ClimateGate and the Climatati

waldo · January 14, 2010

Now YOU are talking about weather.

huh! That "talking about weather" link was a refute to those challenged few who continue to equate weather as climate. The article speaks for itself... just what is it you're saying?

on edit: ya... listen to wyly!

Edited January 14, 2010 by waldo

Michael Hardner · January 14, 2010

I believe that was his point...the denier crowd think a uncommon cold snap in Europe is some sort of proof that the world is cooling/climate change but it's only short term weather...

Right... just don't try to make a point using weather. I guess refuting the point about weather with weather is another thing altogether, but it could lead some to think that you're using weather to make the initial point.

Sir Bandelot · January 15, 2010

From my quiet little smalltown newspaper, this article raises some interesting points.

http://thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2260208

jbg · January 15, 2010

From my quiet little smalltown newspaper, this article raises some interesting points.

http://thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2260208

Interesting article.

A more straightforward problem is whether carbon reductions obtained by sale of credits is real. I have serious doubts.

Pliny · January 15, 2010

When did science say that ?

It has been the consensus since talks of the disappearing Ozone layer became passe.

blueblood · January 15, 2010

heelarious... notwithstanding the beat-back you took over your futile 'volcano distraction' attempt, do you actually have anything to say?

The only thing futile is your arguments. The fact a poll says that your debating skill suck, while you go and tell Bush-Cheney that his arguments are futile with no evidence to support your claim is laughable.

waldo · January 15, 2010

The only thing futile is your arguments. The fact a poll says that your debating skill suck, while you go and tell Bush-Cheney that his arguments are futile with no evidence to support your claim is laughable.

are you stillll sulking over your poll... have you worked up enough courage to even attempt to define that little ditty of yours... you know, actually define the sides/positions/arguments. After all, it was your poll... you should be able to actually speak to the particulars behind it - right? Although you clearly prefer to hide from your inadequacies in being able to articulate any personal position you may hold in regards climate change... and back that position up... defining your poll particulars shouldn't really extend on that personal inadequacy of yours. Simply define them... just state your poll sides/positions/arguments. Sure you can!

Pliny · January 15, 2010

it's been said here before - you're just not listening. Science advances with challenges to the status quo... accepted challenges that actually add to or refute the status quo. To legitimately discredit a challenge... it must be looked at, not ignored - duh! Your problem, your difficulty, is you don't perceive discredited challenges as having been reviewed - themselves challenged. You just think they're ignored. They're not... skeptic challenges are thoroughly reviewed and, if warranted, beaten back with comment and/or study. If you have a pet skeptic challenge you feel is being ignored, why don't you bring it forward?

How much did self-righteous pomposity and/or ideological/political bias or threat to position/status beat back challenges to the theoretical status quo.

your example has also been talked of extensively here on MLW - again, you're just not listening. That 1970's ice age prediction was predominantly media based... I even put up a link to a study that "studied the published papers" over that period. That study showed, overwhelming, the percentage majority of scientific papers during that period predicting warming... a lesser percentage number included no prediction... and a most insignificant percentage actually predicted cooling.

In your view you believe that what you say credibly discredits contrary points of view but they are not convincing. I am listening but you haven't changed my opinion.

Your research may prove exactly what you say but if you were there, as I was, you know that the media, science and the politicos all warned of the coming ice-age. Acid rain in the seventies became the next thing to panic about. Then the Ozone layer was packing it in and after that it was global warming - anthropogenically caused of course.

no... no it doesn't. Again, while global warming continues, natural variations may cause short interval periods where the degree of that warming isn't increasing as rapidly... the overall longer-term trend remains toward increased global warming.

Now here is where you are not listening. Scientific models did not predict any lessening of the warming trend (as you like to call the current cooling trend) and how could there be a lesser warming trend if CO2, the veritable CAUSE of warming, had not decreased but was still increasing at it's usual pace.

sure Pliny, "looking for" technological solutions is an easy platitude to throw out there, isn't it?

It isn't a platitude. It is something that is occurring.

Can you describe the practical extensions and anticipated results of your "looking for", particularly in terms of agw global warming?

The most practical is extension of "looking for" would be the proportional drop in alarmist platitudes.

before this gets declared as one of the more stoopid statements to arise in a while, Pliny... please clarify, if you will... are you saying you equate short, middle and long-term mitigation strategies as "climate control"?

Politicians think they are doing exactly that. It only takes a redistribution of wealth - voila! Climate control.

wyly · January 15, 2010

From my quiet little smalltown newspaper, this article raises some interesting points.

http://thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2260208

carbon credits are a socialist plot to steal our money...carbon tax is a socialist plot to steal our money...

it's got to be one or the other take your pick...I personally think a carbon tax is the way to go....

waldo · January 15, 2010

How much did self-righteous pomposity and/or ideological/political bias or threat to position/status beat back challenges to the theoretical status quo.

that very real status quo reflects all manner of two-sided politicization, ideological bent, self-righteous pomposity and self-preservation. However, in the end, whether you accept it, or not, it's the science that wins out... it's the science determining that very real status quo. In any case, as I requested, I note you didn't bother to bring forward any of your pet skeptic challenges that you feel are being ignored... is there a problem?

In your view you believe that what you say credibly discredits contrary points of view but they are not convincing. I am listening but you haven't changed my opinion.

I'm certainly not bothered what your personal opinion is and whether or not you change it... however, when you present it as a challenge to the aforementioned overwhelming status quo, and if inclined, I might respond.

Your research may prove exactly what you say but if you were there, as I was, you know that the media, science and the politicos all warned of the coming ice-age. Acid rain in the seventies became the next thing to panic about. Then the Ozone layer was packing it in and after that it was global warming - anthropogenically caused of course.

as I stated, the media most assuredly played up the 70's cooling fabrication... the overwhelming majority of scientists most assuredly did not. If it's important to some point you want to make you can offer up something to support your assertion that 'politicos', as you say, all warned of the coming ice-age. I've already provided the citation support to dispute your suggestion that, as you say, science warned of the coming ice-age.

Now here is where you are not listening. Scientific models did not predict any lessening of the warming trend (as you like to call the current cooling trend) and how could there be a lesser warming trend if CO2, the veritable CAUSE of warming, had not decreased but was still increasing at it's usual pace.

there is no cooling trend - in responding to several of Simple's past similar fabrication attempts, I've provided support citations that speak to a continued warming trend. Here's a more recent MLW post in that regard... make sure to back up a page or so to take all the entertainment in.

Politicians think they are doing exactly that. It only takes a redistribution of wealth - voila! Climate control.

technological advances are assumed for medium & longer-term mitigation strategy baseline scenarios... you would seem to completely ignore policy, practice, efficiencies, lifestyle/behavior patterns, renewables, alternative fuels, etc. Pitting any workable mitigation solutions solely on the backs of technological advance is pure folly.

Sir Bandelot · January 15, 2010

carbon credits are a socialist plot to steal our money...carbon tax is a socialist plot to steal our money...

it's got to be one or the other take your pick...I personally think a carbon tax is the way to go....

The other points she raised were about the amount of corruption going on behind the scene.

eyeball · January 15, 2010

The other points she raised were about the amount of corruption going on behind the scene.

You could bring Big Brother into the picture and I bet Little Brother would be even more effective at deterring corruption.

blueblood · January 15, 2010

are you stillll sulking over your poll... have you worked up enough courage to even attempt to define that little ditty of yours... you know, actually define the sides/positions/arguments. After all, it was your poll... you should be able to actually speak to the particulars behind it - right? Although you clearly prefer to hide from your inadequacies in being able to articulate any personal position you may hold in regards climate change... and back that position up... defining your poll particulars shouldn't really extend on that personal inadequacy of yours. Simply define them... just state your poll sides/positions/arguments. Sure you can!

