Climategate - Page 69

Global temperature to rise 3.5 degrees C. by 2035: International Energy Agency
By Stephen Kurczy,*Staff writer / November 11, 2010

No you don't, we're all adults here. If you can't support your arguments, that's ok, you don't have to believe anything you post here in Climategate.

Never asked you how high. Never smoked mj (not Mumbo Jumbo) so I didn't need to deny never having inhaled. It would be nice if you support your position though some dialogue. I noticed that you do make comments in other threads---why not this one---you started it.

Jazz falls into Heinlein's Democratic Fallacy. He believes his opinion is as good as anyone else's.

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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


Yes and if someone isn't making their cause though that doesn't mean you get to harass them.


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.


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.

I have, in other threads just posted links and taken quotes from them without making comments. I have contributed to Misc. News thread, so posting a link with a quote or summary is OK. I have done this in sego's Islamic thread and the New York Mosque, and the Genitals threads, however, when questions arose, I made the effort to address the question and dialogued. I think that I had some exchanges with you in the Freedom of Speech thread.

However here, in the last five pages 65-69, jg has not answered any of the questions I have asked. In these pages, about 80-90% of the postings are mine or jg's. BR, Worm, MJ1970 and e### do get into solar panels on pages 65-66, but jg does not engageneither do I since this was off topic.

The time where jg and I get into dialogue is page 63, and it continues to page 64. Things got heated between MJ and jg on page 63.

So bottom line here is that jg should have the time to answer the questions. For the last five pages, jg had only me to dialoge with, but rather than dialogue, jg posted more links that did not address the pending questions or issues.


jg has not supported or answered the questions or issues. That's the issue. Not harassing, just asking that jg to comment to defend what he/she has posted and answer the question. You and I have dialogued more since yesterday that jg has dialogued with me since 10/25.

Whether I have supported my position to jg's satisfaction is an unknown since jg has refused to comment.


I should have mentioned that this is a civil case. Criminal cases are too messy to deal with and the burden of proof the people must achieve is beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil trials are less burdensome. The burden is by the preponderance of the evidence.--you need to only convince a majority of the jurors not all of them as in Crim. Ct.

To carry your court analogy a little further, there are procedures where both parties to the suit may enquire about and demand production of documents or evidence. You can demand that the other party admit or deny certain facts. There is communication between the parties' attorneys and if necessary there are motions---where one party ask to other party show me what you got or the case is blown away. So when asked, as in Summary Judgment, you put your case forward before trial. If defendant prevails, the issues resolved in Summary Judgment go away and can't be used at trial. If this leaves the plaintiff without a case, the case is summarily dismissed.

Case in point, I have asked jg to support his/her position. jg post a link stating that 1970 was the coolest year since you know when and you should infer from that AGW is flawed and a myth. I post several links showing that the temperatures over the last two or three decades have been steadily raising and I can't remember the exact years but lets say 2005 and 2009 were the warmest years globally over the last 100 or so years. I have no control over what jg chooses to do. If jg does not want to answer or refuses to support his/her case I'm done with it and do not want to burn more of my time. This thread was dying until I started to challenge some of jg's postings. Maybe it's time that I leave it to jg and let jg post to his/her hearts content and let this thread go off into the abyss of beyond page 3.

I will leave the rest of your question unanswered since I have burnt more time on this thread that it is worth, especially when the originator doesn't have the cojones to defend his/her beliefs. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff has failed to put on a case.

COULDN'T RESIST ONE LAST COMMENT

Less of the above and more science
Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says



THE HOTTEST YEAR


'Climategate' scientist speaks out

And again, your actions in this thread run counter to your goals. Promoting deniers with clear profit-motivated agendas does NOTHING but further harm the environment. Put your fucking time and effort into making the world a better place--not promoting ignorance.

That doesn't make it somehow noble. Recognize your brand and stop promoting it. Make the world a better place. Put all your effort into posting us home improvement tips to cut down our own individual impact on the environment. I'll applaud you every day if you actually focused on something like that. I'd have enormous respect for you then.

"This thread is all sorts of retarded." -BR

I can make dumb quotes, too . But anyway, that's all behind us now. I'm glad you've put this thread behind you so we can set aside this difference between us as well. Congratulations on your new helpful thread.

I did nothing of the sort. You agreed you were going to drop this nonsense and help make the world a better place. Dude, why are you going back on your word now?

I'm engaging in helping the environment. I hope you will, too.

What does bacon have to do with anything? Anyway, point is, I really like the way your new thread is going. Kudos to you, fellow Earth-Lover.

It's too bad we can't report people on this board for reposting discredited misinformation .

Seriously?

An ONLINE poll?

It's too bad we can't report people on this board who define discredited as "I don't like your source", "I found another source that says different" or "I'm an authority for God knows what reason and I simply repeat you are wrong."

Yes. Too bad indeed.

I've been absent from this thread for a good reason, but rather than get into the reasons I thought that I should post the following articles. As the first anniversary of Climategate nears, I sure one will post to his/her hearts content how Climategate proves that AGW is wrong. The first was written almost a year ago, shortly after Climategate happened:

Climategate and the Life-Cycle of Nontroversy


The second article:
Getting past "Climategate Syndrome"

The first anniversary of 'Climategate', Part 1: The media blows the story of the century


U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as settled facts that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities

It's sort of silly to counter claims with some narrative and a slang word personifying the narrative.

I hereby refudiate your nontroversy.

Maines Climate Future: Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise