Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Something happenedFollow

#202 Feb 15 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
If I understand gbaji correctly; if 90 sources say one thing and 10 say the opposite...the 90 are all biased?


You understand incorrectly. I don't assume that if 90 say one thing that they must be correct. That's not the same thing. I point out bias when I see bias. Doesn't matter if one source says it, or 100. But I can see how someone who does base his positions via the fallacy of popularity might frame it within that context. You can't comprehend someone not taking number of sources into account, so you assume they're using the same method you use, just in the opposite direction.

Edited, Feb 15th 2012 3:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#203 Feb 15 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
If I understand gbaji correctly; if 90 sources say one thing and 10 say the opposite...the 90 are all biased?

Only if they're actually experts in the field in question. Then they're biased. Only those not in the milieu can give an accurate statement.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#204 Feb 15 2012 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Debalic wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
If I understand gbaji correctly; if 90 sources say one thing and 10 say the opposite...the 90 are all biased?

Only if they're actually experts in the field in question. Then they're biased. Only those not in the milieu can give an accurate statement.


I call people biased when I see bias in what they do. That is the same whether that person is an expert or not. The difference is that some people are so impressed by the label of "expert" that they don't see, or choose to ignore, obvious bias.

I derive my positions on issues based on my own ideas and my own analysis. Period. If someone else disagrees with me, they're free to do so. However, I'm not going to change my own mind because someone points to someone else who disagrees with me and says "that guys an expert, so he must be right and you must be wrong". To me, that's a pretty stupid way to make decisions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#205 Feb 15 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts

I derive my positions on issues based on my own ideas and my own analysis. Period. If someone else disagrees with me, they're free to do so. However, I'm not going to change my own mind because someone points to someone else who disagrees with me and says "that guys an expert, so he must be right and you must be wrong". To me, that's a pretty stupid way to make decisions.


Exactly. My lawyer is a smart and honest fellow, and that's why I have him perform all of my surgeries and vehicle maintenance. Expertise is for suckers.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#206 Feb 15 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I derive my positions on issues based on my own ideas and my own analysis. Period. If someone else disagrees with me, they're free to do so. However, I'm not going to change my own mind because someone points to someone else who disagrees with me and says "that guys an expert, so he must be right and you must be wrong". To me, that's a pretty stupid way to make decisions.


Exactly. My lawyer is a smart and honest fellow, and that's why I have him perform all of my surgeries and vehicle maintenance. Expertise is for suckers.


Except you still did it wrong. You've just chosen the wrong expert. Can't blame you for having a hard time shifting from that base methodology though. It's ingrained in most liberals to not think for themselves I guess.


Can we also please make a distinction between having a bias and skill in a field? Your mechanic may be outstanding at fixing cars, but that doesn't stop him from talking at length about how a specific brand of car is the best, right? Just because he's an expert doesn't mean he's not biased. And it also doesn't mean that you should blindly follow his advice when it comes to which brand of car to buy. Similarly, your doctor may be very good at his job, but that doesn't mean that his constant ranting about how everyone should jog 15 miles a day and eat nothing but vegetables and nuts washed down with a wheatgrass smoothie isn't likely also more about personal bias and lifestyle than solid medical advice.


I don't discount what people say because they are experts, and certainly not everything that experts say. But I also don't assume that every word out of someone's mouth must be true simply because they are an expert at something. I'll take my mechanics advice about whether I need my brakes repaired, but take his proclamation that "mopar is the best!" with a grain of salt. And let's face it, some fields are far more subjective than others, and being an expert in them has less to do with demonstrated results and more to do with getting lots of other people to apply the label to you.

Edited, Feb 15th 2012 7:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#207 Feb 15 2012 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
gbaji wrote:
I derive my positions on issues based on my own ideas and my own analysis. Period. If someone else disagrees with me, they're free to do so. However, I'm not going to change my own mind because someone points to someone else who disagrees with me and says "that guys an expert, so he must be right and you must be wrong". To me, that's a pretty stupid way to make decisions.

gbaji wrote:
Can we also please make a distinction between having a bias and skill in a field? Your mechanic may be outstanding at fixing cars, but that doesn't stop him from talking at length about how a specific brand of car is the best, right? Just because he's an expert doesn't mean he's not biased. And it also doesn't mean that you should blindly follow his advice when it comes to which brand of car to buy. Similarly, your doctor may be very good at his job, but that doesn't mean that his constant ranting about how everyone should jog 15 miles a day and eat nothing but vegetables and nuts washed down with a wheatgrass smoothie isn't likely also more about personal bias and lifestyle than solid medical advice.

I don't discount what people say because they are experts, and certainly not everything that experts say. But I also don't assume that every word out of someone's mouth must be true simply because they are an expert at something. I'll take my mechanics advice about whether I need my brakes repaired, but take his proclamation that "mopar is the best!" with a grain of salt. And let's face it, some fields are far more subjective than others, and being an expert in them has less to do with demonstrated results and more to do with getting lots of other people to apply the label to you.

Okay, but if I'm looking for info on automotive maintenance, I would give the word of an auto mechanic much more weight than that of, say, an IT technician. I mean, I'm sure you can do a great oil change but it's not the same as someone who's certified and spent twenty years in a garage rebuilding engines.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#208 Feb 15 2012 at 10:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
DP.

Edited, Feb 15th 2012 6:55am by BrownDuck
You want them to DP, too?
____________________________
Banh
#209 Feb 15 2012 at 11:20 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I derive my positions on issues based on my own ideas and my own analysis.

Which would be commendable if you ever displayed even an inkling of awareness about what's going on in the world for you to draw an "analysis" from. Someone who proudly proclaims that they don't get their news from anywhere isn't someone I'd go to for analysis of what that news means.

Debalic wrote:
I mean, this thread was originally about football, after all.

You can start a thread and try to give it direction but ultimately it'll go its own way. Consider it a lesson in fatherhood.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#210 Feb 16 2012 at 9:04 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
Debalic wrote:
I mean, this thread was originally about football, after all.

