Climategate - Page 68

A lot of Science is about refuting or supporting colleagues' research. Some of the controversies in science like Continental Drift and the years of controversies of CD lead to bitter rivalries lasting years of published papers being challenged and refuted. That's kind of how SCIENCE is conducted. Another example is found in the extinction of dinosaurs controversy.


When you present SCIENTIFIC FACTS, then they will speak for themselves.


If what you have posted are" facts" leading you to your conclusion, then sorry your conclusions are wrong, because the "facts" you have presented are not based upon SCIENCE but are misinterpretations the SCIENCE in the cited by your blog links.

I'll agree that the SCIENCE isn't fully settled---but the evidence is heavily weighed to AGW.----check out some what I have posted and keep away from the bloggers. Go to Science or Nature for more credible facts and SCIENCE. YOu might also want to check out the AMS site on Climate Change.


Benedictus de Spinoza

Report: Global Warming Issue From 2 Or 3 Years Ago May Still Be Problem

For fun we should just insinuate that because FT disagrees with you, he is totally uninformed on the matter and clearly is ignoring everything you've posted.

I mean we've clearly got proof this is true because darn it, he still disagrees!

Obviously if he knew what you knew, he would do what you do, and likewise think what you think.

When you've got "the one true answer" all dissention and opposition is impossible.

Yeah, I expected that, I guess it's my fault expecting that you would actually comprehend the SCIENCE in the postings. You've been reading and putting too much faith in bloggers far too long to understand the SCIENCE.


You're confused about scientist, skeptics and denier. The case is scientist>skeptic ≠ skeptic>scientist. Not all skeptics are scientist. Scientist are by nature skeptics, they develop a hypothesis, perform experiments and observations and examine the results. If the data doesn't support the hypothesis then it is wrong. Skeptics may not believe in science and will deny anything is true if it is contrary to their beliefs, even if the evidence proves otherwise. But a skeptic may be swayed by the facts and evidences eventually---if not then they are deniers.







The key word is relevant. Most of your sources are faulty blogger denier's sites that have nothing to do with science. You have ignored any challenges about the validity of your postings which means that you cannot support your position that AGW is real. I cannot ignore your postings because others reading them may actually believe them to be fact, when in reality they are based upon pseudo science or draw contrary conclusions from the cited papers without any foundation.


















When you learn the difference between science and blogger's pseudo science, post---otherwise your postings here are no longer credible. If you think they are then defend them, otherwise the DENIER'S label is appropriate.

Try this as a starting point:

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

FT, what does showing that we have some trolls around here who follow people from thread to thread posting their same accusations and demand prove to anyone?

Myself and several other posters could go into a dozen threads and make some ridiculous demand of you and then draw our conclusions when you refuse to say how high to our command of jump.

I could then compile all the folks saying that into a nice long reply.

What does it prove though? I guess you should post it in the bullying thread as an example of internet bullying by yourself and others.

Also height of irony, you complain about the thread moving to a new page when your long replies move it there faster than anything else.

tm, you fail to see that most of what jg has posted has been refuted as being wrong. jg has failed to support any of his/her postings/arguements. Instead of standing for what is he/she has posted, jg goes back to the same denier's blogger sites and finds more crap.

Try to review the following:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...00#post1749200

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...97#post1747897

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...40#post1747840

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...47#post1747847

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...65#post1743065

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...82#post1743082

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...95#post1742595

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...18#post1739618

STILL UNANSWERED. jg IS A DENIER WHO CAN'T STAND UP WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE TRUTH.

As others have pointed out in other threads, you don't answer questions. How am I making ridiculous demands on jg? Only asking that jg to support his/her argument.

Who has come to the thread to confront me----err who's the troll---tm of course!!!

False accusations--ad hominem attack. My politics aren't from the left---if it really matters. How I voted is of not your concern---we live in what I think is a free country?--so how I voted is not an issue.


When you keep going to the same blogger denier sites and post crap, what is one to think? You don't even defend what you have posted.

jg, you might want to respond to these.

And what was the mechanism by which "Al Gore" manipulated the entire apparatus of agreed upon science to falsify vast amounts of data across decades of research in order to line his pockets? Since we're "following the money" and all.

I guess you're new, don't expect an answer any time soon. Maybe if you're lucky jg will post a link to something totally irrelevant and off point.

