"Don't worry, mein Fuehrer. The reports of Russians being in Berlin have not been peer-reviewed, and most climatologists still say that our 9th Army will relieve us in Berlin within hours. Oh yeah. You've been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. They want to know if you can be in Oslo next month."
24 comments:
Do you even know what a climatologist is? Do you know the difference between weather and climate?
Don't you think that if you're going to have such a strong opinion on such a matter, that maybe it would be good to at least understand some of the basic facts behind the whole issue?
I'm starting to really understand "conservative" ideology. It's only the opinion that matters - not having an informed opinion.
Lance,
Don't you have ANY sense of humor? Lighten up.
Sure, but what you wrote isn't funny. I mean, I suppose I could find some humor in the "laughing AT" you sense rather than the "laughing WITH" you manner.
I'm going to leave this particular topic alone for a while. I've asked you a number of very clear, point-blank questions regarding this whole thing, and you continue to dodge them. I'm going to assume that you either don't have answers, or you're afraid that attempting an answer would violate your "it's a hoax!" narrative.
Yes, let's leave it al;one. The only point I would add is that the opponents of GW have not been caught falsifying anything.
The only point I would add is that the opponents of GW have not been caught falsifying anything.
What? Are you serious? I just pointed out an example to you! You guys are claiming that Phil Jones has said that there hasn't been any warming - WHEN HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!! And that's just off the top of my head!
Yeah, I know, I said I'd leave it alone, but I couldn't let that something as patently false as that slide.
"Jones, has now admitted that there hasn't been any increase in temperatures for the past 15 years..."
That is what I said and that is what he is quoted as saying.
Here's the exact quote from the article:
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
That is NOT the same thing as saying that "there hasn't been any increase in temperatures for the past 15 years."
Now, will you admit that this statement is incorrect, or will you continue to perpetuate this falsehood?
"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just."
Huh? I believe the OC Register (and I) has accurately paraphrased what he said.
"45 bottles of beer on the wall, 45 bottles of beer...."
My lord, Gary - are you serious or are you messing with me? Must I break it down?
You guys are saying that Jones said that "there hasn't been any increase." Unless I'm missing something, I would think that "hasn't been any increase" means that there is absolutely NO increase to speak of, right?
Still with me? Look at the question that he was asked. I'll put the key part in bold:
"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
They're not asking him if there has been NO global warming. They're asking if it's statistically significant.
In his answer, he states that there has indeed been some warming (0.12C per decade). That's some warming. You guys are saying that he says that there's no warming.
He's honest enough to say that this isn't quite what they'd consider to be statistically significant, but then he points out that one shouldn't expect such statistical significance in such a short amount of time.
So, unless you have some understanding of science that I don't, and you can tell me why he's wrong when it comes to what one can assume about statistical significance, then you don't have a leg to stand on here. And even if you can do that, it still doesn't change the fact that you can't claim that he says that there hasn't been any warming where RIGHT IN THE VERY ANSWER he gives a statistic for how much warming there has been.
Lance,
Oh God!!
What did I miss a comma or something? All I'm doing is repeating what the Orange County register said. That's the way they interpreted it and I'm good with that.
This guy has been on the verge of suicide due to his lies.
Let me just get this clear then, Gary.
You're saying that you're okay with a report saying that he said that there was no warming when in fact he gave an actual statistic to indicate that there was indeed some warming.
Is that it? Seriously? You're okay with that?
Lance,
You seriously need to take a powder, dude. Apparently
'us conservatives' are
too stoopid to understand
what you are saying.
I think Gary's point is pretty darn clear. If you want to keep calling the lies of GW as you have been as the undisputed truth then
you are truly deaf, dumb and blind.
What Gary posetd was funny. I chuckled at and with it. Even if that small increase in warming IS valid that doesn not mean the sky is falling. Comes down to the facts that the GW opponents are not the ones lying or manipulating
data to skew the final results.
Lance,
If it is statistically insignificant (to which he agreed), then what is all the GW uproar about in the first place? That's the point I take home from the exchange.
Apparently 'us conservatives' are
too stoopid to understand what you are saying.
I didn't say that, but one thing's for sure, you guys aren't understanding what was said.
Here's the thing: there are some debates where people can have a difference of opinion. I still think that global warming qualifies as one of them. However, in the debate over whether Jones said that there was no warming or not, he either did or he didn't. He didn't. You guys are wrong. Factually, certifiably, as a matter of public record - WRONG.
If you want to keep calling the lies of GW as you have been as the undisputed truth then you are truly deaf, dumb and blind.
Can any of you "conservatives" ever argue a point without putting words in the mouths of your opponents? Where did I say that?
And I like how I'm the dumb one in this scenario - the one who knows the difference between somebody saying that there has been no warming and somebody who gives statistics to show that there is warming. Maybe one day I can get a lobotomy and be as smart as you.
Comes down to the facts that the GW opponents are not the ones lying or manipulating data to skew the final results.
Even though it's happening right now, right here, in this very thread. And how about the 45 scientists on the list of "500 scientists who don't believe in global warming" who wonder how they even got on the list - and want to be taken off of it?
And what about the list of 31000 scientists who deny it? From what I've heard, none of them are climatologists. Many have PHDs, but in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with climate research. Yet deniers hold that up as "proof" of the scientific controversy.
Oh yeah, you deniers have such integrity - always completely honest and on the up and up.
If it is statistically insignificant (to which he agreed), then what is all the GW uproar about in the first place? That's the point I take home from the exchange.
Gary, you're moving the goal posts. That's not what I'm talking about. The point, which I can't make any simpler, is that HE DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Hey Lance, Chill Baby!
How can you put any faith in anything Phil Jones says anymore-or for that matter- any stats he still cares to quote? We know that Jones manipulated his numbers, ignored stats that went against him and shut down the voices of opposition.
It's like when a prosecutor puts a witness on the stand who gets caught committing perjury. Case is dead.
Bottom line: Because of these scandals, it is time to suspend all these efforts to drastically change the economic and political landscape in the name of GW until we really know what the truth is. I don't know and you don't know, so what's wrong with being cautious before we in the US hand over our fates to these UN bureaucrats?
Gary, you're like a cartoon. You willfully ignore anything that doesn't conform to your specific talking point. Your obtuseness makes the warden in Shawshank look like a caring, gentle man.
"That's how they interpreted it, and that's good enough for me."
Do you realize how much of a moron you sound like there?
1. You're basically admitting you can't think for yourself.
2. Your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand that your original contention (that there has been no warming) is NOT what the article says. You continue to insist on this even though Lance broke it down for you, word-for-word, using bold, like you were a third grader.
The thing is, this article probably does help your contention that global warming's not a problem. You could've correctly interpreted what this guy said and claimed it as a point for your side. But then you have to go and distort it, making claims that are patently untrue. When you're called out on them, you obfuscate and play dumb.
Lance wasn't arguing for or against global warming. He was arguing your false claim. You could've just written, "OK, you're right. But as to the rest of it…" Instead, you go to your talking points machine gun and start spraying refutations to arguments that haven't even been made.
I hate to generalize, but this seems to be a hugely popular tactic amongst people of your like ideology. What do facts or accuracy matter? I've got an opinion, dammit!
Hey Lance, Chill Baby!
Sorry, but when it's clear outside and somebody tells me it's raining, I tend to get a bit apoplectic.
The thing is this, Gary - who is all this for? Is all this just for your fellow deniers to just nod their heads and say, "Yeah, that's right!" Or do you hope to convince anybody of your opinions? And if it's the latter, then don't you think that it's important to be honest with all of your points?
Don't you think that you could have acknowledged that this whole business of him saying that there's "no warming" is a lie without detracting from your main point? Couldn't you have just said, "Okay, that's a mistake, but I still don't believe in global warming because of reasons X, Y, and Z?"
Lance,
Pls excuse me for shortening my response to you on GW, but as you can see, I am absorbed in the situation at UCI.
As to Jones' admissions or whatever, as to the extent of GW in the last 15 years, let's not forget that weather does fluctuate over periods of time. The point is that whatever increase there may or may not have been in the last 15years is statistically insignificant (by Jones' admission) and does not merit the panic that the GW advocates are expressing.
If you want to create a new category of wackos called deniers, that goes with Truthers and birthers, go ahead. The fact is that given what has come out, there is nothing irrational about suspecting that is is all a bunch of hooey. We'll know in a few years who the wackos are.
Nolan,
First of all, you sound like a really nice guy with the adjectives you have applied to me. Secondly, let me repeat what I said to Lance. Whether Jones admitted that there has been no GW in 15 years or that it was statistically insignificant seems like splitting hairs. Temperature does fluctuate over great periods of time. Remember the ICE Age? Remember when there was a reason Greenland was called Greenland? The basic fact is that given the increasing number of disclosures coming out, is there not a reason to say, Hold on, Here! If you want to continue to ignore the revelations, that is your right. It is my right to say that I think this is all a bunch of hooey and that we had better slow down and clear this stuff up and be sure of what we are talking about before we institute dramatic changes to the economic and political world structure in the name of GW.
If that makes me a "Denier" in the new talking points, fine-so be it.
Gary, have you ever admitted you were wrong, ever? Try it once; it's incredibly liberating. This whole thing started over one contention of Lance's that he's repeatedly tried to get you to address, to no avail.
You claimed that there has been NO warming over that past 50 years. Not a "statistically insignificant amount." NONE. Lance called you on it and pointed out that the article mentions that there actually HAD been some warming, although not as much as the scientist had thought there would be. There's a measurement and everything.
All you'd have to say is, "Alright, I was wrong when I distorted that point and said 'none.' But the fact that it's very small still helps my argument." Instead, you continue to insist that "none" and "some, but not much" are the same thing. But they're not.
As for the whole GW issue itself, we've been over this before. I HOPE that you're right, and all these scientists are wrong. But I'm still putting my money on knowledge over ideology.
Nolan,
First of all, I didn't claim anything about whether there was GW in the past 50 years. The number of years quoted was 15, not 50. I quoted an editorial in the Orange County register that said Jones admitted there had been no warming in the last 15 years. Lance sent me the exact interview in which Jones answered yes, to the question that there had been no statistically-significant warming since 1995. Jones then equivocated. The point is that if there has been no statistically-significant change in 15 years, then what is the point of the alarmists since we know weather patterns and temperatures fluctuate-as I said. What are we arguing about here?
Instead of going after my ideology, why don't you tell me what it is that I am wrong about?
Go ahead and "trust" the science. Which science are you talking about? Is it the E Anglia Univ CRU or the Himalaya report or the N African crops or the IPCC report or the Russian data or Chinese weather stations, etc?
PS:
Excuse me. I AM wrong!
I should have said, trust the "knowledge" instead of trust the "science".
Another one of my grievous errors.
Instead of going after my ideology, why don't you tell me what it is that I am wrong about?
I think that's what we've been trying to do...over and over and over and over and over again...
Post a Comment