Are you on a coke binge?

You go around and tell people you disagree with that you "pwned" them and call people's arguments futile. I think your a fucking liar when you make those claims, and I went out to prove it. I have polled the posters at MLW and they all think that your arguments suck and are not convincing at all. A whopping 83% think you don't "own" anybody in an argument.

I don't need to articulate my personal position on climate change, because Riverwind does it so much better than I can. What I can do, however is everytime you call someone's argument futile or say you "owned" someone in an argument, I can bring up this poll time and time again to show other posters and other site viewers the liar that you are.

You shout down other posters for disagreeing with you, now it's come to bite you in the ass.

Deal with it.

waldo · January 15, 2010

are you stillll sulking over your poll... have you worked up enough courage to even attempt to define that little ditty of yours... you know, actually define the sides/positions/arguments. After all, it was your poll... you should be able to actually speak to the particulars behind it - right? Although you clearly prefer to hide from your inadequacies in being able to articulate any personal position you may hold in regards climate change... and back that position up... defining your poll particulars shouldn't really extend on that personal inadequacy of yours. Simply define them... just state your poll sides/positions/arguments. Sure you can!

I have polled the posters at MLW and they all think that your arguments suck and are not convincing at all.

oh my... why the continued dodge - why not just define what you presume your poll was about. You didn't do it within your poll thread OP, you didn't do it when challenged to do so within that thread and you continue to avoid defining said polls sides/positions/arguments, each and every time you're called on it. Your shuck/jive avoidance is difficult to watch if only because it truly highlights the inadequacies of our education system... many belittle the "no child left behind" jingoism, but to see it's failings mirrored by your personal difficulties, is a testament to how much more attention/money needs to be funneled towards education.

I don't need to articulate my personal position on climate change, because Riverwind does it so much better than I can.

growing up I sometimes longed for a big brother to :lol:

blueblood · January 16, 2010

oh my... why the continued dodge - why not just define what you presume your poll was about. You didn't do it within your poll thread OP, you didn't do it when challenged to do so within that thread and you continue to avoid defining said polls sides/positions/arguments, each and every time you're called on it. Your shuck/jive avoidance is difficult to watch if only because it truly highlights the inadequacies of our education system... many belittle the "no child left behind" jingoism, but to see it's failings mirrored by your personal difficulties, is a testament to how much more attention/money needs to be funneled towards education.

Do you lack reading comprehension or are you just stupid?

Title of thread is who is more convincing.

The question was who's side of the argument is more convincing.

Not hard. Other people got it, why can't you.

Sounds like your an embarassment to the education system in Ontario.

waldo · January 16, 2010

oh my... why the continued dodge - why not just define what you presume your poll was about. You didn't do it within your poll thread OP, you didn't do it when challenged to do so within that thread and you continue to avoid defining said polls sides/positions/arguments, each and every time you're called on it. Your shuck/jive avoidance is difficult to watch if only because it truly highlights the inadequacies of our education system... many belittle the "no child left behind" jingoism, but to see it's failings mirrored by your personal difficulties, is a testament to how much more attention/money needs to be funneled towards education.

Do you lack reading comprehension or are you just stupid? Title of thread is who is more convincing. The question was who's side of the argument is more convincing. Not hard. Other people got it, why can't you.
Sounds like your an embarassment to the education system in Ontario.

what was that argument you're speaking to... and what were the defined positions of said "sides"? I truly believe you want to relieve yourself of the burden you continue to carry... it may be difficult for you, but perhaps you could set iterative goals that allow you to carry drafts forward, as piecemeal and disjointed as the early ones might be. Each iterative draft would allow you a building reference to ultimately come forward and properly and adequately define the sides/positions/arguments behind that poll of yours. Ontario?... are you sure? :lol:

blueblood · January 16, 2010

what was that argument you're speaking to... and what were the defined positions of said "sides"? I truly believe you want to relieve yourself of the burden you continue to carry... it may be difficult for you, but perhaps you could set iterative goals that allow you to carry drafts forward, as piecemeal and disjointed as the early ones might be. Each iterative draft would allow you a building reference to ultimately come forward and properly and adequately define the sides/positions/arguments behind that poll of yours. Ontario?... are you sure?

