Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not

[bloodyminded]

Here is where you can see a number of PUBLISHED climate science papers,published by people like Isdo,Singer,Christy,Spencer and others.Avro so foolishly lambasted:

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

And you read all those papers too, no doubt.

[TimG]

And so I can take it for granted--yes?--that you haven't bothered to read the refutations of her "bullet-proof points," as she arrogantly terms them.

There are counter arguments that are made. They mostly consist of 'the error bars are so wide that nothing can possibly falsify the models'. Alarmists lap such explanations up without understanding the implications - i.e. the counter argument basically says we know squat about what is likely to happen because the range of "prediction outcomes" covers everything from a mild warming of no consequence to a complete meltdown. Edited June 12, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

There are counter arguments that are made. They mostly consist of 'the error bars are so wide that nothing can possibly falsify the models'. Alarmists lap such explanations up without understanding the implications - i.e. the counter argument basically says we know squat about what is likely to happen because the range of "prediction outcomes" covers everything from a mild warming of no consequence to a complete meltdown.

The counter arguments to Joanne Nova's claims (the topic to which you are pointing) "mostly consist of 'the error bars are so wide that nothing can possibly falsify the models'"?

Since you haven't read them, how do you know this?

[sunsettommy]

And you read all those papers too, no doubt.

You keep deflecting from what I am discussing.I am pointing out the errors made by Avro.He claimed that a certain list of people are not climate scientists.

I just wrote this you answered:

"Here is where you can see a number of PUBLISHED climate science papers,published by people like Isdo,Singer,Christy,Spencer and others.Avro so foolishly lambasted:

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm"

I showed his error by selectively showing their backgrounds.Then I post this link to show they did indeed post climate science papers.

You are having so much difficulty in seeing on what I am doing here.You are so quick to be adversarial.

Edited June 12, 2011 by sunsettommy

[TimG]

Since you haven't read them, how do you know this?

Who said I have not read them. I always read the counter arguments? The result is I am rather picky about which sceptical arguments I take seriously. At the same time, I have enountered many so called "counter arguments" that are nonsense yet alarmists serve them up as if they are the final word on the topic. Edited June 12, 2011 by TimG

[sunsettommy]

Joanne Nova.

Clearly you don't bother to look into any of your own sources. Maybe you didn't even read it, who can say?

What the hell!

This is what you originally wrote (post 244) to something else altogether.Then you claim this points to Jo Nova:

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. You don't count on climate scientists for your "knowledge," but on someone with a bachelor's degree in molecular biology, who has since worked for Shell Oil and the PR industry, as a "professional speaker."

I bow to your impeccable sources.

Post 246:

Hey, man, you're the one who linked us to her site.

You don't even know who your own sources are?

And so I can take it for granted--yes?--that you haven't bothered to read the refutations of her "bullet-proof points," as she arrogantly terms them. If you don't read the debates and refutations of the sources you use (an elementary "really should do" for anyone honestly wishing to understand any serious issue), you evince a religious faith in your stance. Awesome.

I first read the blog post over a year ago.

It is telling that you just babble and not provide anything to counter her actual blog entry with anything.

Just the usual babbling is all you offer:

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. You don't count on climate scientists for your "knowledge," but on someone with a bachelor's degree in molecular biology, who has since worked for Shell Oil and the PR industry, as a "professional speaker."

I bow to your impeccable sources.

Then more babble:

Hey, man, you're the one who linked us to her site.

You don't even know who your own sources are?

And so I can take it for granted--yes?--that you haven't bothered to read the refutations of her "bullet-proof points," as she arrogantly terms them. If you don't read the debates and refutations of the sources you use (an elementary "really should do" for anyone honestly wishing to understand any serious issue), you evince a religious faith in your stance. Awesome.

and more:

Joanne Nova.

Clearly you don't bother to look into any of your own sources. Maybe you didn't even read it, who can say?

Not a shred of a counterpoint to make against her blog entry.

LOL

[bloodyminded]

You keep deflecting from what I am discussing.I am pointing out the errors made by Avro.He claimed that a certain list of people are not climate scientists.

Yes, as you explained already, and as I told you I understood.

but while you're busy playing gotcha with a poster who got a fact wrong, I've been thinking, as you see, of a rather more interesting and important matter:

That you have no idea what you're talking about. You read denial pieces, and don't bother to look at refutations. you cite sources without knowing anything about them.

This doesn't bode well. Hopefully, nobody is taking your talking point, cut-and-paste, hostile-to-self-education methods seriously.

You are having so much difficulty in seeing on what I am doing here.

No, i get it. Avro made a mistake; you're correcting the mistake; I followed it up by misreading you; and you explained to me what you meant.

I understand.

It's the rest of your reactionary project that I find troubling. You are not looking seriously into the matter. At all.

You are so quick to be adversarial.

I suppose that's true, but you're no tower of civility and friendly discussion yourself. Have you looked over your own posts?

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[sunsettommy]

Who said I have not read them. I always read the counter arguments? The result is I am rather picky about which sceptical arguments I take seriously. At the same time, I have enountered many so called "counter arguments" that are nonsense yet alarmists serve them up as if they are the final word on the topic.

Notice that Avro,Oleg Bach and now Bloodyminded.Never offer concrete counterpoints against the sources we linked.

Just the tired baloney about big oil funding.About stating they are not climate scientists and other drivel.

The deflections,obfuscations and smears seems to be the common theme they offer.

[bloodyminded]

Who said I have not read them.

