Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My field? My field is not climatology. I have stated this multiple times. I am a chemical oceanographer. Maybe somewhat in the broad sense but not the same, and certainly not in my specialty. The fact that you insist upon painting me as such explains a lot.
Specialty is irrelevant when the evaluation deals with the core of a particular subject (for instance the objection to a given mathematical method used within a climate proxy). The rules of mathematical evaluation don't change because of the subject, nor does the physics. You attempted to suggest that being a "specialist" of a given field somehow negated the requirements of responding to an objection to the core (ie mathematician says... "hey, that is unheard of and improper!" with the implication of your response to be "you are not a climate scientist, you don't understand!") which of course is a position of stupid... you don't advocate stupidity do you?
As for your field, you used it as a means to appeal to authority. You can deny it, but only in a world where people can't read is that tactic useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
If you are defending the Heartland Institute you have no business being in a debate science in anyway. Have some tiny bit of integrity.
I am not "defending them" I am merely responding to the fact that your evidence is propaganda, has been shown to be such and is a devious method of character assination concerning the topic we were discussing. Maybe you should read a bit more about Watts and that issue before you spout off like a puppet? Maybe? Or is this how you practice your "science"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
I don't care about "stories" I care about the science. Heartland Institute literally pays people to be climate change deniers. Therefore anyone on their payroll is literally without credibility because they are paid to have a specific opinion.
Then disregard the entire climate science community as your requirement invalidated them. In fact, Pro-AGW research and supporting institutions received enormous amounts of cash from activist groups (that dwarfs that of skeptical research) and... wait for it... the evil oil industry. So please leave your grammar school reasoning process at the door. Your argument has no position to object, and considering the special circumstances of this issue (Read watts response concerning this AND the issue with the criminal scientist Peter Gleick fraudulently attempting to frame Heartland to a given accusation), I think you are either ignorant or devious concerning the issue. So which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
I have no cause. The science of climate change is not a cause any more than the science of gravity is. Go ahead ask me my opinion of any policy and I will give it, I suspect it would not be what you have attempted to pigeon hole me as.
Regardless of anything any of the deniers have posted there are three facts which are undeniable.
Look at your wording. You have no "cause", but then you stupidly use inflamatory words like "denier". Are you Peter Gleick? I mean you claim one thing, but your language says another. What type of idiot claims they are objective and then uses well known politically language such as that? You can't even properly hide your position. You aren't even sly enough to properly argue a point from the appearance of being objective. This is why Mr. Gleick looked like a complete idiot. Why he resorted to fraud to prove his point. He is a moron, a liar, a cheat, and a fraud; and here you are arguing the same case. Classic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
1. The climate is changing.
Funny thing about natural variability. Though the CAGW crowd despises it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
2. Greenhouse gases, such as, but not limited to CO2, can change the climate.
Watch the pea here folks... By how much Mr. Wizard? What is its contribution, how significant is it? Explain that to us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
3. Human activities have caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than ever before.
Tsk, tsk.
Really? So you are saying that C02 was never higher than it is before?
If not, then how did it achieve such levels before?
I think you need to go back to school and take some more science classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Those are verifiable. Claiming otherwise makes you a liar.
Pea, watch the shells... moving it...
I think one of us is being devious here, and I seriously doubt it is me.
Husband hasn't had many graduate level multivariate statistics classes, so he'd probably defer the mathematics involved in climate science to me too. He's good writing code, but he doesn't know much about climate change.
Is statistics one of the math types that God invented, or did he just give us algebra and geometry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Math is math, unless... you are suggesting that math somehow "changes" when it is applied to different degrees? That is certainly what some climate scientists attempt to suggest by their applications of principals unknown to it.
Ask your husband that question and see if he doesn't nod to you to avoid dealing with your idiocy, or actually explain to you that math doesn't change, the subjects do.
Husband hasn't had many graduate level multivariate statistics classes, so he'd probably defer the mathematics involved in climate science to me too. He's good writing code, but he doesn't know much about climate change.
Is statistics one of the math types that God invented, or did he just give us algebra and geometry?
Where did I make a conclusion? Where did I assign blame?
Oh, so you just brought up your statements about greenhouse gases and warming the planet, with no connection to your long-winded (and still unproven) efforts to convince people that man is affecting the climate?
You never intended any conclusions to be drawn. I believe that completely, yup, yup.
Quote:
Geez, you really do have zero integrity. I drew no conclusions.
That sound you all just heard, was lkb0714 running away from her previous insinuations at full speed, tail clamped firmly between her hind legs, shouting the usual baseless insults over her shoulder as she goes.
Quote:
I have never commented on another thread with regards to climate change.
I never said you did. You merely mimicked almost perfectly, the false "logic" of someone else who did. And got it thrown back in your face just as he did.
Remember when I mentioned that you are following the usual pattern of Global Whatever fanatics when they get their assertions refuted and can find no reply? You just did it again... as I showed.
Quote:
Logical fallacies are what people resort to
That's certainly true. I refute them all the time from Global Whatever fanatics such as yourself.... as I have done just in these last few posts.
Quote:
when they cannot refute actual evidence.
I can't refute what you have never produced in the first place.
40 years of this kind of caterwauling, spinning, retreating, and namecalling from the Global Whatever fanatics, and still they have never produced a single study proving a link between man's activities and Global Whatever.
Their perfect 0-for-everything record of failure continues unblemished.
Quote:
You inability to understand science is proven by the fact you think you proved gravitational theory in a single high school lab exercise.
Which, inevitably, I never said I did. Go back and re-read what I did say. (Who's "moving the goalposts" now? )
Are you going to contribute anything to the conversation or are you just going to continue to stymie others by interjecting your shrill insults and demands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
That sound you all just heard, was lkb0714 running away from her previous insinuations at full speed, tail clamped firmly between her hind legs, shouting the usual baseless insults over her shoulder as she goes.
Specialty is irrelevant when the evaluation deals with the core of a particular subject (for instance the objection to a given mathematical method used within a climate proxy). The rules of mathematical evaluation don't change because of the subject, nor does the physics. You attempted to suggest that being a "specialist" of a given field somehow negated the requirements of responding to an objection to the core (ie mathematician says... "hey, that is unheard of and improper!" with the implication of your response to be "you are not a climate scientist, you don't understand!") which of course is a position of stupid... you don't advocate stupidity do you?
As for your field, you used it as a means to appeal to authority. You can deny it, but only in a world where people can't read is that tactic useful.
I am not "defending them" I am merely responding to the fact that your evidence is propaganda, has been shown to be such and is a devious method of character assination concerning the topic we were discussing. Maybe you should read a bit more about Watts and that issue before you spout off like a puppet? Maybe? Or is this how you practice your "science"?
Then disregard the entire climate science community as your requirement invalidated them. In fact, Pro-AGW research and supporting institutions received enormous amounts of cash from activist groups (that dwarfs that of skeptical research) and... wait for it... the evil oil industry. So please leave your grammar school reasoning process at the door. Your argument has no position to object, and considering the special circumstances of this issue (Read watts response concerning this AND the issue with the criminal scientist Peter Gleick fraudulently attempting to frame Heartland to a given accusation), I think you are either ignorant or devious concerning the issue. So which is it?
Look at your wording. You have no "cause", but then you stupidly use inflamatory words like "denier". Are you Peter Gleick? I mean you claim one thing, but your language says another. What type of idiot claims they are objective and then uses well known politically language such as that? You can't even properly hide your position. You aren't even sly enough to properly argue a point from the appearance of being objective. This is why Mr. Gleick looked like a complete idiot. Why he resorted to fraud to prove his point. He is a moron, a liar, a cheat, and a fraud; and here you are arguing the same case. Classic.
Funny thing about natural variability. Though the CAGW crowd despises it.
Watch the pea here folks... By how much Mr. Wizard? What is its contribution, how significant is it? Explain that to us?
Tsk, tsk.
Really? So you are saying that C02 was never higher than it is before?
If not, then how did it achieve such levels before?
I think you need to go back to school and take some more science classes.
Pea, watch the shells... moving it...
I think one of us is being devious here, and I seriously doubt it is me.
You haven't given any scientific evidence. Literally ZERO. You posted a link to a blog by someone PAID to write climate change denying blogs.
I gave scientific evidence, in the form of multiple peer reviewed papers. You ignored them. Because you cannot refute them.
Taking the high road intellectually is not an option for you here. You asked for evidence then ignore it, or whine about peer review (never got through it obviously), or post BLOGS as evidence (and then pretend you know anything about science). The only time you accept peer review is when someone who agrees with your stance makes it through. Any other time it is mockery. Talk about double standard.
Fine, deny anything you want, it is of course a free country, but pretending you are a man of science while ignoring all of the actual science is a sham.
Are you going to contribute anything to the conversation or are you just going to continue to stymie others by interjecting your shrill insults and demands?
......jams fingers in ears while scream NO NO NO......
Ugh. I get it. You have a party line to toe.
You ask for evidence and ignore it when given again and again. When that doesn't work you insult people. Really, sort of predictable now and a bit boring.
You have given zero evidence to refute the thousands of papers supporting climate change. That is evidence in and of itself.
What is the silly line you use over and over again to cover your lack of original thought? Oh yes, "17 pages of Little Acorns impotent attempts to refute actual evidence".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