You and Riverwind could be debating what kind of cheese is better, what brand of car is better, what hockey team is better, etc. as far as topics go. The point of the poll was who was better at delivering their arguments. You lost, you lost big, and your crying about it. 19 out of 23 people think you suck at debating, those are facts, deal with them.

Judging by your posts, you are probably some poli-sci student going for an arts degree. If you can't understand basic reading comprehension, I suggest you go and ask for your tuition money back.

waldo · January 16, 2010

The point of the poll was who was better at delivering their arguments.

even though I take 'limited' pleasure in continuing to yank your chain :lol: , I believe your poll question read something like... "Whose side of the argument is more convincing?" However, given your demonstrated articulation inadequacies, coupled with your self-acknowledged desire to allow others to speak for you, you failed completely and absolutely to properly frame that poll. Again, what are the arguments you presume to speak/poll for... and more pointedly, what are the positions of the sides you presume to speak/poll for? As I said, setting goals to allow you to draft iterative drafts might help you with your difficulties in expressing your thoughts.

blueblood · January 16, 2010

even though I take 'limited' pleasure in continuing to yank your chain , I believe your poll question read something like... "Whose side of the argument is more convincing?" However, given your demonstrated articulation inadequacies, coupled with your self-acknowledged desire to allow others to speak for you, you failed completely and absolutely to properly frame that poll. Again, what are the arguments you presume to speak/poll for... and more pointedly, what are the positions of the sides you presume to speak/poll for? As I said, setting goals to allow you to draft iterative drafts might help you with your difficulties in expressing your thoughts.

Is your skull made of granite?

Who's side is more convincing, Riverwind or Waldo? Those are the arguments I'm polling. 19 Riverwind 4 Waldo.

At least 21 people understood the poll. They knew what it was about, and gave an answer. Hell the comments in the thread specifically commented on your debating skills and "owning" people. I'm satisfied with the results, I'm satisfied with the thread that commented on it, and the comments/results were in line with how I figured the poll/thread would go. I'm not going to change it because you have rocks in your head.

The only chain your yanking is your own.

The only failure is your arguments, and the results speak for themselves. 19-4.

January 16, 2010

The only failure is your arguments, and the results speak for themselves. 19-4.

Just want to point out your poll is much to small to reasonably determing anything.

Wild Bill · January 16, 2010

The only chain your yanking is your own.

No, BB. The chain he's yanking is YOURS!

He's a TROLL, for pete's sake! You can't win an argument with a troll! No matter what facts or reason you come up with he will just ignore or twist them in a way designed to provoke and frustrate you.

What your poll has actually shown is that a majority of others can see that. Sadly, he's still got your chain in his hand!

Why don't you just put him on your "ignore" list and let him go? Life's too short to waste your time. There are lots of people on this board who can disagree but give a good argument. Spend your time debating them! Debate is supposed to be a search for truth, not an opportunity for some adolescent personality to get his kicks by tweaking others' noses.

You keep giving him all the attention he could ever want! He's been having himself a great time!

Why don't you just walk away?

blueblood · January 16, 2010

No, BB. The chain he's yanking is YOURS!

He's a TROLL, for pete's sake! You can't win an argument with a troll! No matter what facts or reason you come up with he will just ignore or twist them in a way designed to provoke and frustrate you.

What your poll has actually shown is that a majority of others can see that. Sadly, he's still got your chain in his hand!

