|
Post by nancyw on Aug 19, 2009 15:40:43 GMT
Funny how you two want to more or label people as criminals because they dont agree with you while announcing that you are the guardians of truth. So you've incorrectly said that I have labelled certain people as criminals and you've incorrectly said I've announced myself as the guardian of truth. Ironically that is another denier tactic - you need to watch yourself before you get sucked in. As to the - "it's cold around here - this global warming stuff is just nonsense" - sort of talk, even I say things like that. Hi Steve, It's obvious that what radiant meant to write was "more or LESS label people as criminals" . I can see it. And you can see it...... I hope you're not choosing to ignore the typo in order to play the victim. And since in your post (which radiant was replying to), you "more or less" accused his "side" of fraud (which is criminal), I think most people would consider it a fair statement on his part.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 19, 2009 16:20:59 GMT
So you've incorrectly said that I have labelled certain people as criminals and you've incorrectly said I've announced myself as the guardian of truth. Ironically that is another denier tactic - you need to watch yourself before you get sucked in. As to the - "it's cold around here - this global warming stuff is just nonsense" - sort of talk, even I say things like that. Hi Steve, It's obvious that what radiant meant to write was "more or LESS label people as criminals" . I can see it. And you can see it...... I hope you're not choosing to ignore the typo in order to play the victim. And since in your post (which radiant was replying to), you "more or less" accused his "side" of fraud (which is criminal), I think most people would consider it a fair statement on his part. To be honest, no I didn't spot the "more or" but it makes no odds. It's either criminal or it isn't. There is no more or less. "More or less" is an admission that he doesn't believe what he is saying and is stretching a point for rhetorical effect. I enjoy radiant's posts on the sea ice thread, but he does tend to overdramatise his responses to my posts.
|
|
|
Post by nancyw on Aug 19, 2009 16:47:56 GMT
Hi Steve, It's obvious that what radiant meant to write was "more or LESS label people as criminals" . I can see it. And you can see it...... I hope you're not choosing to ignore the typo in order to play the victim. And since in your post (which radiant was replying to), you "more or less" accused his "side" of fraud (which is criminal), I think most people would consider it a fair statement on his part. To be honest, no I didn't spot the "more or" but it makes no odds. It's either criminal or it isn't. There is no more or less. "More or less" is an admission that he doesn't believe what he is saying and is stretching a point for rhetorical effect. I enjoy radiant's posts on the sea ice thread, but he does tend to overdramatise his responses to my posts. **************************************************** Hi Steve, "more or less" is a term used in legal documents. And it most certainly DOES "make odds". It doesn't have anything to do with admitting the writer "doesn't believe what s/he's saying & is stretching a point for rhetorical effect". The people reading this can judge for themselves who is "stretching a point for rhetorical effect."
