Global Warming? are humans to blame?

a little something about the energy of storms we were discussing earlier

http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=10762138495

 

Boston dodging questions

Do you understand the term "psychological projection"? That means that you assume that everyone else is doing what you are doing. You are the one trying to prove something here, not me. Since I'm a skeptic rather than a true believer like you, I don't have anything to prove. I don't even think that you are wrong about climate change, just that your level of faith is not justified by the available evidence.

I'm just showing up now and then when someone makes an obviously ridiculous argument like you did on the climatesanity/RealClimate thing.

Another common tactic of yours, Boston:

1. You make an argument that is provably wrong.
2. Someone proves that it's wrong.
3. You use the Gish Gallop to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
4. Someone points out that you are changing the subject.
5. You say: "the subject is Rapid Global Climate Shift".

Yes, Boston, that is the overall subject of this thread. Thank you so much for keeping that at the forefront of our attention. But within the larger subject, there are lots of smaller subjects, and it is those smaller subject that you keep trying to change every time someone proves you wrong. It's actually a bit embarrassing watching the way you twist and squirm to avoid admitting that you were wrong. But it's pointless to do that on the internet, because we can easily go back and read the thing that you said that was wrong.

In this case, I don't have to go back and find a quote where you were wrong, because you shamelessly repeat the mistake in this very reply to the post where I explained why you were wrong:

Shameless. You ignored my simple yes/no question, because answering it would make you admit that you were wrong. You are still pretending that this was a case of some sort of referee deciding not to "run" a piece when it was really a case of a forum moderator deleting a comment that he wanted to hide from his readers.

Here is the question so that you can dodge it again:

Let's make this real simple. I'll ask you a yes or no question: Suppose there is a forum moderator who, without comment or justification, deletes a post that

(1) is by a person knowledgeable in the discussion area
(2) presents a technical argument relevant to the discussion
(3) does not violate any written usage guidelines of the forum
(4) disagrees with the moderator

Would you suspect that the moderator wants to hide information from his readers? Yes or No.

 

To Boston:
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.

Happy Thanksgiving to God from whom you get the right and freedom to post your foolishness.

P.S.

Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.
Blah blah blah. More drivel from the leftist anti-capitalist freedom hating crowd, err, mob.

 

its like my demanding a yes or no answer to the following

are you going to go the rest of your life with your head in the sand.

Yes or No
Dave
Yes or No

Implying that you've had your head in the sand when in fact its been elsewhere

So tell me that wasn't your "proof" Dave cause if it was it was pretty disappointing, although on the other hand it was so transparent that it might just sway a few readers into going back and seeing that I in fact did address the issue of Toms formula and clearly stated its a classic instance of garbage in and garbage out. Tom even admitted that, in the end when he suggested that no mater how you run it other than the right way it comes up garbage. DUH as if thats some kind big scientific discovery of the year.

He was in fact simply trying to trick us into discussing his formula knowing that in the end it was garbage.

His tactic was pretty transparent from the get go.

Went something like this

I don't deny the basics of the theory but I do have a couple questions
lets look at this formula used in this paper. ( shows us a differential equation knowing that most of us don't have the programing to follow along )
just for fun lets change the parameters like so and see what we get, oh and side note lets also change the data set that was used to calibrate the formula.
now lets discuss what happens shall we
oh look there we don't get the sea level reaction we were expecting
at which point he tries to get us to agree that the first set of examples out are somehow accurate or depict contradictory information to the original model

then try's to foist off on us that its proof denying one of the major tenants of climate change.

fortunately I wasn't buying it, partly because I'd already discussed it with a few folks over at realclimate and I also had ole Prof. Michanac whom Tom so lovingly spoke of on the other line as well. Oh and DR Kevin Trenberth, couple of guys who just might know a thing or two about climate models.

screwed ole Tommy up entirely when I wasn't going to play along, cause its obvious to anyone who can think for themselves and isn't going to be blindly led through some bunk example that by changing the data sets, and by altering the parameters, you've pretty well shuffled the deck and wrecked the calibration of the model, small wonder, garbage in = garbage out. Its not like a^2 + b^2 = c^2 works if your playing with a square. its a model, made up of variables, in whats otherwise called a differential equation. You can't play with those to much or you screw them up entirely. Might be why Realclimate left the fraud comments in and deleted everything else. Tom was desperately going to trying to gain our involvement hoping to trip us up by agreeing with him that his results showed x when in fact he intended all along to eventually come out with that his version of the model didn't work at all, at which point he would have said, AHA. I didn't give him that opportunity, saw right threw his alterations in the model and for that, your actually going to suggest I was avoiding his, "technical" argument. Please, who are you trying to kid.

but it was entertaining to rehash the highlights
cheers
B

 

Blah.

 

Still at it eh? I've been gone from this thread for a while, and I just popped in to see if there were any converts on either direction? No? Well, we ARE an open-minded and rational species aren't we?

Though I must admit I am starting to wonder if the dinosaurs DID develop giant brains - just didn't keep them in their skulls. A lot of them did have very large armoured bums after all, and a lot of us seem to use the same location for our mental processes. But I digress. I do that sometimes.

Why can't we all get along, stop arguing, and take a gigantic gamble with the planet? What's the worst that can happen? The rest of the planet dies off so our descendants have to process their own $hit in order to eat, as the plants aren't around to do that any more and food animals died long before that happened BUT the best part is, only the very rich will have to do that as the rest of our species won't be able to afford it.

- and maybe it won't happen after all. Gosh, won't we look silly if we control our consumption, conserve our oil and other non-renewable resources, reduce CO2, clean up the planet, then find out we needn't have done so. How utterly illogical of us! So embarrassing to be stuck with a clean, living planet after all that effort . . .

 

I'm barging in here because I'd just like to view the thoughts on this: Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

 

Very simple and verifiable. The first set of leaked emails set off a round of intense scientific query and very public introspection. The university in question's science was TOTALLY endorsed by all scientific authorities and accepted by all governments.

This is merely yet another attempt to obfuscate and confuse those who have limited critical reasoning ability - and I'm sure you'll see most hysteria on the subject from Forbes magazine and any publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, including FOX News and Wall Street Journal. Note that Forbes et al are still using the terms "Climategate" and "scandal" as if the issue really is. Which it isn't.

 

Hey -- I always go to Forbes or some other Murdoch rag first whenever I want an objective view of a scientific topic, rather than a piece of political and financial propaganda. Doesn't everyone?

 

Ho ho, perhaps this is what it all should come down to at the end.

Unfortunately, there has to be an educational debate because there are powerful interests that don't want this to happen, and are willing to spend staggering sums of money to make sure that the majority of people are brainwashed into thinking there's no problem with the environment, as nutty as that position is considering the crap we're throwing up into the atmosphere globally.

Unfortunately, they are winning.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

 

blah blah blah Hoyt, blah blah blah

 

My thoughts exactly. You must be a mind reader.

Blah!

 

see now there you go assuming things again Hoyt.

I was referring to the Forbes article you quoted from, we recently laid to rest any denial from ole Tom over at climateinsanity in part by explaining to him what the Gish Gallop was. Interestingly enough that gallop was in reference to another one of Forbes famously slanted articles.

taken directly from the pages of realclimate

 

Forget the Gish Gallop. You are dancing the BS Bolero.