Why don't you just put him on your "ignore" list and let him go? Life's too short to waste your time. There are lots of people on this board who can disagree but give a good argument. Spend your time debating them! Debate is supposed to be a search for truth, not an opportunity for some adolescent personality to get his kicks by tweaking others' noses.

You keep giving him all the attention he could ever want! He's been having himself a great time!

Why don't you just walk away?

In the ag industry, we face a very similar problem with PETA, Greenpeace, and all other sorts of whack jobs. The ag industry used to do what you would do and dismiss them as adolescent personalities; the problem with that is that they convince a few people, then a few more, until suddenly their message is perceived by the public as the right one without because it isn't debated!

By standing up to people like that, I can present the audience alternatives and let them see both sides of the story before making up their minds.

I'm not out to change his mind, I'm trying to persuade the public.

I get just as big as kicks as he does because I can back my claim up with hard facts and he cannot.

It's a dirty job, somebody's got to do it.

waldo · January 16, 2010

I'm satisfied with the results, I'm satisfied with the thread that commented on it, and the comments/results were in line with how I figured the poll/thread would go.

no problem - if you'd like the tightness of your yanked chain to be loosened up a bit, simply attempt to answer the request. Frankly, given the changed positions and raised contradictions of "your favoured side", it's not surprising you have reservations in attempting to satisfy the request. Your stated satisfaction rings hollow in the face of failing to properly frame/define... but it appears to bring you solace in your inadequacies to express yourself.

blueblood · January 16, 2010

no problem - if you'd like the tightness of your yanked chain to be loosened up a bit, simply attempt to answer the request. Frankly, given the changed positions and raised contradictions of "your favoured side", it's not surprising you have reservations in attempting to satisfy the request. Your stated satisfaction rings hollow in the face of failing to properly frame/define... but it appears to bring you solace in your inadequacies to express yourself.

What contradictions are there to Waldo sucks at debating?

Waldo either sucks at debating or he doesn't. Survey says he sucks.

Good old numbers...

Pliny · January 18, 2010

that very real status quo reflects all manner of two-sided politicization, ideological bent, self-righteous pomposity and self-preservation. However, in the end, whether you accept it, or not, it's the science that wins out... it's the science determining that very real status quo. In any case, as I requested, I note you didn't bother to bring forward any of your pet skeptic challenges that you feel are being ignored... is there a problem?

I agree, the science will win out. It will then tout there was no AGW just like there was no anthropogenic ice-age.

No problem with you avoiding my pet skeptic challenges.

How'd your last meeting go?

as I stated, the media most assuredly played up the 70's cooling fabrication... the overwhelming majority of scientists most assuredly did not. If it's important to some point you want to make you can offer up something to support your assertion that 'politicos', as you say, all warned of the coming ice-age. I've already provided the citation support to dispute your suggestion that, as you say, science warned of the coming ice-age.

Where were all those scientists when the media and politicos were hyping the ice-age science? They were there all along. Is that what you will say when the science, once again, cleanses itself of this media/politico/environmental alarmism of today?

there is no cooling trend - in responding to several of Simple's past similar fabrication attempts, I've provided support citations that speak to a continued warming trend. Here's a more recent MLW post in that regard... make sure to back up a page or so to take all the entertainment in.

You refuse to listen. Tell me why you think 1998 is a significant year? If somoene uses it as a base for determining a subsequent cooling period you or wyly accuse them of cherry picking as though a cooling trend is occurring subsequent to 1998.

technological advances are assumed for medium & longer-term mitigation strategy baseline scenarios... you would seem to completely ignore policy, practice, efficiencies, lifestyle/behavior patterns, renewables, alternative fuels, etc. Pitting any workable mitigation solutions solely on the backs of technological advance is pure folly.

I haven't said we should not adopt lifestyle/behavior patterns to forward a reduction of pollutants. I am not in favour of any global political solutions designed on the usual economic punish/reward basis that most political solutions are about.

How was that last meeting?

Edited January 18, 2010 by Pliny