Global Warming backdown

Shady · April 1, 2010

my first day on the forum I was insulted by Shady, unprovoked

That's not true. You were criticized, not insulted. If you can't handle the heat, get outta the kitchen. It's rich of you to claim victim status considering how many posters you've called names and insulted. Pretty damn rich.

Moonlight Graham · April 2, 2010

granted - I trust you will acknowledge our few exchanges have been, I believe, most civil. I will show the same level of respect directed my way... past history is a significant contributor. If individuals legitimately foster open debate based on the science, based on fact, based on (their) uncertainty, based on substantiated challenge, mutual respect grows - is realized. However, if, as is the case with a few around here in these climate change related threads, their sole missive is to falsify, distort, cast doubt, cast uncertainty - to, effectively, showcase their "intellectual dishonesty" while presuming to engage in a respectful manner. Consequently, I will offer little - or no - respect for individuals that partake in that manner.

I will say that most of our exchanges have been mostly civil, i will certainly give you that. However, its seems that some of the times if i have spoken about some kind of skeptic claim that would be against the AGH view i get a piece of the waldo lip beatdown.

Past history certainly does play a factor i know, that's the case for all of us on here. But you certainly have a ferocious disdain for other scientific viewpoints that don't match your own. What i'm just trying to say is that if you counter these "drive-by's" and skeptic claims with an informed rebuttal, you'd actually be more successful in swaying their opinion than all this bickering.

Screw it, i don't even know why i even care. You just seem like a smart and well-informed person who is wasting his arguments on these types of threads.

Shady · April 2, 2010

Screw it, i don't even know why i even care. You just seem like a smart and well-informed person who is wasting his arguments on these types of threads.

Nah. My guess is that you're a lot smarter than he is. He's just a bully. And all bullies know is aggression. You just have to punch back at the bully twice as hard. Bloody up his nose a little. Then he learns.

wyly · April 2, 2010

Nah. My guess is that you're a lot smarter than he is. He's just a bully. And all bullies know is aggression. You just have to punch back at the bully twice as hard. Bloody up his nose a little. Then he learns.

:lol: this is coming from the guy who threathened to kick someone in the teeth :rolleyes:

wyly · April 2, 2010

I will say that most of our exchanges have been mostly civil, i will certainly give you that. However, its seems that some of the times if i have spoken about some kind of skeptic claim that would be against the AGH view i get a piece of the waldo lip beatdown.

it's a conditioned response... rational debate has become so rare that it's automatically assumed that any post is going to be hostile...too support a logical scientific evidence is to be labeled a liberal, socialist, commie, Trotskyite, Gorical, idiot, liar, imbecile the names we've been called is endless it should be no surprise hostilities arise...

Screw it, i don't even know why i even care. You just seem like a smart and well-informed person who is wasting his arguments on these types of threads.

which is what I tried to tell him, ignore them and find worthy logical/rational/intelligent opponents...but no, waldo isn't one to run from a fight...

Shady · April 2, 2010

idiot, liar, imbecile the names we've been called is endless it should be no surprise hostilities arise...

Throw in a couple others, like denier, and that's what you get when you have the audacity to challenge said science and question rather questionable scientific process and unscientific behavior.

In fact, the term denier was introduced long before any names originated from the other side.

Pliny · April 2, 2010

That's not true. You were criticized, not insulted. If you can't handle the heat, get outta the kitchen. It's rich of you to claim victim status considering how many posters you've called names and insulted. Pretty damn rich.

The general population was insulted by you when you claimed they were too stupid to understand climate change. Want me to find that for you?

wyly · April 2, 2010

The general population was insulted by you when you claimed they were too stupid to understand climate change. Want me to find that for you?

I'm still waiting for you to produce all those talking points you claimed waldo and I quote from Gore and Suzuki....mmm three months I've been waiting for you to produce that info :rolleyes:

when did you graduate high school? 1950? did you even graduate? tell me how smart do you think you are with your 1950 grade 10 science...maybe I'm giving you guys to much credit up to about 1960 the 8th grade was a minimum standard before dropping out...

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2010

What i'm just trying to say is that if you counter these "drive-by's" and skeptic claims with an informed rebuttal, you'd actually be more successful in swaying their opinion than all this bickering.

Moonlight, I would add that 'informed rebuttal' should be a reference to existing science on that topic. We don't have the qualifications to comment directly on the science here, or at least we don't mutually acknowledge that we do.

My one beef is that there are real skeptics out there - respected scientists who have papers that are being debated with respect to AGW. Therefore one can't say that the science is settled, as Dr. Jones points out.

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2010

I'm still waiting for you to produce all those talking points you claimed waldo and I quote from Gore and Suzuki....mmm three months I've been waiting for you to produce that info

when did you graduate high school? 1950? did you even graduate? tell me how smart do you think you are with your 1950 grade 10 science...maybe I'm giving you guys to much credit up to about 1960 the 8th grade was a minimum standard before dropping out...