You can start a thread and try to give it direction but ultimately it'll go its own way. Consider it a lesson in fatherhood.[/quote]
Fine. This thread's getting a timeout. Y'all go to your rooms.

And no TV!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#211 Feb 16 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
But moooooooooom~
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#212 Feb 16 2012 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
Can we also please make a distinction between having a bias and skill in a field?


Thats why the global warming denialists get their data from the oil industry financed scientists whom aren't skilled in the field of climate change.

By being so skilled (at things besides climate change), & having no bias at all (HA!), their data is totally better than all those edumicated experts whom scrape by for grant money. It isn't even close.

On topic, Giselle is a bit of a cunt.

Edited, Feb 16th 2012 11:19am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#213 Feb 16 2012 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Can we also please make a distinction between having a bias and skill in a field?
Thats why the global warming denialists get their data from the oil industry financed scientists whom aren't skilled in the field of climate change.

That's why Gbaji *********** with glee when a thousand architects, digital watch designers and piscologists sign a form saying they don't believe in climate change but throws a hissy fit when presented with a hundred peer reviewed studies from climate scientists.

Edited, Feb 16th 2012 11:04am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#214 Feb 16 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Debalic wrote:
Okay, but if I'm looking for info on automotive maintenance, I would give the word of an auto mechanic much more weight than that of, say, an IT technician. I mean, I'm sure you can do a great oil change but it's not the same as someone who's certified and spent twenty years in a garage rebuilding engines.


Sure. But there's a difference between technical knowledge and skill (like changing oil, or rebuilding an engine) and opinions on things/products/whatever related to the field. Your mechanic certainly has a favorite brand of oil as well. But the guy at the next shop might have a different one. Trying to argue that one is right and the other wrong is silly. At that point, we're dealing with individual biases that have little to do with one being an "expert" in the field.

Similarly, someone insisting that a given economic policy is "best" because some list of experts in the field say so is reacting to bias. He's pretty much arbitrarily picking a side to believe. And that's a ****-poor method to use to make a decision IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#215 Feb 16 2012 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Can we also please make a distinction between having a bias and skill in a field?


Thats why the global warming denialists get their data from the oil industry financed scientists whom aren't skilled in the field of climate change.


And the global warming advocates get their data from government financed scientists who have a vested interest in producing scientific results which aid the policy agenda of their employers.


And, at the risk of injecting reality into the equation, those IPCC experts were wrong. Those untrained monkeys working for the oil companies (as you claim) were right. So perhaps one would start to realize that just because a group of people are touted as experts doesn't mean that they are right. Doubly so, when in this case, the definition of "expert" seems to rest on whether someone agrees with science which supports those political agendas.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#216 Feb 16 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
And, at the risk of injecting reality into the equation,
There's about as much risk of you injecting reality into any equation as there is for my car to turn into a bear.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#217 Feb 16 2012 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And the global warming advocates get their data from government financed scientists who have a vested interest in producing scientific results which aid the policy agenda of their employers.

President Bush?
gbaji wrote:
And, at the risk of injecting reality into the equation, those IPCC experts were wrong

Huh.
NASA wrote:
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92°F (0.51°C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

You mean, we haven't seen the extreme end of the potential spectrum so that means (in your mind) there's no validity to it at all, right?

Ah, don't bother answering. I could have more intelligent climate debates with my toddler.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#218 Feb 16 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And the global warming advocates get their data from government financed scientists who have a vested interest in producing scientific results which aid the policy agenda of their employers.

President Bush?
gbaji wrote:
And, at the risk of injecting reality into the equation, those IPCC experts were wrong

Huh.


Yeah. They were wrong. Not with the base data, but with their interpretation of it, and the recommendations the made based on it.

Quote:
NASA wrote:
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92°F (0.51°C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

You mean, we haven't seen the extreme end of the potential spectrum so that means (in your mind) there's no validity to it at all, right?


No. I mean that the evidence over the last decade indicates that we reached a plateau in the late 90s and/or early 2000s. During that plateau time its expected that temperatures will be higher than in previous measured periods. That's why it's a plateau.

What we have not seen is the predicted continuation of temperature increase. That is where the IPCC was wrong. They were wrong to predict that outcome. They were wrong about the impact of CO2 emissions on the whole thing. The IPCC didn't just say "it'll be hot in the next decade". They said that CO2 emissions were causing a small but constant runaway greenhouse gas effect which would continue to cause average temperatures to rise, resulting in ecological disaster unless we pass draconian measures to reduce CO2 emissions.


They were wrong. Get it? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Their recommendations were clearly more about excuses to impose anti-industrial policies than it was about the actual science. Some of us saw this immediately and have been trying to get the rest of the sheep like idiots to realize this. I'm still waiting for the day when you'll realize that the projections you accepted as gospel truth 10 years ago have not come true, and will admit that you got suckered.


You do remember our arguments about this back in the 2001/2002 time frame, right? When you posted graphs showing the various scientific projections based on ACC climate models all showing steadily rising global temperatures going forward? When was the last time you saw someone reference those same graphs Joph? I mean, wouldn't it be great to show just how accurately they predicted temperatures? Wouldn't that be front and center on every global warming site if they'd turned out to be true? So isn't the fact that pretty much the only place you can find those old predictions is on the global warming skeptics sites incredibly telling?


They were wrong. Some of us saw this. Some of us didn't.

Quote:
Ah, don't bother answering. I could have more intelligent climate debates with my toddler.


So you admit that your position is so weak that only a toddler can buy it? Ok. Sounds good to me!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 Feb 16 2012 at 5:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You do remember our arguments about this back in the 2001/2002 time frame, right? When you posted graphs showing the various scientific projections based on ACC climate models all showing steadily rising global temperatures going forward?

Rather than just copy someone else's work...

Quote:
They were wrong. Get it? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong

mmhmmm... Well, it's nice that you think so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#220 Feb 16 2012 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Okay, but if I'm looking for info on automotive maintenance, I would give the word of an auto mechanic much more weight than that of, say, an IT technician. I mean, I'm sure you can do a great oil change but it's not the same as someone who's certified and spent twenty years in a garage rebuilding engines.


Sure. But there's a difference between technical knowledge and skill (like changing oil, or rebuilding an engine) and opinions on things/products/whatever related to the field. Your mechanic certainly has a favorite brand of oil as well. But the guy at the next shop might have a different one. Trying to argue that one is right and the other wrong is silly. At that point, we're dealing with individual biases that have little to do with one being an "expert" in the field.

Similarly, someone insisting that a given economic policy is "best" because some list of experts in the field say so is reacting to bias. He's pretty much arbitrarily picking a side to believe. And that's a ****-poor method to use to make a decision IMO.

I would still trust the knowledge and skill of such professionals in their own field, than some random plebe who "calls it as he sees it". Bias is irrelevant on an uninformed opinion.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#221 Feb 16 2012 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
Gbaji is an idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#222 Feb 17 2012 at 2:14 AM Rating: Excellent
It took them awhile, but now even a Koch brothers funded study done by non climate scientists agree that global warming is real!

Linky.

Key Quotes:
Quote:


"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller.

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

Since the 1950s, the average temperature over land has increased by 1C, the group found.

But they emphasise that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture.

"Had we found no global warming, then that would have ruled out AGW," said Prof Muller.

"Had we found half as much, it would have suggested that prior estimates [of AGW] were too large; if we had found more warming, it would have raised the question of whether prior estimates were too low.

"But we didn't; we found that the prior rise was confirmed. That means that we do not directly affect prior estimates."


Hows it effect your worldview, Gbaji, when even denialist funded research by non climate experts supports the claims of the actual climate scientists & confirm their data? When even the ******** whom was instrumental in "climategate" comes back with, "I didn't like their methods so I used my own and...they were right all along"?

My guess is you'll just ignore the data, since it conflicts with your worldview.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#223 Feb 17 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,301 posts
Well, independent verification never hurts.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#224 Feb 17 2012 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
It hurts if it says what you disagree with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#225 Feb 17 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You do remember our arguments about this back in the 2001/2002 time frame, right? When you posted graphs showing the various scientific projections based on ACC climate models all showing steadily rising global temperatures going forward?

Rather than just copy someone else's work...


They present a wonderful strawman, but apparently they failed to note that the actual IPCC projections have failed to match what has actually occurred between 2000 and 2010. And they also fail to acknowledge that the gravest projections are the ones used politically to push for various legislation related to global warming. When a politician stands at a podium and talks about how if we don't pass this law, in 50 years, the water levels will rise 18 inches flooding cities, and droughts will occur in land, and other horrible things will happen. He's not basing that on the lowest IPCC projections, or even the average ones. He's looking at the worst ones.


It's somewhat dishonest to point to science and say "It predicts a range of possible outcomes, so it's not wrong", while defending political decisions based on a small and extreme subset of those possible outcomes. When people like me argue this issue, we're not arguing against the science itself. I know that would fit in better with the whole "Conservatives oppose science" dynamic you've got going on, but it's not true. We argue against the interpretation of that science (in this case by the IPCC), and the political agendas that are pushed by those interpretations. It's the guy at the podium, using some report from the IPCC to justify talking about flooding and droughts and deserts and frogs from heaven if we don't pass his pet environmental law that we oppose.

Quote:
Quote:
They were wrong. Get it? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong

mmhmmm... Well, it's nice that you think so.


Look at your own link. Ignore the argument they're countering and look at the actual IPCC projections. They don't match. None of them match. Temperatures have more or less flattened over the last decade, but every single one of those projections shows a steady linear increase in temperature over time. There are specific variations and fluxuations, of course, but there's no decade in any of those lines that don't show an overall increase.

But that didn't happen in the last 10 years. The reason that is problematic for those projections is because the model they are based on assumes small effects that act in a feedback loop to create a large effect over time. The absence of a smallish effect in the first decades means that the larger effects predicted over the first 50 years, or 100 years are even farther off.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#226 Feb 17 2012 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Samira wrote:
Well, independent verification never hurts.



They only determined that the historical temperature measurements were correct. Which frankly, almost no one was arguing against in the first place. What they did not confirm was the effect of human activity on that temperature change, nor the models used to create temperature projections based on CO2 levels in the future.


But it's the latter bits that really matter.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#227 Feb 17 2012 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They present a wonderful strawman, but apparently they failed to note that the actual IPCC projections have failed to match what has actually occurred between 2000 and 2010.

No they haven't. In fact, we had this discussion a while back and I showed you via graphs, etc how wrong you were. The current "plateau" was completely within the expected ranges (even projected in some results). You're free to sit and say now that it's all wrong but I'll leave the burden on you to make a data-backed argument for it.

Quote:
And they also fail to acknowledge that the gravest projections are the ones used politically to push for various legislation related to global warming.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the climate science itself was accurate. As I said before, we just didn't scrape the upper end of the spectrum so you're saying the whole thing was a farce. You denied it a few posts ago but it's great to see you admitting to it now.

Well, when you want to make a real, cited and concrete case defending your claims, let me know. I won't be holding my breath.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#228 Feb 17 2012 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They present a wonderful strawman, but apparently they failed to note that the actual IPCC projections have failed to match what has actually occurred between 2000 and 2010.

No they haven't. In fact, we had this discussion a while back and I showed you via graphs, etc how wrong you were. The current "plateau" was completely within the expected ranges (even projected in some results).


No. They're not. And they're certainly not within the ranges of the projections used to make the dire ecological predictions which in turn have been used to argue for strict carbon emissions regulations.

Quote:
Quote:
And they also fail to acknowledge that the gravest projections are the ones used politically to push for various legislation related to global warming.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the climate science itself was accurate.


That's a bait and switch though, and you **** well know it. No one cares directly about the science Joph. They care when someone uses it as a justification to pursue a political agenda. It's that political agenda which we oppose. I've explained this to you dozens of times in the past, but you still keep clinging to this game.

Quote:
As I said before, we just didn't scrape the upper end of the spectrum so you're saying the whole thing was a farce.


We have only in the barest sense scraped the bottom end of the spectrum of projections Joph. The farce was all the folks insisting that if we didn't do something dramatic to reduce carbon emissions, we would face ecological catastrophe. That was what we opposed. And we were right to do so. Turns out that we aren't really doing so much harm after all, and that the temperature trend isn't so tightly connected to man emitted CO2 gas.


The issue is and has always been about the recommended actions. Some of us saw right off the bat that this was a case of political forces exaggerating things in order to push their own agenda. And guess what? We were right. You, on the other hand, were suckered into the whole "OMG! The sky is falling!" bit.

Quote:
Well, when you want to make a real, cited and concrete case defending your claims, let me know. I won't be holding my breath.


I'm quite sure that anything I link will be dismissed by you because they disagree with you, but what the ****:

there's this

and this

To be fair, that last one is a blog, but it has a couple links to other articles written on the subject.


I could link to actual temperature data if you want, but then I'd make a technical argument, do something like compare the predicted temperature increases from the IPCC to the actual temperature data over the last decade or so, and you'd respond by saying that I'm wrong, and can't do simple greater-than/less-than type math, and the conversation would devolve into your posting insults and jokes at me like it usually does.

The sad fact is that you ask for concrete cases, facts, and data, but when given them insist that they are wrong, or that I'm not qualified to analyze them. If I link to a site with someone else doing analysis you dismiss that as an unqualified source as well, or some bought and paid for denier. You've basically constructed a means of testing "truth" that ensures that no possible ideas other than the ones you already believe can ever be accepted.


Which kinda makes your calls for facts and data somewhat meaningless, doesn't it? I mean, here we are with abundant data over the last decade showing that IPCC projections have not come true, and you're still trying to argue the issue. Aren't we done yet? I'm honestly curious how much proof it will take for you to accept that we're not in grave danger of a runaway greenhouse gas effect, and certainly not as a result of man produced CO2.

Is there *any* level of proof/data/whatever that would get you to admit this? Because if there isn't, then it's *you* who are not acting on science. What do you always say about something having to be falsifiable to be valid science? So if there's no data which you would accept as sufficient to prove your position wrong, then you really ought to stop trying to claim that your position is based on science.

Edited, Feb 17th 2012 2:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Feb 17 2012 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:

Supported by the Heartland Institute. NO BIAS THERE!!!
gbaji wrote:


garbaji wrote:
To be fair, that last one is a blog
To be fair, they are both blogs.


Edited, Feb 17th 2012 3:56pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#230 Feb 17 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Supported by the Heartland Institute. NO BIAS THERE!!!


As opposed to the IPCC, which is a bastion of non-biased information? Aren't you kinda proving my point here? You're dismissing any information on the grounds that it's biased, but you're determining if something is biased based on whether it disagrees with what you believe to be true. So there is no source which disagrees with the IPCCs conclusions and recommendations regarding climate change which you would ever accept.

Which makes your objection meaningless. You're basically saying "I'm right because I'm right" and "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and I'm right". Pointless.

Quote:
To be fair, they are both blogs.


But they're not wrong. Shouldn't we be assessing this based on the facts and not our view of those who are presenting them? At the end of the day, you can dismiss all the folks opposed to the global warming agenda as hacks, nuts, conspiracy theorists, etc, but it does not change the fact that they are still correct. The globe is not continuing to heat up as predicted by the IPCC models. The world will not suffer an ecological disaster in the next 50 years as a direct consequence of CO2 emissions. The calls for draconian measures to limit CO2 emissions are not warranted.


Isn't that what matters? There is an underlying truth here, once you strip away all the bias, opinion, policy, and agenda. And that truth is that the arguments used to call for action to limit CO2 emissions are not valid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#231 Feb 17 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're basically saying "I'm right because I'm right" and "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and I'm right". Pointless.
I agree. Anyone that says "I'm right because I'm right," and "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and I'm right" is making a meaningless and pointless argument.

That's not too subtle for you, is it? I can spell it out in no uncertain terms if you'd like.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#232 Feb 17 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's a bait and switch though, and you **** well know it. No one cares directly about the science Joph.

LOL.
Quote:
I'm quite sure that anything I link will be dismissed by you because they disagree with you, but what the ****:

There's also the potential they'll be dismissed because they are in error but I like how you already know your "cites" are shitty Smiley: laugh
Quote:
there's this

Which cherry picks some projections and fails to include 2010, the (tied) hottest year on record. Sure, I can't see how that would matter...
Quote:
and this

Which is just rambling on about Monckton, the joke of the climate science world. And whose "work" was already discredited in my link.
Quote:
To be fair, that last one is a blog

What did you think the first link was?
Quote:
I could link to actual temperature data if you want

Not really. I mean, you could, but you couldn't use it to make a good argument. Nice job trying to make that my fault though Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#233 Feb 17 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're basically saying "I'm right because I'm right" and "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and I'm right". Pointless.
I agree. Anyone that says "I'm right because I'm right," and "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and I'm right" is making a meaningless and pointless argument.


Absolutely. So when I say that I'm right to oppose legislation restricting CO2 emissions because those restrictions are based on said emissions causing global temperature increases which have not matched the actual global temperatures over the last decade, I'm not doing that. I'm basing my position on observations of data.

The guy who dismisses what I say (and anyone else saying the same thing) by simply declaring them/me to be biased, is doing exactly that which you and I agree is meaningless and pointless. Right?


Quote:
That's not too subtle for you, is it? I can spell it out in no uncertain terms if you'd like.


Your point is fine. What direction you think it should be applied is not clear at all. Did you intend to suggest that I was the one who's posts were meaningless and pointless? Or were you actually agreeing with me that Bijou's post was and that mine were not?

That's where you get vague. It's not clear if you're agreeing with me, or being sarcastic.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#234 Feb 17 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
Let's continue to ride that train, shall we? Now, you're saying that your interpretation of what I said is the correct one, and if you didn't understand it it simply must be too vague to have been understood by a rational, free thinking individual? Are you sure there isn't another option that may be just as valid that you're dismissing simply because you don't personally agree with it?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#235 Feb 17 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Which is just rambling on about Monckton, the joke of the climate science world.


Ah. And he's a "joke" because he disagrees with what you believe, right? More of the "I'm right because I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" bit. Do you even stop and think about what you're saying?

Quote:
And whose "work" was already discredited in my link.


No. It wasn't. It was hacked at with some of the weakest bait and switch fallacies I've ever seen. Not surprised you slurped it up though. Why look too closely at something you agree with, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#236 Feb 17 2012 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ah. And he's a "joke" because he disagrees with what you believe, right?

No, but don't let that stop you from refusing to do any "research" and "analysis" on your own.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#237 Feb 17 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Let's continue to ride that train, shall we? Now, you're saying that your interpretation of what I said is the correct one, and if you didn't understand it it simply must be too vague to have been understood by a rational, free thinking individual?


You're conflating things. Here's the exchange:

lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're basically saying "I'm right because I'm right" and "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and I'm right". Pointless.
I agree. Anyone that says "I'm right because I'm right," and "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and I'm right" is making a meaningless and pointless argument.


Obviously, I agree with you agreeing with me. So we're done, right? I'm not misinterpreting or misunderstanding it.

What's unclear from this is whether your underlining of the word "anyone" is meant to suggest that the same rule should be applied to me. If it's not, then we're done. You agree with me that Bijou's post was meaningless and pointless. If it is, then my response is relevant.


I'm not misinterpreting or misunderstanding. I'm just covering all my bases. I'll freely admit that this is speculation on my part. I'm speculating that your post was meant to convey more than the literal words in it. If I'm wrong, then all you need to say is that I'm wrong. Cause that would be clear, right?

Quote:
Are you sure there isn't another option that may be just as valid that you're dismissing simply because you don't personally agree with it?



I'm sure there are a nearly infinite number of possible options which you might have in your head right now. How about instead of insisting that I play 20 question, you just come right out and say what you mean?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#238 Feb 17 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
What's unclear from this is whether your underlining of the word "anyone" is meant to suggest that the same rule should be applied to me.
Is there any reason it shouldn't be applied to you as well?
gbaji wrote:
How about instead of insisting that I play 20 question, you just come right out and say what you mean?
I'm trying to understand how you come to your conclusions. Instead of starting at a conclusion, therefore being biased, I'm gathering information through the use of questions. Afterall, I can't invade your home, hide behind a fern and pretend to be a suburban Jane Goodall, and I have not been provided any other source of research other than Zam to study.

You're welcome to simply dismiss the questions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#239 Feb 17 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What's unclear from this is whether your underlining of the word "anyone" is meant to suggest that the same rule should be applied to me.
Is there any reason it shouldn't be applied to you as well?


Is there a reason it should?


What I'm asking you to do here is make a clear statement, not innuendo. And if you make said statement, actually provide a rationale for it. What you did was suggest that the rule applied to me as well, but didn't provide any support for that. If past behavior is any indicator, your reason for doing this is so that you can claim you didn't actually make the claim in the first place, so you don't have to defend something you didn't say.


Which is why I talk about you being vague. You don't say thing clearly. You imply them. IMO, that's a pretty chicken way to have a conversation. If you want to say something, say it. Why is that so hard for you?



Quote:
gbaji wrote:
How about instead of insisting that I play 20 question, you just come right out and say what you mean?
I'm trying to understand how you come to your conclusions. Instead of starting at a conclusion, therefore being biased, I'm gathering information through the use of questions. Afterall, I can't invade your home, hide behind a fern and pretend to be a suburban Jane Goodall, and I have not been provided any other source of research other than Zam to study.

You're welcome to simply dismiss the questions.


Huh? Except your question was rhetorical. I mean, of course there's the possibility that I might overlook something or misunderstand something. That's always a possibility for anyone, so the question is pretty irrelevant. But you didn't ask that to get a yes or no answer. You asked that question to (again) suggest that I *did* overlook or misunderstand something. Right?

Which is another example of you being vague. You don't make clear statements, and you don't ask clear questions. You make statements and ask questions which are not intended to be taken at face value, but are intended to imply some other claim you are making. But, as I pointed out earlier, usually when I call you on this, you wiggle around the issue. It's kind of strange behavior really.

Edited, Feb 17th 2012 7:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#240 Feb 17 2012 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
I mean, of course there's the possibility that I might overlook something or misunderstand something. That's always a possibility for anyone, so the question is pretty irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it leads to a follow up questions. Like I said, I'm not starting at a conclusion. One leads to another, that's pretty obvious. So if you do believe there is a possibility that you might overlook something or misunderstand something, why is your stance always that you haven't but it was everyone else that did? Your answer isn't consistent with your actions.
gbaji wrote:
You make statements and ask questions which are not intended to be taken at face value, but are intended to imply some other claim you are making.
I've never denied that I am vague or subtle. It's part of my job, remember? Amongst a lot of other things, your tax dollars paid for me to learn how to interrogate people. Asking leading questions is part of that. Yes, they're subtle and vague. They have to be. "Are you guilty" does actually work sometimes, but only on people that know there's no way out and they've given up. Even then they still lie. That's not exactly a revelation that you've uncovered, though. I've mentioned I'm military police, and that I do investigations. I know this because it came up during one of the DADT threads. However, I've never once been accused of being so vague and subtle that, as you've said multiple times, no one could decipher the meaning. Which is an odd anomaly, because again, it's based on interrogations: I can't be so vague or subtle that the person I'm speaking with can't understand. That ruins cases, and drags interrogations on for-freakin'-ever, and even more paperwork. With that, I'm also required to read reactions to my questions. If I'm too vague and/or subtle with my questioning, how do you think the person I'm questioning is going to react? They're not. It simply doesn't work. Your accusation that I do the same activity two different ways doesn't even make sense from my point of view. When I'm firing a weapon, I need to consistently practice the same way with no variations. My hands in the same place, the weapon tucked the same way against my shoulder, my breathing the same tempo. Interrogations are the same way. Why would I jeopardize my training years of my life and thousands of your dollars becoming proficient in by introducing a variable that could ruin my technique? Are my posts leading? Sure, all discussions should be leading. I've never had a discussion end with each participant saying only a single thing. Okay, I have, but that was more because I was an awkward teen.

Like I said, I'm trying to figure out how you can constantly insist that I'm too vague and subtle that no one can understand. Instead of just dismissing your assertion, I'm studying. Not just that (though it is the main reason), I'm genuinely interested in figuring out how you come to all of your conclusions. Not the topics themselves, but the reactions to your claims about those topics. It's always accusations of blinders and bias on everyone else, but not once in the four years I've read/posted in the Asylum have you entertained the possibility that maybe your conclusion was wrong. And not just that, but you get combative when someone even hints that you made a mistake.

A follow up question from a previous line. Did the amount of detail make a difference at all?

Edited, Feb 17th 2012 11:39pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#241 Feb 18 2012 at 12:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
What they did not confirm was the effect of human activity on that temperature change, nor the models used to create temperature projections based on CO2 levels in the future.


Their data confirms that the data used in prior estimates of AGW are accurate, that the way climate data is gathered is not off due to "heat islands" (cities), that the way data is collected isn't shady (no secret cabal of hippies, further vindicating anyone involved with "climategate"), but think temp. changes in the atlantic may have more of an effect on temp. than el nino.

Quote:

"Had we found no global warming, then that would have ruled out AGW (The technical term for human activity on that temperature change)," said Prof Muller.

"Had we found half as much, it would have suggested that prior estimates [of AGW] were too large; if we had found more warming, it would have raised the question of whether prior estimates were too low.

"But we didn't; we found that the prior rise was confirmed. That means that we do not directly affect prior estimates (of AGW)."


AS for your links, the Heartland Institute is ****, especially since they got "hacked"- and by hacked I mean e-mailed this stuff to a 3rd party- just like "climategate" (linky!),

Here's what's been confirmed:

Yes, the Heartland Institute is directly involved with attempting to indoctrinate children with anti-science.

I get that they & their investors make a lot of money off of oil and have a vested interest in putting off efforts to curb glbal warming for that reason, but how the **** can you justify TEACHING kids misinformation?

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#242 Feb 19 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Sorry, gbaji, are you really using something Lord Monckton has said or written as a basis for your argument?


You do know he's consistently been proven to be a charlatan, right? He's also, not a scientist. At all.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#243 Feb 19 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You only say that because you disagree with him!

I liked it when he submitted what amounted to an opinion column to a publication, then used the policy institute he sat on to put out a breathless press release calling the column a "peer reviewed major paper" in a "learned journal" when it was anything but. When said publication called him out on it, he got all huffy and insisted that the editorial comments he received (i.e. "Make this a new paragraph, shorten this section") constituted peer review. Said publication released its own statement that its stance on climate change had not shifted, it published Monckton's paper because it had an "open publication" policy; it's a place for people just submit papers for the sake of them being read.

He also uses the same release to tout his climate science qualifications, having "once advised Margaret Thatcher"... not mentioning it was in social policy. That's besides all of his shoddy "science" and math.

Edited, Feb 19th 2012 7:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#244 Feb 19 2012 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
gbaji wrote:
Your point is fine. What direction you think it should be applied is not clear at all. Did you intend to suggest that I was the one who's posts were meaningless and pointless? Or were you actually agreeing with me that Bijou's post was and that mine were not?

That's where you get vague. It's not clear if you're agreeing with me, or being sarcastic.


Whose is possessive, who's is a contraction of 'who is/who has'.

In my country, we learn this in primary school.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#245 Feb 19 2012 at 11:25 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Nilatai wrote:
*Scoff* Sourry, gbaji, art thou really using something Lourd Mounckton has said or written as a basis for youur argument?


Thou dotht know he's counsistently been prouven to be a charlatan, right? He's alsou, nout a scientist. At all.

/monacle


Fixed for enhanced Englishness.


C'mon, you should know better than to use words like "Lord" and "charlatan" here.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#246 Feb 20 2012 at 2:57 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
*Scoff* Sourry, gbaji, art thou really using something Lourd Mounckton has said or written as a basis for youur argument?


Thou dotht know he's counsistently been prouven to be a charlatan, right? He's alsou, nout a scientist. At all.

/monacle


Fixed for enhanced Englishness.


C'mon, you should know better than to use words like "Lord" and "charlatan" here.

But..but...that's his title and it's what he is. Smiley: glare

PHINE!

Also I'll leave this here for gbaji to not watch:



There are at least three parts to this, last I checked. Take a watch, gbaji.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#247 Feb 21 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, of course there's the possibility that I might overlook something or misunderstand something. That's always a possibility for anyone, so the question is pretty irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it leads to a follow up questions.


Pretty open ended though, isn't it?


Quote:
Like I said, I'm not starting at a conclusion. One leads to another, that's pretty obvious. So if you do believe there is a possibility that you might overlook something or misunderstand something, why is your stance always that you haven't but it was everyone else that did?


That's not my stance though. My stance is that if *you* believe that I have misunderstood something that you said, then it is *your* job to point that out and correct me. I'm not going to play 20 questions trying to guess what you think I missed. That's pretty stupid, isn't it?

Quote:
Your answer isn't consistent with your actions.


Of course it is. You say something. I respond to it. You suggest that I misunderstood what you said. I ask you to clarify. You demand that I must guess. I tell you no. See how that's perfectly consistent?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
You make statements and ask questions which are not intended to be taken at face value, but are intended to imply some other claim you are making.
I've never denied that I am vague or subtle. It's part of my job, remember? Amongst a lot of other things, your tax dollars paid for me to learn how to interrogate people.


Yes. So you should know that the correct response to an interrogation is to never answer leading questions. Never guess at what the other person is saying. And never ever ever offer any information other than that specifically asked.

I demand that you be specific because I'm smart enough to realize what you're doing and am unwilling to play your game. You get that right?

Quote:
Asking leading questions is part of that. Yes, they're subtle and vague. They have to be. "Are you guilty" does actually work sometimes, but only on people that know there's no way out and they've given up. Even then they still lie. That's not exactly a revelation that you've uncovered, though. I've mentioned I'm military police, and that I do investigations. I know this because it came up during one of the DADT threads.


Yes. And I'm sure your techniques work great on some people. Congrats, I guess?

Quote:
However, I've never once been accused of being so vague and subtle that, as you've said multiple times, no one could decipher the meaning. Which is an odd anomaly, because again, it's based on interrogations: I can't be so vague or subtle that the person I'm speaking with can't understand. That ruins cases, and drags interrogations on for-freakin'-ever, and even more paperwork.


See. Now you're fibbing. Of course you can be that vague and subtle. As you just said above, the best way to get someone to say something you want them to say is to ask questions so vague that they will fill in what they think you know. If you make specific allegations and he thinks you can't prove them, he'll deny what you said. If you leave things vague, he'll often provide you with information you would have missed if you'd been more specific.


That's great for interrogation, but not so great for a conversation about something like in this thread. Which I why I always kinda shake my head when you do this. I'm not being interrogated here. If you want to know something, ask. I'll give you an answer.


Quote:
Like I said, I'm trying to figure out how you can constantly insist that I'm too vague and subtle that no one can understand.


Because you are? Do I need to go back and quote you? You said something. I responded. You didn't say "You misunderstood me. I meant this: ... ". You just said "Can't you accept that it's possible you misunderstood me?". And you don't see how that's you being vague? The implication of your response is that I misunderstood something, but if I ask you if that's the case, you refuse to answer. You then stated that I should figure it out on my own. Which in this context means you want me to write down every possible thing that you might have meant instead of what I thought you meant.


Which is, at the very least, a waste of my time. Don't you agree? If you think I actually misunderstood you, then by all means, write what you meant. But you can't or wont do that. Strange, isn't it? One might almost think that you intentionally don't want your meaning to be known. But that would be crazy talk, right?

Quote:
Not the topics themselves, but the reactions to your claims about those topics. It's always accusations of blinders and bias on everyone else, but not once in the four years I've read/posted in the Asylum have you entertained the possibility that maybe your conclusion was wrong. And not just that, but you get combative when someone even hints that you made a mistake.


It's not my job though. I present my point of view. If you disagree, then you present your own, countering point of view. What you're asking is that after I make my argument for my position, I'm supposed to then speculate as to what might be wrong about that position and argue against myself. Um... I'm not going to do that. If you think I'm wrong, then *you* need to say why. Just saying (or suggesting) that I am and then following with an insistence that I have to come up with the counters for my own arguments is pretty silly.


When you do that, it makes me assume that you disagree with me, but can't yourself produce a valid counter argument. So instead of acknowledging that you can't come up with a good counter, you insist that one exists, but you've just chosen not to reveal it. Then you try to push your failure to provide a counter to my argument onto me, as though somehow it's really my failure to see the flaws in my own positions. But don't you see how that's meaningless? You can *always* claim there's a flaw and then refuse to say what it is. And you can always argue that the other guy is at fault for not himself providing that information.


IMO, if you think there's a flaw in my argument, then you must provide it. Otherwise, you don't have a response at all. But that's how I do things. You're free to flail around in your own unique idiom if you want. I just happen to think it's a pretty counter productive process.

Quote:
A follow up question from a previous line. Did the amount of detail make a difference at all?


It's not just detail that matters. It's also the applicability of that detail. If you insist that X is better than Y, and when asked for support spent a ton of time talking about Z, you're not really supporting your argument. You're arguing *around* the issue instead. And in my book, people usually do that when they know they don't have a good argument in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#248 Feb 21 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're not only a poor writer from a construction standpoint, you're also boring.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#249 Feb 21 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
What they did not confirm was the effect of human activity on that temperature change, nor the models used to create temperature projections based on CO2 levels in the future.


Their data confirms that the data used in prior estimates of AGW are accurate, that the way climate data is gathered is not off due to "heat islands" (cities), that the way data is collected isn't shady (no secret cabal of hippies, further vindicating anyone involved with "climategate"), but think temp. changes in the atlantic may have more of an effect on temp. than el nino.


None of which has a **** thing to do with the "effect of human activity on that temperature change, nor the models used to create temperature projections based on CO2 levels in the future".

It's honestly funny as **** that you apparently can't see this. Read what I wrote. Respond to that, not the strawman. ****. I even told you that was a strawman before you posted this. Yet you did it *again*. Amazing!


Come back when you have some data which shows that global temperatures have increased over the last decade in a way which matches the projections made by the IPCC which were used to call for major reductions of human produced CO2 emissions. As I have already explained several times, it's those political recommendations which are the most problematic. If a bunch of scientists want to sit off in a corner somewhere making wild speculations about what the global climate might do in the future, no one really cares. It's when politicians grab the most wild of those speculations, declare them to be absolute truth, scare the public with them, and then use that fear to embark on some massive political agenda that a bunch of us start to have a problem.


Show that they were correct about that. Because that's what I care about. If those dire predictions aren't coming true, then aren't we done here? No need for draconian reductions of CO2, right? So why are we talking about this at all?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#250 Feb 21 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,274 posts
gbaji wrote:
See. Now you're fibbing.
And there's the crux of the problem. Without any actual evidence for this conclusion, you've decided that I'm lying. You're not smart enough to understand me, therefore you've decided I'm too vague for everyone. I just kind of shake my head in bemusement that you're so deluded with your grandiose self image that you think no one sees through it. People you don't agree with? Liars, biased, blinded by the liberal media. Et cetera et cetera. It's always everyone else who is to blame. There's no discussing anything with you, because you've already decided before even opening the thread that your opinion, or your bias is the correct interpretation of any and all data, and everyone else is wrong no matter what. If anyone disagrees, you go wailing on about liberals. Maybe you simply don't even realize it, that you're so blinded by your own rhetoric that it's become reality for you, but there you have it.

It's why most everyone dismisses you with the least amount of effort they can. It's not because "it's gbaji so we must disagree." They disagree with your opinions because of your opinions. In the end, saying "I disagree," "I disagree because x y & z," or "You're a 'tard" all result in the exact same conclusion: Your calling their disagreeing is a liberal conspiracy and they're blinded to facts by their bias, and that you're the only one intelligent enough and unbiased enough to know the truth.

Yes, I read and ignored the rest of your post. I know, I know. You say I didn't therefore I must not have and I'm actually lying because the liberal media blinded me to the rest of your brilliant opinion editorial. Waste of time. It's just you repeating over and over how your initial opinion is correct, heaven or reality be damned. You don't present new ideas, you don't present unique view points, and you certainly don't care about anyone else's ideas or view points. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. Everyone here will disagree with you. Go ahead and say that everyone here doesn't matter, and if you were somewhere else (or rather this is the only place) you'd be instead praised. Why should I, or anyone really, take you serious? After all, it isn't my job to waste my time going to these kinds of lengths when there's absolutely no discussion to be had. Saying "You're wrong," and "You're wrong because x y & z" gets us to the exact same place. "No, blinded liberal."

Anyway, go ahead with the next round. I'm simply dying to see how you'll respond.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#251 Feb 21 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,874 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
See. Now you're fibbing.
And there's the crux of the problem. Without any actual evidence for this conclusion, you've decided that I'm lying.


I said "fibbing", not lying. Slightly different connotation. But then you're such an expert at language that you knew that already.


Quote:
You're not smart enough to understand me, therefore you've decided I'm too vague for everyone.


Nope. What you say is completely clear. why you say it isn't. What's so funny is that you know the opposite of what you claim is true. You're used to dealing with people who aren't smart enough to realize when you're leading them with a vague statement. So when I call you out for it and ask you to be more clear, you get defensive. You're not used to this, I guess.

Quote:
I just kind of shake my head in bemusement that you're so deluded with your grandiose self image that you think no one sees through it. People you don't agree with? Liars, biased, blinded by the liberal media. Et cetera et cetera. It's always everyone else who is to blame. There's no discussing anything with you, because you've already decided before even opening the thread that your opinion, or your bias is the correct interpretation of any and all data, and everyone else is wrong no matter what. If anyone disagrees, you go wailing on about liberals. Maybe you simply don't even realize it, that you're so blinded by your own rhetoric that it's become reality for you, but there you have it.


Nice diatribe. You feel better now?

Let me give you a hint: No amount of you making claims about my motivations or methods is going to dissuade me. I hold positions on issues. If someone disagrees with me, I will clearly and completely explain those positions, why I hold them, and why I believe those are the right positions to hold. If you can't handle that, then that's your problem, not mine.

Quote:
It's why most everyone dismisses you with the least amount of effort they can.


No. They do so because most people spend the least amount of effort thinking about their own positions possible. Thus, when those positions are challenged, most people don't know how to respond. It's hard to fight logical reasoning when you didn't use it to form your own position in the first place. And yes, they often follow this up with all sorts of projected arguments against the guy who does have a well thought out position and justification. Not because he's wrong, but because they don't know any other way.

Quote:
It's not because "it's gbaji so we must disagree." They disagree with your opinions because of your opinions. In the end, saying "I disagree," "I disagree because x y & z," or "You're a 'tard" all result in the exact same conclusion: Your calling their disagreeing is a liberal conspiracy and they're blinded to facts by their bias, and that you're the only one intelligent enough and unbiased enough to know the truth.


You're so sure of this that you don't even bother presenting a good argument though. Don't you see how this is a problem? Can't you consider the possibility that perhaps your own opinion is wrong, but since you've never tested it, you end out convincing yourself that all you need do is reject any opposition out of hand and just assume that were you to spend the time and effort thinking about it, you'd come up with a good response? Do you hear what you're writing? You're basically saying that there's no need for you to actually present a good solid counter because it wouldn't make any difference.

To me, I want to come up with a good counter, not because I assume it'll sway the other guy, but because I want to make sure for myself that my position is a good one. This is why it takes very little effort for me to respond to various social and political threads on this forum. I've already thought through my positions. All I have to do is write that thought process down. I find it unlikely that someone who arrives at his positions via a good solid logical thought process would have any problem doing the same. Which leads me to suspect that those who insist it's "too much effort" to come up with a good counter, but insist that they're right anyway, likely have *never* spent that effort at all.


Shouldn't you do so just for yourself? If not, how the **** do you know you're right? You just guess? Accept what someone else told you is true as fact? I find that kinda questionable.

Quote:
Why should I, or anyone really, take you serious? After all, it isn't my job to waste my time going to these kinds of lengths when there's absolutely no discussion to be had. Saying "You're wrong," and "You're wrong because x y & z" gets us to the exact same place. "No, blinded liberal."


/shrug

You tell me. Why do you spend the time? You clearly are willing to spend a huge amount of time and effort posting about how pointless it is for you to engage me in a debate, so it's kinda strange that you're unwilling to spend that same time actually framing your positions in a logical format in the first place. That just seems like a **** of a lot of effort to go to so as to *not* actually think about the issue at hand. One might begin to wonder why you'd do this.

You do realize that all of this is the result of you refusing to answer one question I asked? You've taken avoidance to a whole new level with this one.

Edited, Feb 21st 2012 6:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CST