What---no links?

ExxonMobil Funds Global Warming Deniers

Scientists fed up with global warming deniers

Sorry deniers, Hadley Center and WMO say 2000s are easily the hottest decade in recorded history

The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global temperatures for 2000-2008 now stand almost 0.2 °C warmer than the average for the decade 1990-1999.

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

Colorado climate scientists tell Ken Buck: Global warming is not a hoax

I have nothing against your right to provide information to the readers of this thread. What I oppose is that the information that you provide is most often not true and not based on science. You are presenting only one side of the argument from the same sources. When you keep going to the blogger denier sites, you keep the misinformation flowing. I have pointed out on several occasions where your posted articles were based upon misinformation, misquotes, incorrectly drawing conclusions from the cited articles that are't the author's conclusions, etc.


You are the messenger and I have pointed out the fallacies of the message that you are conveying. You have the responsibility to convey the truth. If you can't support the message, don't post it. An example of how I challenge your posting:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...97#post1747897

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...47#post1747847

I'm not challenging you but your cited posting.

But you continue to post misinformation so I point that out in posts like:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...40#post1747840


I have mostly attacked the articles that you posted, but sometimes it is best to shoot the messenger. It is the messenger that keeps posting the pseudo science. I have only challenged you to defend what you post since you continue to use the faulty and biased sources.


First, AGW is not dogma. A part of science is to challenge opposing points of view. Just as you believe that you must challenge AGW, I feel that I should support it. If you post misinformation or articles based on poor science, it should be challenged as in other threads where you support one position, someone has the right to challenge you.


This is not a silly game. I have refuted what you have posted and only challenged you to do the same or at least defend what you post. If you can't support your postings, or if you don't believe in them you are being disingenuous to the readers and commenters of this thread. This is a forum after all.

Forum def: A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

Apparently you fail to understand that open means open and not FT declared he was right and that all JG's stuff was wrong and thus discussion is now over.

Saying he's a liar aka disingenuous just because you disagree with him isn't open discussion. It is an attack. Open means put it all out there and let the people decide for themselves.

First global climate prediction is a proto-science at best. Anyone who claims they have THE truth or THE answer is akin to a religious fanatic because these models, and that is what all the claims are based on are deeply flawed, subject to frequent revision and often rely on proxies that may or may not be accurate for past history or future predictions.

JG fully supports his views. He links to information. He cites sources. He provides quotes, graphs, you name it.

The definition of support with regard to an argument is not that which manages to convince you, especially convince you against your will, that you are wrong.

The reverse is true as well.

FT, you should be old and wise enough to understand these points by now. When you go into a court both sides present a case. Both sides provide a narrative of what happened, present evidence, ask questions they hope to get answers they like to, etc. In the end a judge decides. Well in these open forums, the readers decide for themselves. About 5% of them register and post, but fully 90%+ percent of them are guests aka lurkers. You don't have to convince JG. You can convince them. If someone feels passionate about what you've shared, they'll register and add to the discussion. If not, then harassing and spamming isn't going to convince them and it is going to turn many people off to what you have to say.

If this were real life, if it were your work place, a coffee house, a university class, would you be allowed to talk over everyone and stick your papers that you believe prove your point in their faces repeatedly? It wouldn't fly. A monologue isn't a dialog. Likewise spewing the same dozen points ore stridently each time (bigger fonts, more colors, more smilies and pics) won't change the nature of what you are doing. Stop harassing people. Present information and move on.

I'm of the view that links (JG and FT) alone don't compel someone to read. Likewise five pages doesn't compel someone to read. Pick an interesting paragraph to quote and see if you can hook and reel someone in to read your information. Sharing some small bit about why you think it is important to understand helps too.

OK tm, how's this? Let the readers decide, if challenged, ignore and post more---no need to defend my position or what I have posted. Thanksits more easy to post than to take a position.
What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
Do AGW deniers see the irony in calling those who support AGW theory religious?
Don't AGW deniers lie?
While Attempting to Disprove AGW, Deniers Discover Even More Proof That The U.S. Is Warming - NOAA
Can someone be a scientist and an AGW denier or major skeptic at the same time? If so, how?
CO2 as Plant Food ~ The Latest Global Warming Deniers*Crock
Climate-denier's Bible is a pack of lies--The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming
450 more lies from the climate change*Deniers
Lies Concocted By Climate Deniers Likely To Stick Around Despite Corrections
Just 5 questions: The temperature record
Temperature trackers watch waxings and wanings of our watery world
Cold snaps plus global warming do add up
Climate change: How do we know?
Unresolved questions about Earth's climate
Resources on climate change mitigation

I've stated what I think is most persuasive. Yet I'll take a post full of ten links right now over what you usually do and at least you aren't harassing and stalking anyone.

I say have at it!

You haven't been reading what's here, have you? Besides your mischaracterization what's happen, you failed to mentioned that I have asked jg to discuss the issues. jg refuses to respond and support what he/she has posted. I thought this was a discussion. No where in this thread have I declared that I'm right, jg's wrong and thus the discussion is over---nice try tm......point fingers and obfuscate the issues.


I stand by that statement, however you mischaracterize my usage of the word.

dis·in·gen·u·ous*
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating....http://www.answers.com/topic/disingenuous

adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does....(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous_
adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity

as opposed to lie
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

jg did not lie since jg was not the one who made the statements in the links. jg is not being sincere, not being candid, or not being ingenuous by continuing to refuse to discuss or support his/her position.


Oh, then what you and jg in other post are wrong when it was said





and others are wrong to insist that just posting links as jg has done without comments or defending them when challenged is OK?



jg's comments after a dissertation on page 63 # 2510.http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...14#post1741914
At least BR made a comment about the post, jg ignored it totally.





So it's alright not to insist that jg defend his/her position or point of view even when several members have asked for an explanation? If what you expect is post links fine with me, but lets be fair about your criticisms.


I am willing to support what I've posted, just ask that jg do the same.

That's the main issue that I have raised with jg. jg just post links and does not comment on them, nor does jg defend or support the articles he/she posts. I gather that jg, when he/she post links, that it supports what jg believes to be true and it supports his/her position. When I have challenged jg's post, jg's only response is to post another link to an article that has nothing to do with the issue I have raised.

I guess you agree with this premise that you need only to post links without comments:


but as I see below, you now agree that you should at least have a paragraph summary. This is fine, and I have made an effort to shorten the length of quotes from the articles I present, I only ask that jg do likewise and support what he/she has posted when it is questioned/challenged.


I think that the characterization of global climate prediction is an over simplification of Global Warming.
def protoscience: a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science; a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science.

Global Warming is occurring. There is more evidence to support this and only the impacts of AGW are not fully accessed or understood. Modeling is getting betternot perfect as you know there are many variables, however the fact is as my previously posted links support Global Warming is a fact.


Long answer in two parts.

I had to review what you referred to as my quote. I have included what is actually two quotes. The first does list previous post where I have refuted jg's linked articles and ask that jg respond to defend or support the linked articles.

Your court analogy is a good one. Since jg is the originator of this thread, lets call him/her the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the burden of proof that the case has merit and is sustainable to a favorable disposition to plaintiff. The plaintiff must convince the jury that he's right and should prevail. jg's case is either that AGW is wrong, or that the evidence/science supporting it is flawed. Most of the evidence that jg presented to support his/her case has been refuted. It is up to jg to either support his/her evidenceto convince the judge the facts/evidence is not refutablethat jg has more to support the evidence. You challenge defendants case by showing that what they have presented either as an argument against your evidence and facts are sh!t and/or what they present as fact and as evidence is sh!t.

As I pointed to jg, the sites that he/she keeps going to are blogger denier sites. If the articles that they continually post are refutable by being misinterpretation of or misquoting the author's conclusions then the site itself as a source becomes questionable. Move on and find a better site.

Rather than argue against what the defendant has presented and argued, jg goes and links to more articles which have nothing to do with the issues that have raised. You have to convince the jury of your case. You have to convince the judge that your facts are sound.

jg has presented a poor case and based upon the facts, evidence and science presented by the defendant, defendant should prevail----oh....sorry...got carried away.

Just pointing out that posting links and not commenting on them or supporting them when challenged makes little sense. If you follow most of my other post in this thread, I do comment. I will as per your suggestion, shorten my quotes.

As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links je/she post when it questioned.