[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2015-February-27, 13:41, said:

Descending to ad hominem attack is widely judged to be a tacit admission that you've lost the argument. Climate-change is important as an issue. The debate is still on. The matter is by no means decided. Discussion of it should not be demeaned and curtailed in this way.

A refusal to accept the science that cigarette smoking is addictive and leads to cancers and lung diseases does not mean there is still debate about cigarettes or that the matter is not settled - and anyone who espouses such views about cigarettes or other overwhelming scientific consensus should be vilified as being ridiculous, even if that means making an ad hominem attack.

[Al_U_Card]

Climate change, or subject change? ROFL

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2015-February-27, 15:04, said:

A refusal to accept the science that cigarette smoking is addictive and leads to cancers and lung diseases does not mean there is still debate about cigarettes or that the matter is not settled - and anyone who espouses such views about cigarettes or other overwhelming scientific consensus should be vilified as being ridiculous, even if that means making an ad hominem attack.

How does vilifying those with whom you disagree accomplish any good?

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-February-27, 17:24, said:

Climate change, or subject change? ROFL

Winston is hardly changing the subject.

The precise same set of lobbying groups are being paid to critique climate change that were paid to try to discredit the science on the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.
Same funding sources as well.

This is all well documented. ("Merchant's of Doubt" is a standard reference)

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-27, 13:53, said:

In my experience, complaining about "ad hominem attacks" is a tactic that stupid people use when they object to having been labeled as idiots and still want equal time spent on their opinions.

If I'm stupid I'm in good company because I share most of Hrothgar's opinions on climate-change

[Al_U_Card]

To quote noted skeptic James Randi:

"Happily, science does not depend on consensus. Conclusions are either reached or not, but only after an analysis of evidence as found in nature. It’s often been said that once a conclusion is reached, proper scientists set about trying to prove themselves wrong. Failing in that, they arrive at a statement that appears — based on all available data — to describe a limited aspect about how the world appears to work. And not all scientists are willing to follow this path. My most excellent friend Martin Gardner once asked a parapsychologist just what sort of evidence would convince him he had erred in coming to a certain conclusion. The parascientist replied that he could not imagine any such situation, thus — in my opinion — removing him from the ranks of the scientific discipline rather decidedly.
History supplies us with many examples where scientists were just plain wrong about certain matters, but ultimately discovered the truth through continued research. Science recovers from such situations quite well, though sometimes with minor wounds […]
as far as humans are concerned, ten times more people die each year from the effects of cold than die from the heat. This a hugely complex set of variables we are trying to reduce to an equation…
It’s easy enough to believe that drought, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes are signs of a coming catastrophe from global warming, but these are normal variations of any climate that we — and other forms of life — have survived. Earth has undergone many serious changes in climate, from the Ice Ages to periods of heavily increased plant growth from their high levels of CO2, yet the biosphere has survived. We’re adaptable, stubborn, and persistent — and we what other life forms don’t have: we can manipulate our environment. Show me an Inuit who can survive in his habitat without warm clothing… Humans will continue to infest Earth because we’re smart.
In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use, are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in Global Warming."


6 years on...

[Al_U_Card]

Speakiing of funding...

Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from
FY2008 through FY2013. The large majority—more than 75%—has funded technology
development and deployment, primarily through the Department of Energy (DOE). More than
one-third of the identified funding was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal
expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science, 68% for energy technology
development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate
change.

versus the "well-funded" denial machine?

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2015-February-27, 18:05, said:

How does vilifying those with whom you disagree accomplish any good?

Because calling a fraud a fraud and explaining to the mesmerized how his apparent magic is accomplished removes the power from the trickster.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2015-February-28, 11:56, said:

Because calling a fraud a fraud and explaining to the mesmerized how his apparent magic is accomplished removes the power from the trickster.

I doubt that any contributor to this topic is a "fraud" or has "mesmerised" another contributor. In any case, counter-argument is a more effective remedy than name-calling, which just inhibits on-topic discussion.

[Al_U_Card]

Whack-job: Individual presenting whacky or patently unsubstantiated claims, viz:

Srgjan Kerim, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.
UN Press release, 8 Jul 2008

Mark Lynas draws on the latest science to describe the world under warming scenarios ranging from 1° (bad) to 6°C (unimaginably bad). He sums up the task with brutal candour: “we have only seven years left to peak global emissions before facing escalating dangers of runaway global warming.”
review of Recent Books about Climate Change, By Clive Hamilton, http://www.themonthly.com.au October 2008

The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint. Australians – among the world’s biggest producers of carbon dioxide – were “better placed than others to do something about it”, she said.
Herald Sun, December 04, 2009

On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming — “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
as reported in The Washington Times, 21 Apr 2014

“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.”
Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.
San Jose Mercury News 30 Jun 1989

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012. Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth’s remaining resources.
The Canadian, 8 Jan 2007

Tricksters and charlatans, indeed!

[Daniel1960]

nige1, on 2015-March-01, 09:37, said:

I doubt that any contributor to this topic is a "fraud" or has "mesmerised" another contributor. In any case, counter-argument is a more effective remedy than name-calling, which just inhibits on-topic discussion.

Agreed. Name-calling just makes the poster appear desperate. If someone thinks another poster is presenting false information, present something which refutes that data. If that person cannot present a justified counter-argument, then perhaps the best remedy is to remain silent.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2015-March-01, 10:26, said:

Agreed. Name-calling just makes the poster appear desperate. If someone thinks another poster is presenting false information, present something which refutes that data. If that person cannot present a justified counter-argument, then perhaps the best remedy is to remain silent.

People have been correcting Al's facts for years.

It didn't do any good during his multi year rant trying to education us regarding the truth behind 911 and it hasn't done any good on climate change.
The man has openly stated that he posts factually incorrect information and that he is justified in doing because the warmists do the same thing.

He just continues to spew the same shiite over and over and over again.

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of "educationing", doomsday cultists, messianic missionaries and End-of-days theorists all come out in the wash, as their failed predictions never arrive...sounds awfully familiar.

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2015-March-01, 11:40, said:

People have been correcting Al's facts for years.

Your attack was against Daniel just as much as AUC and I can see no justification for it from the substance of the thread. I would say that you owe him an apology but I know full well that there is not a snowball's chance in a runaway greenhouse effect-affected Earth of that happening so let us just say that using AUC as a benchmark for anyone with views on CC that you oppose is a poor substitute for a real response and is at least as harmful as what AUC does here.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2015-February-28, 11:56, said:

Because calling a fraud a fraud and explaining to the mesmerized how his apparent magic is accomplished removes the power from the trickster.

Calling a fraud a fraud is fine, and often warranted.

Using profanity and adolescent level insults, usually only serves to degrade the speaker.

[Al_U_Card]

Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, as projected by the IPCC based upon their failed modeling of the climate, is a fraud.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-March-02, 15:03, said:

Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, as projected by the IPCC based upon their failed modeling of the climate, is a fraud.

Winstonm, on 2015-February-28, 11:56, said:

Because calling a fraud a fraud and explaining to the mesmerized how his apparent magic is accomplished removes the power from the trickster.

You now need to do the part of the process highlighted in bold to back up your claim.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-05, 05:52, said:

You now need to do the part of the process highlighted in bold to back up your claim.

Indeed, and that is what all of the peer-reviewed references and the actual, factual (non-modeled) observational evidence that I have presented here, is all about. The idea of the IPCC was a noble (if somewhat erroneous) cause that STARTED with the premise that AGW was a serious and actual problem that needed to be curtailed by any and every means necessary. All of their endeavor has been guided toward that end but for it to hold together, they needed "proof". Besides the gradually (naturally) warming world of the past two centuries, all they had was a chaotic, non-linear, UNPREDICTABLE system (by their own, and correct admission in AR1) and computer models that were based on the fallacious notion that climate forcings were net positive feedbacks that would lead to runaway warming if allowed to grow. This flies in the face of actual observations and historical analysis. Without such calamitous effect, there would be no need to "control" CO2 (the only factor we contribute to in any real sense) and therefore no reason for them (the IPCC and the carbon control crowd) to continue to exist.

The latest ad-hominem attack on the author(s) of the Why models run hot paper has to do with the demonstration that the GCMs used by the IPCC are all operating in a way that ensures that they exceed the actual, observable temperatures that they attempt to project. Since these same models are used for all of the other scenarios of doom and gloom provided by other "modeled" studies, such a paper cannot be recognized as valid. Thus, they denigrate the authors rather than address the science.

Since this issue, at its core, is all about the science, if that fails then the whole house of cards will tumble. The science is not settled but what is clear is that the position held by the IPCC is not founded on sound scientific principles. This is why R K Pachauri (ex IPCC head) in his resignation letter stated that fighting this fight is his religion and his dharma.... 'nuff said.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-05, 05:52, said:

You now need to do the part of the process highlighted in bold to back up your claim.

There will always be a group of people who want to believe in the trickster and who will ignore each disproval, always calling for disproval of the next false claim. This simply leads to a misrepresentation of debate, which grants unwarranted validation to the trickster. Quite a waste of time. To the majority, all that is required to debunk a fraud is to explain how one of his apparent miracles is accomplished. Once the trickster's modus operandi is known, it is unnecessary to debunk each and every claim.

[WellSpyder]

Winstonm, on 2015-March-05, 10:18, said:

There will always be a group of people [....] always calling for disproval of the next false claim. [....] To the majority, all that is required to debunk a fraud is to explain how one of his apparent miracles is accomplished.

Isn't the problem with that that both sides in this debate have made false claims? So is everyone a fraud?