Originally Posted by FineTunes
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.
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating....http://www.answers.com/topic/disingenuous
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does....(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous_
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.
You have no way of measuring JG's sincerity, candidness or any other attribute. You're relatively new here FT and as I'm sure you've noticed, some of us have quite a long history with each other. You are engaging in what I have mentally shorthanded as the intent game. It is another another form of using conformity instead of reasoning to justify a position.
You do realize that a person could read every link, know everything you know and still come to a different conclusion right? It doesn't have to be a question of ignorance or disingeniousness. You assume these points.
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?
I still stand by those points. They are the point that present better reasoning. However JG is dealing with several parties in the thread that really don't address the discussion. If you are spending your time questioning the intent, the sources, etc of someone then that isn't about the discussion. There are specific logical fallacies assigned to them called ad-homs and poisoning the well among others. I'm sure the others know why they are obscuring the true discussion, but with you I'm not so sure.
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.
JG has supported it. If he doesn't support it your satisfaction that is not within your power to control nor is it your right to harass him about it.
Do you think that you have supported your position to the satisfaction of climate skeptics? Of course not. However that doesn't give them the right to mistreat you does it? Can they begin questioning your intentions, or declare your actions to be non-action simply because they haven't reached the same outcome as you?
Originally Posted by FineTunes
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.
Whether I agree with it or not, I'm simply noting what tends to persuade versus what doesn't. I have no power to control such things and merely suggest. If you took all those links and posted the full text from each of them, I couldn't change that. If you posted nothing but the link, I can't change that. I can complain for a short time and request but after that I should leave it alone. Three or four verbal jabs with a short stick is a request or recommendation. Beyond that it is harassment. A long time ago some liberal poster on declared they didn't want to read my posts, but claimed my misleading thread titles FORCED them to go in and read the thread.
I mean beyond the absurdity of that claim, think about that for a second. Their interest drove them to read the thread and they claimed I basically forced their hand. They claimed they were basically reading it against their will due to their piqued interest. To honor that request about 95% of the time, I name the thread the title of the article that prompts me to start the thread. If they have a complaint now they can take it up with the editor of the respective newspaper, or magazine but I've honored the request the best I can. If they can't tolerate it beyond that then the forum software has an ignore feature.
I think that the characterization of global climate prediction is an over simplification of Global Warming.
: 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.
A future event can never be a fact until it becomes the present. The question about warming isn't just if it is occuring. Radical climate variation IS THE NORM. I go and visit Arizona and large sections of it were once an ocean floor. There are dormant volcanos all over the state. Clearly that is not the case now. We can find tropical fossils in northern land areas. We can find where ice and glaciers extended down much further than they do now and all of these things took place regardless of man.
The point is that man must be proven as the source and the change must not be assumed to be bad. Those things are not at all facts. In this area it is pure protoscience. Even many of the assumptions are logical leaps.
Originally Posted by FineTunes
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.
However if you are a defendant and you think the prosecution's evidence is shit that doesn't mean you can harass the prosecution. You present your case and let the judge decide. The judge in this case is your fellow posters and readers. If you harass the prosecution, the judge will find you in contempt of court. Several parties around here have been found in contempt aka banned either temporarily or perm because they couldn't understand this.
Also I'd have to point out that since man altering the climate of the earth is considered a new state different from the default state of the climate altering on it's own, that within the confines of logical arguments the assertion and related proof is always on those declaring climate change. The default position of the skeptic is to believe the earth is undergoing the same massive and varied changes it has undergone for millions of years. The new assertion is the one that must be proven.
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.
There is a a couple logical fallacies. One is poisoning the well and another is ad-hom circumstancial. The source has no bearing on the validity of the information. The information is either valid or it isn't. Your claim of refuation obviously is not shared by JG or else he wouldn't keep using it in an attempt to persuade. You've got no authority on these matters (nor do I by the way.) You say it refuted it. He says it didn't. It still amounts to the playground version of BECAUSE I SAID SO.
The only one who truly decides is the public.
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.
Yes and if someone isn't making their cause though that doesn't mean you get to harass them.
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.
You still have to leave it up to those parties. You can't harass him because of what you think about the presentation of his case.
Originally Posted by FineTunes
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.
I'm sure he will feel compelled if a discussion is occurring. However logical fallacies aren't discussions. Someone's links aren't wrong because of the source. They aren't wrong because of consensus. They aren't wrong because another link attempts to refute it. They are just objectively right or wrong. Since everyone is speculating on future events, no one really knows for sure and even on the side with which you agree the models are being revised early and often and the cause of some of those revisions is information found by skeptics. If a case becomes strong enough to win over a skeptic, then it really is a good case. Badgering isn't convincing though.