So...now you're saying you have read the (many and varied) counter arguments to Joanne Nova's remarks?

Because your assertion about what "most" of them said does not appear to bear this out.

[sunsettommy]

Yes, as you explained already, and as I told you I understood.

Ok

but while you're busy playing gotcha with a poster who got a fact wrong, I've been thinking, as you see, of a rather more interesting and important matter:

He was being snotty.Thus the reason why I piled on the information.Hoping he finally understand.

That remains to be seen.

That you have no idea what you're talking about. You read denial pieces, and don't bother to look at refutations. you cite sources without knowing anything about them.

You have not provided a shed of evidence to support your absurd claim.

I have read Jo Nova's blog entry over a year ago.I agree with the main thrust of her points.

You offered NOTHING in the way of a counterpoint against it.Just a smear is all you have offered:

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. You don't count on climate scientists for your "knowledge," but on someone with a bachelor's degree in molecular biology, who has since worked for Shell Oil and the PR industry, as a "professional speaker."

I bow to your impeccable sources.

LOL

This doesn't bode well. Hopefully, nobody is taking your talking point, cut-and-paste, hostile-to-self-education methods seriously.

You are a funny guy who has yet to post a factual counterpoint to the sources.

[bloodyminded]

What the hell!

I first read the blog post over a year ago.

It is telling that you just babble and not provide anything to counter her actual blog entry with anything.

Just the usual babbling is all you offer:

Then more babble:

and more:

Not a shred of a counterpoint to make against her blog entry.

LOL

Hold your horses there. I'm not the one making claims about AGW, either way.

You are.

See, this rather irks me. People like myself, who freely admit their lack of knowledge, are slowly attempting to suss out the whole affair.

Some of us--like, oh, say, myself--have recognized that there is a clear controversy (or rather a series of them), and so have decided to read the self-described sceptics in concurrence with those issuing the warnings.

I'm not convinced I"ll find the "truth" either way, but I'm game to try.

And what do I find? I find a staggering lack of honesty and integrity. Perhaps I will discover the same thing from your opponents...time will tell. But that doesn't exonerate you, surely.

So I watch you and TimG making all sorts of claims, but without having bothered to read--I mean seriously read, in a disinterested and open-minded fashion--anything that does not sit with what you've already decided to think about the matter. I'm being propagandized to by people who, in a fundamental sense, know very little more than I do...which isn't much.

(Which begs the question: why the pretence?)

I'll get no education here, clearly. Moving on.

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[sunsettommy]

So...now you're saying you have read the (many and varied) counter arguments to Joanne Nova's remarks?

Because your assertion about what "most" of them said does not appear to bear this out.

I see that YOU have yet to show that YOU have read her stuff and find errors.That you know of counter arguments and so on.

When are you going to do that?

[TimG]

Because your assertion about what "most" of them said does not appear to bear this out.

Which arguments are you talking about? I assume you were talking about her "proof" that the models are wrong which depends on the missing hot spot. The counter arguments to that invariably use uncertainty as and excuse to ignore it. Edited June 12, 2011 by TimG

[sunsettommy]

Hold your horses there. I'm not the one making claims about AGW, either way.

You are.

See, this rather irks me. People like myself, who freely admit their lack of knowledge, are slowly attempting to suss out the whole affair.

Some of us--like, oh, say, myself--have recognized that there is a clear controversy (or rather a series of them), and so have decided to read the self-describes sceptics in concurrence with those issuing the warnings.

And what do find? I find a staggering lack of honesty and integrity. Perhaps I will discover the same thing from your opponents...time will tell. But that doesn't exonerate you, surely.

So I watch you and TimG making all sorts of claims, but without having bothered to read--I mean seriously read, in a disinterested and open-minded fashion--anything that does not sit with what you've already decided to think abotu the matter.

I'll get no education here, clearly. Moving on.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Not once have you tried to discuss anything.

I have tried,by posting information and by trying to discuss it.

You have not.

Have you even read the exchanges I have been having with Michael Harder?

[sunsettommy]

Which arguments are you talking about? I assume you were talking about her "proof" that the models are wrong which depends on the missing hot spot. The counter arguments to that invariably use uncertainty as and excuse to ignore it.

Tim,

he is babbling.

Giving us the run around with vague stuff,is all he done.

He is not going to dig in and seriously discuss anything in some detail.

[bloodyminded]

Tim,

he is babbling.

Giving us the run around with vague stuff,is all he done.

He is not going to dig in and seriously discuss anything in some detail.

I already expressed my ignorance. You might take a lesson in honest humility, instead of pretending you have any serious knowledge of or interest in the debate.

You don't. You're hostile to the very idea of debate.

Not only are you unaware of who your own sources are...you haven't looked into the refutations? Why not?

What are you scared of?

look at it this way: I have spent a considerable amount of time looking into the matter of media bias generally. I quickly discovered that the "leftist bias" thesis was always and only asserted by people who understand nothing whatsoever of the topic. It's an ignorant thesis.

However, I decided to open my mind, be fair, and I searched for, and found, serious refutations of (for example) the Herman/Chomsky propaganda model. I took the refutations seriously, and gave them a fair shake.

As it turns out, they don't tend to amount to much (though a handful of decent points have been made). But now I know...because I looked into the objections to the model which I found enlightening and insightful. I didn't take it on faith that it must be true!

Ye gods.

Why don't you commit to a full education rather than a half of one...who knows, you still might determine that you were right! (If that's your concern...even though it shouldn't be.)

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded