he almost certainly has not done--he probably would have noticed that each is a different scientist assigned a different number on the list. But that would be sooooooo inconvenient to a AGW religionist who still contends that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley.

Hey, Foxy, aren't you the one who is so easily offended when people "misquote" you, or "quote you out of context", or simply make sh!t up and attribute it to you?

Just wondering...

Wonder away. I don't see that I quoted you at all. Do you say that you do not see AGW as a problem that must be addressed immediately? If so I will happily say that the crack at AGW religionists who do say that do not include you.

You were obviously referring to me. I'm fine if you want to pretend that you weren't.

Also, what you just wrote in that post is something entirely different than what you wrote in the original post.

I don't deny that it included you which is why I offered to intentionally exclude you if you say that you are not one of those AGW religionists to whom I referred. I do deny that I was referring ONLY to you.

So do you or do you not believe that AGW is a serious problem meriting immediate attention? If you do, the shoe fits. If not, I will issue an apology and disclaimer. Your choice.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
Good old conservative tactic: repeat something over and over and over and over and over again. If you repeat it often enough, people will get bored and stop discussing it.

Conservative tactic?

Oh, I'm sure it's a tactic that has been used often enough, by many people, from all sides.

However, in this particular case, it's certainly been used by someone on the conservative side. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, it has also certainly been used by conservatives.

(Even though the latest schtick of all those who have been supporting the Bush administration for roughly seven years and 3 months is to claim that, hell no, Bush never actually was a conservative.)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, you know the one... Post repeated, different, original sources that demonstrate an alternative to a strongly held liberal belief and watch the liberals not read any of it because it's "preaching".

That old conservative tactic.

Oh? You're not claiming that ican was posting excerpts from more than one source, are you?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Yup, Timothy Ball is #162. If OE had actually been reading the content--something he almost certainly has not done--he probably would have noticed that each is a different scientist assigned a different number on the list. But that would be sooooooo inconvenient to a AGW religionist who still contends that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley.

Hey, Foxy, aren't you the one who is so easily offended when people "misquote" you, or "quote you out of context", or simply make sh!t up and attribute it to you?

Just wondering...

Wonder away. I don't see that I quoted you at all. Do you say that you do not see AGW as a problem that must be addressed immediately? If so I will happily say that the crack at AGW religionists who do say that do not include you.

You were obviously referring to me. I'm fine if you want to pretend that you weren't.

Also, what you just wrote in that post is something entirely different than what you wrote in the original post.

I don't deny that it included you which is why I offered to intentionally exclude you if you say that you are not one of those AGW religionists to whom I referred. I do deny that I was referring ONLY to you.

So do you or do you not believe that AGW is a serious problem meriting immediate attention? If you do, the shoe fits. If not, I will issue an apology and disclaimer. Your choice.

Original post: "a AGW religionist who still contends that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley"

Later changed to: "do you or do you not believe that AGW is a serious problem meriting immediate attention?"

Come on, Foxy, do you really think that agreeing with what you said in the original post is identical to a positive answer to your later question? Do you think the two statements are exchangeable?

Nah.

0 Replies

Okay, OE. Let's do it your way, but let's use my full quote:

I said:

Quote:

Yup, Timothy Ball is #162. If OE had actually been reading the content--something he almost certainly has not done--he probably would have noticed that each is a different scientist assigned a different number on the list. But that would be sooooooo inconvenient to a AGW religionist who still contends that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley.

I did say that you had obviously not been reading the content of Ican's post or you would not have misinterpreted the most recent one as a repeat of all the others. Do you deny that you thought that Ican was posting #162 Timothy Ball over and over again rather than posting a series? Or were you referring to some unspecified post? Have you recognized that Ican has been posting different scientists in each post? If you have recognized that, why would you have accused Ican of posting the same thing over and over?

Does Ican deserve an apology for being mischaracterized by you? If not, why not? (I will say that Ican does sometimes post an opinion or fact more than once for effect or to make a point. This was not one of them.)

And then, by implication I suggested that you, an AGW religionist, (which by implication would include you among all AGW religionists) would find it inconvenient to admit that so many scientists were disputing what AGW religionists claim to be fact.

Since you ojected to that characterization, I subsequently offered you an opportunity to disassociate yourself from that herd who continues to maintain that most climate scientists support your views on AGW.

So again: Do you or do you not believe AGW is a serious problem requiring immediate attention?

Did you or did you not accuse Ican of posting the same information over and over along with a presumption that this is a 'conservative tactic' to perpetuate a lie? How could you do that with any intellectual honesty if you had in fact been reading the short articles he has been posting of scientists who jumped off the AGW bandwagon and are now skeptics?

In the face of the evidence presented here, have you in fact been mischaracterized? If so defend yourself.

0 Replies

ican has quoted from the exact same source dozens of times. I readily recognize that he has been quoting different parts from the exact same source. Nothing new there. He's been doing the same thing on the various incarnations of the Iraq threads for a couple of years now. (Hey, I'll even admit that he's been known to use, at times, large, underlined or bolded fonts, italics or colors when quoting from the exact same source.)

Apart from that: I do not contend "that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley [sic]". Nah. There's certainly discussion about whether the current changes in climate are anthropogenic, or entirely anthropogenic, or to what degree anthropogenic. There's discussion about what consequences those changes will have, and, if they are a serious problem, and if they are indeed anthropogenic, whether or not a change in our behaviour would attenuate those problematic consequences.