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 19, 2009 18:03:43 GMT
Funny how you two want to more or label people as criminals because they dont agree with you while announcing that you are the guardians of truth. So you've incorrectly said that I have labelled certain people as criminals and you've incorrectly said I've announced myself as the guardian of truth. Ironically that is another denier tactic - you need to watch yourself before you get sucked in. As to the - "it's cold around here - this global warming stuff is just nonsense" - sort of talk, even I say things like that. You said: the sole intention of these folk is to suppress and delay any sort of sensible debate. Do you genuinely believe that or is your role to just undermine those who genuinely believe you are misguided in your beliefs? Why do you accuse people of being liars and manipulators and then deny you are doing it? You Socold and GLC all have the same flavour of writing as if you are the guardians of truth and the rest of us are ignorant or simply fraudulent. You insult us with 'skeptics' and 'deniers' when we attempt to talk about a subject that interests us and does alter our lives one way or another. And simply by pointing out to you your unacceptable behaviour i get a round of abuse about being sucked in and belonging to 'them'. You mentioned my sea ice posts. The point about sea ice is that in 4 weeks time we will probably know the result. The rest of it will probably not be known in my lifetime but for some reason you write as if you already know and we are misguided fools or criminals. And you are so convinced of your rightness you cant even see how insulting your style is. I felt angered by your post to Socold which probably makes the absense of 'less' a freudian slip.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 19, 2009 19:50:04 GMT
radiant. Dont be too hard on glc. He is good for a laugh occasionally. As icefisher pointed out he has invented a new oxymoron for us to chuckle over - fragile multi-year ice in the Arctic Ocean.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 19, 2009 20:30:26 GMT
radiant. Dont be too hard on glc. He is good for a laugh occasionally. As icefisher pointed out he has invented a new oxymoron for us to chuckle over - fragile multi-year ice in the Arctic Ocean. I very much enjoy glc/steve/socold/chris/etal. When I read what they write, I think....and that is a good thing. What they write just confirms what I have read that the data/science behind AGW is, a bit weak? When someone makes a statement that the validity of the base of a model/temp data etc is not important to try and justify what they believe......wellllll....kinda like balancing a bank statement where 2+2=5. NO matter how many times you try, it just isn't going to balance. I hope they keep posting and don't give up. Now the rest of the flat earth society can move over to the round earth society, but I hope they keep on with the flat earth.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 19, 2009 20:33:09 GMT
He/they are just following the lead of people like Harry Reid, who recently referred to vocal opponents of the health bill as "Terrorists". I have no doubt that he (Reid ) and other true believers & supporters of cap and tax will use the same or similar labels in reference to anyone who disagrees with that particular political agenda also. If I had the money I'd go to Copenhagen this Dec just to watch the political circus. Sen Reid wouldn't know where to hang his hat if a hat rack was inches away. There is an implossion coming with the AGW idea, I can sense it. The science is not even close to what anyone with an ounce of brain cells would call "Good Science". No matter how much climatologists etc protest that they are looking for other reasons for warming/cooling, their mind is made up and their papers tilt that direction so the money keeps flowing to them. There are growing cracks in their ideology. As I have stated before, I used to think that AGW was correct, until I really started studying the underlieing science. To say I was dismayed at the preposterous lack of quality control in all of this is an understatement. I don't like being, how shall I put this nicely......misled by people who by their study should know better. History is always a precursor of the future. WHEN and IF we even get close to being warmer that past history indicates, THEN I will get concerned. But a few degrees C one way or the other is just natural flucuation. Climate is chaotic, has always been because of the dynamics. To think you can model it with no understanding of that fact is purely ludicrous. A slab works great in a driveway because it is a stationary thing. IT does not work at all in climate because climate is so fluid. If you were a little closer I'd buy you a beer or 3. Did you notice today that Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the prediction they made about Arctic ice disappearing by 2030 was wrong: ""I don't think it will be melting by 2030. ... That may have been a mistake," he said. " Gee, Ya' think? Video interview: www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/178-phelim-mcaleer-a-ann-mcelhinney .