Give it a rest. I'm seeing finally on this thread some implied calls for more civility. Though this is a good toe-to-toe debate, and I for one have learned a lot from it, it could stand to be taken up a notch.

I know, I know... I'm the hall monitor nobody likes...

Alta4ever · April 2, 2010

.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Alta4ever

bloodyminded · April 3, 2010

What bigoted thing to say. So much wrong with this post. I don't own an SUV, I hate Ted, I haven't been to a 7 11 in years. I won't even speed on the highway, I don't yell insults at people who are free to live their lives the way they want and I have no idea what scat porn is.

From the looks of your post I am light years ahead of you in a civilized society.

"Bigoted"?

You don't even have to get up from your seat, Alta: there are online dictionaries available to educate you.

Edited April 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

Shady · April 3, 2010

Just a reminder...

CRU scientists admit they threw away key data used in global warming calculations
Scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit have admitted that they threw away much of the raw temperature data used in their predictions of global warming. The result of that action is that other scientists will not be able to verify the CRU calculations that they say show a rise in the Earth's average temperature over the past 150 years.

Link

In a related story, and another reminder...

Evidence Destroyed: Enron Shredding Documents
Decades before Enron's employees and auditors plunged head-first into the document-shredding business, the practice had become a predictable response to scandal and subpoenas. Document destruction, though, is as old as civilization. During the Inquisition, the Vatican urged the destruction of books that presented ideas with which it disagreed for religious or philosophical reasons. The modern paper shredder was the inspiration of a German inventor aiming to protect the secrets of rival, small-time merchants he supplied.

Link

Coincidence?

Usually, almost always, the destruction of information is based on nefarious reasons. Just saying.

jbg · April 4, 2010

Give it a rest. I'm seeing finally on this thread some implied calls for more civility. Though this is a good toe-to-toe debate, and I for one have learned a lot from it, it could stand to be taken up a notch.

I never debate in a civil manner.

bloodyminded · April 4, 2010

Just a reminder...

In a related story, and another reminder...

Coincidence?

Usually, almost always, the destruction of information is based on nefarious reasons. Just saying.

You haven't heard that the "climategate" situation has been resolved in favour of the scientists, with some minor caveats about transparency? I thought everybody had heard.

jbg · April 4, 2010

You haven't heard that the "climategate" situation has been resolved in favour of the scientists, with some minor caveats about transparency? I thought everybody had heard.

Why, the data was magically restored?

bloodyminded · April 4, 2010

Why, the data was magically restored?

There was no "climategate" to speak of.

Mr.Canada · April 4, 2010

Yeah since Global warming was proved a farce they have moved to calling it CLimate Change for however long this term will work. I suspect it will change again. It's a liberal guilt machine shell game with these people.

jbg · April 4, 2010

It's a liberal guilt machine shell game with these people.

I'm not so sure Al Gore feels guilty about his lifestyle.

Michael Hardner · April 4, 2010

I never debate in a civil manner.

Then you shall gather fewer flies.

Michael Hardner · April 4, 2010

Yeah since Global warming was proved a farce they have moved to calling it CLimate Change for however long this term will work. I suspect it will change again. It's a liberal guilt machine shell game with these people.

They call it Climate Change because it's incorrect to say that every point on the globe will be warmer.

Nothing was proved a farce, as evidenced in the continuing threads on the topic.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Michael Hardner

Shady · April 4, 2010

There was no "climategate" to speak of.

So the data was magically restored? And the emails of anti-scientific behavior were fiction?

Michael Hardner · April 4, 2010

So the data was magically restored? And the emails of anti-scientific behavior were fiction?

Not fiction, but real. Not admirable statements, but petty and negative communication. But it was private communication.

The first investigation found nothing was wrong within their jurisdiction. ( The British government probe. )

The remaining investigations, I believe, have different standards represented.

Wild Bill · April 4, 2010

Not fiction, but real. Not admirable statements, but petty and negative communication. But it was private communication.

The first investigation found nothing was wrong within their jurisdiction. ( The British government probe. )

The remaining investigations, I believe, have different standards represented.

This might be appropriate, Michael:

"Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship"

"'Dracula's in charge of the blood bank'"

"Exclusive The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it.

Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of Defence, was appointed to lead the enquiry into the scientific aspects of the Climategate scandal on Monday. But Oxburgh is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/ "

It's always the details that tell the real story, isn't it?

Michael Hardner · April 4, 2010

It's always the details that tell the real story, isn't it?

That article comes off as nothing more as a series of points of information, with one key piece missing: why would he have to declare that ? It doesn't appear to be a conflict of interest in any form.

(Incidental information to point out: That inquiry hasn't concluded yet.)