So, in short, I would answer "no" to your first question and "the premise is false" to your second one.

0 Replies

Okay, if you say that there is no good evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem warranting immediate action, then you certainly are not an AGW religonist and I am incorrect in characterizing you as one.

But given your objection, which is fair, it is mystifying why you would characterize Ican's post as emulating a 'conservative trait' to support lies or whatever it was. I didn't look back to get your exact quote. Would you say that you mischaracterized Ican by implying that his intent in posting that excerpt was to perpetuate a conservative misconception?

I would think most people would have seen the post as appropriate both for the thread and within the context in which it was posted.

Or perhaps you have a problem with Dr. Ball's statement? If so what is the problem with it?

You know though, it is much easier to copy and paste as rebuttal good evidence that was previously posted when others keep making the same tired erroneous (and sometimes idiotic or mean spiritied) statements. I have used that method myself when it is so much easier and effective to do that than try to reinvent the wheel every time you need to make a rebuttal. I don't know how many times now I have posted direct quotes from the Clinton administration and the Democrats debating the Iraq invasion as rebuttal when some numbnut says that it was all a Bush lie that got us into Iraq. Ican often does his rebuttal by posting the UN resolutions.

Dedicated AGW religionists are just as stubborn in their point of view and every time they say that most or all or 2000 scientists or whatever have presented evidence of AGW while nobody of any importance disputes it, it is so much easier to post as rebuttal the good stuff that has been posted before. I appreciate Ican posting one by one the comments of those scientists who were AGW advocates but who are now dissenters. It is much easier to digest the information in small doses like that than it would be to have to peruse the entire document.

Neither of us expect to change the mind of the numbnuts who prefer to be numbnuts instead of looking at the actual record. But it is hard to leave the stupid, ignorant, or downright deceptives statements go unchallenged lest somebody who is just becoming aware of the issue be misled.

And if you find something especially tedious, just about everybody has an efficient scroll button on their mouse these days. I don't have any problem with finding the repeats tedious. At times so do I. But there is a huge difference between that and accusing somebody of intentional deception.

I think you should tell Ican you you mischaracterized his post.

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

163.

0 Replies

Is there anybody left who is not arguing about how to argue?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Is there anybody left who is not arguing about how to argue?

Okay, that was good. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

FULL SENATE REPORT: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

December 20, 2007

Sources: 400 prominent scientists who each reported their own views to the USA Senate.

400 - 163 = 237 more to come.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

FULL SENATE REPORT: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

December 20, 2007

Sources: 400 prominent scientists who each reported their own views to the USA Senate.

400 - 163 = 237 more to come.

Okay I have operated under a misconception here. I thought the ones you were posting were those who had jumped ship, but I see now that they include skeptics other than the recently reformed too. That's cool. Just wanted to get it right. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...
Okay I have operated under a misconception here. I thought the ones you were posting were those who had jumped ship, but I see now that they include skeptics other than the recently reformed too. That's cool. Just wanted to get it right.

All 400 are skeptics about human caused global warming and other climate changes. Some were skeptics from the beginning, some quite awhile ago, while others only a short while ago. Yes, that is cool. They are a large group of folks consisting of many unafraid to confess their previous errors. All good folks to emulate! All genuine scientists!

While you may not yourself be a scientist, you clearly match their zeal for truth. Good for you!

0 Replies

Quote:

Climate data analyst Stephen McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous "Hockey Stick" temperature graph, exposed a NASA temperature data error in 2007 which led to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. Revised NASA temperature data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade.

How accurate is ican's source? Lets see..
Nasa now thinks 4 of the top 10 hottest years were in the 1930s? Maybe for the US but not when it comes to global temperatures. This is typical of the kind of stuff that the deniers put out. In global temps the 1930s aren't even close to the last decade.

Year J-D
1930 12
1931 20
1932 12
1933 -16
1934 17
1935 5
1936 9
1937 31
1938 33
1939 20

Year J-D
1998 89
1999 61
2000 62
2001 75
2002 85
2003 86
2004 80
2005 99
2006 91
2007 101

By the way, 2008 is on pace to be warmer than 1997. June was the 10th warmest June on record and warmer than every June before 1990. May was the 9th warmest on record and warmer than every May prior to 1998.

But even though it is deceptive to only use the US if talking about "global warming" when it comes to the 1930s in the US anyone with a little knowledge of history will remember the effect that heat had on agriculture. Yeah, warming in the US isn't going to cause problems.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay I have operated under a misconception here. I thought the ones you were posting were those who had jumped ship, but I see now that they include skeptics other than the recently reformed too. That's cool. Just wanted to get it right.

Yes, you have been under a misconception and you argued with me about it a while ago when I pointed it out.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...
2008 is on pace to be warmer than 1997. June was the 10th warmest June on record and warmer than every June before 1990. May was the 9th warmest on record and warmer than every May prior to 1998.

But even though it is deceptive to only use the US if talking about "global warming" when it comes to the 1930s in the US anyone with a little knowledge of history will remember the effect that heat had on agriculture. Yeah, warming in the US isn't going to cause problems.

Let's suppose you are right about near and long term future average global temperature increases.

We best spend our time reseaching their real causes and real practical defenses. And stop distracting and deluding ourselves about supposed causes.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know