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 20, 2009 14:15:41 GMT
So you've incorrectly said that I have labelled certain people as criminals and you've incorrectly said I've announced myself as the guardian of truth. Ironically that is another denier tactic - you need to watch yourself before you get sucked in. As to the - "it's cold around here - this global warming stuff is just nonsense" - sort of talk, even I say things like that. You said: the sole intention of these folk is to suppress and delay any sort of sensible debate. Do you genuinely believe that or is your role to just undermine those who genuinely believe you are misguided in your beliefs? I made it clear in the full quote that I don't for one minute think that the people I am referring to genuinely believe what they say: Of course, by pointing out that [the article this thread is about] is denialism rather than scepticism will bring the accusation that I am attempting to suppress debate, which is ironic because the sole intention of these folk is to suppress and delay any sort of sensible debate. You are too sensitive. I will quite happily criticise people on any side of the argument if I think they are deliberately manipulating facts. It just so happens that on this forum, most of the links are made to sceptic arguments. Anyway socold, glc and I are much less rude than a number of regular posters to this forum, and I don't think we write in the same way at all. I don't think "Skeptic" is an insult. What about "warmaholic" or "alarmist"? I haven't called anyone on this site a denier. My behaviour is perfectly acceptable. You are misinterpreting what I say to the most extreme extent. You are being over sensitive, and you are taking my criticism of other people too personally. Again, I don't know where your wrath comes from. I *do* think your posts on the sea ice thread are interesting. I've kept mostly out of the discussion about prediction of the outcome for this year because I realise I don't know enough and don't have enough information. If you don't like my description of the person who this thread is about, then please defend what that person has said against socold's response.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 20, 2009 15:22:18 GMT
If you don't like my description of the person who this thread is about, then please defend what that person has said against socold's response. Why not make it easier for me and let me know the name of the criminal? Are you talking about Watts or Rutan? Or somebody else? Does C02 cause warming of the earth? Has the earth warmed? Would it have warmed anyway as part of some of other natural cycle? I keep hearing the science of C02 warming and forcing is basic physics. The more i think about it the more i think how can such a low concentration of C02 absorb so much heat? The answer is that it cannot. It just reemits it or convects it to the other 99.962% of the atmosphere. C02 warming cannot be just basic physics. It must also involve meterology and complicated air currents. The principal way air is warmed is via convection surely? Or are we lead to believe that clouds warm up and evaporate when the sun is shining on them so that they cannot form? ;D Plenty of heat comes thru the clouds or places like the uk would freeze to death in the summer Have any large scale experiments been done to show the basic physics? It must be possible to fill a large aircraft hanger with air and do the science. Perhaps Rutan knows there is no such science? But no matter only criminals like me deny your truth. How about we have a separate thread on C02 so you can show me the basic science and educate me so i know what you are talking about?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 20, 2009 16:16:13 GMT
If you don't like my description of the person who this thread is about, then please defend what that person has said against socold's response. Why not make it easier for me and let me know the name of the criminal? Are you talking about Watts or Rutan? Or somebody else? I haven't said anything about criminals. "Criminal" is your word.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 20, 2009 22:03:58 GMT
For example Slide 8 pushes the fallacy that "humans emit only 3% of co2". Anyone familiar with this issue knows why that argument is false. But anyone unfamiliar with the issue might be unaware of those details. Socold we just had this discussion here. You couldn't bring forward a single study that establishes the long term presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Others here produced dozens of studies showing a short residence of CO2 in the atmosphere but you doggedly hold to the IPCC position through a duplicitous logic for which you have no experimental support whatsoever. Studies were produced but they were not interpreted correctly. Usual story.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 21, 2009 1:29:17 GMT
Now this is odd. IN all my years, and I have had a few....LOL. I have NEVER seen rain come from the straight north. It usually comes from the south west....and in a wrap around situation it will come from the north east........but never have I seen rain come from the straight north....and traverse straight south. Interesting.......I am going to have to look at highs/lows etc on this one.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 22, 2009 11:58:01 GMT
The number one lesson of skeptics in reference to AGW is that the skeptics are justified and correct. AGW is falsified as science, and is a social movement seeking to impose huge social costs that only harm people.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Aug 23, 2009 22:07:48 GMT
In general, a healthy skepticism is good. It prevents serious leaks from the wallet area. As Bernard Madoff's impoverished victims can attest.
In general, anyone with a message that implies "you must do so and so now or the world will end" is worth listening to up to two bits worth. Beyond a quarter of a dollar, keep one hand on your wallet, one eye on your bank account, and your women folks locked up.
Because you can never be entirely sure of what he is after - but his gain will be your loss.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 23, 2009 23:49:08 GMT
The number one lesson of skeptics in reference to AGW is that the skeptics are justified and correct. AGW is falsified as science,....
How is it falsified?
|
|